Choko

Yze - I don't know why I bother responding, but Fagan is highly acclaimed and has been sought (and he knocked back) by other clubs over the years. You are quite happy to write from the comfort of your seat that he "has no idea". Go to training and say it to his face.

That's just ridiculous. So if we win and go 1 - 8, then it changes. Then Daniher knows how to coach. Read Kevin Sheedy's article from last weekend's feral scum. He makes a very good point about the idiotic opinions of people who will say "he can't coach" when they are 3 - 4, but if they were 4 - 3, then he is a great coach. Interestingly, he makes a very pointed comment about one Garry Lyon. Perhaps disrespect for our coach is a constant amogst melbourne faithful and players.

Mate, get off the drugs or share them round please. Would you prefer a president that went to the media every time we lost, or sacked and burned the footy department every year we don't win a premiership? And if ND were to leave mid season, which is not a likely scenario at all, none of those would be our coach. Chris Fagan? Give me a break, he is footy manager, not coach. Bomber is a good assistant coach. Williams is the only unlikely one?!

Yeh, I think the club should be congratulated (or congraturated!!! LOL) for this initiative. We have the name of the city, and out of 1 billion people, I think this is an exciting idea.

I think I am going to puke if I read too many more people claiming Bruce is soft. Why do people turn on the core nucleus of senior players as if they are the reason we fail. Yes, there are things Cam can improve on. You think he doesn't know that and spend 7 days a week working on it? You think Nathan Jones would be able to have an influence on games without blokes around him? My favourite is the peanut coodabeens who come on here, put down every reason in the world why Cam is no good, then say trade him for Judd. Yeh, he's crap, but maybe WCE doesn't agree! Ok, ok, we will throw in Wheatley and Ward as a sweetener. John Worsfold would be frothing at the mouth. Incidentally, how many "hard" balls does Judd get? No more than Bruce - IT'S NOT HIS PRIMARY JOB! Oh, and Cam has laid 25 tackles to Judd's 22, or is that also a cheap stat? Get off Cam's back, he is easily in our top 5 players this year, and he is certainly not soft.

BBP - seriously, just my feeling. I don't think anyone excpet Daniher and Neitz know if he will play, and maybe not even them yet. I just got the sense he won't play, but nothing more. I hope I'm wrong!

We won't line up like that! Chill out! Warnock almost certain to play, and I still get the feeling Neitz may not play. I also think Nathan Brown should have been dropped, but in terms of ruckmen, Jamar HAD to be dropped and I suspect never ever to return. Paul Johnson is not much good, but he is quick.

Theoretically 3 years of finals makes us contenders too. I wonder if WC's forward would still not be considered up to it if they lost the second GF by a point. I reckon there's a fair argument premiership teams are rated as such in retrospect. Having said that, we need to win 1 game, let alone a premiership!

Putting aside our current plight, I don't know if it's true that our list isn't good enough. I'll put it this way. I think the club and FD thought the list was good enough, with a lot of luck and a top 4 position. There's no way Sydney's list was deemed good enough to win a flag until they did.

Well Jack, there were a lot of beverages before you slipped out! The worst thing about going to a function for lawyers is that you have to spend your time with lawyers! The only other thing Neale said was that we are deliberately putting ourselves in a position to try to poach a big name (i.e. we will have a lot of room in next year's cap). Matthew Reiwoldt and Frank Judd were the examples Danners used (perhaps W_J gave him one too many reds! The difficulty in the past has been the lack of attractiveness of our facilities, but the 2009 plan is going to be extremely appealing to prospects. And yes, Neale is very excited about Frawley - thinks he may play seniors in 3 weeks, and is gong to be a super gun. He also said that he sees Sylvia more as a power forward than a midfielder. I found that peculiar. Regarding yesterday's Herald Sun article, Neale said "Yes, I thought I wrote that one very well!!!"

Yes, Neale did say that. He is a refreshingly honest character most of the time, and he said it's something Fergs knows because he told him too! Said nothign about Newton, but we will be having a look at Warnock.

Hey all, Went to a footy club function tonight, as did a few fellow demonlanders. Bev spoke, followed by El Presidente, Daniher and Paul Williams. A few of the take away messages as I saw them were: 1. Club will be in new premises 2009/2010 2. The Board is acutely aware of our status as a financially disadvantaged side. They are working on many initiatives to remedy it. Nothing new, but good to see that there are people who spend every working minute making our club better. If you can donate to the MFC Foundation, do so! It's tax deductible. 3. We really are coming from a very disadvantaged position in terms of our ability to put a team on the park each week and for the team to be constantly focused on the job at hand. THEY weren't making excuses as such, just presenting facts. Facts such as: We only get access to junction Oval at Round 2 of the season. Before that point we train at Sany, Whitten Oval, Prices Park, Trinity in Kew. Meanwhile, our base is over 2 floors at the MCG and Junction, when we do get it, is too small. Sometimes we get a bit too forgetful of the impact of these things. Paul Williams copared it to Sydney's facilities in 2000 (similar to ours now) and their current state of the art facilities, and mentioned the difference it makes. 4. We are not throwing it in for 2008. We are still trying to make the finals. 5. Daniher knows full well that some of the blokes in the side are not performing as they should and/or may not be up to it. PJ will be persevered with to see if he can answer the question mark over his head as to whether he can play. Fergs is "too slow for full back" and "too weak for the big forwards", and whilst he isn't bad at CHB, Rivers is better. 6. I asked Neale whether he is confident Melbourne players are as hungry 4 the ball as their opponents. He dodged it, except to say that when a bloke like Garland is on a bloke like Leo Barry, who is going to look better? 7. Warnock is going to be looked at - Neale didn't say it, but I suspect this week. 8. Neale dodged the question about whether he would be coaching the dees next year, except to say that planning for 2008 goes on irrespective, as planning has always gone on for the year after he is out of contract. 9. Solid evening, good fingerfood, plenty of (Luke) beverages. All in all, not that eventful, but there you go!

