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?

On the one hand it's obvious that not many people would want to go along and see the Dees play the Crows but when I think about it, it's a bit strange. Had the Dees been playing a Victorian side the number of Demon supporters would have been much higher. Shouldn't the fact that Melbourne is playing in itself be enough. If someone loves their club wouldn't they want to see them play regardless of who they are playing? ie a supporter is there to see their club not the opposition. I guess not. If it had been Melbourne v Collingwood (for example) then a lot more Dee supporters would have gone. I apoligise to everyone that actually went but what kind of love does it show towards a club when a supporter will only go and see them, depending on who they are playing. If it's a Victorian side they'll go. If it's an interstate one they couldn't be bothered. Maybe those kind of supporters aren't 100% devoted to their club but also like other clubs as well. So it's the attraction of the Demons plus their opposition that bring them along. I know not everyone's in this camp but how can you explain the crowd variances?

C'mon Dees!

Kevin Sheedy said in the Herald-Sun today that perhaps players over 30 should be able to play 12 games for the year outside the salary cap. I'm not sure of what the details should be but I agree with the idea. It's pretty sad to see your club drop a veteran player off the list because of their age and the fact that they probably only have a year or two left. It's also hard for the fans when their club trades some of their older players or just delists them so they can invest in youth. If clubs could have greater flexibility to hang on to some of their veteran players whilst still investing in youth then the bottom of the 'premiership clock' wouldn't be as harsh. No one really wants to see veterans who have played for ten years for your club have to spend their last years playing for another team.

Probably not. But if Dean Bailey's position was under fire than he probably would feel for Dean.

I hope the Dees win but there will be so many Tigers supporters calling up the radio bagging him and calling for him to be sacked that I really feel for him. Plus we can always count on the press, particularly the Herald Sun, to report it all that it will be a tough week. Go Dees but I feel for the guy.

I know that the Dees and the Storm share staff and have agreed to work together. I'm not sure exactly what that means but it sounds good. This hasn't been proposed but do you think that it would be mutually beneficial if both clubs had each others logo somewhere on their jumpers like a logo? What if the Melbourne Tigers, Storm and Victory became sporting sections of the MCC as well? Is there any way they could all remain seperate legal entities but be seen as one club. So it become the default position if you don't have an allegiance you just go Melbourne, Melboune, Melboune, Melbourne? What if the Demons as well as working with the Storm also worked with the Tigers and Victory and each gave their members free tickets to see each others games? The danger for the dees is that they could promote the smaller, growing codes who could then ditch the Dees when they get bigger. Any thoughts?

I obviously aren't questioning whether Sandringham has supporters. I'm sure they do. But did anyone start baracking for Sandringham because of their alignment with Melbourne. Then when the Dees switched their affiliation to Casey did anyone stick with Sandringham. So they go for the Dees in the AFL and Sandringham in the VFL? I doubt there would be many people in that boat but I'm guessing there must have been at least or two people out there who did that. It's a bit of a crazy situation how someone who lives in a particular area can support a local VFL team which is partly a feeder for senior players in an AFL team which they may not support. For example Someone in that boat could be baracking for a team with Saints players against Melbourne ones one week. And then down the track support those same Melbourne players against those same Saints players. Crazy!

What does the area refer to? In the old days it was suburb vs suburb (kind of). Melbourne was never part of the suburb vs suburb (maybe upper class vs other team's middle or lower class). Are the Demons the CBD's team? Or Greater Melbourne's team? Do you feel like you're supporting this city's team? The CBD's team? The MCCs team? I know that really it's just a name but does anyone see supporting Melbourne as supporting this whole city? Like you're proud of Melbourne as a city you live in and you feel like it's your club because you live in Melbourne? Not many supporters live in the suburb that their team is named. Do you think that some people don't support the Dees because they feel like supporting the Dees would be a bit too presumptous. As though they are saying by being a supporter that they support this city's team whilst other Melbournians who follow a team which isn't Melbourne aren't supporting their city's team?

Calabreseboy you're right. Melbourne is rebuilding. They are investing in youth so that the Dees might be a premiership chance in the future. I agree that it probably was a better question to have asked prior to the rebuilding when there were more experienced players. The reason I asked was because I have only started following Melbourne in the last few years (after supporting them was I was really young). I know there are a lot of young players so I don't expect many wins this year. I only asked because I am trying to understand which players are doing well and which aren't (which may be because they're young and developing), which areas Melbourne needs to improve in. I didn't mean it as a criticism of the club/the on field team or any individual players. I understand that they would all be doing their best. One of the reasons I want Melbourne to start winning on the field is so the club can boost its Memberships (plus I want them to win, of coarse!). As you know when teams don't do as well less people go to the games. The club sells less memberships and can't get as many sponsorship dollars. Like me, and other people reading this, you would be concerned about the future of the Melbourne Football Club. It can be a tough call when a club who is in financial trouble starts investing in youth. Whilst I think it is probably the right decision (I'd rather the club finish for example last, second last, 10th, 8th, 1st than finish in the middle for twenty years) it worry's me when the club is losing because I know that the dollars required won't be flowing through to the club. It's easier to have hope that your club will improve when you know the specific areas that need improving and areas that the team will probably improve in the future. For example if the club needs more strength up forward than you can look forward to a younger player developing or a stronger forward being picked up in the draft. If it's skills that is lettng Melbourne down then they can be worked on and improved in time, particularly if it's the developing players whose skills need improving. Just seeing them losing without knowing why or knowing where the improvements will probably be made in the future (like you said the club is re-building) is a bit worrying particularly when we need to win just to attract the membership, ground attendees and sponsorship dollars just to survive.

What do you think? Does Melbourne have a social club? There could be more family days. What about some kind of desperate and dateless ball (with a different name!). Instead of just expensive, fund raising dinners (which are important) there should also be fun days (obviously they would have to at least break even-club money is scarce!). Aside from being fun it might also lead to more memberships (whether it should be just for members I don't know-maybe members get in cheaper). When Melbourne people talk about the fun they had other people might want to be part of Melbourne because it stands (aside from it's proud history and MCC links) for fun and enjoyment. Hawthorn's known as 'the family club'. Melbourne could be the 'fun' club (for want of a better term). To attract supporters Melbourne can't just be a conservative club but a club which is one to be a part of.