praha

Intellect? I didn't need to read any more of this post. Spot on. That said, it's important for the brand that the club faces the adversity front on and doesn't just hide underneath it. Then we'd have a REAL Fitzroy case on our hands.

The board will get on board. What do they have to stand behind? As bad as Melbourne has been coping it people still don't quite understand how incompetent the board and club are. Someone mentioned the NBA taking over New Orleans. That's different because the demographic doesn't go to NBA games. Melbourne is in the HUB of AFL, is the oldest club, 12 god damn premierships, which are essentially worthless now though, and plays at the MCG for crying out loud! Clubs are knocking on the door to play their games there. What do you think will happen to Melbourne when Carlton moves in? Unless the team is actually competitive? We can't be in a position where we constantly receive the benefit of AFL assistance because people don't respect that. And you can't be competitive when you're constantly in that position. These people have a fricken PhD in how to ruin a club and a brand. People that say the AFL wants a team called "Melbourne" in the AFL are on to something: the club's affiliation to the history of the sport's foundations means the league is obliged to ensure its existence..but the sheer fact that the league is prepared to assist it suggests the club is worth more than it imagines. It's just that a consistent stream of idiots is running it. It's like putting an infant in the driver's seat in a ferrari and putting a brick on the gas and expecting them to parallel park.

The Age subs its articles like 50 times. By the time it got through the whole team and everyone had a group hug, they celebrated the finishing of the article with fairy bread and soft drink. By this time, of course, her articles are redundant, bordering senile. Case in point: today's article.

Join me in hell.

I stopped listening at 0:44. I swear to God I've seen this press conference about 20 times since 1990. We didn't need him to tell us the contest was unacceptable. We watched it. We'd at the very least expect them to acknowledge it. Also, saying you're disappointed and that all 22 players aren't contributing, is suggesting you're better than what you're playing, which technically would suggest imminent improvement. I'm seeing increasingly more evidence to suggest that the club is actively seeking to blanket its poor decisions when it comes to drafting, recruitment, and development, by making us believe that it's not a poor performance through a lack of talent: rather, it's a poor performance because they're capable of better. This is all lovely PR fluff. So lovely I can smell its rose fuse through my computer screen. Col I'm sure is genuinely frustrated, and I'm sure this interview is truthful, but does it change a damn thing? I mean, how is it any different to this: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/melbourne-demons-coach-dean-bailey-responds-to-186-point-loss-to-geelong-as-the-critics-line-up/story-e6frf3e3-1226105028777#.UZDUYCs8rd4 And how long until we start calling for Garland to be traded? I honestly do not know what of this club going forward. I would not be surprised if Peter Jackson recommends a complete wipe of the club and its assets, and a full relocation.

I'm pretty sure paying to be a member equates to one "putting their money where their mouth is". As a member you have the capacity to challenge the club.

Not sure the club could afford another $500,000 non-punishment.

Yep. The Giants were better than Melbourne for 3/4. They flopped in the last as inexperienced teams do and Melbourne ran all over them as the typical downhill skiers suddenly had a bit of oomph as the pressure waned.

Thread lacks Jack Watts.

I don't think it's tag they "earned" through any bout of success or anything like that. I always thought it was a bit of a jeer, like, "Look at the privileged school boy superstars prancing around the locker-room like Hollywood stars". So yeah I want it to go too but it was always a mockery I thought, rather than an acknowledgement of success or talent.

Stynes, Lyon. They all benefitted from Schwab's salary cap rorts, which is why they stuck their head out for him post-186. The club chewed up Gutnick and spit him out because he challenged the boys club, the Hollywood elite. Why are we STILL talking about this after 50 damn years? Still? It's actually comical.

They don't get it.

While a guy learns how to work in the "top job", our club is dying. NEXT!

lol funny you bring this up. Many an update since yesterday.

Peter Jackson told us everything we already know: The club is led by the "establishment": a single representative of the Ivory Tower that instills some sort of self-proclaimed moral superiority over others. It's not secret. It's been like this for decades. And we've heard it all before. Lyon spoke of "elites" controlling the club when Bailey started. Schwab mentioned it before hiring Neeld. We hear a lot about what CAN be changed, but it never happens.

Yaha.

LOL! Post of the century but some here are going to hate you for that...

He's far too experience. I'd much rather a no-name. It's the Melbourne way

Gee whiz The Footy Show is dragging it out.

"We'll go in on Sunday with less experience out there than Gold Coast. "At the moment we're playing with an average experience of 50 games."

I thought the exact same thing. People get it. Melbourne collectively has a lower average games played than its opponents. But I hope to God the day we play a team with less experience Neeld's team flogs them...

Eh... *shrugs* Schwab and a few other hacks from the club have been around to successful American and European clubs to "see how they work". It was part of the effort in rebranding the club and partly led to the club's current emblem design, which attempts to embrace the club's heritage and history (you can judge yourself if you think it achieves that). You don't "learn" about guys like Sir Alex. You learn FROM guys like Sir Alex. Unfortunately, there is not a Sir Alex in sight at the MFC.

Daniel Rich: 27

Aren't odds partly calculated by punter spending habits? It's no surprise that people are putting their cash essentially equally on GC and Melbourne, a little more so on GC. This is not shocking news. Odds aren't really indicative of "where a team is at"...it just represents what punters think of the team.

Bulldogs played a Prelim a few years ago and were finals-bound for half a decade. GC has Ablett GWS has Sheedy and a future star full-forward Brisbane won 3 flags in the 00s. Who are you kidding?