Tigers Dayz

What's your answer?

Below is the answer 45,

124 x 52 = 6448

In fact the 12 month's growth to June 30 2007 (latest available I think) was 6844. That = 132 people/week.

I don't know whether Nugget (or someone else) transposed the figures prior to doing a calculation, but it seems too co-incidental that the same digits are involved.

The 6844 is ABS stat for Casey's growth.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lo...;num=&view=

Casey's current population is about 235,000. It will grow to 350,000 over the next 15-20 years if the Urban Growth Boundary stays in the same place. If it moves out further (and the govt has promised to keep 15 years supply of land within the UGB) then there will be even more growth.

That is the key to the success of the move to Casey.

As far as a tradies paradise is concerned, that's spot on. Not only does the growth drive significant employment in the building industry, but a heck of a lot of tradies live in Casey. They have money and kids!!

....and of course..

To suggest that the MFC only invited MCC members to the summit is insulting to both the board and the chosen few [ME ]

I am not nor have I ever been a MCC member. I am a blue collar worker and have always been.

A normal member since 1987. Maybe I was picked because I wrote[ remember pen and paper] and hand delivered my ideas to the

club? Who knows? Who really cares, but the thing is in 20 years as a member I cant remember any other board doing anything

like this.

Wish there were more like you, 849dennisj..... also, what's pen and paper, and hand delivery?

....................

Nice to see that everybody in this thread is focussing on the positive ideas being submitted and not going off on a tangent of 'Us vs Them' that has been done to death a million times. Great work guys, i'm sure bickering like 12y.o. girls is the best way we can help the club :angry:

MCC member are you, Golgothan? Don't want to discuss an historical problem? What is your suggestion to make MFC stonger?

Is it get all MCC members to become MFC members also? Sorry dude, too few, too little money, no reason for them to consider. And don't tell me the reason should be 'to save the MFC'. That's lame.

Is it that MFC should re-affiliate with the MCC. Unfortunately 78% of MCC members who barrack for other clubs will veto that.

This isn't about 'us vs them', it has wider financial connotations involving membership/sponsorship/gate.

These precise issues need to be addressed, now.

Maybe Macca can captain one week, then Macca can captain the next week

No multiple captains at Melbourne, please. Macca or McLean. McLean is ready now though.

I love you people who play forum footy. One day I'm going to travel down from the country to look. Keep it up and get into it...... Sorry, please continue.

This forum seems to paint the MCC member viewpoint due to those numbers posting here.

The MCC member viewpoint is skewed to the wealthier supporter demograhic, hence 'silvertail', range rover'.

I've discussed earlier how MFC/MCC affiliation would seem impossible to me due the fact that only 22% of MCC are MFC supporters; not MFC members.

I can only help the debate by saying there is a whole other demographic out there. These are the lifeline of the club, not MCC cum MFC members.

Many of we ordinary MFC members sit in that [censored] forward pocket. It seems to us like Collingwood and Essendon members and supporters have better seating; so there's input #1

The club never replies to any of my emails, for example, clash jumper, whereas I see frequently that MCC/MFC members are acknowledged with bountiful replies. I read them here. I think the club still has a silvertail culture.

Moving to Casey seems to be a chore, rather than an expansion and acceptance of demograhic change. I love the MCG too, but this move, if handled in a long term way and embracing the peninsular culture and people somehow is critically important; input #2.

No 45, I am definitely not painting myself into a corner. Cheers.

Your first para is based on what?

The rest is [censored].

This was in the MCC News earlier this year (2007)

MCC

Melbourne 22%

Essendon 14%

Collingwood 12%

Carlton 9%

Hawthorn 8%

Richmond 8%

Geelong 8%

Other 20%

I hope you are not having a go at me, and I am not really proving anything, I am offering an opinion as to why I think the HUGE supporter base difference exists.

It's because of this, that we have such a huge task.

The "silver tail" thing is another issue which should have long run it's race but unfortunatly still exists thanks to media and other wankers that keep dragging it out. We need to shake it. IF NOT..

