Dr. Gonzo

This comment by Demetriou once again gets to the heart of the problem of GWS and to a lesser extent Gold Coast. The ADMINISTRATOR of the competition is so compromised in their aim to ensure success for these two teams that they are openly willing to disadvantage the existing clubs in order to achieve their goal. They know that the Vic, WA & SA fans are so loyal to their clubs and the game that there is no risk in disenfranchising the heartland supporters for a decade or so in their reach for new markets and money. GWS & GC are not mere football clubs or franchises, they are new PRODUCTS created by the AFL to break into a market they previously could not penetrate.

Yep, we should be in their ears now.

Would be great for MFC to have two and wouldn't knock that back - but the Pies to be sitting outright leaders on 17 would make me spew.

No doubt - and look I'm not gonna go on a "woe is Melbourne" rant - fact is we are the 4th most successful club since 1897. It's just I'd rather see us consistently thereabouts and winning one every so often rather than have a great history that I can only read about. Also I appreciate what you're saying about Saints/Dogs but to be frank I couldn't give a rats about them - we should be comparing ourselves to the best and not the worst. On the flipside imagine being a Blue or Bomber and having seen multiple flags or if not at least being able to watch them on DVD.

It's not only from season to season this happens (chocolates to boiled lollies) but within seasons as well and potentially games. We have never been a consistent side as long as I have been watching the Demons. In the Northey years we would regularly drop gimme games (and not just one or two but multiple games in a row) which would cost us a top 3 berth and double chance. Not to mention the Daniher years like 2004 & 2006 when we lost to Carlton twice costing us a top 4 spot. It's part of the "toughness" we have to develop within the club that will see us gain consistency not just year in, year out but game in, game out. To extend your argument about the 50's-60's - we won 10 of our 12 premierships within 25 years (1939-1964). Outside of those 25 years (90 seasons minus the WW1 years) it has been pretty lean times for the MFC.

Rivers is not a KPD. McDonald seems to be slated for a FWD role and Davis is an unknown qunatity. I'd also argue Garland isn't really a KPD either though he can play as one. I think we do need a KPD. Having said that I was surprised with our pick-ups this draft. I would have liked to go after 3 midfielders with the hope one of them will make it but I guess we have Viney next year plus our two comp picks. But I think we really need to start bulking up our midfield depth as the only potential A-grader we have at the moment is Trengove.

I would have thought the fact we are spending an additional $15M and still turning a profit is a positive thing? Sure we still have work to do but why dump on the club when they are moving in the right direction? Rome wasn't built in a day as they say and the Demons task of taking over the modern day Colisseum is a gradual process that is moving in the right direction.

Ben Holland owns this thread.

Nah don't have any but looking at buying all the MFC premiers posters - had a look on the net and there's reprints availabel fro about $25 each don't know how you'd go with originals though.

What would happen is you take the MCG capacity (100K) minus MCC reserve (22K?) minus AFL members reserve (22K?) and the Pies can be left with the rest as ticketed members for their home games. There is no obligation to leave seats open for opposition/away fans and they will make more money off fully ticketed memberships (like Freo/WCE). Essendon are limited in their memberships due to playing at Docklands which has a capacity of 50K. As mentioned some of those 70K members are 3 game members (and pet members?) The best way to look at it then in terms of who benefits most from their memberships is revenue from memberships. And I'd say Collingwood are still a long way in front. The Pies made $3.8 million profit this year. The Hawks have made ~$15 million profit since about 2007. The Pies had a turnover of $75 million this year (compared to our $40 million.) This is what we are up against and why we need to continue to improve and implement strategies to increase our revenue through memberships, sponsorships, merchandise, functions etc and whatever other means we can (winning some prizemoney wouldn't hurt either).

How much are they? Are you after originals or reprints?

Yeah I remember during the 90's the big thing was to get 20K members. That then went on to 30K, 40K and now the base everyone is aiming for is 45-50K. Pretty crazy when you think about it. Costs have also gone up from about $100 which would just get you in to home games and the members area to now $500+ which gets you into all Vic games and gets you a reserved seat.

Yeah this is a great resource - have just flicked through some random ones and there is some great stuff surrounding the expansion to the national comp amongst other things. Have a number of these from the late 80's still in a box in the shed somewhere so could remember some of the ones from 1989 especially which used to collect and read through as a kid.

