Hazyshadeofgrinter

I (largely) agree, and you'll note that I haven't actually made any judgements of my own. My point is merely that it is silly to pretend that comparisons like these are made in a vacuum. Even the criteria of "how would a certain player fare in today's game?" is problematic because, by definiton, you are no discussing the "best players of all time" but rather, "which players are best at playing Australian Rules football in the 2008 style?" Indeed, who would these players be surrounded by? It is foolish to deny the unavoidabile subjectivity that underlies these sorts of comparisons, and thus foolish to ignore the contexts in which they are made. Your post only confirms that the terms of the debate are ill defined - are we are discussing the abilties of a player at his height or the contributions that he made over the course of his career? It has not been established. Allen Jackovich anyone?

To answer my own question, I'm guessing that Naitanui could releive both a PJ forward/ruck role and a Jamar/Warnock center role. From what I hear, NN is a decent midfield proposition - could be good to releive Jamar/Warnock with fresh legs? He certainly doesn't lack height/leap. Perhaps a little time up forward releiving PJ might give him a chance to develop this part of his game? I would hate to see him overplayed in any case. Anyway, I'm asking because I don't really feel that I have enough knowledge to comment. Thoughts?

Despite the inherent speculation, there is quite a bit of sense going around on this thread. I agree that White should retire. I agree that PJ should stay up forward with some ruck duties inside 50. I agree that, should we get Warnock, he ought to be swapped directly with Jamar at the center bounce/#1 ruck role for next season. I can't lend any insight into the Meesen/Spencer propositions (nor do I know much about the Scorpions list...) To add to the speculation (perhaps taking it too far for it to be worthwhile), based on the assumption that Warnock and Jamar are mutually exclusive in the starting 22 (or not, if you disagree), what would we do with Naitanui (who I haven't actually seen play)? Presumably some development in the seconds? What then? Ruck rotations/zoning? Who with and where? How would it work? P.S. Scenario "C" thanks

I don't think that people are failing to grasp your logic, merely that they are disagreeing with your assertion (because that's pretty much all it is), that historical context is irrelevant in a discussion of the greatest players of all time. It is interesting that you raise the notion of "runs on the board" - after all, your insistence upon the irrelevency of context raises the dillema of how one is to objectivley evaluate players in this framework. You seem to suggest that 100m times and the like are good objective indicators and ought to bear direct comparison. If we take your "runs on the board" proposition a little more literally though - what better criteria is there for assessing a forward than goals kicked or goals per game? Tony Lockett: 1306, 4.9/game Jason Dunstall: 1254, 4.7/game I submit that due to changes in the way that the game is being played, these feats are not likely to be equalled any time soon. But as you seem to think that context is irrelevant, poor Wayne Carey comes off looking pretty plain with 671 goals at 2.75/game. Of course you might argue that other aspects of Carey's game make up for this lack of "runs on the board", but you certainly can't appeal to the "cult of the full forward" that players like Lockett and Dunstall enjoyed when you make your defence. Indeed, one Jonathon Brown is looking pretty shabby averaging around 2 goals a game...

Best post yet I saw Michael Coglin at the walk, not sure who else but I wasn't really looking for them. Do you have any idea who was/was not there? Or are you just making spiteful implications based on nothing?

A lot of peple keep talking about how things are worse than we think/know/has been reported. Given that everyone knows about the club debt and the projected loss of $1.5m, I was just wondering if there is any reason to think that things really are worse than this or are these fears just based on "thruthiness"? Cheers

Darkest hour = 1996 or 2003 Didn't you notice?

Why is this obvious?

The only people making "assumptions" are the ones who credit Garry with all this "behind the scenes" work which is so behind the scenes that there is very little reason for an outsider like me to expect that it goes on. On the other hand it also gives me little reason to expect that it doesn't go on - which is why I haven't been "making assumptions" myself. Personally I'd be wrapped if Garry is doing work at the club and even moreso if Jim's appointment means that he does some more work in front of the scenes, which is where I think he would do the most good. For instance, I would love to see some of the stuff that is written on this site (e.g. blockbusters vs. crap fixtures, reasons for the QB turnout/comparisons with Dreamtime, relative funding levels/crowd turnouts/ the fact that every club is reliant on AFL support etc.) get some more airtime. Cheers

I reckon Macca has about as much chance of playing Back Pocket... ...as many of the other players have of playing at their listed position.

