praha

This, Another 3-4 years out of finals contention imo.

I agree, but I think we should brace ourselves for a 100+ point drumming this week. I'm not saying that out of anger, just merely based on form. The second-half on Saturday was Geelong-186-esque. That game was of the utmost importance, and it shows just how far behind the 8-ball we are. I think we've taken a step back to take a step forward, but we did that last year as well... Ah, the perils of being a Melbourne supporter.

Bate is run-of-the-mill. He's a rich mans Brock McLean. Maybe more versatile, more adaptable, but still flat-footed.

I remember similar PR fluff around the time of Geelong 186.

I smell another 1965-1986 era coming along.

I'd have thought 30-40k was reasonable. When we're winning, we can get 40k+, as we did in I think it was 2004 or 2005 against West Coast - 2nd vs 1st. 33k was pretty decent. Supporter base isn't large, so getting a high percentage of total support is probably good for the club if you look at it that way. I'd say 5k were Brisbane. They made a lot of noise. I also think people are sick of the club. If it's a blow-out against the Eagles I'm not sure I can dedicate a weekend afternoon to them in round 3. I'm studying my Masters and practically lost a day of study yesterday. That was always at the back of my mind. I always think like that, and I'm not prepared to sit around and watch non-efforts just to "show support" and "have faith".

I am just not on either side anymore. People go the extreme one day and just go on and on and on about everything that is wrong about the club, but then there are people that tell them to back off, and that they'll "always have faith" and "go dees", which I think makes some people even more angry. I am not sure there are any acceptable excuses for today. Just none. We should by this stage be slamming a team like Brisbane, and we're not, and the loss is really just indicative of everything negative that is said of the club: as a whole, for a long time, it is a weak club with a very poor culture. I am not sure that one extreme is acceptable, but I don't think brushing off the loss as "just round 1" or "emotionally drained" is really going to lead to much constructive discussion. Why is this club consistently putting in efforts like these? I see so many people getting angry, and I don't really think anything of it because I genuinely sympathise with these people. People are sick of losing. It's just frustrating now. And trying to empathise with the players doesn't do anything for me, because they're paid to perform, like everyone else in this world. It was a weak effort. You don't need to be an angry Melbourne supporter to realise that. It was weak and just really, really dumb football. Geelong 186-point loss type footy. Had we been playing a top side it'd have been a 100-point loss. It was really, really bad football. I don't trust anyone. I just want to see results. I am past the whole, "I have faith" stage. I'm not 12 anymore. Oh, and inb4 "they've had a tough, emotional pre-season". Here come the excuses!

Going by what he said... ..the team is [censored] and not everyone is up for it. He just sugar coated it, dipped it in chocolate and served it up to you with a topless waitress. It was as diplomatic as one could get.

I asked MFC on Twitter if they'd have some Reach guernsey at the store on Saturday and they said yes.

I agree that we need more presence in the city. A Melbourne-based sports team based right in front of tourists would be a gimmick, I am sure some people would get the urge to buy something official of the city as opposed to some cheap Asian merchandise from Swantson street. But just to make a presence anyway. The population in the CBD is growing, and so is foot traffic. We are Melbourne. I really have never understood why we don't have a presence in the CBD. Oh, and Canberra in the NRL just signed a $1.7 million sponsorship deal with a Chinese company. I look forward to Schwaby's return to the forums. Seriously, if anyone uses the "gfc" argument again...

But a team like Sydney has the entire state, and bangwagoners with stars in their eyes that love the city. With Melbourne, 99% of the supporter base is in Melbourne. If you get them to the games, you're on the same level, attendance wise. But in terms of membership and supporter growth, it's awful, and I don't understand why this wasn't addressed sooner. So, how do we address it? Take hold of the CITY OF MELBOURNE, make it the clubs base, plaster it everywhere, get tourists, immigrants, everyone on the club's side. Why don't we have a shop in the CBD? Having an ad on trams through Bourke Street Mall is cool, but what if people don't support the AFL?