If we can affiliate with the MCC (as we should be) have MCG as our training and Admin base, and count MCC members that support MFC as full members then the AFL can get [censored].

Shepparton.... very small considering C C and E and probably related to the ones that were in C C and E hence barracked for them also.

p.s. I grew up in the Mid Murray, in a Richmond zone where Geoff Raines came from. When he went to Richmond EVERYONE in district followed Richmond, and I am sure they got memebers from it that are still with them today. That's 30 odd years.

The MFC supporters in the MCC are becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the MCC. Many of their children who were placed on the membership waiting list since birth do not take up the membership due to other priorities in their lives, not to mention the annual cost.

This whole thing about re-affiliating with the MCC can only be a temporary arrangement. In fact it will never fly because of MCC internal and opposing supporters opposition to re-affiliation.

Further, this supposed Holy Grail will not ensure MFC's future. If this is pursued at the expense of the wider demographic, then the MFC is finished. If it can be used to get MFC cheap use of the MCG, then that is the best outcome. It will be temporary, however, due to growing and opposing MCC forces.

Imagine if all Greeks and Italians that came to Aus during the 40 50 60's were located in areas that supported MFC how many supporters we would have. As their relo's follow, they follow. ie. ess coll carl

We are supposedly CBD, Brighton, Toorak etc.

Zoneng is what caused most of it. What was MFC's zone?

Thanks for proving my point about cliques, demographics, silvertails and range rover sets. That is the point, I'm amazed it continues.

Also, if that is still the demographic then, syonara baby.

I think you have eloquently described what a huge job Jimmy and the board have in front of them.

Just as an aside, the regional zone MFC had was the Shepparton area, highly populated by immigrants from Greece and Italy...

Put simply, the reason carlton, collingwood and essendon have huge supporter bases is due to immigration.

FW... please expand on that opinion so we understand exactly what you mean and how valid that argument is.

By the way , I think you're the one ready to pop..

Received by email the following from Jimmy, which some of you may have received. I'd say this summit may provide some answers to Jimmy's blueprint...

I would like to make you aware of a very important day coming up for our Club on Sunday 16 November.

When I was made President, I was overwhelmed by the number of people who wanted to help. Many of you came to me with ideas of ways in which we could make the Melbourne Football Club better, particularly in relation to our business performance. I would now like to bring all of those people together on one day who have ideas to improve our Club heading into the future. .........

........................... If you have an idea that you think can assist our Club to achieve our goals, then please complete the 'expression of interest form' by clicking here.

The event will be held at a Melbourne location (TBC) on Saturday 16 November, and will run from approximately 8.30 am until 2 pm. There will be no cost to attend this event.

Go Dees,

Yeah, I got that too.

Great idea, by "select supporters" does he means supporters that follow Melbourne?

Might want to hold off until you get selected hey

Looks like the clique were a 'done deal'.

Funny thing about this forum is that all of the key posters are MCC members. And an arrogant, know-all bunch, a lot of them are.

I must admit that given the traffic here that tries to find ways of improving membership levels of the MFC, and statements from clowns like Nugget Jones about 'weak country members' (ref post #7, 'we deserved more sunday games'), I'm becoming less amazed at MFC's poor membership/attendance/gate.

The club will probably find that to get the levels of support collingwood, essendon, richmond etc get, you need to appeal to the majority middle class football nuts. I can't believe I am saying that in this country. You are not going to get the levels of support those 3 clubs have pandering to the minority rich. Sponsors know that. The MFC needs to undertand that this part of their history needs some level of rethink, and do something to foster the inclusion of Melbourne Demon barrackers and supporters in the wider demographic, rather than the silvertail, range rover set.

I have been a member of Demonland for only 3 months or so, but it has crystallised to me, to a certain extent, why MFC is where it is.

See, I did not know in 1959 when I was old enough to barrack for MFC that I'm not really the demographic that MFC wants. Neither did my wife later on. And given we grew up and live in Wangaratta, which makes it diffucult to attend games, we have still made the effort to travel and spend and be there.

