Ron Burgundy

Would be VERY disappointed not to see Rivers finish his career at the MFC. Hope he gets an extension. I've heard the club reckons there's big upside to Evans. Pity his career thus far has been cruelled by injury. I would've thought Sellar's done enough to get another year.

I'm disappointed to be honest. He's been a bloody good player for us. That said, I suspect Neeld wants the forward line to look a lot different next year - and that's good news. Bring on Cloke.

He should definitely be offered another year. Absolute no brainer - for many reasons. Firstly, he deserves it. He's clearly still good enough. Second, it's a great statement as to the way we now treat loyal servants of the club and, in particular, our senior players (ie, we've learnt from the mistreatment of Junior and others during the Bailey years). In short, we've learnt from past mistakes and we're now intent on building a bloody good club culture. Sign him up. ASAP.

Perhaps we'll be accused of tanking again.

No I don't think that's what RR is saying Deelirium. Personally I don't think it's a deliberate strategy - but Melbourne seem to attract a disproportionate amount of negative commentary from the panelists, which I find weird in the context that they've also stated we're an irrelevant club. That said, if we're so irrelevant, why do they continually attack the club. Most Aussies tend to have some sympathy for the underdog, yet that never appears to be afforded to us. It's been a thoroughly bruising year for this club, although I cannot think of one positive story they've led about anything we've done or have tried to do. It's just been an all-out full frontal attack, whether it be related to the appointment of Neeld, paying too much for Mitch Clark, the selection of the young Captains, the overly defensive game plan, Neeld's direct messaging to the media, "tanking" circa 2008, the club's treatment of Moloney, the lack of criticism of Maguire in talking to Jurrah immediately after his charge w/o informing the club, the racism allegations against Neeld, the suggestion that the players are not "playing" for Neeld etc. The list is long. And boring. And unbalanced. However, there are many positive stories that could also have been run during this period. For instance, several sought after players have committed to this club under Neeld (Jamar, Howe, Jones) when they could've played out negotiations for a lot longer a la Cloke and Boak and Caddy. No mention. Why not? Is this not a positive statement as to where the players think the club is going, particularly given the coverage they've devoted to Neeld and his apparently negative impact on the player group? Or is it not newsworthy at all? My view is that it's unbalanced commentary. You can form a different view, but I reckon most objective observers would sit closer to my view on this than any alternative view. As to your points, in my observation: - the criticism that I've heard levelled at the MFC by the Bozos On The Couch is not always entirely reasonable or balanced; and - Schwab, without doubt, has his critics - one or two of whom may (or may not) be Healy and Sheahan. I'm not sure why Schwab attracts so much criticism, but I acknowledge that he does. As to this, I don't have a strong view because I'm not sure if the criticism is warranted or not. In short, I don't know. But I don't think it's fair that so much unbalanced commentary is directed towards the club, even if there are some issues involving the CEO (none of which are readily apparent to those not in 'the know').

It was just the latest, albeit hopelessly out of date, angle that they decided to take against the MFC. As everyone knows, tanking allegations against the Dees were investigated, and put to bed, ages ago. Literally everyone also knows that Brock's own view of his worth to the MFC was very different to the MFC's view of Brock's worth - that said, not one of the panel challenged McLean on any of his comments that 'he decided to leave the club'. Clearly, it would've compromised their anti-MFC angle had they attempted to straighten up some of the facts. Many of the angles they run against the MFC are so weak, it's caused me to think that they deliberately manufacture a negative story about the the MFC every so often. I don't know why they seem so determined to do this. It's also surprising really, given our apparent irrelevance. I can't think of the last positive story they have run about the MFC on this programme. Actually forget positive - just balanced, well researched story. Roos always makes a jibe at the MFC or Neeld in some way - and then, somewhat conveniently, says 'not that I know or have anything against him'. All I can take out of this is that we're not quite as irrelevant as a club as these bozos would have us believe. And, contrary to Roos' less than insightful comment last night about the MFC's progress since last year, we are a hell of a lot better now than this time last year. That comment, more than any other, demonstrated to me that these guys operate on pretty low level perception rather than well researched, critically reasoned, analysis of the facts. Lazy stuff. Ironic really, given Roos stated love of the 'one percenters' - something he doesn't bring to his new career in journalism.