Great posts all (well, except for demonrob). hear, hear!

Best post yet.

"Amnesic" refers to the club's situation in 2003. Something had to be done? "something" (achieving the "desired result") has been getting done ever since 2003 - that's where the "ungrateful" bit comes from. If you can't get your head around that then there is no point in me discussing it further. (cue: "misinformed" and "nitwit") P.S. you say that Gardner has no passion but then you say that running the club requires "great sacrifice." Which is it? P.P.S. Just who is using the club as an accessory?

Not bad considering that we set a club record with 28,077 last year (according to wikipedia so I can't vouch for it's accuracy). in case people are curious, here are the other figures: YEAR MEMBERS PLACE 1998 17,870 4th 1999 19,713 14th 2000 18,227 2nd 2001 22,940 11th 2002 20,152 6th 2003 20,555 14th 2004 25,252 7th 2005 24,220 8th 2006 24,698 5th 2007 28,077 14th 2008 27,372? n/a pretty amazing that we increased membership from 20,555 to 25,252 on the back of a 14th place finish in '03. It would be nice to see a similar result in 2008! Also, here is a link to an example of what I had in mind for a Davies/Aurion/Whatever promotion (featuring Ronaldo). Cheers

Disgusting, ungrateful, misinformed. The job is "unrewarding" because of amnesic nit-wits like you. Perhaps the rot starts at the bottom?

Yeah, fair cop - you weren't saying that he's the best thing going around - but you have to admit that it is a little inconsistent to extend him that kind of patience but not some of our even less experienced players?

HAHAHAHAHA! oh, Nudge! I must admit that I got pretty worked up when I read your opening post. I could already feel a systematic and forceful rebuttal coming on. But then, just as I started flexing my fingers like the keyboard warrior that I am, I noticed that out of: ...you rate Newton the best prospect (presumably on the strength of 1 mark taken almost a year ago). This is despite the ample time that he has had to prove himself in comparison with some of our other youngsters. It was then that I began broke out in laughter and realised that it wasn't worth my time.

I think its more like: The club has no money, dear Liza, dear Liza, the club has no money, dear Liza, the club! Well get some dear Henry, dear Henry, dear, then get some dear Henry, dear Henry, some cash! But how shall we earn it, dear Liza, dear Liza, but how shall we earn it, dear Liza, just how? With Sponsors and Members dear Henry, dear Henry, with Sponsors and Members dear Henry - that's how! But how can we sign them dear Liza, dear Liza, how can we convince all of them to sign up? With on-field performance, dear Henry, dear Henry, on-field performance will bring more support! But how shall we get it, dear Liza, dear Liza, how do we stop the Dees pulling up short? Coaches, facilities - all sorts dear Henry, more money for Connolly will improve our sport! But the club has no money, dear Liza, dear Liza... etc. Obviously a little over-simplified, feel free to add some verses about media exposure, fixtures etc. This is the main reason I think the club needs some creative ideas or angles - it's easy to say that we need more sponsors or members or whatever, but everyone knows that dear Liza! The MCC membership intivative and the Casey relocation are some good examples of this sort of thing. As is this: Very marketable player - definitely worth considering this, in addition to his considerable ability, when we're drafting. Also worth considering how we can best get a return on this marketability. This: is also an interesting proposal and a good example of fresh thinking, even though I'm not sure if it's the way to go (expensive?). and something like this: You could have some kind of mail-out colouring competition as well, so kids can get involved. Yes we need more members - but how? Lets try and come up with some ideas of our own. Need to get the players out to local schools? Where? When? Who? How? etc. Maybe recently retired players during the season, and current players in the off-season? Maybe focus on the Cranbourne area for a bit? Maybe contact P.E. teachers (do they have a union or a mailing list/newsletter?) or school principles (I know they do), Youth organisations like the Scouts or, dare I say, The Reach Foundation (don't know how appropriate that would be)? Maybe we can get recently retired players to donate their time for this sort of thing - don't we have some kind of ex-players accosiation that we can mobilise? How much of this sort of thing are players required to do under contract? Maybe we can give out a free membership as a prize for pre-season strip colouring/longest kicking/school fete handball dunking competitions (I bet some of you would pay good money to dunk your less well regarded palyers!) - then that membership holder might increase the likeyhood of his or her mates/family going to a few games, perhaps signing up next year themselves? Maybe at school fetes or something we could get Davey (a crowd favourite) to do some kind of shuttle-run competition against a Toyota Aurion or something. Toyota might even decide to make an ad out of it. I feel a little silly using this as an example because I'm sure a lot of this stuff goes on already (Not really a "fresh idea") and I am pretty poorly informed to be honest, but it would be nice to read some detailed and original thoughts instead of just generalities like "we need more money" etc. Need new sponsors? Who do you suggest? How do we get them? etc. Cheers