Yeah, that is definitely the same song, just remastered and cleared up. It's exactly the same. They haven't added or changed anything. If you sit close to speakers at the MCG when it's playing you can definitely hear the banjos clearer. Sounds clearer, better.

So Watts is a proven VFL star. Newton was also a VFL star. Chris Lamb, too.

Pretty much. Melbourne has one of if not the highest ratio in the league of members attending games, and maybe even fans attending games (those who consider themselves Melbourne fans).

There better be 60,000+ at the 'G in round 1 against Brisbane.

I truly, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, hope that his legacy has left an impression on this club. I really do. I am so uncertain about this club atm, and am a little lost in his death.

I can't imagine us fighting off for 8th spot. No way, no how. Maybe 2013.

14th. Bang!

You speak like the club has so many assets and a large, growing membership base. I agree with Demon Land 7. This guy/girl is constantly shot down for his realist take on this club's position. I'm sorry, but considering the club's recent dire state off-field, and the fact we were losing games by 31+goals as early as 6 months ago, I won't accept any excuses. I think it's a real joke, and I think the club, including Schwab, are making excuses.

I'm a little confused about something. In today's football lift-out in The Age, there is an ad for Energy Watch under the Melbourne summary. It says "joint major sponsor". So I assume the club is going for a similar sponsorship deal as it had for the last few years, only that now Energy Watch is worth about as much as one major sponsor at other clubs? Is this why the club is struggling to find a sponsor for the front? It's priced the back quite high, and so therefore has to charge more for the front (otherwise Energy Watch would be pretty [censored] about paying more for less exposure). The Energy Watch deal might be the biggest in history, but has it essentially compromised the club's ability to get a front sponsor? At least initially?

Wait a second. WAIT A GODDAMN SECOND! PLAYERS WILL BE DROPPED IF THEY DON'T PERFORM!? GIVE THIS MAN A GODDAMN CONTRACT EXTENSION AND GIVE SALARY RAISES TO EVERYONE AT CASEY. NOW!

Sorry if this has been posted before. http://www.melbourne...95/default.aspx A few things I've gathered from Neeld's rhetoric since signing on: 1. The club hasn't been up to standard across a number of facets (der!) 2. There have been a lot of changes to bring the players up to the standard of the top 4 (or Collingwood) 3. Neeld may have been challenged by how hard he was working the players: suggestions that journos asked if he was, certainly suggests that they were driven to ask the question in some capacity 4. He acknowledges that sometimes the powers that be can be a little overbaring on what's happening in the football side of things. He said they "respect" the history, but that sometime's it's good to try new things. I really like the man, but he's brought up a few interesting things for me. For one, it's quite clear that he's come in and been shocked at the lack of quality across on the board. Says quite a lot about previous coaching teams (namely Bailey and co.) Also, I think it's quite clear in the video that he is fighting resistance to aggressive changes he's implementing, which is no surprise. I've always felt that Melbourne the club would never be bigger than Melbourne the establishment, but he seems to be trying to buck that trend while still maintaining strong historic ties with the club's past. I also think Schwab is party responsible for this on an aesthetic front, bringing certain things back (logo, blazers) that obviously allude to past great years. It's great that we have someone like Neeld here. I think his commentary on what the club NEEDS to be is better than saying what the club WANTS to be, and it's clear that he knows what it takes to succeed with the best in this league. It's also clear that the club is no where near the best, but we're making strides to get there. What did you think of the speech?

I think he raises some legitimate questions. I don't think he is attacking Cam in any capacity, and I am sure what Thomo has put forward is nothing compared to what Cameron deals with on a daily basis. I do appreciate Cam coming forward with this post though. I truly am grateful for that, that he at least provided some commentary.

OP lacks major sponsor announcement. I am not going to repeat what Thomo said above. He pretty much summed up any queries I had. Regarding the dinner, I thought it sounded and looked great. I wasn't there, but loved the look of the blazers. Really love them.

Yes, it does matter. If you can't get a company to sponsor the club, it essentially means that the brand isn't indicative of the price asked for sponsorship, or, the brand just ain't worth that much. It's very important. Why do EPL teams have sponsors?