Little Goffy

Yeah, don't want to go off half-cocked when we're actively drawing attention to ourselves. Here's a thought though - anyone up for a weekly kick-around outside AFL HQ? There must be a bit of grass or at least flat concrete around there somewhere. Set up with a few flags, wear the colours, call it a vigil if you like. It also gets to start very low-key - two guys having a kick would do it - but can grow into something a little more when occassion calls for it. We could even do a rotation. Imagine if there were a few Demons having a kick outside AFL HQ every frickin day of the week? It'd become part of folklore.

I reckon there's more good to be done in 'positive' protests. Find opportunities to put your commitment to the Demons out there. The Run to the 'G - get a team together wearing red and blue - it will stand out. Similarly, the Ride around the Bay. Another interesting one might be a mini-sponsorship deal, where some kind of tourist/family venue (Zoo, aquarium) offers a discount on a given day to anyone turning up in their Red & Blue gear. Small things which get people used to the idea of 'getting out there' for the Demons. THEN, if the AFL still hasn't shown any improvement in it's treatment of Melbourne - Once that network is built, we can get a proper group together - we'll be able to mobilise a lot more people, and they will be better at keeping a lid on it rather than going stupid as soon as they're in a mob.

It's quite possible that this article was to some extent an aopolgy for her last Demon-related article, which was poorly written and researched and also tagged us with an $5m 'post-demolition' debt, instead of the $2m that it actually was. She has made a point of including an direct statement that it is a $2m position now, which looks a lot like a correction to me. Hmm.. I'm thinking about the 'we deserve it' style comments we've heard from the club. Is it possible they are banking on an on-field resurgence in the next couple of years? Could be an interesting ploy - by reinforcing the notion that the poor fixture is because of bad performances it means that the AFL will have a harder time making excuses to not give us a decent fixture when we're back in the finals mix. We have to pin them down somehow - is anyone here prepared to assume that if we start to get results on field the AFL will just automatically give us a decent fixture? No? Didn't think so.

Good call. If they are going to keep their boots on our neck, I won't be going to any little money spinners for the AFL either. I'm gonna keep saying it, 2009 will be the toughest season for the Demons, and then it's upwards from there. Buy memberships, go to games, bring your friends. BE VISIBLE - wear the scarf and put a frickin poster up at work if you're game. DON'T watch the interstate games at home alone on the couch. ALWAYS, whenever you can, go to a pub or get some friends together to watch it. STAY POSITIVE - this coming year is gonna be hard work, but it's gonna be the turning point. CELEBRATE everthing good that happens.

A provocative statement like that can work in an isolated case... When it's a regular mantra being farted at you from multiple [censored], it's just demoralising. I really look forward to the day people stop 'helping us out' like that.

Emirates airlines from Dubai. Etihad Airlines from Abu Dhabi. Both from UAE. Both competing for sponsorship opportunities and flight way-point stops from around the world. And you thought state vs state competition was an issue in Australia! Frankly, I'm glad we didn't get them as sponsor. UAE might not be run by raving fundi dictators like Saudi Arabia and Iran, but I dunno if I'd feel comfortable getting sponsorship from a state owned corporation in a country that imports child slaves. And their migrant labour laws (more than half the population) would make Jeff Kennett seem like a militant unionist.

It was a couple of years back, but there was a time when Eddie announced the impending doom of other AFL clubs with something bordering on gloating - like Jeff Kennet has this year, and the Adelaide President, whoeverheis. But he has mellowed a little bit since then. The mantle of biggest d$#head has definately passed to dear old Jeffrey K, who this year explicitly announced that Melbourne would have to move to the Gold Coast no matter what happened... while half the Demon's leadership group was at the next table at the function he was addressing... and he knew it. He also stated that Hawthorn won the premiership and was a powerful club because their staff worked harder than the staff at the Bulldogs or North. Charming. This fixture gives us moral impunity to annoy the AFL. I once again propose the round 1 'Jeff Kennet is a bastard' themed game against North Melbourne, and set ourselves for drawing a record crowd.

