hoopla

... I can't believe how one dimensional people are... clearly this post was premissed on the fact that we won't/can't get a paying sponsor by round one. As soon as we get a paid sponsor, the idea falls out of the suggestion box forever Without a paying sponsor - we can either run around with an empty jumper looking like a waste of space - or attract a bit of positive publicity as a community - minded organisation. The publicity we get - even if a bit of this cynicism is included - will demonstrate the profile a paying sponsor will get if they sign up by round two!!

Ok - lets do a bit of lateral thinking here. We can't get a paying sponsor... so why not donate sponsorship to a cause that everyone respects. If you don't like giving it away - ask for,say, $5 per game. Melbournefc... proudly supported by the Red Cross " Give Blood" Why the Red Cross?- because they are the front-of-mind organisation looking after the bushfire victims It's not as stupid as it sounds.Just think of the publicity we would get amongst football and non football people. How many extra members would we get if we promised to donate 10% of the money to the Red Cross Bushfire Appeal? What have we got to lose? I don't think the Red Cross would stand in the way of a paying sponsor who decided after Round One to jump on the bandwagon and come to the party.We'd just have to cover the cost of changing the logo on a set of guernseys!! Sounds crazy - but better than a big empty space. What d'you reckon?

I am delighted with the Casey initiative. But there is absolutely no way that an AFL game will ever be played there. Why would anyone pay $500k to put on a game in front of a few thousand people from the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne ? How many non-members wil happily pay admission to stand at the footy knowing they will have to sit in the carpark for three hours after the game before crawling back up the highway? Won't happen.

As I've said before I'm happy with Jurrah who puts another KPP into the mix - but as we didn't get Warnock, I am puzzled ( and concerned!) that we didn't try to rookie a ruckman or two. Big men take longer to mature - and you can't expect them to look "completely ready" when they are only 18....but you've got to get them some time.

I know the MFC has braoder stakeholders - but all of these stakeholders have benefitted from the revenue generated by the MFC for over 100 years - and continue to benefit from a sports museum that features the glory days of the MFC. All members enjoy being part of an institution which would not exist in its present form if it had not been for the MFC. It is in that sense that I think they remain indebted to us

I can't believe we are devoting a post to Jeff White and Darren Jolley in 2004. Every time this is discussed people forget the issue - the introduction of the restriced centre circle. Jeff White was the best ruckman in the league when he had a free run at the centre bounce.With that in mind the club let their tallest man go (Jolley) go .Three weeks later, the rules changed. White instantly became an average centre bounce ruckman - and Jolley's height became an asset. The AFL was irresponsible changing that rule after the trade period. Would we have placed such faith in Jeff White's ability to carry the rucks - if we had known that he would have jump into monsters off only 3 or 4 steps for the rest of his career? Whitey's gone. I don't think Jamar is up to it. PJ is a good utility tall and useful support ruckman. Meeson looks a waste of space. ....which leaves Spencer - who has something - but can't kick. I know I have to put my disappointment that didn't at least rookie another this year behind me. As for Jeff White in 2004 -forget it and move on!

Is there anything of substance behind this post? The club will consistently put out the line that it is "hoping to find a sponsor soon"...... but that doesn't mean it has one. Seriously boys ................ do you really know something?

I am delighted with the $1m subsidy. But I'm afraid I don't think it is especially generous when you think of the part the MFC played in the development of the MCC and the MCG itself. $1m is small bikkies to the MCC. The MCC cashes in on the history of the MFC everytime it parades its guests past the MFC trophy cabinet in the members stand. At the very least I think the MCC owes the MFC financial security - and I agree that we should use our votes to keep reminding them of that.

