mauriesy

An almanac is an "annual reference book composed of various lists, tables, and often brief articles relating to a particular field" ... in this case Melbournefc. Perfectly apt description of the content, and I like the concept. What would you prefer ... something plain like "handbook"?

Gee, we are really plumbing the depths of carping when we take a small printing error as another opportunity for a potshot at this great club.

But golf in Australia has huge trouble getting sponsors. The Australian PGA Tour is shrinking to miniscule proportions compared to what it was a decade ago. It has reduced television coverage and ratings are down. McNamee was responsible for the Australian Open, the national championship run by Golf Australia. After the debacle of the Moonah Links experiment, McNamee revived this event somewhat by centering it in Sydney for five years, maximising sponsorships and stabilising the costs. He introduced innovative ideas like the "pub hole" as a way of getting publicity and "sexing up" the event ... if that is possible with golf. Unfortunately the current major sponsor, MFS, is in huge financial trouble and looks like selling off assets (like the Falls Creek and Mt Hotham ski resorts*) and dropping sponsorships to survive. Maybe now isn't a good time for McNamee to stay with the event. * Hey, there's an idea ... perhaps the new owners of these resorts could sponsor Melbournefc with "bottom of the ladder" winter packages.

Gee ... we've got a new coach, three new assistant coaches, new recuiting manager, new Football Operations Manager, now a new CEO. We're working towards a new admin and training base at the new stadium, the delay of which is hardly our fault as we were one of the first to commit. Hardly slow change! There is the tardy problem of a summer training base, which could be fixed by developing Casey fields. But I'm trying to work exactly what else recently the board could look at doing, and how much more you'd expect. They're not the ones who roll up their sleeves and do all the work on the ground. Just because Caroline Wilson suddenly spouts on one footy show about us being basket cases and the biggest worry for the AFL doesn't mean we're about to go bankrupt.

I put it up because it was so bad, not because it wasn't Frawley. The photos of Lynden Dunn Daniel Bell Jack Grimes are also not very complimentary. You'd think they could have got something better. Oh, and this one's apparently Paul Johnson: Paul Johnson

Noticed these pics in the player profiles on the MelbourneFC pages of the Herald Sun: James Frawley Colin Garland Mark Jamar Shane Valenti Hmmmm.

A pick in the 60s, an early second round pick, a pick in the 50s and a rookie. What exactly was their potential?

I thought Hudson and Meesen wanted to get rid of the Crows, not the other way round.

I think we'll find that our opinions about what constitutes our best 22 (see the "Best team on the park" thread) might be radically different by half way through the year, or maybe even after the NAB Cup.

I agree. The problem with MFC4Life's team of: FB:Bell Carroll Whelan HB: Petterd Rivers Wheatley C: Green McLean Bruce HF: Sylvia Robertson Bate FF: Yze Neitz Davey Rov: White McDonald Jones Interchange: Meesen Bartram Newton Moloney is that with the exception of Petterd, Jones and half the the interchange, it's basically the same as the one we had towards the end of 2006. This best 22 will change, otherwise all our list rejuvenation has been for nothing. The likely usurpees are Carroll, Whelan, Wheatley, Robertson (at least from CHF), Yze, McDonald (age only), White and Moloney. The likely usurpers are Dunn, Newton, Frawley, Meesen, Buckley, Garland, Morton, Grimes and Maric, probably in that order. I'd expect at least 3-4 changes to MFC4Life's "best on the park" if we're going to get anywhere.

Drinking, partying and excessive consumption? Merry Christmas to everyone.

Excellent work Jack. Combined with your ND draft article HARDER THAN A CAT'S HEAD, it's a great rundown on our drafting for 2007.

Bartram has shifted to 3.

In case you hadn't noticed, nerdy guys rule the world. Nerdy is the new black.

Not as bad as the sportsman on the TV last night whose name was BASSINGTHWAIGHTE (as in Natalie). Guess that's one argument in favour of YZE.

He's not the first player in the world to receive a tag every week. Every really good player receives a tag week-in and week-out.

Certainly interesting to note all the "gones" from 2004. Great article Mr Demonland.

You must be deluded if you think you'll find them in the PSD or rookie draft.

Thanks Craig, I'm going to miss you. May you always have a pick before us.

Recruiters don't need to see them play a game of football at draft camp. They have seen them play countless games at junior level against their peers. They know their footballing skills. The tests at draft camp are there to measure players' physical attributes such as agility, endurance, speed and heart-lung capacity. They also measure psychological traits to help them determine whether a player can stand the rigours, training and maybe moving away from home involved in AFL football, which are not always apparent at junior level. Players who are a bit "raw" because of lack of skills coaching at junior level can still make it if they have the other desirable attributes (although they usually slip through to the rookie draft and get picked more on potential rather than pure skill). Players who don't have the physical capacity or the determination to be footballers rarely make it, regardless of how skilled they are. That's what draft camp is supposedly for ... to weed them out.

It would be great to have more memberships. But the direct financial difference between our "miniscule" 27,000 members and Collingwood's "massive" 40,000 is only $2 million, minus some extra expenditure to service them (member packs, cards etc.). It certainly doesn't account for the total difference in revenue between us and Collingwood, and would be about 8% of the cost of running the club. Theoretically, you could make that up in a few additional good sponsorships. Where the difference lies is in the momentum those members bring, and the extra marketing opportunity for sponsors etc.

And the AFL is busily weaving the basket. They've effectively said to the Kangaroos that "if you want North To Stay South, then the Gold Coast push is over for you". Their first action is to remove the Kangaroos from the Gold Coast during the pre-season competition, and shift their community camp from the Gold Coast to Bairnsdale (!). They look like letting the Kangaroos play only three games instead of the requested four on the Gold Coast next year, reduced to none in 2009. Each Gold Coast game is worth $400,000, meaning a potentially reduced revenue of $400,000 in 2008 and $1.6 million in 2009. The AFL has denied any "payback", saying "the Kangaroos want to grow their Victorian base. We're actually working to achieve their ends. It couldn't possibly be argued that there's any payback or anything negative about it." <_<

According to the Age this morning, the spin from the AFL is that North Melbourne is different because they have private shareholders. Quote: "In further moves, AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou told the Kangaroos that neither the league nor the majority of its clubs would support on-going special assistance to a club run by private shareholders. North Melbourne will lose its $1.4 million annual AFL lifeline within two seasons unless the club hands its powerbase back to its members." Demetriou also says that given the board decision to remain in Melbourne, he wants the private shareholders to contribute more money, which they haven't to date.

Of course there had to be the "could not believe our good fortune he was still available at pick three" angle (on Zomer).

From one Clint B to another!