As I've been told, there's not much more to the story than is already noted above - just some guy decided to have a go at the players who came to one of the routine after match functions this year. Not a big issue in itself, since it's not a constant occurance, but that's pretty weak behaviour, and I'm reminded of it every time I see people launching into semi-coherent, obviously drunk after-match rants. I see these rants at the local club/pub when I watch games there - sometimes loud and trying to tell everyone about it like it's their fault, sometimes it'll be a guy on a mobile having a long and boring monologue about how 'they were all crap, except for X player that I told you was good, but the rest should all be sacked'. We all have it in us a little, we all do it sometimes, it's just a way of 'processing', as the trauma counsellors would say. But it's important to keep the ugly edge off it and know when to just hold firm.

On the one hand, I appreciate that it's a place for burning off steam. On the other hand, I'm a little sick of a few things, the overstatements, the mindless slagging of players, the 'you obviously know nothing about football' comments people aim at eachother. Anyway, online, I can deal with these things, they are pretty easy to just pass over. But at club functions... That story related on here about mid-season, where someone came to an aftermatch event completely smashed and then spent the function loudly abusing the players. That's not on. That damages the club, drives away other supporters (especially kids and their parents), demoralises the players, and ruins whole events for the club. At an event, drunken raving is very hard to avoid - even once security has removed them or someone has managed to cool them down, that one idiot shapes the whole atmosphere. What people need to realise, online, at games, and at functions, is that this kind of behaviour is just BEING A SOOK. It makes you a pathetic, annoying, full-of-yourself WHINING LOSER. It's the ultimate experession of embracing mediocrity. HARDEN THE F$#% UP.

Carlton got good fixtures when they were down, too, so why not us? Because 'Carlton have drawing power' we get told. In fact, hang on, 11th is still 'down', isn't it? North and the Dogs both got pretty good fixtures for 2009, despite comparable attendences to ours this year. If their crowds match ours when they are finishing top 8 and top 4, what does that say about their drawing power? 'We have to play well to earn them', we are told. But the AFL isn't planning on killing us just yet. Their plan is fairly obvious now, based on the evidence that they are announcing an intention to preserve the smaller Vic clubs, while only offering half-arsed support and opportunities to them, with no decisive plan. The AFL is going to keep a couple of Vic clubs 'sick', not dead for now, so that in a few years time they can be be merged with the new QLD/NSW clubs to add a bit of momentum, provide a 'Fitroy/South Melbourne' style supporter boost and manufacture a 'history' from the carcass of the old club. When you consider that these new clubs are estimated to cost in the vicinity of $100m each to set on a sustainable path, the mergers might be worth $20m off that total. It's financially quite appropriate to do so, and the AFL can seem guiltless by talking about the (half-arsed) support they offered the small Vic clubs now. You watch, a month after screwing us with the draft and broadcasts, the AFL will be announcing how much they've helped us get a new sponsor, and declaring a 'rescue package' for us. Then it'll be back to trashing our brand for another year.

We have been scewed, definately. 5 home games against interstate teams. Bulldogs and North at home. No night time home games of any kind, let alone friday night. Just three in total, and two of those are in Queensland. No Hawthorn or Ess What I wouldn't give for North's 2009 fixture... Just 3 home games against interstate teams. And look at that run from round 3 to 6. Four major drawing teams, two at night, and each bigger than the last. Can you imagine a better way to get your membership and supporter momentum going. Add to that not having to leave Victoria until after round 12 (again, huge gift for building momentum), throw in the friday night game against Carlton late in the season. If North can't make a substantial profit this year, they are jokers. Even Collingwood would be stoked to get the draw North got this year. Is this the AFL saying ' here's your last chance, we've stacked the table in your favour, make it work or that's the end of the support'? As for us, if we can turn a profit in 2009, then this new administration is second to none in the AFL. Period. Roll up your sleeves, this year is going to be the hardest work in our history, but if we get through it, we're back on the up.

I say, to salvage the crowd, we declare the official 'Jeff Kennet is a bastard' game. He's slagged off at us plenty, and recently let North and the dogs know that the reason they didn't win the premiership was because their staff didn't work hard enough, so the match-up is legit. Think of the crowd - everyone who's ever been shat on by Jeff Kennett. It would break the home-and-away record at the 'G.