It was great to find out some names today - now to hear the plan! As a newcomer, I am curious to hear what members of the demonland community would be saying to the board this evening if they were in Jim's shoes. What do you all think are the most pressing issues? What needs improvement? What would you do differently? What would be your main strategic focus? Any new ideas? etc. Cheers

Although I disapprove of the way in which the existing board members have been treated in this process, it is certainly a relief to read those names! If Stynes and his group can present a good plan for the club to the board tonight it looks as though this will indeed be a "seamless takeover." It also, looks like the club will be in pretty good hands, although I can't help thinking that there is a place for Phillips. Here's hoping that Stynes will heed the advice of current board member Michael Coglin and "retain Phillips, for his expertise, experience and continuity, given that the club already had installed a new coach, new chief executive and could have a largely new board." After all - It's not like it would cost anything to keep him!

You are obviously so star struck that you have amnesia. Coglin, Phillips and Starkins, the 3 board members who would at least like to hear what Stynes has to say before hitching up their skirts, joined the board in 2003, 2003 and 2004 respectively. They inherited a basket case. As per the "Media Watch" pinned post: 1999-2003: aggregate losses of $8.52 million Since then? 4 years of profit followed by an admittedly dissapointing projected loss for of $1.5m this season - which, by the way, is the same amount by which the current board have increased football operations spending by - remember that when we win the 2010, '11 and '12 premierships. Membership? (as per wikipedia today) 2003: 20,555 Since then? Club record membership of 28,077 in 2007, and 26,250 in May this year. Whilst these figures shows some serious improvement since 2003, you might point out that 2008 has been a bit of a step back for the club in these terms, and you'd be right. I suspect that lower memberships and profits might have something to do with our poor on-field performace in 2007. Our 2008 fixture probably hasn't helped much either. So what else have the board been up to? Casey relocation, 150th fundraising/celebrations, new coach, new CEO, new operations manager... I agree it is too early to judge these new appointments accuratley, but if anyone is jumping the gun it is the people who have jumped on the Stynes bandwagon before even finding out what his plans are. I raised the matter of the new appointments because some people on this site have been citing the need for "change." Going by the spate of new appointments, it seems to me that nobody understands this better than the current board. And if you don't believe me then how's this from Board Member Michael Coglin (Stynes poised for peaceful takeover): "If I hear Jim tomorrow night, meet his team, see what they can bring to the club and I believe that the club would be the better for all that, then what a terrific day for the Melbourne footy club." Coglin also says that if he thinks it is in the best interests of the club, that he would stand down "in a heartbeat." What a selfless and gracious comment for the man to make after pulling this club out of financial ruin only to be completely ignored by Jim and disparaged by the unthinking groupies on this site. A man who just like you or I, or indeed, big Jim Stynes himself, simply wants to see the club do well, and who has been successfully working to acheive that end. Over the next couple of years, when our increased football operations spending starts taking effect, when our new coach starts notching up some wins, when our young side is enjoying the new training and management facilities, when Cranbourne VicKick Kids start asking for their mums to iron "2" and other numbers on their new Melbourne footy jumpers, when memberships start to go up again due to increased on-field success, when our club is still in existence, I will not have forgotten the contributions made by the Board from 2003-8. You and others like you, have forgotten them already.

