sue

Others may have better data, but I think I had a junior membership in the 1960's for $1 though my memory isn't great. With the multitude of packages these days it's a bit unclear, but I think that is the same as a $71 junior membership now. Using the well-known dim-sim inflation index, I reckon that the cost is about double now*. Having paid a fortune for 5 to attend last year's QB match, I reckon it's worse for adults, but I don't have the figures. * This site would say that the value of a $1 in 1960 is $15 now whereas I assumed about $30-40. That would imply it costs 6 times as much now. Of course there are other factors over such a long period of change. https://www.in2013dollars.com/australia/inflation/1960?amount=1 (I agree that food and beverage is avoidable.)

Maybe, but surely he will only become interested in footy by the footy itself, not by some videos concerning players etc., however cool. I'm an old fogie, but I reckon going to the footy and playing it when young is what makes a footy fan. Pity the cost of going to the footy is now so huge in these modern professional commercial days.

He is playing for Southern District Crocs (what a name) in the NTFL. I accidentally saw the last quarter of a game on SBS's NITV last week and there he was vs the Wanderers I think. His team won by a lot but did not score a single point in the last quarter so didn't see much of him.

Well I'd be a bit calmer if it wasn't for the fact that the person who broke the news well in advance of anyone Docs Demon reported Gawn in "a fair bit of pain. Contact could hear him yelling." I'm not sure if it is better if he was screaming in pain or frustration.

I see where you are coming from but a team can truly overachieve if it encounters an unusual amount of good luck, eg. injuries to key opponent players during or before when they play the team and this happening way more often than 'average'. If everything is within normal bounds, then maybe you are right - it is impossible to overchieve. Spliting hairs.... but there is no football.

Agree, but what did you mean by 'Convenient wedding'? Odd. Players get maried to hide their injury from Demonland?

True, but I don't think it's a good idea in the particular case of Bennell. Too much risk that our regular doomsayers may turn out to be right and he never plays again. Better to do this with players who do not have such an injury cloud over them. In any case you have to be careful to chose players who will react well to the extra publicity.

I feel that it's a bit like buying a ticket in a lottery. The odds are small but the benefits if you win are enormous. Of course if the odds were as bad as tattslotto I'd be with you, but they are clearly much higher in this case and IMO worth a punt (so far).

WHo could disagree with that. But presumably the assumption behind hardtack's post is that there is a non-negligible chance that he will play.

M5: How exactly are we supposed to do more scutiny (or any scutiny for that matter) other than reading annual reports and going to AGMs? Genuine question.

How very modern to think opionion Trumps facts.

Good to see someone working on their MFCSS in the off-season. Important to keep fit.?

Plenty of disagreement on Demonland but less personal attacks.

I read about Instagramers posting that they will donate $10 for every like they get, then when they have lots of likes they auction the account to others who re-jig the account, essentially selling a list of people.The wonders of social media.

As many have pointed out, any Doc would have already been onto this. This is just the AFL getting involved in its favourite sport - bum covering.

Or maybe we are pretty low on their priority list. I doubt that most supporters and even members look at the MFC news much during the off-season and certainly wouldn't even know that X has missed training Y times. So they wouldn't be waking up at 3am worrying about it. Only the most rabid of us are on Demonland. I'd be interested to know how many active readers/posters we have compared to total supportr base?

I understand where you are coming from, but no, it could be even more sickening.

All depends on exactly what one means by succcess. If I was a North supporter I'd feel that my club had been reasonably successful in recent times since I agree with Saty's modest defintion of success (competitive against all clubs) and that is a prerequisite for finals success. Obviously North fans, I and I presume Saty are greedy for more. But other factors like finance which might lead to 'unsuccess' are another matter and of less immediate concern to me. I don't chew pencils at the footy or swear at the TV worrying about relegation to Tas. To be provocative, I wonder how many posters whose fervent wish is 'just win a cup before I die' would rank that wish below or above MFC surviving for 20 years after they kicked the bucket...... (/end-sacrilege-head-to-bomb-shelter)

I took comfort from the explanation a lot of what went wrong last year was largely due to lack of preparation etc So how depressing it is that Saty (who usually over-inflates our tyres) is telling us that we were ripe to go last year. I'm losing all hope now. Pass the valium please.

I agree. Just couldn't have happened at a worse time.

I did not say our form was a result of bad luck. Doubtless there were all sorts of real reasons for the bad form etc. I said that it was bad luck that our form was bad just as TV arrived with respect to attracting new supporters. There is a difference. A spate of bad form and decisions in the 1930's would not have had the same effect. I'll stop repeating myself.

I agree with your remark about the effect of lack of exposure. But you have not said why we had a lack of exposure. I presume you'd agree that it was because we played poorly in 1965 and the early TV years. I'm just saying after the 50's and early 60's it was likley we'd have a bad run as it is hard to stay on top forever. And that it was bad luck that an almost inevitable downturn coincided with the advent of TV (which you mentioned as important for exposure). I 'm not putting everything down to bad luck as you imply. We played badly for whatever reasons you care to list. The bad luck was that coincided with TV and so we lost potential new supporters. A run of bad years in earlier decades would have had lesser consequences.

That is not us doing something wrong. That is simply bad luck that in the normal cycle of rise and fall of a club (you can't stay on top forever) we happened to be on the fall during the time TV became important and thus lost new supporters. Why we have been so bad for so long is another matter.

What exactly did we do wrong in 1965 that is relevant to TV? Did our players wear the wrong make-up?

How about being a champion of something uniquely Australian with just a modest fortune.