Bye bye Williams. Gotta say, from where I sat it looked a lot like you were boringly mediocre, and in your time took our bright young midfield backwards in the key area they looked promising in - on-ball toughness and clearance work, and defensive tackling and effort. Still, not exactly a lucky run with the talent, and a tough time and place to be coaching. But that's all the slack you're getting from me. Who knows, maybe at the Bulldogs, where front-running has been developed to a successful gameplan, you might be the extra edge they need.

Too true. According to various real estate sites and transport guides (yes, I looked it up) the main freeways get you from CBD to Cranbourne in just over 30 minutes. Rail takes 50. 50 minutes is a bit much, so I guess the players who live near Spencer st and catch the train to Cranbourne, then walk to Casey Fields, will get a little bummed out. But so long as a given player lives east of the city in that vast wide band of pleasant leafy suburbs Melbourne has to offer, they won't have a trouble in the world by car. Beats the hell out of having to go to three different venues for a single day's schedule of weights, skills, meetings etc.. That would've added up and given people the right ----s in no time, and the players won't miss it at all. The coaches even less so.

I don't know about you but idle speculation helps keep the suspense from killing me. I have assumed that Carroll is delisted successfully, and Wonaeamirri promoted, or that Carroll is not delisted and as a consequence Wona stays on the rookie list until round one, whereupon Carroll is declared long-term $#$% and Wona gets promoted then. Either way, six picks total in this year's draft. My preferences, with a little luck going our way, but fairly realistic. 1. Jack Watts. Talked about so much I don't thing I'll add more here. Bankable Key Forward. 17. This is the one I've struggled with - Shaun McKernan would be great if he dropped this far, which sounds very unlikely. Mobile, reasonably tall (196cm) - kind of a second Paul Johnson? Aaron Cornelius mostly ditto, and somewhat more realistically available at pick 17, but is a little shorter and I'm keen on some full-size forwards. Jordan Lisle is mentioned mostly as a defender, but descriptions of him as disciplined and athletic (also 196cm) makes me think of what we currently lack a bit of up forward. If Lisle is what is left, maybe take O'Keefe here and then Lisle at 19, as he is mostly tipped as a mid-late 20s selection. 19. Rhyse O'Keefe - 'Cos we couldn't afford the other 'ROK'. The words 'run' and 'kicking' keep getting mentioned in his strengths, as does footy smarts. Generally tipped to go early-mid 20s, so 19 should do the job. 35. Kade Klemke - comments made on him are along the lines of tough, smart, skillful, and does team things. ALL of the phantom drafts have him going in the late 30s early 40s. 51. Anyone's guess. But may I suggest a pure ruckman? They are scattered all over the place this draft, with a lot being mentioned only as speculative very late picks. Even if we get McKernan at 17, a pure ruckman for the future is a must. We will use this pick to get whichever of those speculative ruckmen we prefer. 67. Pass (to reserve for PSD) PSD - 1. Steven Armstrong. Hey, he's a premiership player, and at some point someone or other on Demonland has tagged most of our list with 'we'll never win a premiership with x in our team', so clearly Arma is a superior player... or 1. A low-profile player with a good attitude, smart and with the core athletic ability and attitude to succeed, who we have taken the extra time to identify during the gap between ND and PSD. eg. Stefan Martin.

Rod Butterrs decided it was still his business to undermine the St. Kilda football in the Herald Sun today. Herlad Sun article I still think he's a tool but it is a worry that the Saint's are making such a substantial loss when they have several high-profile players, 13 wins and finals, plus pre-season cup win, and a ridiculously kind fixture for exposure and crowds - 5 friday night games (3 home) and 8 saturday night games (3 home). They are also supposed to have around twice as many supporters as Melbourne. All the things we complain about not having, they have, but they still make a substantial loss? I get this creeping feeling that the Saint's could actually be in danger in the next few years, with a number of veterans retiring (Hudgton, Harvey, Milne, Hayes and King all played at least 22 games this year) and the draft pool being drained by the Gold Coast. Would they have the strength to trade players like Riewolt, Ball or Dal Santo to get those high picks? How hard would the backlash from dumping these players hit them?