We now have adult chidren who are also keen supporters.

You city folk, and particularly you MCC know-alls, decide what you really want. Maintain your clique, or maintain your club!

........................

However, I don't agree with your assumption that you have no doubt that the AFL are willing and "happy for us to die." Based on the fixture.

I've got an idea.... let the AFL give Collingw&%$ 13 sunday games to see how a 'pulling' club fares. We can take their draw and we'll do the numbers at the end of the season. We'll have a little look at our home attendances, membership numbers, and whether any new sponsors want to come on board.

Then we'll interview Eddie and see how they fared compared to 2008... If their earnings and numbers remain ok, given they are such a great club, then everyone wins. He may even want to continue to 'own' sundays.

Everyone, including Vlad are happy...

Yes it is, as I have pointed out myself in the first sentence of the post. A clear message from the AFL that we are not rated and not wanted means our survival is at critical point. Had we been given a decent draw I would be more confident that the AFL would tolerate more bottom-dwelling, but they won't.

Perhaps I should be like most others, form an opinion and then stick to it no matter what happens eh?

Nope.. you debate with an open mind. More people here could benefit from doing the same. Well done.

I am [censored] off that we have lost a player for nothing. Our club has put the effort in over 5 years on this bloke. He is worth something. He is not a football 'dog'. Carlton have contived to get CJ for nothing. These pox ridden blues add nothing to AFL football. They scheme, steal and contrive through corruption, and are monumentally represented by the likes of the punching, pissing, disgracefull act, Fevola, who typifies a whimpy, sulking dog.

......Typically by blood sucking two faced player managers. People who think its a discussion only between the player and Club and its centred on loyalty and bleeding for the jumper are fooling themselves.

Give us a break Rhino, we know there's no 'bleeding for the jumper' according to you. You been saying it for years. Just move over for a while.

Some of guys must be kidding

4 pages of posts ?

For a Bordeline at best AFL player ?

Please lets talk about something that matters

Read the 4 pages, or don't read the 4 pages, but don't whinge. Off you go then Swampfox.... start talking about something that matters.

BHOOOOOOOOOOOOO ........... BHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.

You will be savaged Chrissy when you play us.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I don't think he'll be getting a game at round 21 when we play them. If he and Warnock are getting a game it will prabably confirm that Visy are a poor man's St Kilda. I think we'll beat them, and I don't think Visy have got the cattle to come from tank to top plank.

Are you serious?

We win 8 games out of 44 and you think that the poor crowd attendance is because of fixturing?

Yes, sunday games have had an adverse impact on attendance. That is why our members and supporters have asked for less sunday games.

However, I did not say it was the only reason.

Exactly. Are attendances are reflective of our on-field performance, not when we play. It's not rocket science.

It's not rocket science to ignore other reasons for falling crowds either. I suspect there's a combination of reasons, not only poor performance.

Were the poor crowd figures of Hawthorn a few years ago (and St Kilda a little longer back) due to destructive fixturing by the AFL targetted at the Hawks and Saints back then?

No they weren't. Their fixturing has never been adversely targeted like ours with regard to sunday and twilight games. I'm not saying that poor performance does not impact crowd numbers. The point of my post was that we should not be penalised by bad fixturing due to poor home attendances, which is a fallacy.

I'll reiterate; we are current positioned 5th of 10 Victorian teams for home attendance figures, 2000-2008 inclusive.

While the fixturing and the MCG deals are difficult ones for MFC, you are gilding the lily to suggest our attendances are not too bad. We are presently financially rooted due to a number of issues including the matters you raise.

Geelong has indeed been squeezed by Kardinia Park and where they rank on the list above will alter the accuracy of the analysis.

What KP does is that it compels Geelong supporters to buy a membership and reserve a seat otherwise they may get a look in at a Cattery game. Its also tailor made for their corporate entertainment.

Fair to say, our attendances are getting worse now. We are currently 5th for home game attendances 2000-2008 inclusive, but heading down fast. 2007 and 2008 saw our attendance drop below St Kilda, Hawthorn and Geelong, IMO due to destructive fixturing by the AFL.

