Paul Prympke

Not sure of the exact tally for the season, but he has kicked 8 twice. He also won the Best VFL player at the Interstate carnival.

This may have been discussed previously in other threads, however it has come up quite a bit in discussions with my friends of late. As we have seen, more so in 2010 than any other season, Rookie players making an impact. It's a great way to supliment your list, and given that we know more about our list than we did before Round 1, what does everyone think would be the best area we could look to build for depth. Rookie players are also a bit of a 'free hit' in footy so the risk is really minimal but the room to benefit is large. I'll start it off, Matt Little of Williamstown is a mature aged player who has been kicking bags in the VFL.

Elizabeth is the home of the Central Districts and would probably be one of the better gounds in Australia.

It might be more in reference to Mr McMahon, the man we have to thank for this boom recruit's services (see the name of the message board if you require further information on this topic!) rather than his actual first name of Jackson... just a thought

Love "Chunk" for Tapscott... I also like "mini-Roo"

This article is a complete Non-event, written by a journalist who only can write articles based on speculative opinion, that most common people can deduce. If you read the article, all it states is: We have the number 1 pick in the PSD, we have salary cap room, we have not stated we won't pick him. It's a rubbish article, that does not tell the football anything they don't already know...but hey what's new for Mark Stevens!

Emma Quayle is usually spot on with her analysis, just look at her 2008 draft predictions, almost spot on the whole way down the list! Not sure whether the point she was trying to make was about the fact that Sydney were desperate to get a top 5 pick and that pick 14 is not really seen as a high comodity in this years draft.

Glen's Brother??? Alan was a legend, just unfortunate he didn't have enough personal drive for the game to continue through. But we all loved him at the time, admit it or not!

Would have to agree with Mark on this, Miller may not be the be-all and end-all of CHF's, but he does provide a vital focus away from the developing forwards in Jurrah and Watts. Required, absolutely, a match-winner, probably not! Plus it keeps Pia around the club a little more

The rumour mill is in overload at the moment, does anyone have any light to shed on the issue of Davey wanting leave the club also?

Good points by everyone re: Our forwardline battle and the midfield headache. However I think that we can safely say that our power of backmen can adequately cover the Adeliade forward line: Tippet, Walker, Porplyzia and co Vs Martin, Warnock, Rivers, Frawley. Key will be how we handle McLeod, also what we do when Thompson or Goodwin go forward. This will be the real test of Dunn and what is he really made up of. I think that we match up pretty well against this current Adeliade line up, without getting too ahead of ourselves we are definitely not without hope this week at all.

The Rectangular Stadium move is part of a clause in the AFL’s agreement to give us the $1 Million for 2009. This is not something that the club wants to do, however is being forced to if they want the AFL financial support. This new administration has stated publicly that their preferred destination for admin HQ is the MCG. The access to Gosch’s paddock and the gym could be negotiated independent of the rectangular deal (of which we would get 3rd pick of facilities behind the Storm and the Victory, not to mention what Collingwood want to come in and over-ride on). The board had planned to build a new training facility within the ‘G itself and use Gosch’s paddock for training and use Casey as the summer base in a proposal to the AFL, however it was knocked back as the AFL is wanting a presence in the new stadium, which is why they wrote the clause in the funding agreement. Why the AFL are pushing this agenda, no-one outside the inner sanctum can be sure, however if the new super 14 team does come to Melbourne I’m assuming the rectangular stadium is the ideal place to base themselves…therefore one could draw the conclusion that the Ivory Tower types at AFL HQ are thinking more about beating another code to the punch, rather than working for the best interest for our club. All that hoo-hah aside, we now have a stronger position to push back against the AFL to try and negotiate a better deal for the funding. One possible scenario is that we could set-up temporary residency in the new stadium, whilst our new facilities are built at ‘our’ home ground, which is probably 12 months away. Then once we are ready to vacate, we split the lease, thus keeping the presence in the stadium and allow the AFL to pursue whatever they have in mind for it. I just wanted to add, that this deal is huge, in many ways, even if it doesn’t have much of a financial impact, the other benefits like security and reclaiming our identity are just as important.