Bay..gotta thank you for your comments. Just hope there is someone with a very loud voice ( outside the club) to take up the cudgels. Over the years the AFL has been able to successfully bully just about everyone -except the MCC. As you say, at least Gough "is still talking' ..... Unfortunately such help as they have given us is not enough! Anyway............... I hope you are right THanks

Interesting..."damned if you do , even worse if you don't".I guess I'm at the "even worse if you don't"stage. You are probably right - they don't believe they owe us something - which is why I wanted to draw attention to some tangible evidence ie the trophy cabinet. Perhaps some of the trustees need to think beyond their 'balance sheet". You are of course correct in saying that the MFC must do all it can to reciprocate. I suspect that we have offered just about everything we've got in terms of access to players etc already. "There's none so deaf as those who will not hear" We are on the edge. All the wining and dining and soft-selling and professionalism we can muster has not delivered us anything like a satisfactory outcome. Perhaps we'd get more sympathy from the football world and more membership - if a journo or two started to say " Hang on .... you guys parade the history of the MFC to every person who pays you for a guided tour - and you won't even give them $1m to keep them alive" This probably is "playing with fire"...................... but the flames are closing in around us anyway.

I would like to agree with you - but if this morning's papers are correct, the hand is not going to give us enough food to stay alive. Do you agree that we need the MCC? Do you agree that the MCC owes us something? Do you believe that the MCC will give us the support we need without some sort of public pressure? We continue to watch the MCC give other clubs better ground sharing arrangements than they give us. If I was confident that the MCC would give us more than just token sponsorship, I would be the last person to criticise them. We are desperate - Jim has clearly explained to them how desperate we are - and yet they are resisting a request to match AFL's support $ for $. Our viability is very much in question right NOW.I hope you don't think we will keep rolling along without fundamental change in the nature of MCC support. What is going to change them - if not some public pressure.?

Both papers this morning carried articles suggesting that the MCC does not intend to do anything tangible to help sustain the MFC. Perhaps there is no substance to these stories - and perhaps I can be criticised for taking them at face value without knowledge of the facts. But the stories are consistant with the minimalist support the MCC has given us for decades How quickly they forget. The power and prestige that comes from being an MCC trustee was built on the back of the AFL and the MFC. In cold hard commercial terms , the MCC may be able to do better with its money than to help the AFL sustain the MFC - but for as long as it markets the tradition of the ground and attracts visitors with walls covered with MFC memorabilia the MCC will remain indebted to the MFC. Cameron Schwab was recently quoted as saying that the MFC ranked 16th on every AFL performance indicator - except one : "Tradition". Right now ,the MCC seems happy to cash in on our one asset while sitting back and watching us die. Now I know we can't take possesion of our trophy cabinet because we have no place to put it - but this only adds to the debt. Unfortunately Jimmy and his team can't come out and attack the MCC - because they have to preserve whatever sceric of a relationship remains. Perhaps it up to us supporters and the media to call for justice.

OK Mate.. I'll put my disappointment behind me and move on too ( with the new stickers on the car!!)

Can't say I did - but then they weren't 25, 24 and 22 at the start of 2007 either. Do you really think we have a strong list of ruckmen? ( Ball already had a premiership behind him at the start of 2005 - and Jolley was well ahead of Jamar)

At rookie list level - you are only ever going to get "potential" Jordie is a potential midfielder, Sibosado is a potential key forward.Browne is a potential ruckman. If we had two or three proven key forwards and a strong group of young ruckmen, then I'd be pleased that we'd taken the potential midfielder. Time will tell. Good luck Jordie

The Age article clearly suggests Bruce or JMac. To me, JMac is past his best - and would be a one year appointment only - which suggests Bruce. Bruce makes too many errors for mine I think Bruce will get the job - but I'd give it to Green. He has grown since missing out on the keadership group at the atart of last year- he's terrific under pressure and he makes good decisions VOTE 1 BRADLEY GREEN

Surely if Meeson doesn't deliver again we should try to pay him out. I've noticed Jamar amongst other peoples' delistings. Problem is that we have made no attempt to find ruckmen to replace them - even in the rookie draft .... although 4 or 5 went to other clubs after our last pick. GC17 will snap up the top 2 or 3 ruckmen next year. Do we actually believe that Jamar, PJ, Meeson and Spencer will form a premiership ruck combination.

OK Mick that is fair enough. I'll qualify your conclusion slightly :"If a gun ruckman ends up coming from a pick after Jordie McKenzie, then I reckon we've made a mistake even if Jordie does come through - because we need big men more than we need midfielders " We will only need Jordie if the midfielders we have recruited in the last two years don't come through - which means we've stuffed up anyway! Nothing against Jordie - I hope he is a gun - and I'll be cheering him on at Casey( ..... and beyond..?)