You can take it from me or not. That's fine. You don't know me, I don't know you, so make up your own mind. But think about it. Most players actually cannot refuse to be traded when push turns to shove. Also, if a player knows he hasn't got the faith of the coach, and another side wants him, what do you think the most likely scenario is? And not trading this year was a concerted choice we made, not lack of ruthlessness. Aker chose his club. Which one of the other 2 do you think would have enhanced our pre-injury list? And for whom?

Yeh I agree. But last time I looked, a blog wasn't holding itself out to be literary genius. He heard something, he posted it. Some people think stuff, they post it. Brock's sister's mate probably knows more about Brock's injury than people here do about whether Daniher can coach!

That's garbage. I can tell you from Daniher's mouth that the Hawks did not want to give up Sewell, we wanted him and the Hawks wanted him and a draft pick. Is that us not being ruthless? Or is ruthless Fergs and a draft pick for an unproven and 5 game wonder in Sewell?

Give Madness a break. Seriously, why is it so hard to believe that he is mates with Brock's sister, and Brock told his sister that? And what's wrong with someone tryiong to contribute based on knowledge they may have, especially when he has at least given his source?

I wonder how many people hope that's not true, actually think that's not true, or think that what you've said is clearly not true. I have been thinking about this for quite a while, and whilst I HOPE that it's not true, I think it may be. I reckon lower resourced clubs may have some chance to "pinch" a flag every 10 years or so by bottoming out and getting on a role. But the fact is, in the past 15 years or more even, with the notable exception of Nth Melb, the richer clubs have won the ultimate prize. Is it cyclic? It's hard to think so when we know that the richer are only getting moreso. We have clubs now able to invest in different recruitment patches, and those with money are doing it, thereby giving them more chance to succeed. We know certain clubs have more in their salaray caps. Others can spend more on expert coaching, technologies and rehabilitation processes. Others can get an extra 1% out of their players by flying them on business class. It's about odds and probabilities. Odds are against a side like MFC winning a grand final and having success. Odds are more that a side like Collingwood will have success. Success for Melbourne, unless we somehow become powerful again, is greater and harder to achieve. Depressing.

Yep. Which links back to my first comment. The politician in charge will constantly deny that the game has a problem, then they will react in secret in a way which is illogical and in the best interests of money, not the game.

You posted this 30 seconds before I was going to! Fopr those who said in previous posts that injuries are not a reason, no excuse, etc... have a read and then have a think and then come back. Nobody here was saying that injuries are the only thing to blame (expect maybe Yze_magic on a Tuesday!), but those who discounted injuries and used Adelaide as a comparison, read the article! I personally think we should have beaten Hawthorn, but all the other sides we have played are supposedly good sides who we have played when we are ENORMOUSLY undermanned and crippled by record injuries. This is the time to be a supporter (or a miracle cure worker!).

BBP - other way round mate. They refused to trade Sewell for Fergs.

AFL is sick because it's run by a weasel arrogant politican. I have to say though, on the Burgoyne one, I think it's fair enough he got off. Annoying, but fair enough. If you can't go in to get the ball in the wet, we are going to be so sanitised it's ridiculous.

I have thought it amazing that despite seemingly being pummeled at times, we have always seemed to have a sniff. However, I think that can be misleading, as teams early in the year can manage their players and take the foot off the pedal to give the illusion that we are competing. Certainly last week, any time Sydney wanted to kick a goal, they did. To say we have done well is not right though. We certainly haven't done well.

I don't think he is getting significant game time at all. Quite the opposite. And CJ didnt say he explicitly said that to me - but I reckon it's definitely the case, and I'm not breaking a confidence, because I think it's obvious to most.

Probably fair re Bell. Different game at ground level, and I thought he was good, but not better than the 6 I chose. Godders did a very good job on Goodes, extremely good in fact. However, 4 kicks, 14 handballs, a couple of turnovers and an injured Goodes means I didn't have him top 3.

I have spoken to CJ on numerous occasions, and I am left in no doubt that it is a confidence thing. He has very little of it, because Daniher has none in him. New coach will bring out the best in him.