It absolutely does. We can't be relocated, we can't fold if this deal is correct. We will own the 'G again. Only one other club in the league owns their home ground. Very significant.

Apparently at 11 am there will be anouncemount about the MFC being brought back into the MCC. It's a significant deal that will see us as more than just a token symbol under the MCC banner.

Hey Deemissioner (and subsequent Demonland viewers), there is a 6 week lead time on all apparell. The gear was ordered the day before the Kapersky anouncement was made (naturally couldn't do it any earlier because we had to get pen to paper on the deal first) but will take until round 5 to be in stock. The little birdie at the Melbourne FC store told me. P.s Everyone should pop down to the shop and say G'day to Chris some time, he's a good bloke and always happy to help out with information on any inquiries.

I should also add that I am a country boy, so the paper I receive quite often does not contain the same material as the metropolitan edition. Therefore if any of my comments about the numbers of articles in each Paper this could be due to this fact.

Maybe I'm a too much of a staunch traditionalist but I consider a forced relocation of a club the same as the extinction of it. If Melbourne were forced to move to Tassie or anywhere else I would cease to recognise it as the same club that I've supported for the last 26 years. They would still receive my support, no doubt, but I would find it hard to recognise them as the same club. So I would have to say that the North to Gold Coast still supports the concept of the AFL trying to eliminate the weakest Victorian club.

All good points guys. I think I tried to softly make the point that one paper is interested in sensationalist journalism whilst the other is more focussed on informative perspective. Also perhaps I miscommunicated my objective of the thread. I was more concentrating on the tone of the articles that weere written as opposed to their frequencies and sizes. I guess if you are a true conspiracy theorist you might suggest that the HUN is working with the AFL on their agenda for eliminating the weakest Victorian club out of the comp.

What do you think Demonland faithful, am I jumping at shadows, or do I have a right to be disappointed in our major Tabloid?

I may be the only who is thinking this, in which case many of you may think I’m just another crazy conspiracy theorist, but then again I may be on to something. I think that it is fair to say there is a major discrepancy in how our club is reported on in the 2 different major news prints in Victoria, The Age and the Herald Sun. At a high level both papers have differing agendas in terms of their coverage any topic, sport or not, so it is not unexpected that they would have slightly varying view points on an event. The discrepancy on the MFC is one that concerns me however and I wanting fellow Demonlanders to comment on this to see if there is some element of truth behind my interpretation of events. First of all I’d like to draw attention to the 2 chief football writers of both publications, Caroline Wilson and Mike Sheehan. Caroline Wilson has always had her knockers due to her slight inability to report well on on-field matters, however her off-field assessments of the game are heads and shoulders above the rest. She has also publicly thrown her support behind the Dees, announcing several key items to the media on our behalf and also committing Martin Flanagan to the club for the entirety of the 2009 season. Mike Sheehan is a different character all together, an extremely well regarded VFA player, his on-field commentaries are again some of the best in the land. Whilst his top 50 players tend be based on a personal bias of players with certain styles, which is a major talking point of any AFL season (a feather in his cap), he is none the less a fantastic reporter to read, above all else he is a confessed Demon fan. Now to the Issue: The Age have been extremely kind to the MFC, by offering large amounts of coverage (perhaps slightly over what we deserve), in depth insights and informative articles but ahead of all of these things the articles that are written have a very positive spin, helping build up a club who is close to coming to it’s knees. The HUN continue to write minimalist reports, based on innuendo and second hand knowledge, and most of all the coverage is more about the doom and gloom rather than the potential of the future. I will use the last couple of days as an example to help illustrate my argument. Yesterday we announced potentially one of the most significant announcements in recent history of our club, we got a Major Sponsor. The reason for it’s importance over other sponsorship announcements in the past, is that this one comes at a time when the club is at it’s most vulnerable in it’s entire history. I scoured the Herald Sun yesterday for an article to mention this…the tally 0. The Age ran it as it’s number one article, hmmm. OK so the Age were given the scoop, a reward for all the work they have done for us since November. Today however, a whole 24 hours after the announcement, the back page of the Herald Sun is plastered with an article about Sylvia slipping up again…soooo. Again I scoured the opposition paper for mention of said discretion…the tally 0. Also funny to mention that the sponsorship deal (again I highlight it’s major significance) only get’s a mention in the HUN as a sub-part of an article that is titled about Jake Spencer, and is located 10 pages in from the back. I understand that it’s not smart business to cover the same story as the opposition a day behind, but to mention it only in small print buried deep inside another article, that, let’s face it, will probably only be read by the minority. This is just one example, so please don’t think I am basing it on a one-off. For those who read Sam Edmund’s delightfully un-insightful (or whatever the opposite of the word ‘insightful’ is) pre-season review last week you’ll know what I’m talking about. The entire article made no mention of our pre-season form and was based solely on last year’s performance, last year’s injuries…oh and of course Jack Watts, well researched journalism at it’s worse. I have no problem with Sam Edmund or is writing; however the HUN (more so Mike Sheehan) let it go to print, showing a complete disregard or obligation to show any real interest in our club. On personal level (I know this is now treading a dangerous line, admitting emotion into an argument that is supposed to be based entirely on evidence) I also feel that running the Sylvia story as the major Football news of the day somewhat detracts and disrespects the Hankook announcement (the scoop that the HUN missed out on), sour grapes perhaps???