Yze, Neitz, White, Holland, Bode, Weetra. = ND 1, 17, 19, 35, 51. PSD 1. Carroll goes? Wonaeamirri gets promoted. Carroll doesn't go? Wonaeamirri stays on rookie list, but gets promoted in round 1 to replace Carroll who gets placed on the 'long-term boofhead' list. And guys... pick 67? Don't wet yourself with excitement. For what it's worth, all teams get two extra rookie list spots this draft, and we've cut two veterans which means two more rookie list spots appear, and if Wonaeamirri is promoted then add one more. Five rookie list spots really should handle any late speculative picks we want - remember that in reality rookie pick 1 will only be about 10-20 spots behind ND 67. (2007 draft - 75 (-6 passes) picks, plus 8 pre-season picks) = 77 (2006 draft - 89 (-9) picks, plus 9 PSD) = 89 (2005 draft - 76 (-9) picks, plus 10 PSD) = 77

Is there a short list of candidates for the Captaincy, and how will the leadership group be selected? And when.

Hang on; the horse's mouth is telling us to recruit the horse's arse? I'm confused.

Geelong are asking him to not nominate for the draft, as the scholarship arrangement is that Geelong may automatically rookie list him if both parties agree. If he decides that rookie listing isn't his thing, then into the draft he goes and anyone can grab him. No idea where he'd go, though - the past hype has been about 'such a promising scholarship player', which is a whole other world from 'Tac cup star'. I have a soft spot in me 'ol heart for Sri Lanka, so I'd be stoked.

What counter arguments can there possibly be to 'You're an arse bum face smelly stinker'. ??

Oh, and off the field - We need to improve our income (from any and all sources) by about $500,000 on 2008. Reduced costs in player payments and 'CEO replacing' expenditure, plus reduced debt servicing, plus a few other simple cuts have shaved off about a million dollars (after factoring in increased footy dept. expenditure, which appears to be occuring). It's more than do-able. Obviously the big issue is replacing the major sponsor, but remember that Primus is still on board on a reduced commitment. It cans till work out in our favour (fingers tightly crossed - Goooooo Schwabby)

Actually, in a statistically quirky way we'll have a more experienced team on the field next year than this year. Remember that all the guys who played this year will start next year with the extra season's experience. (well duh) BUT, also note that of those experience players who have now left, only White (13) and Robbo (10) played even a vaguely substantial number of games. Neitz, Yze, Holland and Carroll barely played ten between them. So the team that actually lines up on match day will be considerably more experienced next year than it was this year. And of course, next year the injuries will clear up... how many years can we go on saying 'It can't be as bad as last year'? Still... Mclean and Rivers in particular would be handy to have back as far as on-field maturity goes.

Exactly. Each of those is very different, but a fair indication of what will be gained from a mid-teens draft pick. Of course, there were other structural, cultural or salary motivations for trading Woey, Johnstone and even Jolly. I guess that's the key factor - if Green didn't want to be at Melbourne then 16 is fantastic, if he recommitted properly then 16 becomes a quite debatable return (even if it's considered a fair 'price', there is a difference between price and real value)

Remember that our picks in the teens have been about the average - Bate, Jones, Dunn, Frawley, Smith, throw in Molan (and obviously still wait and see with Grimes). Use that as a fair base for your guess at what the next pick from that range might be like. Compare that expectation with what we might expect from Green over the remainder of his career. Now you have your own answer. My answer is - Green came 5th, 4th and 3rd in the last three best and fairests (or was it 5,5,3), is not injury prone, not particularly old, and is versatile enough to slot into a range of positions where needed. Just three full seasons from Green, continuing to perform consistently in the top-ten of the B&F, would surpass the career results from three quarters of mid-teen draft picks. An extra two servicable seasons, taking him to 32 before retiring, would consolidate that margin in his favour. And there is no count-down clock - what if he's still there at 34? Neitz copped four seasons worth of heavy injury in the second half of his career, still made it to 33. McDonald just signed up for another year at 32, and he's in a high wear and tear environment. Personally, I think Brad Green will be the one player on the Demons list still there from the 2000 Grand Final when we make it to our next one.