Whose word exactly? Am I supposed to unconditionally swallow something like this: What do I know of belzebub59's reasons for stating that he or she "gets the impression" that Garry is an underappreciated and modest behind the scenes man? The fact is that I don't. Like I pointed out in my last post "I wouldn't know" and nothing that anyone has written so far on this topic has changed that. All I have to go on is that he didn't even know about the walk to the 'G until recently. If Garry has been working for the club from behind the scenes then great, why not share some examples of that work with me and everyone else so we can appreciate him all the more? Also, I never said that Garry work wasn't demanding (once again, I wouldn't know), merely that it isn't exactly the worst job in the world. This is relevant, not because I am jealous (but then who wouldn't trade places!), but because whenever people talk about Garry's contribution to the club all they talk about his media profile and then the occaisional mutter of "behind the scenes". I think it's great that Garry's job in the media provides such great exposure for the club, I have acknowledged that he is a wonderful asset for us, but none of this is evidence that Garry does anything beyond doing the job that he is paid to do. I'm sure Garry is very pleased that as a consequence of being on the footy show etc. he raises the profile of the Melbourne Football Club, but surely nobody thinks that this is the reason he joined the show? If Garry turned up to work every day that would be enough for fan boys like you to talk about his tireless contributions to the club. The fact is, Garry would have to try pretty damn hard to not contribute to the club given his line of work. As for "personal jibes" - where exactly? Cheers

1. The amount of negativity is indeed frightening. As a new-comer to these boards I have already been surprised at the swiftness and harshness of the condemnation of some of our players by some of the posters. I guess I shouldn't be surprised then that this brand of knee-jerk vitriol is also applied to our current board. Which leads me to... 2. Perhaps you would like to provide your reasoning for this because when I look at the last 5 years I'm happy with our direction. I have to admit that Jim in a superman costume flying through the window sounds pretty good to me but given the good work of the current board and the paucity of knowledge about what Jim would do differently... well, I at least am not prepared to make up my mind about the best option yet. I'm certainly not willing to write off the hard work of our current board with such glib ease. 3. "Faith?" no thanks. I prefer reason, preferably based on information (not announcments that are yet to come). As for your rumoured reports, I'd like to know where you got them. The only "new plan" that I think the AFL would be happy with is a merger with North. Conspiracy theory? Yes, but you read it here first... 4. I'm not 100% on this but I thought Gardner was stepping down this year anyway (2009 at the latest)? Besides which, many people who have already inexplicably jumped on the Jim bandwagon have pointed out how this smooth transistion is good for the club. This does not mean that Gardner supports Jim's plans - I was of the understanding that Jim hadn't even bother to inform the current board (let alone the members) of his plans yet. It is for this reason that I was glad to read in the Age that some of the Board members plan to stick about in case the fairytale turns out to be just that. How Jim Will Save the Dees? Try: How Jim Will Try to Launch a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in the Media by Announcing a Coup and then Accusing any Board Member with the Temerity to Ask What His Plans Are of Putting Their Interests Ahead of the Club. 5. How's this for change: Bailey, Connolly, McNamee, Casey Relocation. You can thank the "current president and administration" for those. Cheers