I can't quite remember which game it was but it was in 2007, it was a close game, we were down, not by much (and had in fact been in front serveral times), however it was the last 10 minutes and the opposition had begun to ice it, chip kicking the ball around. 17 Melbourne players picked someone up, the 18th bloke who was floating in the middle of nowhere, effectively minding his own shadow was Sylvia. Garry Lion made note of this, and finger pointed him, highlighting that there was 1 player letting down his entire team and we would becuase of it. He was right, we lost by just under 2 goals, Sylvia refused to get a man the entire time. To me that moment really summed up the type of player the Sylvia was (and still is), someone who plays footy between in his ears, but only between his ears. He was little or no concern of his team-mates (or at least appears to), and it is really disappointing from both our prospectives and the teams. That is the only part of his game that needs to change, while I agree he's not going to be superstar, I think that a return of 30 goals and 18p's and 6-7 marks a game is a great return from him, but to do that he needs to work for his team, until he does that, we can't reward him with ground time IMO. Newton is a flash in the pan, who can kick goals at VFL level, but lacks the humility and respect the top level deserves. Unless you've proven yourself over an extended period of time, you do not belong at the top level. But then has anyone stopped to think that maybe he's not arrogant and does not have a poor attitude, maybe he's just a little slower to catch on than we'd all hoped and is still learning the game, where to go and how to be smart about it. Fevola was once considered lazy, he's still not that much of a work horse, but he does lead to smarter positions (I'm not syaing Newton will be any where near as good as Fev, but I'm making a point). Newton does not belong at AFL level at the moment, but maybe the 2 year contract is a reflection on Bailey's assesment on how long his development will take. We can't make statements as to why he was offered his contract as none of us were in the room when it was negotiated or decided. Right now, Newton is not up to AFL, but maybe he'll come on. But for the moment, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, we are in a development phase, so we'd rather have the Sylvia-Newton problem now then in 2 years time.

