Choko

Yes, what does this mean that there were those within that were trying to undermine our new coach before Round 1? Bc if true, very concerning.

Amazing effort, especially considering our MCC members who haven't come across, to be ahead of St Kilda for example.

I think you may be over-estimating the Dogs in all this. I really think they made us LOOK like we were more intense, because they are not much better. They were also missing their 4 best defenders. The game was played at a very low standard. I don't hold any hope from the Dogs game. I think they were just a bit worse than our other opposition to date.

Disagree. He does not even sound like he knows what he's talking about. He is actually a dunce.

So Grimes got a week from the tribunal, but was also injured. Should we make him serve his week out after the injury?

Oh please. If Morton was good, then good is the new crap. We cannot and will not win a game of footy with Bartram, Rivers MacDonald and McDonald in the same backline. Too many poor kicks.

Worst. Post. Ever.

Good effort to type when you are clearly medically blind mate. Morton was disgusting. Putting up with Morton and accepting that performance from a bloke playing for his career is worse than jus.tifying mediocrity

Haha. I like that rumour. I am definitely gonna spread it.

They are fun.... or funny....

It's interesting, because I remember going to hear Barry Prendergast and others (including Cam Schwab) speak about list management and planning. One of the factors that BP in particular focused on was trying to predict where football was going, as part of the strategy to make the best list management and recruitment decisions. So Niall's comments that we tried to predict where the footballers would develop, but not football, is probably not fair. I do recall BP saying that elite ball use and endurance were going to be key issues in the way football was likely to evolve in the next few years. I don't recall anything about needing "gorillas" to beat the press. It would be fascinating to see whether BP's predictions for where footy was heading were off, and whether that incorrect assumption lead to certain decisions being made that would have been made differently if different assumptions were used.

I think you will find that Neeld said that his goal was that sides should know they have played Melbourne. I don't think anyone expected that would occur on day 1, least of all Neeld. Regarding the fitness over summer, I don't recall the club saying that we had developed a high level of fitness. I actually think they said that we were miles behind, and only now are starting to work towards an elite level of fitness. I don't think Misson or Neeld were saying, or would be stupid enough to say, we were there yet. It takes time.

I have to say, I am not one bit stressed about the game plan. You can have the world's best game plan, but without the cattle, there is nothing a coach can do week in week out. You have to remember that every team takes years to build their game plan. You cannot define it based on 2 outings, you need to look at it over 2 years or more. Geelong, Collingwood, Hawthorn, WCE are great examples of teams that built up their game plans. I also don't have the slightest concern that Neeld will build and evolve a game plan that is capable of premierships. To me, it is plainly obvious that he (and maybe a few others, including Neil Craig) are the only professionals I would trust.

Cats were especially awesome as I got them under 39 at 3.10, and +8.5 at $2! Also got me 9 in this esteemed footy tipping comp, which means I got 12! Go cats!

I hear that Davey isn't playing.... does anyone know why? I assume it is to have a mental break from footy?

As I have said since this all came to be this morning, the due diligence question is absolutely the relevant question of the MFC. EW and its CEO will have to account for their own behaviour, and that it their problem. We have to explain how we didn't know that this "too good to be true" deal was just that. Blaming the media for this is the last refuge for the weak.

Maybe members' outside views shouldn't matter, but if the voice is united and loud enough, it does. Explain Paul Roos - how could supporters know better who should coach them. Ultimately, the Board is accountable to members and Boards do actually feel the weight of members. Not one, not two, but a resonant force. I personally think the issue is that it is reactive and hysterical to demand anything of the MFC at this point, and I absolutely agree that members who think they know the intricacies are seldom right. By the way, I give Schwab 6 weeks unfortunately.

That's right. But also, saying that Jurrah getting arrested is good for his business wouldn't exactly endear him to the MFC!

Yes and no. It was people power that got Roos appointed at the Swans. The rest is history. Sometimes the club needs to hear from its members, because the rarefied atmosphere of a board room is quite different to the 30000 members' view. If the view being promoted is a minority view, that's one thing. But if a large proportion of the membership feels the same way, that sentiment will be relevant to the Board's decision making.

Look, I probably agree that we cannot work through the issues and maintain the sponsor. In that case, we must act quickly. As in, today. However, principle has consequence.

Whilst I'm not saying we shouldn't ditch the sponsor, with all respect, you and others are totally underestimating the problem we have if we react in that way. Business is not utopia, and you sometimes have to play the cards you're dealt. This sponsor is not us, and we are not it. Yes, there is an association between us and EnergyWatch, but there is no point being too hysterical as if the club itself has done something. If you have $2M/year to give to the MFC, then I agree, you could buy us out of this mess. If not, then we have to accept that any action against a sponsor will likely require an AFL handout. Any handout buys silence with the AFL. How does that go against the comments in the other racism thread about standing on our own feet?

Sounds like a class bloke, this Polis. I have a feeling he is Energy Watch, as in the company couldn't sack him and replace him. It is the risk of these types of sponsors, as distinct from a blue chip type sponsor. That being the case, I can't see how our Board could do nothing. I reckon The Board's choices are to try to demand some sort of counselling plus cease and desist plus denouncement of the awful and derogatory language, or dismiss the sponsor. There is almost zero chance the terms if our sponsorship would allow us to keep the money but discontinue performance of the sponsorship obligations. I really feel for the club and Board, who have had this thrust upon them in addition to everything else. I would question the due diligence done on Energy Watch and Polis before entering into agreement, because it doesn't sound like it would have been too hard to find out about this guy's values. The biggest loser out of this may yet be Cameron Schwab. Not saying it should be, just crystal ball gazing.

Brock is a massive star at Carlton. Travis was a massive star at Brisbane....

I think the AFL deliberately went public on the Rendell issue, to highlight the race issue. Potentially, through Mifsud, the AFL has heard the message that racism/ignorance is widespread, and they wanted to put the issue on the public agenda. So Mifsud might have felt sanctioned to publicise the issue, especially since it is his whole portfolio (and it seems he may have a chip on his shoulders). Now it might be that Mifsud misled the AFL, and because he is a favourite son, they took him at face value, and in so doing thought that racism was bigger an issue (at least at MFC) than it actually is. That may explain why the AFL didn't accept Mifsud's explanation, and why the AFL is also in thsi up to their eyeballs. AD's explanation that Mifsud shouldn't have been having off the record conversations, saying that GT was liable for breaching off the record conversations, and also saying that he regularly has off the record conversations was twisted logic at best.

I agree. But there is a chance he was encouraged (more boardly, maybe) to build awareness of race issues and to put the issue on the map again. In which case, his employer would back him.