Dr. Gonzo

That is an alarming figure especially since it is probably weighted towards the older generations.

I don't have the expertise but there are others out there who do and as a paid up premium member of 24 years I'm entitled to query these things and hold the clubs employees to account. I don't have the expertise to coach or play either but I can commen on those too.

I don't care how easy or difficult it is. It's their job, if they can't do it move over and let someone else do it. Time for excuses is over, that goes for on-field and off. It's not like this is a one-off it's been endemic throughout the current admin.

Hmm on one hand it is good they are using every available resource to try and assist the club - on the other this screams amateur hour to me. There are still at least 5 sponsorship partners outstanding for a season which begins in 8 weeks (NAB Cup in 3 or so) and the club/CEO/board is unable to do their job and sign some up so they go cap in hand to the members hoping one of them may bail them out. Similar to what happened with Kaspersky, Webjet and to a lesser extent Hankook (long term MFC supporter now disenchanted from the club) - which sponsors (besides EnergyWatch) have the club actually managed to sign off their own bat in the last 4 years? Even sponsors like Opel seem to be have been acquired only through heavily discounted offers through desparation following the EnergyWatch saga.

FFS it's only January and already the "woe is me" types are out and writing off players seasons. To me it seems clear they have placed Gawn on the LTI at this stage as a pre-caution. If he doesn't come up by R1 they have the option of upgrading a rookie so we aren't a player down. If they wait any longer it will eat into the season considering the 8 week minimum a player must be on the LTI. If he comes up then they'll just take him off. I wouldn't be reading anything else into it.

I agree but the pressure is on the Board/CEO this year moreso than Neeld & the FD (who will certainly feel pressure as well if we chuck up the same rubbish as last year).

This is true but CD will (should?) rely solely on stats to paint the picture - they won't necessarily account for impact of changes in off-field roles unless as an explanation for changes in output (which haven't really been seen yet).

While that is all true the fact remains he is employed to do a job and securing sponsors is an integral part of that so if he fails to sign some to decent deals (dollars and years-wise) he probably will and should get the arse - especially considering the issues we have had with sponsors in the last few years under his management.

I'll just preface this by saying I don't have any affiliation one way or the other with any current or prior board other than being a 24 year MFC member & current Trident's Member; Schwab would want to sort out these sponsorship issues quicksmart (long term not just quick fixes) or he'll be looking for work before the years out regardless of the outcome fo the AFL investigation.

Just went and picked this up at lunchtime from Dymocks at 234 Collins St after reading through this thread. Was thinking of buying it last night online but baulked at the $10 postage charge. Am interested to have a read through, does it include all CD stats that are generally unavailable to the public during the year? One stat I've been trying to find in particular is hit-outs to advantage so I'll be interested if that's included. Hopefully it's more than just your basic K, H, M, Disp Eff. etc

Why do we have to have 22 matches? It really is ridiculous. Just have a 17 game season over 18 or 19 rounds, you can chuck in some State of Origin games if you want (though don't have to) and get rid of the absurdity of having to weigh up if you've got a good or bad deal by the AFL for next year's fixture. The fact the league can use the fixture as a reward/penalty against certain clubs is downright dumb. Just switch home and away each year and have each team travel once to WA/SA/NSW/QLD each year. Then we can get to evening up the timeslots etc to ensure a really fair draw. If you MUST have 22 matches then make it completely transparent and base it on the previous seasons ladder. Make 3 groups (1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16; 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17; & 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18) and you play everyone in your group twice. No return blockbusters/derbies guaranteed but at least it's transparent and no-one can complain. The only other way around it is to create conferences/divisions which the AFL supporters aren't ready for and which create their own issues anyway (who is in each conference/division the primary one). This is my main beef with the AFL at the moment and it is a farce that they refuse to adopt an easy solution instead of compromising the integrity of the competition for some perceived (but not real/proven) extra dollars.

Yep - so experimenting with players/list management is tanking even if the moves come off??? The AFL would want to hope there's more "evidence" than what has leaked so far if they pursue charges (which isnt confirmed yet BTW) because even an amateur supporter, let alone a qualified legal mind, would rip this investigation/allegations to shreds in half an hour.

Haha it's such a farce - didn't Jamar kick 5 goals that day.

He's not injured again is he?

Hear, hear. My club, right or wrong!

The incident itself is nothing much, it's just the stupidity on parade that gets me. They need to pull their heads in and show they are dedicated to turning around the shitheap this team has become under their watch instead of making public spectacles of themselves amongst well-known congregations of drunk bogans with the sports press everywhere. It just shows an astounding lack of judgment but yeah, win a few games and maybe people won't care so much.

Underachievers - and proud of it.

Football players + cricket bogans + beer = stupidity.

I agree - someone should tell Haddad this isn't some 3rd world police state that kind of stuff doesn't fly here.

Yep that thought had crossed my mind - don't forget this whole thing kicked off while Demetriou was overseas on a jaunt to the Olympics/Europe.

Pretty sure that's impossible - the investigation doesn't determine guilt or otherwise, it presents the facts to the Commission who will decide whether to lay charges or not.

Scapegoat? http://www.afl.com.au/news/2012-12-19/tank-verdict-looms-for-dees

As above, her information would only be as good as her sources though. Previous posts, I am guessing, were related to the workings of the MFC. This is the workings of the AFL and their integrity department we are talking about which will effect the MFC, a small distinction but a distinction nonetheless.

I'd take anything she says with a grain of salt just like everything else on here. Even with a good track record she would only be reiterating speculation she has heard from "insiders" at the club. Who knows what that may amount to. Make no mistake though, if they do charge us with tanking it will be one of the biggest stories in the history of the game so I'd prepare to batten down the hatches.

Look I don't disagree with the sentiment but in a situation like this, even if you win, you lose. The AFL will control our destiny long after any court case ends. If we were in the position of a Collingwood or West Coast I might agree but we rely on the AFL to prop us up from going out of business, let alone any other considerations like fixturing/broadcasting etc. And really, despite what anyone might say here I find it hard to believe anyone thinks it wasn't our intention to secure picks 1 & 2. Knowing and proving are obviously two different things which is why all this will depend on what kind of evidence the AFL has. If they have documented evidence of a clear strategy to ensure we lose games it's a no contest. If it's just subjective opinions against other subjective opinions well thats another matter.