torpedo

I have never said that. As I said, read the thread.

I did not say people do these things simply out of the goodness of their heart, obviously everything has underlying motiving factors behind it, that does not mean any act done by the MFC or its representatives is done purely to for the purpose of winning a premiership though. To think like that is being cynical, if not verging on conspiracy nut. When Cam Bruce visits a kid in hospital do you think all he is thinking is gee this'll be good for memberships? No. When Aaron Davey helps out an up and coming player from a remote NT community do you think all he is thinking is gee I can see this kid playing on a wing in an MFC premiership? No. Whether or not the marketing manager at MFC is sitting in the board room rubbing his hands toghether is irrelevant.

Yes, that would be circular logic. I never said that though. Perhaps try reading the thread before putting words in my mouth?

I agree that if the MFC doesn't win a premiership this era we are in deep [censored]. The Doggies haven't won a premiership in 55 years and they are still here though. Why? The Doggies are the most community based club in the AFL. People want them to exist, whether they are winning premierships or not. Meanwhile you have North Melbourne who clearly show that premiership success does not equate to longevity. The MFC recognise the importance of a strong community base, hence Casey, which primary purpose is about forming a stronger football club and ensuring it is still around in decades to come, not to win a premiership.

You said "Let's, as a club, tell them that premeirships aren't our sole aim." 'aim' and 'reason for existence' or 'essence of existence' are two entirely different things. Most of the people who have commented saying they disagree with option a) have stated that they still believe the club's aim is to win premierships.

Thats nice. As I said, football clubs (not the East India Company) have been making positive contributions to society since long before branding and market share (had much at all to do with football). Why did they do it then?

That's not the question though and thats not what people who disagree are saying. Of course the aim of the MFC is to win premierships.

I think you're being cynical. Football clubs have been making positive contributions to society since long before branding and market share. Why did they do it then?

To suggest the club only visits dying kids or honours club stalwarts to grow our supporter base is distasteful to say the least. The MFC, along with all the other football clubs I have come into contact with, have a sense of social responsibility and contribute to the community accordingly. I admit there are often indirect benefits to the club, such as growing a supporter base, but to say that the sole reason the MFC makes such gestures is to win a premiership... well... thats your loss if you want to think like that, I am 100% positive Chris Connolly would disagree with you.

Sometimes but not always, often any positive flow on effect is purely coincidental. I don't think premierships are at the back of the club's minds when they send players along to a hospital to visit kids dying of cancer. So clearly that is not an initiative geared towards winning premierships. It is an initiative of a football club, doing what a football clubs does, bringing people together and helping out in the community.

No its not. I understand what your position is in relation to the OP.

Community work. Celebration of past players, officials, etc. Family Days & footy clinics.

How can the sole reason a club exists be to win something that didn't exist when it was formed?

Care to clarify that you are referring to football clubs, not AFL clubs?

Hmmm, I disagree. This is a football website. Melbourne Demons are a football club. I would interprete the question exactly the same whether it was here or at vermontsouthfc.com.au as the question is not 'What is the essence of MFC's existence?' or 'What is the essence of VFC's existence?' it is 'What is the essence of a football club's existence?' Hanniball seems like a fairly literate bloke and I am sure if he wanted to make it AFL specific he would have done. And I am most definetly referring to football clubs, not social clubs. A lot of junior footy clubs don't even have a social club.

How is that relevant to my point you highlighted? I don't understand... I think you are confusing people who value the club and its people more than a premiership cup itself as people who don't give a stuff, which seems very misguided. I totally agree that the sole aim of the MFC is to win premierships, of course it is. Thats not the OPs question though.

I am not so sure Hanniball is and I think it needs to be clarified as the last thing I think of when I hear the words 'footy club' is that.

Quality product? Stakeholders? Sponsorship? How many people in this thread still remain involved at their local football club? I think some people need to go down to an ordinary football club and remind themselves what its all about.