Perfect examples of my two biggest concerns about the whole thing. Deestroyers, just how exactly would the current baord be looking after the best interests of the club by resigning without even knowing what Jim has in mind. The only possible explanation for such an action would be because... ...just like Calabreseboy, they have blinded by the awesome contributions that Jim made on the field. We should all be very grateful that 3 of the members (John Phillips, Anthony Starkins and Michael Coglin) that Jim plans to oust (on the basis of what exactly?) have the commitment and the business sense to, at a very minimum, find out what Jim has in mind before they abandon their responsibilites to the members that elected them. I just hope that Jim really does plan to bring "a team of business people with considerable expertise" and not a bunch of (glory seeking?) ex-players with good intentions but not much ability off the field. At least Jim himself has had some good experience running his Reach Foundation charity - surely a lot more encouraging than his brownlow medal is in this case. I don't doubt Jim's sincerity when he says that he hopes to help Melbourne "reclaim its place as a powerful and successful club once again", but that doesn't differentiate him from any other Melbounre supporter who has donated their time and expertise to adopt a Board position - we've had nothing but hot air so far. It would be good to know exactly what he plans to do differently and why he never made any of these suggestions to the existing board who, by the way, have been doing all they can themselves to help the club "reclaim its place as a powerful and successful club once again." Hopefully we will find out on Thursday if he eventually deigns to tell the board (and the members?) what he plans to do after he kicks them to the curb. Aside from the big financial improvments that the current board have presided over, it would be a great disservice for people to ignore the other work that the board has been doing of late including: Appointing Bailey, Connolly and McNamee. All excellent appointments in my view and, in the light of this, it makes it pretty hard to portray the current board as "stagnant" or "overly conservative." How much more change do we need? The Casey Relocation. Hopefully a sustainable, long-term solution to our membership woes. The 150 legends fund-raiser/walk to the 'G etc. Which, despite copping bad press, turned out very well indeed (especially for Jim). I am very happy with the direction that the club is going at the moment and it makes me sick to find out exactly how thankless a task it is to be a board member at Melbourne. Easliy excitable members would do well to compare the efforts of the current board with its predecessors before making a mess in their pants, especially given that Jim hasn't revealed anything yet. In particular, members should remember that it was another ex-player, (Ian Ridley) who led the push for a club merger with Hawthorn...

"If … Jimmy, with his undoubted enthusiasm and love for the club, came on board (and) over the next couple of years, things don't work out, the plans aren't there, the people aren't there and we're facing merger or relocation in two years' time, the members will rightly say: 'How did this happen? How was this allowed to happen? What were the reasons why the board that we elected walked away from the club?' " Michael Coglin quoted in the above article. Coglin (and presumably the other board members) are not the only ones who feel this way. If you ask me the whole thing is arse backwards - Jim Stynes (whom I dearly love and who was my favourite player for a long time) comes out of nowhere and, without even mentioning his plans or his prospective appointments, has the nerve to suggest that the current board should sheepishly make way so as not to make a scene? Give me a break - I didn't vote for Stynes and I don't even know who his running mates are yet. Now none of that is to suggest that Stynes isn't up to the job, but I was surprised to read in an article ironically entitled "How I'll save Dee's: Stynes" (Ironic because he doesn't actually say anything about how he's going to do it or who he's going to do it with) that Stynes thought "that I (Stynes), and many others, have been complacent for far too long thinking someone else will fix the problems faced at the Melbourne Football Club. I knew it was time we got serious." Jim might be surprised to learn that there already are a group of people who have been "getting serious" and trying to "fix the problems." I would have liked to see Jim run a couple of ideas past these people and maybe try co-operating with them for a bit before deciding that nothing short of a full-scale, Messianistic coup would do. Hopefully the whole matter will be clearer after Jim finally speaks to the board on Thursday. I am very curious to hear what exactly Jim plans to do differently (and why he has kept his cards so close to his chest about it). However, Jim's approach so far (co-opting the 150 anniversary and using hot air and sweet nothings to try and drum up support, purley on the basis of his profile as a footballer) has already set alarm bells ringing as far as I'm concerned. Thankfully the current board has at least three level business minds (Starkins, Coglin and Phillips) who obviously place a lot of importance on their responsibilites as elected members. It would be a real shame to see these people painted as "trouble-makers" or "barriers to progress" given their obvious commitment and the great improvements made to the club over the last few years.