From what I have seen and heard, this guy was well worth the pick ...a really smart piece if recruiting. Every recruit is a risk - and few have as much upside potential as he does. I certainly won't be criticising anyone if for some reason he doesn't make it. Clearly he loves the game - and he's going to come into a very supportive environment. I'll trust our our welfare and development people - and look forward to seeing him in the NAB Cup. Jurrah-- Hurrah!

It seems that the main argument against picking a tall is that quality talls are hard to find.To me that's all the more reason to put a few on the rookie list. The fact that 4 out of every 5 talls won't make it is an argument for trying 5 - not an argument for trying none. I've tended to use the term "talls" and KPP's . I also mean "rucks" and "strong bodies". Don't tell me that Geelong and Hawthorn don't have more height and weight on their list than we do ...and don't tell me that players like Bate, Garland, Rivers and Frawley have the muscle to protect our midfielders. I keep seeing Butcher's name crop up as our salvation. How are we going to get him when GC 17 has all the early picks? We've devoted 9 of our last 11 draft picks to midfielders. .... that ought to be enough to boost our running power. At the end of last season we had to play Holland and White to give our team some balance. Well we've lost them - and Carroll and Neitz - and we haven't tried to replace their height and weight. Too often over the last decade , we've looked small. I had hoped that we would have used this last uncompromised draft to redress that. Anyway ... I must be positive ... we've got Spencer and Zomer down there - and besides we're not going to get any long term injuries! By the way,the three best ruckmen Melbourne have recruited in the last ten years have been rookies - Jolley,Simmonds and Jamar - and two of them have proved excellent players. Who are the two best ruckmen in the AFL now? Cox and Sandilands - both rookies.

Are you suggesting that the type of player selected is irrelevant? Tell me a team which has won the premiership in the last 50 years without a good strong spine. The fact is that of the 20 players on our list below 22 years of age, only Jack Watts, Liam Jurrah ( who is listed at 188cm) Juice Newton and Stef Martin are more than 192 cm. We are supposed to building the nucleous of a premiership team. We face a compromised draft during the next 3 years. As I said before we are only going to need McKenzie and Healy if all of the midfielders on our list fail. But if just one of our young talls fails - we'll struggle to put a balanced team on the park. Doesn't the club have faith in the nine young midfielders it has selected over the last two years? If you don't like Sibosado ( who I've seen dominate a game) - why not young Bock or Browne or Gaertner or Shepheard. They would have added something we haven't got already. Casey won't need many midfielders on their list next year - but they'll sure need a few big men.

Well said, the Voice. I couldn't agree more I've seen Sibosado play - he has prodigous talent and was worth a gamble. If he does make it - he will be a match-winner. I'm similarly disappointed with Healy and especialy Hughes. We let 4-5 young talls slip through. There might only be a 5% chance that any of these make it - may be less - but having concentrated on midfielders for each of the last two national drafts, you'd reckon that it was a chance worth taking. Talls take longer to develop - and you need tall options to win a flag. The only way we'll get any value out of McKenzie and Healy will be if our national draft picks don't work out - and if Valenti doesn't come on. Do we believe in Morton,Grimes, Maric,Cheney,Blease, Strauss, Bennell, Jetta and Bail or don't we? THe cliub should have backed its earlier decisions and gone for something different here. No disrespect to McKenzie & Co ....but the policy which lead to their selection smacks of caution. No risk - no return

---------------- This is probably the most positive you could reasonably be about this selection. I don't think there is enough upside with him to have warranted a pick. Better to have gone for Shepheard,Bock,Browne or Gaertner - all tall kids who might develop in the long-term.. As to honoring a promise in 2007? What if the AFLPA had gotten into the act...we need to be able to demonstrate to all our players that they can trust us. If that's what got him over the line,I'll accept it. Otherwise he is a disappointing selection

He'll need to be good because we took him ahead of Sibosado - even though we've recruited 8-10 other midfielders in the last two years and only one other KPP. Good luck, Jordie ( sound like he might have a kilt in the wardrobe)

Thanks for that , Goose, that explains it. In a pure football sense a wasted pick - but for the fabric of the club the right call