praha

Schwab and McLardy moved him out of the FB? Lock this thread up!

So basically Moloney spit the dummy because the club didn't think he was up to the task as captain. Is anything surprised? As for Sylvia, if he leaves imo it won't be because he is frustrated with the club, or wants to leave of the irk of Moloney. He'll leave to play finals. Even that isn't guaranteed to push him out. Hope he stays.

One in the same?

Sorry to disappoint you. Here, have some nostalgia.

Ah yes, Melbourne Student Union and Socialist Alternative.

Hearing it before the game means nothing anymore.

They're doing that now, though.

The reason some believe he only has two weeks left is because if the team can't lift after 11 rounds and at the very least be competitive for 4 quarters, what reasoning is there to suggest the team would beat either of those teams? It's a silly logic.

You mean the spin the club fed us about meeting financial targets as early as the pre-season comp? Seriously, if there is smoke there is fire. Please stop blaming the media. It is a deflection.

The main reason for low crowds is not the competition. Please stop deflecting blame. Melbourne was pulling 40,000 to the 'G in 2004, 2004 in games against West Coast, Adelaide, etc. The reason is that the team plays an insipid brand of football.

I love how people equate sacking a man with an 80-point average losing margin and essentially no wins against reputable opposition as a "knee jerk reaction". A "knee jerk reaction" would have been to sack him at the end of last season, or even after round 1 this year. Now it's just a formality.

How many opportunities per game do they get to clearance? Consider Geelong goes forward 50 very often and also keeps the ball alive with silky skills. It's like watching hot potato when they have the ball but they keep possession. It's OK to not win clearances if you still manage to beat your opponent in possessions. You have to balance it out. Melbourne can't get clearances but also can't: 1. get the ball 2. get it inside 50 3. tackle 4. hit targets 5. run 6. actually score Geelong can do ALL of those things better than the competition.

Nah. I don't how good the team is: the modern game has no place for 148-point losses, let alone 186-point ones. And the gameplan had NOTHING to do with that loss. Watch the game. The players simply did not care. It's all over YouTube. The reaction was swift and the decision wrong. Schwab should have gone.

OK guys, enough with the puns, it's So not funny anymore.

Disgraceful. The entire board should resign. If this was the corporate world -- or, say, their own companies -- they'd have been kicked out the door long ago. Why were you surprised? Stynes had to reinstate his good ol' buddy ol' pal, Schwab. He wasn't a "failed CEO". It was a failed hiring. He wanted to attract a marque player to the club, someone that would sell memberships and get bums on seats and, like, you know, lead the club. The club kicked him out because of his "errancies" (actual word used by someone in the club).

I disagree. Wholeheartedly. Firstly, he is partly responsible for reinstating Schwab. No surprise there. Secondly, Stynes was a demanding individual, and those sorts of people work wonders for charity organisations. The club benefitted by taking advantage of a man who had normally received charity for depressed children. I was always uncomfortable that a man that had dedicated is life to helping young people was helping gather millions and millions of dollars for a club fractured by its own ineptness. On one side you have charity for people that genuinely need it: on the other you have a basket case delinquent of a club begging people for cash to prop up its elitist factions from within the bellows of the MCC. Stynes was a great man for this club but what he did was a bandaid solution. A quick fix. The fact the club has buried itself into what will eventually become just as big a deficient as there was when Stynes arrives demonstrates how much of an indictment the club as a whole is on the league, not to mentioned the professionalism bestowed upon the club by the parents of the young men it drafts. Would Stynes being around last year have saved it from winning 4 games (1 if you discount GWS and GC)? Would he have led the club to more wins this season? If I remember correctly, he was President during 2 wooden spoons, and eventually oversaw a failed rebuild. Remember, he was around when 186 happened, and he was around at the start of 2012: the start of the SECOND rebuild in five years. Stynes, for all the great he did, is also part of what will be one of the darkest periods in the club's history. His contributions should not dilute the error of judgement he made in rehiring Schwab, and in putting the trust in people that clearly don't want anything to do with the club (Lyon). His vision was one of desperation. It always was. He couldn't have done anymore, though. But he hardly saved this club. You could have said that three years ago. Not anymore. McLardy and Schwab and co. merely continued on what Stynes started. IMO the club would be in the same dire situation now if he was still with us.

