Vipercrunch

I want Freo to win in a close one. Always nice to see a club that hasn't had any recent success get one. My main hope the umpiring is good.

Although I would have enjoyed hearing other clubs complain, I am not overly upset about this. The AFL have come to our aid in how they dealt with us over the tanking saga and with the financial help out. I think we do have enough talent on our list already and we have Roos here to have a decent crack at developing that talent correctly. Our future success didn't depend on a PP this year.

IMO, the OP is building a list of posters who will be reminded about this thread if things go south under Roos and they attack him or the club. For the record, IMO Roos = Choco = Eade. I would hire whichever one was the most interested in coaching the MFC and was the most driven to reach the ultimate success. Choco had a wonderful period of sucess at Port, without the full support of the club and sponsors. Eade was sucessful (although no flags) at WB , a club with skinny resources like us. If we get Roos, and he comes with some key personal from Sydney (I heard a development guy and Kenellay could be part of it) then I will be happy, but will remember it comes with no gaurantees of success.

Bomberblitz is a hoot. I wonder which forum Essendon supporters with brains use...

A few weeks ago I was scathing at Jack's performance against GWS (the thread was later deleted). I have tempered a little bit since then and my opinion follows. He should leave. He is not as good as he should be. BUT... I do not blame him for wanting to leave. I do not blame him for not being as good as he should. AND... I would wish him all the best at another club (be easier if it wasn't a club I detest...) and hope he turns into a very, very good AFL player. Basically the MFC stuffed this kid up. Too much pressure. Used him as a marketing tool. Pathertic development. We didn't want to play good football (tanked) just when he should have been learning what the AFL was all about. He owes us nothing. If he decides to stay then great. I really hope we get the right FD in place to help him reach his potential. He he leaves, then I will hold no anomosity towards him.

Sorry, but I think the club CEO mentioning it on national TV is a little bit more significant than there being some posts about it on a forum...

Early days yet, but he got a big tick from me by identifying and drawing attention to our previous over emphasis on early draft picks being the answer to our problems. We got it very, very wrong and I am glad he is doing something about it.

I saw him surfing with Nathan Jones one morninga few months ago. Does that count as discussing things with key powerbrokers? I think he's closer to MFC than most other clubs for what its worth.

I just poated this in another thread about CS. How much influence, both positive or negative does any club CEO have on the outcomes on the field other than properly resourcing and partially recruiting the football department? I need this explained to me by people who know the inner workings of football clubs. Someone please explain.

The OP asks similar to what I have thinking during this saga. How much influence, both positive or negative does any club CEO have on the outcomes on the field other than properly resourcing and partially recruiting the football department? I need this explained to me by people who know the inner workings of football clubs.

The last game I went to with my dad was our round 1 draw with Sydney in 2011. He had been diagnosed with cancer about 5 months before and it was a massive effort for him to make it. Melbourne FC was a huge part of our relationship so it was important to have one last trip to the 'G and a draw was a pretty good result given our terrible recent Round 1 form. We loved the Dee's but were both mindful that it was just a game and consciously tried to keep the results from affecting our moods. Something I continue now. My sig is something I read on another forum relating to completely another game, but I saw it's significance for me in relation to footy. Thanks for sharing OP

I think the tanking itself was a symptom of the problems within our club, not the investigation. It's been done to death but the AFL saved us by what they did as a result of the investigation. They've copped plenty of flack for it, while most people have said we must have expertly negotiated ourselves to a very good outcome. The damage done to the playing group by the tanking itself (fragile confidences resulting from so many big losses and missing the boat when the AFL truly became the domain of elite sportman with elite standards) and the culture that led to thinking tanking would be a good idea - now that is where I see some of our problems. No more quick fixes.

I struggle to see how the board or CEO can be held responsible for Sunday other that for employing the heads of the Football Department. They are linked. Removing the board and/or CEO won't fix the on-field problems without also making big changes to the FD?

Demand the players take risks when moving the ball. A 1 or 2 meter break is all a team mate should need to be rewarded with the pass. Tell them to ignore the audible groans from the crowd if they stuff up. If players don't attempt the risky passes, then the team mates stop running and we are gone. No risks means no game the following week. No one has ever succeeded anything significant without taking risks. What I saw on Sunday and the explanation from Neeld that the players threw the pre-season out the window when the game was on either means either the players are super fragile and dropped their bundle when the heat and expectations rose OR our training intensity and match simulations have been not "AFL" quality.

I think we got used to fast turn arounds in our form when we yo-yo'd for about 10 years or so during the Balme and Daniher years. This time we are enduring the slow progress of standards being lifted which will eventually result in better on field performances. Other teams aren't standing still either so results won't turn around like we saw in the past. Enjoy the ride and don't let it dictate your emotions.

I've just had a close look at the Foxtel coverage for NAB 2 and 3 and we will not feature either week. Given we can't make the final, we won't be seen again on TV until the Season starts. Not happy

Key word in the articles re: the Gaming Commission thing is "inquiry". They want to be seen to do the right thing, get the run down on what happened and give it all a big tick. I don't think it is a concern.

Key word in the articles re: the Gaming Commission thing is "inquiry". They want to be seen to do the right thing, get the run down on what happened and give it all a big tick. I don't think it is a concern.

All in all a good outcome for the club. We obviously did enough wrong for the AFL to proceed, but you could tell the AFL saw the greater picture and thus orchestrated an outcome that wouldn't kill us off. Unfortunately it still left a lot of questions unsatisfactorily answered. Many people from the media and general public will say we got off extremely lightly, but there will be others that think we are the scape goat. I have always felt:- - Wanting to lose is very different to not caring if you lose. - We were wrong to tank, despite what others would say and what many perceive other clubs have got away with. - It would and did take a high toll on our club. I am now hoping that we get our heads down, work hard and become the club we all hope we can be. Go Dees

Reports were that the clubs and Dean's laywers were negotiating this out together. We worked with him up to this point, didn't leave him to hang out to dry and now Adelaide (he's current employer) will support him through.

KB and Vlad were the only people in football to deny that tanking occured. I inclueded KB becuase it was such a short list and becuase even KB, one of the most stubborn men to walk this earth changed his mind on this issue, leaving Vlad all on his own. Time will tell if Vlad maintains that tanking doesn't exist.

I would prefer us to take the punishment and get on with it becuase:- 1. I want to get on with it. 2. I think it is the best for the club. Winning a court case will not change the public perception that we tanked. Not in the slightest. We await the actual findings and verdicts, but the punsihment that is being suggested seems to be a highly negotiated and as close to a 'win-win' scenario as we might get. No ones career will be ended and the club won't be crippled at the draft or financially. Many will say the we got of lightly if it's the outcome (the media polls will be pretty one sided I think). For it all to be over and for the club (not me as a individual) to be seen to 'take their punishment like a man' is the most positive outcome I can see from this. Far better than a fight to the bitter end as fas as i can see. Public perception is our currency as fas as the the fight for sponsorships is concerned.

I doubt today was much of a session if they are advertising a training session for tommorow. Re-hab type of session today (intra club was Friday) with the main session on Tuesday like the season proper.

Welcome to page 117 of a forum discussing tanking. I assume given your wise words, this is your first contribution? BTW, Vlad (and KB) were publicly ridiculed becuase of their absurd assertions that no-one tanked so hardly a sound arguement.

So how does "taking on Joe Gutnick" as you so nicely put it and rigging a vote in favour of a merger with Hawthorn as you so cleverly insinuate show us to be a club that does the hard yards and doesn't look for the easy option?