Dr. Gonzo

Pay on outcome not potential. If he has a good year, great pay him then. Would we rather pay $400-$500k/year to Watts or use that money to throw at a guy like Dale Thomas (we could have the capacity to do both but just using as an example). I wouldn't be falling over myself to resign him yet though I hope he does at the end of the day.

So I take it from the last few pages of drivel we're still looking for a sponsor? I can't believe I read through that I felt like I was stuck in a daytime TV commercial.

He's definitely improved (but really he was coming from a pretty low base) and may turn into a consistent performer who racks up 200 games. But that doesn't mean he'll be a top-10 player in the league or that he'll ever improve his aggressive/physical which is necessary for a player to be deemed successful in modern footy. He'll end up like a raft of players under Daniher, look a million bucks against B-grade opposition, go missing completely when it counts. I hope that's not the case but everything I've seen so far tells me it will be.

He's not going to suddenly become a superstar at 24/25. That may be an average players peak but they will show something well before that.

Meanwhile you're probably still waiting for Travis Johnstone or Colin Sylvia "to put it all together".

Exactly right - he would walk into 17 other teams no worries at all.

His age doesn't make a difference to his attack on the contest and willingness or even desire to hit or get hit going for the ball.

And then after trying to create play the ball comes back with interest before he had a chance to get back and cover his man properly (or get assistance from teammates covering his man). Frawley would be one of the first picked every week don't worry about that.

He's always been like that his press conferences in his last year at Geelong were pathetic.

It's not just the last decade it's been the case for as long as I've been following the club (late 80's) and probably as far back as the 60's. it's an endemic problem of the club. Hopefully Neeld, Craig et al can change that.

We are no chance if and until the current crop of younger players (22 and under) develop and become our senior core with further talent topping up each year (at least 2-3 through the draft each year who will be best 22). That puts us at least 5-7 years away from being able to make consistent top 4 finishes with more than half the list turned over in that time. If we can get consistent top 4 finishes we are a chance at a flag but I'd say "no" with the current list based on the above although a core of our junior players will need to still be around. The key for us is building a successful TEAM with a solid game plan where everyone performs their role (ala Sydney) rather than relying on a couple of superstar messiah's to drag the whole club along with them. That might have worked in the old VFL days but these days you need a hardened team.

EFA

Just before he sprayed a standard shot at goal. He has talent to find the ball, can't do too much after that though. Or Viney??

Yet we're losing the clearances 12-17?

We are good role models - we show them how stupid it is to throw your money into machines which are computer programmed to only pay out 83% (or is it 87%?) of the time. Compare this to the Vegas machines which are programmed to pay out something like 97% of the time. We reap $4.7 million in revenue from them without raising a finger.

This is a serious question, what benefit do you get from an MCC membership that a Premium MFC Membership wouldn't give you? You get guaranteed GF tickets if MFC makes (big if lol) a reserved seat at every home game on level 2 and GA entry to away games. If you attend the cricket or other finals games thats another matter I guess.

I can understand the money argument but really, $60? That's only $5 a month if you pay by the direct debit option. I was a former Full AFL Member for a number of years, got free access to many finals games but gave it up for a Premium MFC Membership as I was sick of the way our club was treated by the AFL and figured our club needed the dollars more than the AFL do. If I was an MCC member I would have done the same, but then I have no interest whatsoever in cricket so would only use it for footy. Sure going to the GF is great but if it's not your team it's pretty hollow and I'd rather be watching at a mates house with a BBQ, real beer and half time kick to kick or at a bar with a big screen. No-one's even suggesting the MCC guys/girls give up their memberships, just an extra $60 will see them stand up and be counted and add value to the MFC. Being able to spruik to sponsors that we have 40-45K members would do wonders and put us ahead of quite a few Victorian sides. We need to consider attendances as well as members though which is another issue altogether. If we have 35K MFC members plus another 10K MCC supporters why do we only get 20-25K at home games vs interstate sides? I appreciate not everyone can get to every game but that's a pretty steep drop off. And for the record I hate Docklands as well but I love the MFC more. We need to get out to as many games as we can this year wherever we play to show our support and show the rest of AFL community that we stick by our club through thick and thin and all the crap slung at us over the last year will only make us stronger and make victory all the mroe sweeter when it comes.

In the suburbs they definitely did probably not so much the inner city and country pubs.

Pokies don't cause the damage, the people who play them do. It's pretty simple if people don't play them they'll cease to be profitable and will disappear and we can have our pubs back and maybe some bands playing there as well.

Correct - if you look at their AFL Prospectus they explain how they come to these conclusions. It's based on 135 different stats from what I can gather including things like unforced turnovers, forced turnovers, intercept marks, rebound 50's, inside 50's etc etc

They're idiots, serves them right. What's that saying about a fool and his money???

The average last year was about 130 not 160. The Crows were the only team that averaged as high as 160 I believe.

Do you think we would be able to sustain top 4 finishes for 10-15 years? Because that is the low point if we expect it to have a flow-on effect to our supporter base.

I understand all that but what I'm saying is the clubs need to force the Commission to dictate their own draw not allow the networks to dictate their schedule. It is an easy option to acquiesce and say we will put the big drawing clubs on every single week but the harder option is to hold your ground and make the argument that the networks will benefit from an even and fair competition and diversity of teams being broadcast in the best slots rather than having Carlton and Essendon shoved down our throats every single week. The fact is most people who are going to watch the footy on a Friday or Saturday night will probably watch regardless of if it is Essendon v Richmond or North Melbourne v Melbourne. If this stance results in some short term pain for long term gain then the clubs need to ensure the Commission act with the games best long term interests at heart, not merely do what will give them the biggest bonuses each year.

This is how the AFL currently operates but this is what we should be demanding is overturned in this round of equalisation talks. It's rubbish to suggest that just because we have a smaller membership that we should somehow be relegated to second division status. You say all we have to do is win but it is far more than that. If it is based on raw numbers then it doesn't matter how much we win we will still be shafted with the fixture and the fact is in a competition that wishes to be seen as equal and fair this is a key plank in achieving that. To compromise the fixture in the pursuit of dollars for some and second-class status for the rest leads to th smaller clubs having less match-day revenue, less sponsorship revenue and less exposure to potential new supporters which pure monetary payoffs will not compensate us for. These policies have long lasting effects on our membership base which even stringing some good seasons together will not fix. I'm not saying we would be as large as Collingwood if the draw was even and fair but we would definitely be sustainable and able to compete with those clubs - currently the AFL's policies don't really allow this to happen. I'd also dispute your contention that the AFL was less of a business 10 years ago but even if that were the case then it makes no sense that we would still be disadvantaged by the fixture which we were and continue to be. If it were less of a business it stands to reason that there would be a fair draw in place but the AFL still manipulated the fixture to allow the big clubs to play each other twice every season while we had to host Port and Freo every year.