Dead set, these bozos are unbelievable. The show started tonight with the Matthew Primus/Port Adelaide issue. Fair enough - it's a current and interesting issue. BUT, within less than a nano second, the MFC then became the issue. I find it genuinely bizarre how hard they go at our club. Healy, in particular, is one very vain, yet increasingly anti intellectual, media peanut. I also enjoyed the very contrived disclaimer they spun about last week's Brock interview as though it was a complete shot out of the blue. Well, in short fellas - you can't have it both ways. Either you're completely naive amateurs with absolutely no useful insights into the game, or you're experienced AFL commentators who knew exactly what Brock McLean would have to say about his former club if fed some Dorothy Dix questions. Given the way they have conducted themselves lately, I can't believe these dudes have the arrogance to question the integrity of the MFC. And it's also stunning how basic their analysis has become. To think, I used to like this programme - and Paul Roos in particular. Disappointing stuff.

And pick 13 plus Sylvia for Caddy is a very bad deal. To give that much away, I'd sincerely hope we'd have our sights set much higher than on a talented young player who, to date, has shown little more than a bit of potential and hardness around the ball. Sylvia kicks goals too FWIW.

I'm all for having a red hot crack at Caddy, but not if it involves Sylvia. There is so much upside to this guy - and, in my view, he's really showing some good signs this year. With the maturity that he now seems to be displaying, he's future Brownlow material. Should not be on the table - especially given how how much work/patience we've put into him. Clark and Sylvia are our aces.

Still need the cart though.

And nor should he be.

Some astonishingly stupid analysis here. Wrist injury, then ankle, then busted jaw, and some people here seem genuinely surprised that in his first game back he didn't get 45 touches. Unbelievable.

I'd rather Cameron Ling.

We had them covered all day. Good teams don't always win pretty - they just win. We won. Some of you are dead set unbelievable. There have certainly been some worrying games this year, but that wasn't one of them.

Absolutely stoked about this. A real momentum builder.

Could not agree more. Sign him up for another year right now. He is good enough AND he deserves it. Would also make a great statement to the other senior players, namely, "just because you're older doesn't mean you have a permanent target on your head like Junior and others had under the Bailey model. It's about performance and earning selection now - not just being a talented teenager".

We simply adopted a naive strategy over far too long a period of time. And we had an ordinary club culture and no really good senior leaders at the club (Junior aside, who Bailey naively moved on). All of that = consistently finishing in the bottom each year. But as to this current tanking debate - Brock McLean was essentially moved on by the club. The fat head seems not to realise that. Nor, it seems, do some journalists. Everyone at the club does though. Quite bizarre that even the most ordinary journos haven't worked this out, particularly given that we got pick 11 for a player who then spent the most of his time in the VFL. Says it all really.

It seems that struggling clubs are not allowed to try to take some positives out of the season and build for the future ie, really waste the rest of an already dead season. Typical knee jerk thoughtless dumb response. Why is it that so many sports journalists in this country are so bloody stupid? Can we import some BBC guys and upskill them in AFL?

There's no doubt we've stuffed up a lot of our first round draft picks over the years. But I'm now thinking using pick 5 on Brock McLean takes the cake. How fickle is an industry/sport where a disgruntled former player can make some patently hostile comments about his former club and it then prompts this reaction. The facts haven't changed since 2008. They are what they are. I don't see how some dumb ass disgruntled player can air his dirty laundry, and all of a sudden there's talk of stripping our draft picks at the end of 2012. Absolutely crazy stuff. We live in a very dumb age.

Couldn't agree more. I was watching last night thinking 'geez these guys are a pack of bozos'. It's bordering on un-Australian to continually put the slipper into the MFC like they do. And it's pathetic.

If Brock didn't think he had a future under the old regime, there's no way known he'd have a future under the new regime (Neeld).

One simple fact though. The fact that the club didn't re-sign Brock had nothing to do with tanking. They just didn't think Brock was as good as he thought he was. And virtually ALL MFC supporters were over the moon we managed to get pick 11 for him. Most Carltank supporters were not pleased with the deal. Says it all really. Love the histrorical revisionism that occurred last night though.

I had many arguments with some here at the time, but I still maintain the dumbest thing Bailey did was to sack Junior - particularly in the way he did. This had absolutely nothing to do with tanking. Rather, it had all to do with poor judgement, just like so many of the other decisions and approaches adopted during that period.

Watched On The Couch last night. Roos labelled the MFC as irrelevant, and I immediately thought to myself 'who's the dude on Demonland who keeps saying rather mindlessly - "get Roos" - like we could even if we wanted to?' Well thanks for reminding me tonatopia. I have one simple question for you: Do you still believe in the tooth fairy? Some people in Kansas actually think the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs didn't exist because they weren't mentioned in the Bible. It's hard to convince them the earth is in fact about 4.54 billion years old and that the universe is now estimated to have been created about 13.7 billion years ago. Time for you to get real. Malthouse and Roos don't want to coach this club. They will effectively select the club they wish to coach if they want another senior gig - and, cop a tip, it's not ours. And it never has been.

Nor Bomber Riley.