This. I find it astonishing how people try so hard to push socialism into so many facets, even sport. IMO it is the clubs' responsibility to ensure equality: you're only as bad as your performances. And the league does not control performances.

This makes me sick. While I agree the club NEEDS equalisation to stay competitive, it's a travesty it's actually come to that. Let it be known I'd much rather the club die on its sword than die with a leash around its neck. You don't earn respect by being given leg-ups by the league. And also, the comparisons with the EPL are pathetic and defeatist: a much better comparison would be the NBA. Each team has the same salary cap, but the big-market teams (Lakers, Knicks, Heat, Bulls) can afford to pay the "luxury tax" -- a tax on all salary beyond the cap -- which allows them to sign multiple superstar free agents. In the case of the AFL the big clubs have the capacity to spend more on football development because they have the finances. The EPL has no salary cap and is essentially compromised by ultra-capitalism. The NBA, AFL etc. already have elements of Marxist socialism in their regulations on spending. PLEASE stop with the comparison to the EPL. Please. The reality is that no matter how much you assist a club like Melbourne, it will always be burdened by a distinctive LACK of culture -- rather than a culture that's bad: it simply has NO culture whatsoever. No matter how much money you throw at Melbourne, it's still INDIVIDUALS pulling on the jumper, and if there is nothing to play for, the players won't play. Eddie is taking pity on Melbourne, not because they have fallen behind because of inequality. He is taking pity on Melbourne because it has fallen on its own sword. Melbourne's ineptness has N.O.T.H.I.N.G. to do with inequality in the league. Inequality exists BECAUSE of clubs like Melbourne.

The Hawthorn game in 2011 was the beginning. I remember being so frustrated at how bad they played in the 3rd quarter. They simply couldn't get it past the defensive 50. Luckily the Hawks weren't on their A-Game that day. Different coach then but the team struggled with the same things that day as they do now.

Firstly, don't EVER, EVER believe a single thing that comes out of Lyon's mouth. I can't wait for the day that it comes out how he crippled this club financially back at the end of the 90s by being given a contract despite both he and the club knowing he'll never play again. Schwab, Stynes, Lyon, the "boys club" that have actually crippled this club. Secondly, Jackson staying on as CEO is a given. At this stage it was always just a "go in and check it out" mentality as you can't expect a CEO to just magically fit into the role without having a pre-season to understand the functions of the club. It would be like a CEO joining a company at the end of a financial year, or a day before an AGM. Thirdly, there is no possible way Neeld survives beyond the bye. What I am worried about, however, is that 10-12 goal losses against the Pies and Hawks will be seen as "improvement", as the Blues, Tigers matches were. Once again it appears as though the club is relying on loses to determine its future. What a rabble.

I am also certain he will leave. Just a few murmurs around.

Is that you Cameron Schwab?

Morton was at the club in 2012, Neeld's first year. Yet he still noticed a difference. Telling me that 18 months isn't enough time to enhance training capacity? Funny, hey? Please don't tell me that training hard equates to 100-point loses. I might throw my remote at the screen (for the 10th time this year).

Pathetic clubs get pathetic fixturing. It's not rocket science: winning games earns windfall. You don't get a financially-promising fixture without first winning games. Bewildering this club says "it is what it is" and "this is where we're at": losing games by 100 every.single.week. is not where anyone ever expects a team to be at. Truly an indictment on this great game. Can't expect fans to show up. But I'll be there.

It's VERY easy for the playing group to come out and take the blame, because ALL players are on the SAME LEVEL. If Garland, or Dawes, or whoever comes out and says, "It's us, not the coach", then they can shoulder the blame collectively, rather than hold a coach accountable for his team playing arguably the worst brand of football the league has ever seen.