george_on_the_outer

Don't get me started: "move it on".....no need, it's just play on "yours" or " mine"....no need, there are lines marked on the ground to see which umpire is controlling, and who cares when they can be over-ridden by the other " ball out" or "handballed" ....no need, no call has been made " 15 seconds".....it is the players responsibility to kick the ball before 30 seconds is up. And there is a clock on the scoreboard. At that point it is " play on".

6, 208. GC v Freo 6136. GC v North 5523 . Giants v WCE 5057. Great investment all around. And AFL want to "create" another franchise in Tasmania. At least a majority of Presidents know where the money would be coming from, in addition to the never ending lifelines being thrown at GC and Giants

I'm assuming "bosses" means Presidents, but who would Kate have chosen from a rival club? I would think Max King or Aaron Naughton.

Same here. Hawthorn v Collingwood 42,000. Combined membership 160K Melbourne v Collingwood 76,000. Combined membership 140K Richmond 21K v Port and not a peep, but she has a crack at us for 29K attending the Freo game.

Leaving the ground after the game, walking from MCC to Richmond station, I saw no less than 3 fights involving Collingwood supporters. In each case police were restraining them and their feral mates still having a go at the police. Poor coppers must hate having to attend their games......

Serlect adult club members X 2 from drop down menu. Enter your membership barcodes into the box provided but one below the other, don't use commas etc. i.e. on new line

Any more unfounded postings which have legal implications to yourself and this site, will result in the thread being closed

Yeah.....she'll save it up for the North v GWS game.

62,048

Goldrick coming back for another season!!!!!!! Yes!

61,918

Collingwood v Hawthorn 43932. Two clubs with a membership combined of 160,000. So only 1/4 of them turned up. Let's see the turnout for Collingwood v Melbourne this week, before people claim we are not turning up to games.

No. Directors should not be deciding who is or who is not suitable, as is the current case. That is where bias is introduced. It should be external.

Nomination committees are to vet potential candidates for Board positions. They should be external to the organisation to ensure transparency and good governance. All too often they are filled with existing Board members, who are inherently conflicted, and so becomes a "jobs for the boys" scenario.

61,537

Jordan Ivey joins us along with pick 26 (Victorian draft) in the upcoming draft https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1140903/ivey-becomes-a-demon

First of our sign and trade deals done: https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1140837/dees-welcome-wilson Highlights from her time at Carlton:

Smelling a W.A. bias in this: "While Spencer Stuart doesn’t usually specialise in sports recruiting, it has a relationship with AFL chairman Richard Goyder, who used it to appoint Meg O’Neill as the CEO of Woodside Energy last year. Goyder is also the chairman of Woodside; Australia’s largest independent oil and gas company." ....Great! they are going out with a company to search when it isn't their expertise. By the way, Woodside is a major sponsor of Fremantle.

Collingwood and Carlton with 80,000 members each, get only 80,000 to the game.I.e. About half their membership. Melbourne with 60,000 members get just on 30,000 to their game, against an interstate side with little to no Melbourne base. Not so different outcome in terms of attendance.

61,040 Improving only by 3-400 each week, much the same as past years.

Exactly right. Losing a quality player just to be replaced by a speculative pick at 17 or higher may be not what is needed. It would be nice to know the "black box" points system created by the AFL....are older or younger players worth more points? Same sort of smoke and mirrors as compensation picks in the mens draft. At the end of the day this is only 1 draft pick, and hopefully status quo returns next year.

Finances still don't stack up. All well promising $50M in "start up costs" when that is all eaten up building a stadium. Or "$100M" when it is spread over 10 years. When you need $50-70M p.a. to run an AFL club, the majority of the rest of it comes from the AFL. Small wonder Sydney, Gold Coast and Collingwood oppose it, because they know who will be getting less from the AFL. Probably other clubs know the same. There is no broadcast advantage unless a 20th team is also created. Will that result in an overall increase in revenue, or just forcing the money to be split among even more? That will certainly spread the talent even more thinly and decrease the appeal of the game. Gil is going to walk out the door before any decision is made, because it is all too hard. Gold Coast should never have been pursued/created and errors would have to be admitted. Best leave that to others in the future.

A lot of "motherhood" type changes proposed, without any real substance attached. Directors terms 3x3 years? Great idea. But given the number of current directors pushing this limit, from when will it apply? What are the "special circumstances" which would allow longer? Who determines the "special circumstances" Nominations committee. Again great idea. Who determines who sits on the committee? Current board members? Needs to be completely independant and external and provide reasons for approvals or otherwise. Danger of "jobs for the boys.." Investment Committee. Same again. Who decides who sits on it. Plenty of people think they are brilliant investors, few in reality. Is it independant of current Board? The Devil in the detail is yet to be found out. Let's see if we are getting REAL change, and not just window dressing.

The sooner the AFL applies the same OOB rules as in the AFLW the better. Kick or handball over the line, between the 50m arcs= free kick. No interpretation necessary, and stops the ludicrous calls currently being made. No one talks about out on the full any more, because it is black and white. Make this the same.