Are you talking about all football clubs or AFL clubs? The MFC doesn't seem to me to be a very good case study for your average footy club. To me, a football club exists to bring people together. They may share the goal of a premiership but not always, certainly not always in junior footy and often in the ammos or country footy the main aim is just to have a run around with your mates. The MFC is but one of 10,000s of football clubs and is rather unusual in thats its a professional football club so isn't a true reflection on your average footy club. I think you need to look at a variety of different types of clubs, from juniors, through to ammos, through to country footy, through to AFL, to consider what is the essence of football club's existence fully. I know plenty of blokes that have provided 50+ years of service to football clubs and nobody could give a rats arse how many premierships they have been involved with, least of all 'judging' them by it.

There is no way way Buckley has the foot skills to play as a linkman, you need elite kicking for that whereas his has been absolutely disgraceful. He seems to have no defensive side to his game either. If he is going to make it anywhere it has to be as a midfielder, I highly doubt it though. Sadly for Bucks I think he is one of those types lots of clubs drafted a few years ago that have athletic attributes but cannot actually play football and because of this will end up on the scrap heap. Wasn't he a pick in the 50s or something? So no great loss really.

I wanted Sydney to win, I've wanted the opposition to win most weeks since it was clear this season was another write-off. I didn't find it too much of a bother this week though, partly because I was watching it at the pub over a few beers but I think mostly because we never really looked like winning. On the other hand at the Port game the other week, that was one of the worst days at the football I've ever experienced. Now we have to go through it all again this week against Richmond and it will be relentless all day because playing Richmond you know that even if they are 10 goals up they may still find a way to lose...

The NBA has archives & archives of footage of the draftees playing in high quality competitions such as US college basketball and in some instances even competitions from overseas. The media is informed about the draftees abilities & backgrounds and actually have useful commentary to provide to the viewer. The USA used to field a team of college players as there representatives in the Olympics ffs! So I don't think you can really compare the AFL draft and the NBA draft, at least not as a spectacle. If we are going to televise it I'd prefer something a little more modest to be begin with, simply hosting the draft as normal just with cameras on, as they did a few years back, perhaps? Then afterwards, Hutchy & Co can tell us a whole bunch of information anyone can find for themselves and play some footage thats been on YouTube for 2 months already. I really don't want to have to put up with that mundane crap during the draft though.

If its done at an appropriate time, LIVE, in order, then OK. If its done at 6.30 on a weeknight (since when is that prime time?), after most teams have actually selected their 1st rounders, then relayed to us out of order, then that sounds annoying. Will people that are simply interested in knowing whose going wear asap, rather than some stupid circus show, still have the radio option? Personally I much prefer the idea of simply listening to its on the radio live on a Saturday morning as I have done for years. I am fairly certain that there is very little a TV station will be able to add that I haven't already seen or read myself prior to the draft.

Frawley hands down for me, of all the contenders he is definetly been the most consistent performer. I wouldn't be bestowing any accolades on Sylvia just yet, he may have finally stringed together a couple of months of quality footy but he's still stuffed up twice more than most other players did this year. That suspension was a massive let down IMO. Davey has been awesome in stretches but still struggles way too much with tags if he wants to be an elite player. Moloney has been great but really he is simply playing at a level we should expect of a club leader. Petterd's shown good signs in his new role, I wouldn't say he owns it just yet though. I wouldn't include Grimesy as he didn't really play last year.

I like Hannaball's analogy with the 1st round picks. I think its fair to say if we stuff to many of them up it will really hurt us, no matter how good the later picks turn out. If we lose the PP I think the importance of Blease going forward will increase ten fold given none of our other top picks are true midfielders, it is by far our biggest weakness and its where premierships are won and lost. Personally I think Frawley can play small and tall, has just as good disposal and decision making and plays much more attacking football than Garland. I agree that Garland is more versatile and I think he has the potential to be a very attacking player out of defence, to date Frawley has been more willing to take players on and run the ball out of defence though, for me Col hasn't shown enough of that given he clearly has the ability to do it. I think Frawley has had close to as good a year as Garland did last year, I just think he misses out on the kudos because he's not a dud come good who took the big scalps like Col, he's a 1st round pick with a famous surname so he's only doing what we've been expecting from him all along.