Whispering_Jack

The priority pick has been used and abused by a number of AFL clubs since inception and should be scrapped. At best, give those that qualify a selection at the beginning of the second round but nothing more. That way the tanking debate is eliminated and Demetriou stops looking like an imbecile when he announces in mid-August that clubs don't tank.

All I can say is that it must be a slow news day for the Herald Sun's Jay Clark to come up with this piece of incisive piece on Brad Green's absence from training yesterday - Brad Green given time off training The cutting edge of investigative journalism. ... but what's next?

There's a team called the "Pigeons"?

The HUN finally caught up with the GWS captaincy news - Greater Western Sydney Giants to name captain before NAB Cup. Luke Power and Callum Ward would make a good co-captaincy combo but I wonder what put Scully out of the running? Lack of physical and mental maturity or is it the "injury"? If this happens Voldemort will be earning double the combined earnings of the co-captains. Hmmm ...

The Locker Room board is meant for players past and present who represent(ed) the Melbourne Football Club with distinction. I've checked the records and no Lord Voldemort ever represented Melbourne at all ... let alone with distinction. I've therefore moved that thread back to the general Demons board. I'm fielding suggestions from some who want us to have a separate board for reprobates and people with bad haircuts but at this stage I think that's a non starter.

The situation up there at Bleaktown appears to be quite messy as far as GWS's issues with training venues is concerned. Perhaps, Sheeds and the club are too preoccupied with spruiking the brand in Sydney instead of developing a football club?

For those who might still be interested, Waylen Manson made a timely return to NTFL football and kicked four goals in his team's win yesterday. The Waratahs needed the win against Palmerston because, after winning the first six on end, they've fallen into a hole having only beaten Darwin in the interim. Darwin is the competition's chopping block regularly losing by in excess of 100 points. Yesterday, Wanderers beat them 32.25 (217) to 0.2 (2).

What I'm interested in is more the nature of the discussions McLardy was supposed to have had with Brad Green and which other players he spoke to in the week leading up to 186? I understand the point Fan makes about separation of powers but such a requirement surely wouldn't bar board members from speaking with their players at all? If that's the case, then there's a line that has to be drawn between what's acceptable discussion and what's not. Further, how do we determine whether what was discussed offended against any rules of corporate governance? In McLardy's case, was there a fly on the wall? It's got me a bit stumped because I have in the past seen at least two AFL Presidents from different clubs dining at restaurants with players from their own clubs. Aren't such people at risk of being accused of meddling as some are claiming with McLardy?

Thanks George for the report and the photos. I was interested in something more on the new faces (see the OP). You mentioned Couch and Magner over on 'ology but what about the others?

I was revisiting the 1972 retrospective and a few things struck me about the way the club was run in those days. Back in 1972, the Melbourne Football Club was a division of the Melbourne Cricket Club. We had our own committee with representatives nominated directly by the MCC, others representing the MCC members and a small number (2) directly elected MFC members. In other words, the MCC pulled the strings. The administration was run essentially by a small group out of secretary Jim Cardwell's office. I suspect that much of what the club achieved in terms of building the champion team of the 50s and early 60s was done by Cardwell in concert with Norm Smith. Of course, life was less complicated then - clubs relied heavily on volunteers, the game was still amateur/semi-professional, there were rules against poaching and committees were often rubber stamps meeting monthly and occasionally stirred into action at times of crisis - see the sacking of Norm Smith. Financial matters were still small beer in 1972 when we "made a substantial profit for the first time since 1956 turning a $7,493.80 loss in 1971 into a $8,923.30 profit." What's 9 grand these days when wet behind the ears punks with bad haircuts and dodgy knees can extract $2m from the sport's purse? Who cares for blokes like ALV King who, according to the 1972 annual report had been "a member of Committee since 1938" which means he presided over 10 premierships? By the end of the 70s, the club was preparing to cut its ties with the MCC and to incorporate. Three decades later and questions are being raised over "corporate governance" but what does that mean in terms of a company whose major preoccupation is with the running of a football club whose aims are always more than the making of money but also to win the premiership of the game's elite competition?

Ben Hur. You make some interesting points on the concept of corporate governance, some of which have in particular been on my mind since the events of last July. I'm going to start a separate thread later in the day on the subject and wouldn't mind if you could repeat your post there. It would be a pity if discussion on this important aspect of the club's operations was drowned among the rest of the subject matter of this thread.

Yes, I know. I've been maintaining elsewhere that we should look forward and not back and then the first thing I do is write something about 1972 which, as you can see, was a fairly ordinary year for the Demons. We were supposed to be on our way up at the beginning of 1972 but it didn't work out that way. Perhaps we can really learn some lessons from the past?

I don't know if it's been mentioned before but I reckon this tweet is all class. It's from Brad Green: Well played Brad and let's hope you're back to your absolute best in 2012.

Whenever I discussed a different job or profession with my father, he used to say, "It's a living!" I suppose the pay must be good.

My experience with new coaches is that they're all very charming at their first AGM and then, after a couple of years their hair starts turning grey and it starts falling off and if they're lucky enough to last beyond that their faces turn craggy and their voices become croaky. Unless they strike it lucky like Chris Scott.

Sorry but when I read that I had to step in and repair the post for Bob's sake. After all, he's a legend. Hope Deevoted doesn't mind.