I don't believe we deserve this fixturing on the basis that we sit middle of the Victorian pack for home game attendances. Our home attendance average for this millenium is 32.8k compared to Carlton's 35.3k and they have only overtaken us during 2007-8.

IMO, it can't be home game crowd numbers which have the AFL creating an environment for our extinction.

While we still need to get 35,000+ members next year and put more bums on seats, a significant challenge given the destructive fixturing; the underlying problems are our historic inability to gain corporate support and our inability to get a fair stadium deal, along with no footy home etc. That inheritence lies directly at the feet of our previous boards.

While we know the new board are doing all they can to rectify the damage overseen by previous boards, it is now super important that the footy department get our boys competitive and winning almost immediately.

I'd just like to think that no contract, irrespective of whom it is signing up, can result in a situation where the club is paying too much money for a non performing player. There are many historic examples. Paying money for nothing kills a club like ours.

Contracts should be performanced based, in that they reduce by a margin each year pending a satisfactory annual review which can provide bonus top-ups if necessary.

I don't care if this puts us on the outer with regards prima donna players, for example, Robert Warnock. We should stick to the young blokes and hard contracts, which I think is happening.

Of the 10 Victorian based clubs, here's how we stand for home game crowd attendances between 2000-2008.

We are 5th overall. The clubs below us are St Kilda, Hawthorn, WBulldogs, Geelong, Nth Melb.

2000 4th

2001 4th

2002 6th

2003 7th

2004 5th

2005 3rd

2006 5th

2007 8th

2008 7th

Apart from our bad year in 2003, our attendances have not been too bad. You can see what has happened in the last 2 seasons with crap fixturing by the AFL.

Between crap fixturing and, IMO, our MCG deal, we are financially rooted.

It is interesting that Geelong have been squeezed by skilled stadium capacity, but make massive dollars out of those games.

-it's basically because weak country members like YM dont entirely support this club

This says a lot about your intelligence Nugget.

I would suggest a country members $110 is better than nothing, or indeed going to Collingwood.

A 'weak..not entirely supporting' country member still clicks the turnstyles maybe 5 home games per year.

It costs him $100 per time in transport, and a whole day, to support the club in this way. He brings paying mates.

He still participates in debt demolition and buying the $200 raffle tickets.

No, the problem is that not enough of you City [censored] are supporting the club. It's easy for you to put your bum on a seat and bring mates.. so f'well do it, and get your silver spooned mates to get off their wallets, pay up, and get out from in front of the TV as well.

Your attitude is a big part of the MFC problem.

Let's not call it anything and it might go away... we'll just go to the G.

I agree that Wheatley's better off playing further up the ground, but don't think Dunn is suitable for the 'third tall' role.

You could be right, Rogue. But if that's right I wonder what the future role of Dunnie will be be. If he remains the new Godfrey, his future is clouded. If he was a forward he should have grasped a position there considering the poor state of our forward line this year.

Didn't Garland play on Farmer in one game?

That only leaves Warnock and Martin, plus Rivers to take the third tall.

Yep, that's right. Wheatley can also take the 3rd tall. My preference is to develop Dunn into taking a third tall to add to his kitbag of capabilities, as Bruce had to do in the past. I like Wheatley to be more a utility player and use his pace and drive. Garland can try out at CHF, but also play back if absolutely necessary.

Our key defensive posts prospects look good and that gives me some confidence going into the future. Keep them together and build a understanding. We look like a rabble atm cause we are but things turn around quick. I bet you Hawks supporters in '04 would think they'll be no where near it come '08.

Don't forget, Jacey, we really only need 3 of the 190+cm backs to take on the opposition talls, if indeed the opposition of the day is playing 3 talls. If we try to load Garland, Warnock, Rivers and Martin into the backline, we are too tall for the oppositions runners and crumbers.

Rather than drop one of them, and because we don't have key position forwards, until Watts is weened, then Garland is the obvious choice IMO.