james1977

Why don't you send letters to those players, telling them what you saw and suggest they change their diet? By the way thanks for a good laugh lol

I thought I was going to be the first to point that out. You must have just got in first while I was typing my reply!

You know someone reading this may actually be sight (not too much) or hearing impaired. Or they may know someone who is. You could end up offending someone saying things like that. By the way it's "sight" not "site".

What about Joe Gutnick? Weren't people aware before the vote that he was offering $3 million?

Thanks for the replay Hannibal. It's interesting that about 80% of the people outside were anti-merger. You'd think there would be a fairly uniform spread of votes. How many proxi votes were there. I'd be surprised if they made up more than 5%-10% of the total (which is significant enough of coarse). If that's correct (it is a guess so I could be wrong!) it would mean that at most 60% of the people inside were pro-merger (perhaps there were some swinging voters as well!) Did the pro-merger people get in early? Did the pro-merger camp agree to meet inside early? Did the anti-merger camp go to a rally before hand which delayed them? Its funny (or would be if it wasn't so serious) that some of the directors were calling it a takeover at the meeting (when it was a merger). It's funny because they would have been publically calling it a merger and referring to it as a merger to the Hawthorn board as well. I can't see them wanting to advertise it as a takeover as the support they would have got from the Hawthorn members and possibly the Hawthorn board would have been next to zero!

Wouldn't May 2008-May 2009 be the 150th year (putting aside the three years that the Dees didn't play-which is an interesting point)? Melbourne turns 150 on May 2009-this month!

I agree. It's a shame that they don't have the 'lion' symbol anymore though. I guess they had to give that up when the merger occured. I don't understand it totally but the Fitzroy Football Club merged with the Fitzroy Reds. I could be wrong but I think that the Fitzroy Football Club had allowed the Fitzroy Reds to use their colours like a franchise. Now their one club. It's strange to think about though because who are Fitzroy now? Are they the Fitzroy Football Club or the Brisbane Lions? I thought I read somewhere that the Fitzroy Football Club (the amatuer one) was a different legal entity to the Fitzroy from the AFL. It would be nice if the Brisbane Lions allowed the Fitzroy Football Club to wear the lion symbol.

I read too much into what you said. I assumed that they had knowingly locked out people who were mainly intending to vote "no". In hindsight that was a pretty crazy assumption. I wish now that I hadn't said what I said about the directors at the time. I don't know any of them and I'm going to read up on 'Tiger' who must have really loved the club. I guess you wouldn't be a director (who are unpaid) unless you loved the club. So I am sorry for saying what I said. It is a good thing though that the merger fell through.

You mean the 149th year? It should be this year.

Wikipedia has it wrong then. This is on their page: Melbourne Football Club, nicknamed The Demons, is an Australian rules football club playing in the Australian Football League, based in Melbourne, Victoria. In 1859 [2], a few days after it was founded, some of its members invented the code of football that it still plays. It competed in the very first senior and trophy competition in 1861, was a foundation member of the Victorian Football Association (1877), one of two associations and governing bodies formed in the same year and in 1897 it became a foundation member of VFL competition which became the national Australian Football League. The club, erroneously in 2008, celebrated the 150th anniversary of the first meeting of its founding members, published "Melbourne FC - Since 1858 - An Illustrated History" and commemorated its formation by naming "150 Heroes" as well as a birthday logo, which appears on its official jersey.

You're right. I got it totally wrong! Thanks for correcting me Those board members were a bunch of bastards doing that to the members! I can't understand they would have wanted the club to merge when Joe was offering $3 million! Club mergers should only be a last restort. Those directors who wanted the club to merge didn't deserve to be on the board. What a disgrace! Added later: On reflection I was way too harsh on the directors in what I said about them. They loved the club as well. So I am sorry for saying the above.

The Melbourne Football Club was formed in 1859! The 150th year is therefore 2009! The "150 Years of The Melbourne Football Club" book sais "Since 1858". The club wasn't formed until the next year. Was it a mistake? Or did the Melbourne Football Club play unofficially in 1858 (and that's when they're counting from)?

I know it's not just membership dollars that get redistributed (through licensing fees) by the AFL to support struggling clubs. The AFL also gets revenue from merchandise, gate receipts, tv rights. But you would take my point. The membership fees of the well off clubs could come down if there wasn't the socialistic system.

Nothing? Do you mean that literally? What about all the money which the AFL has poured into Melbourne and other struggling clubs. I know the AFL have been cutting back the assistance money but Melbourne would probably have merged by now if it wasn't for the AFL assistance money. Perhaps they should do more. Or perhaps not. But Andrew Demetrio and AFL have certainly done a lot more than nothing. They have re-distributed millions from the more financially sound clubs to the struggling ones. Ultimately it's the members of the well-off clubs who have subsidised the struggling ones. So that means, for example, that Collingwood members have had to pay more than they would have, for their memberships to assist the other clubs. I support that system to help the poorer clubs but think about that. Those members have indirectly paid maybe $10 or $20 dollars out of their membership payments to Melbourne, St Kilda, the Bulldogs, Carlton....some would say that's unfair. So it's not "nothing".

By the time Joe put up the money the Hawthorn members had voted against the merger. I wonder why Joe didn't put up the money at the start given that he was against the merger. When the majority of Demon members (who voted) voted for the merger it was without the knowledge that there was a white knight in the ranks. Looking back it's pretty sad that the majority of Melbourne members voted for the merger (particularly when the Hawthorn members voted against it). But then again they were told the alternative would be the club folding. Why did the majority of Hawthorn members vote against it and the majority of Melbourne members vote for it? What does it say about Melbourne and Hawthorn members in general? Or were the Demons in more strife than the Hawks and is that the reason? What do you think would have happened if Joe hadn't got elected as President? Would he still have given the money? How much was it by the way? Was it a loan or a gift? Let's say both the majority of Hawthorn and Melbourne supporters had voted for the merger and then Joe offered the money. Do you think the merger would have gone ahead? Would the board have called for a new vote? Can a certain number of members force a vote even if the board says no? Also what do you think would have happened if Joe hadn't provided the funds? Given that the merger with Hawks was off the table do you think the Dees would have merged with another club, raised the money to survive without Joe or folded. Would there have been another white knight?