I have a hatred for GWS due to the $cully thing, but big picture I think it is important they succeed now that they're there. The issue I have though, and the stench which emanates from GWS & GC, is that the AFL is INVESTING in these areas/clubs and will do anything they can to ensure they succeed, similar to Brisbane and Sydney earlier last decade. How can anyone take the COMPETITION seriously when the administrators of the game will do anything they can to ensure success for these teams? In hindsight the AFL should have built these teams from the ground up investing in the grassroots and letting these clubs develop to the point where they demanded a team. Unfortunately the AFL has taken the short-term approach of throwing massive wads of money at them in the hope that this will guarantee success for the teams on the field and therefore success for the clubs off the field. So where is the line drawn between the AFL and these new franchises? If the AFL is going to such lengths to ensure on-field success for them, surely they can see that interest from supporters of the other clubs may diminish if they see that they're own clubs chance of success has been railroaded by the competitions adminstrators in an effort to make the game more appealing to the northern fans and therefore attempt to lure in more money from broadcasters/advertisers. Another issue as raised is that interest in the games against these clubs by foundation clubs is much lower than games against traditional enemies. So a game against Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond, Hawthorn etc is much more interesting than a game against GC, GWS, Port, Adelaide, Freo etc. With the increased number of teams, guaranteed return games and the 22 game season, the competition is being divided into two with Coll, Carl, Ess, Rich, Haw, Geel playing each other twice every year give or take maybe one or two on a rotational basis which leaves MFC, North, Bulldogs etc the honour of playing these soulless franchises twice every year meaning less home games against traditional rivals and less return games against them as well. This not only affects our crowds due to limited opposition supporters attending but affects the interest of our supporters in these games - as RobbieF said games against the traditional enemies mean something, games against the franchises are just another four points. If the AFL continues with their FIXture in an effort to "maximise attendances" as well as funding of the new franchises to ensure success, the competition is so compromised that the traditional supporters will slowly lose interest. Fix up the draw and it can go a long way to ensuring the credibility/integrity of the competition where it is seen as a genuine sporting contest rather than just another "for profit" industry.

Exactly. I'm glad to hear stuff like this. Thanks for sharing mate. The way some of you blokes carrying you'd think you were running a grand inquisition here or something. Give the guy a break. Here's an idea - if you dont like the thread or think it's pointless dont post.

Richie Vandenberg

I don't think there's need for that - these guys did this in good faith. Maybe apologies are warranted to club legends like Schwarz who copped a bit of a pasting by some, but we shouldn't let the $cumbag tear the club apart with supporters having a go at each other about who was right and who believed him. I believed him up until about 1/2-3/4 of the way through the year because I wanted him to stay & in the absence of evidence what other choice as a supporter of the club did I have? We should move on in supporting the club and the players and new coaches/FD who have chosen to stay on and display their loyalty, guys like JT, Chippa, Gawn, Tappy etc instead of wasting our energy fighting amongst ourselves over who was right or wrong.

Whether he signed the contract in 2010/2009 or not is no irrelevant because this proves that he is a liar who lied to the club, supporters and media in his press conference in March 2011 stating that no approach had been made to him, his manager or his family. What I want to see is the players get stuck into him like never before in Round 13 and every time we wplay them for the rest of his career. I don't want to see any of the backslapping crap the Cats had with Ablett when they played GC this year. Punish the little ****.

Pretty sure made that comment before the "media training" could be wrong though.

This is true and my first reaction to the articles (and all his comments since being appointed) is "hell yes, finally someone who is saying what needs to be said". I never want to be embarrassed as a supporter of this club like I was in the wake of the Carlton game this year. I can see the argument though that singling out players in the media may not be the best way to go about it. However as I said before hopefully this will be the "culture shock" we've needed since Northey left and the players will either HTFU or GTFO. EDIT: As an afterthought, this is a club that seems to have "needed" this sort of no-nonsense coach from outside the MFC/MCC conservative culture to shake the place up and show them what is required to achieve success. This isn't an old-school gentleman's club where just showing up and having a run around the park is enough, this is a professional no-holds-barred league and the purpose is success, not competitiveness. Our successful coaches (Checker, Smith and Northey even though he fell short of the ultimate success) were old school, tell it like it is hard-arses. I agree there's too much molly-coddling in this club. Hopefully Neeld will prove to be another outsider who comes from the blue-collar cross-town rival to show us the la-la land we've been in and can shake the place up and lead the club to success.

This was well before my time but I've heard the story before and pretty sure this game was at Glenferrie Oval not the G.

I've always wondered about this and have to agree that Carlton would have flogged us in 1987, but would making the 1987 GF have held is in better stead in 1988? We were demolished by the Hawks but many of our players were young and inexperienced to the GF week experience whereas the Hawks were old pro's. Making the 1987 GF may have taken some of the edge off the 1988 GF (assuming we made it again).

I don't think its a matter of making bold statements - the supporters are very happy with this direct talking for the most part. What I think some people are raising as potential misgivings is the perceived "bagging" or singling out of players in the public mind. He could have very easily made the same comments without referring directly to Davey, Watts or Sylvia having to lift their game or being demoted to Casey.He could have made this as a general statement of all players having to prove themselves. I'm not saying its wrong but I can understand the misgivings. Say what you want behind closed doors but there still needs to be a sense of unity in public. As mentioned did Roos, Malthouse, Thompson etc single out players in public? The last coach I can remember doing so (though to a greater extent) was Blight with his "pathetic" Pittman comments.

I can agree with this to an extent. Although I love these statements they are definitely geared towards the supporters rather than the media or the players to buy in to the new coaches/FD. It may be unfair to single out certain players but it is certainly not unwarranted and something that has been said about these same players by supporters and the media for years. Should the coach be making these statements in public? Maybe not but I think it will help create an environment where the acid is on the players - they are paid to play footy and if they can't handle a but of public pressure then they should either drink a cup of cement or GTFO. Having said that though what I'd like now is for Neeld to put HIS nose to the ground and focus on getting this club back on track for number 13. He's made his point but I think this club has had enough of "words" over the long drought - it's time for actions.