Unfortunately I didn't get to see nor hear the game on Saturday. I did recieve some updates from loyal friends, but none the less I have no real comments to make on the game that are in context to the performance. However a few items I would like to refer is: One the best column in the wrap ups: Hawthorn Best: Roughead, Sewell, Mitchell and few of the other usual suspects. I understand the implications of no Buddy, Hodge and Ladsen (who IMO is extremely under rated) but for our team to go down by 3 points to Hawthorn and their best 3 players are 3 out of their top 5, that will happen to better sides than us this year and the margin will be alot more. The second point I'd like to make is that Hawthorn are looking to defend a premiership, we are looking to simply improve and develop a stronger more stable side that has all the hallmarks of a well drilled unit. If Hawthorn are serious about a title defence (and I think we all know they are), I would hope that their playing list is as long as 30-odd players deep. Therefore to cover 9 (cough, cough) injuries is still well within their capability and they should be expected to beat us. If we can push them for 3qtrs, 19 minutes and 45 seconds, at a ground I don't think we've ever played on before, in front of an opposition home crowd, it bodes only all too well for us and what is to come. The third point is that whilst everyone talks about 'it's only the NAB cup', they keep making the assumption that players don't try, not the case at all. Most of these blokes are fighting for spots 14-28 on their lists, so you can bet they are looking to impress. Coaches may trial different tactics and players in positions, and that's what loses the games, not the lack of player effort and commitment. Some key players may only play in bursts and small stints on the ground, but they don't throw games and they don't consciously withhold effort. I think our blokes can reflect on their efforts and take something away from it, don't be content with it, but do be urged on by the improvement. Like the Oracle stated, look at the reasons why you lossed and look at the reasons why they won then set about turning the tables. Good effort boys but it's still a way to go. Disappointed to read about Aussie, really disappointed.

Agreed, Rivers was a natural footballer when he came onto the scene, and he will never lose that. He pleayed on instinct and judgement, something that can't be taught. He won the rising star becuase he constantly beat his man at the contest as well as leaving his direct opponent to help out a team and set up countless counter attacks, again acting solely on instinct and smarts. Agree and disagree! Yes the game has changed but it has only gone in swings and roundabouts. No-one has employed the Pagan Paddock since the roos of the late 90's, simply because no-one has had a Wayne Carey in their side (who IMO is the best footballer I've ever seen). Then the invincible Bombers and Lions won flags with sheer midfield strength and tough forwards. I don't think that the '07 Geelong and Hawthorn '08's really differed too much from that same concept. Yes there was talk about this rolling zone, but the '08 flag was due more to midfield potency, grunt and goal kicking prevelance than anything else. The only blight was in the 2004-2006 era where ugly football became the fashion, but we have since transitioned back to busting, direct football prevalling more often than not. Whilst there are more possesions nowadays, this is really only isolated to Geelong ATM, but if you refer to my comment earlier about Rivers using his natural instinct to set-up counter attacks and plays he will find this no trouble. In summary Rivers is close to being our number 1 player when going, the fact that he's not going does diminish his star somewhat, however he is still a walk up start into our 22 and probably 12 other clubs. And when firing, he would be the player our opponents would be most watchful of, becuase he not only takes out his opponent he also nulifies other forwards around him and brings his team mates into the game. Only a handful of defenders can do that.

Well done Gouga, Dunn is an average player without any real strong atributes. When he played as a forward, he had no intensity at the contest and as a tagger I'm not convinced he's made of the right stuff to fulfill it properly either. Bell and Bartram both torch the footy ad-nausiem, worse than any others in the league. All 3 are the honest types, but we need more than that if we are to improve, Daniher was big on riding the battler (Brown, Godfrey, McDonald) which is great to see, but as the evidence shows always leaves you wanting. Just to add to the argument: B: Garland, Warnock, Whelan HB: Petterd, Martin, Rivers C: Moloney, McLean, Morton HF: Davey, Miller, Bate F: Green, Robertson, Woneamirri R: Johnson, Bruce, McDonald Int: Jones, Jamar, Wheatley, Sylvia Emg: Buckley, Grimes, Maric

I noticed that myself...interesting, would love for it to be true