To get things into their proper context, my comments were about what occurred at the AGM two nights ago and how the matters were dealt with there and I made it clear that as far as that was concerned, I don't have any real problem with the way it was conducted and that we should now look forward rather than dwell on or be obsessed with the past. On what happened, six months ago, I don't know if everything's fine now, I can only guess the answer to the questions you posed and yes - they certainly are the kind of points I had in mind when I quoted the need to understand the past to avoid repeating it. I accept that there are some things that happen within clubs that need to be dealt with in house and addressed internally. There is a body of evidence to suggest that significant steps have been taken to address the ones that confronted us with 186 but, to a large extent, we "just have to trust" although we can see from the fact that there have been new appointments, that personnel have come and gone and moved aside, that extensive efforts appear to have been made to address what I consider was then a catastrophic situation. It's not ideal but to some extent, the ends might have justified the means in this case - I'm speaking specifically about the removal of Dean Bailey (not the way he was removed) and the changes that have occurred since. As one who is outside the board, I feel uncomfortable about 186 and am curious to know what happened but understand that there might be many reasons why I, along with many others, will never know all the facts. That said, I might be naieve in trusting but I'm impressed enough by what Jimmy, Garry, Cameron and Don have done in resurrecting the situation to do so with some confidence.

And if you believed that there's a harbour bridge over there that I can sell you on the cheap if you like.

Thanks Maldonboy38. I always look forward to your reports with great interest. Love Maldon too but you'd have to be flying to get to CF from there in 20 minutes!

Oh and incidentally, as the players filed out of the Long Room on Wednesday night, I noticed a few changed body shapes. Cale Morton who I believe has undertaken additional work with a trainer looked in good shape without having put on that much weight. I've previously expressed the view that I believe the change in coach will do him no harm. Matthew Bate looked as if he's trimmed down a bit for his new role as a midfielder. I think these guys have been unfairly maligned in the past. I don't see the value of people being highly critical of players at training but if posters have something to say then get it off your chests but please back it up with facts and/or logic without going overboard and hijacking this thread. (sorry if I sound a bit like a schoolteacher but it's that time of the year and there's probably a full moon coming up)

A mostly sunny day with temperatures in the low 30s is predicted for today as the boys head out to Casey Fields for training. Unfortunately for me, work commitments have intervened and I must miss out again so, like many others, I'll be looking out for reports from those who can make it out there today for the first training session under the post Jimmy regime. Wednesday night's AGM was a pretty lacklustre affair (especially for those expecting fireworks after the controversy surrounding the sacking of Dean Bailey) but the highlight for me was the football part of the night and in particular Mark Neeld's speech which is available on the melbournefc.com.au website. Neeld said that his pre-season challenge to the players was an elite work ethic and elite compliance. I think this has been reflected in many of the reports here but perhaps those who go out there today could concentrate on the new faces? When introducing them on Wednesday night, Neeld spoke of Mitch Clark who he said some consider a ruckman but Neeld has a specific role for him as a key forward. He spoke of Tom Couch's strong legs, James Magner's big arms, how James Sellar was a tall, big, mature age player, of Jai Sheehan, a tall youngster who went to the same school as Neeld (and strongly touted by new midfield coach Aaron Greaves), that Leigh Williams was a strong aggressive forward line player, mid size Josh Tynan was a hard at it defender with an interesting hair style who took on taller players in the TAC Cup and of the great first impression made by Rory Taggert at the draft camp. There's a definite thread there and it was clear when they stood together on the stage. Strong bodies that you don't mess around with so I wonder if today's observers could check out how that translates on the training track. I've left Taggert last because I haven't previously seen mention made of what impressed Neeld at draft camp. He explained that he gave his interviewees his email address and asked them to send him an email of what they wanted to get out of themselves in football. Sure enough, when Neeld returned to work the following Monday there was a comprehensive email from Taggert (Neeld expects him to be an inside mid) setting out why he wanted so much to get drafted to an AFL club. If Norm Smith would have done that in the 50s & 60s he might have received some messages too but they probably would have come in by carrier pigeon.

Actually Old, they call it the welcome to the real world gambit these days because in the real world, football clubs don't preoccupy themselves at AGM's with wrist slashing about past mistakes in front of their stakeholders, their coaches, playing group and staff members when they're on the threshold of a new season, especially when the fruits of six months of obvious hard endeavour to rectify those mistakes is on show in front of those who bothered to turn up. I couldn't help thinking while reading this article about Don McLardy in today's Age -Demons burning with ambition: McLardy that although it's a post-AGM piece, it really captured most of what was covered on the night. Likewise, there was no sinister cover up on the night of the fact that we were disappointing in 2011 and it was admitted that mistakes were made but the message was about the future and our bid to become a strong club and a power in the competition. Surely, that's how it should be?

Kudos to the Victorian selectors who didn't hesitate to bring this kid into the Shield team despite him making a duck at premier district cricket last weekend. Fitting that he scored the ton against SA which tried to poach him and young leggie Muirhead away from Victoria - Vics fume as rivals target young guns.

Apologies for doubting you or was it another of those two horse races? Was the jockey George Santana?

Twin brothers. It's a little known fact that George actually covered for Carlos at Woodstock. When his G string broke and he couldn't play his instrument because he didn't have a replacement, he was booed off the stage. It wasn't the first time that George had suffered such a mishap and he subsequently came up with that well known saying, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Yes, it's important that we remember our past mistakes and do what is necessary to ensure that they're not repeated. At the same time it's also wrong to obsess over the past and the message from the meeting was clear that the club's focus is firmly set on the future and that seems to have been the case for the last six months - so let's move on.