The Chazz

Here it is again (in full) so you don't have to go back through the numerous posts; "The main issue (from what I can understand) is that the MFC didn't do appropriate background checks on a mjor financial "contributor". Who knows, they may have done their ethical checks in regards to facebook pages, twitter, etc, but from a financial point of view, we just don't know." And here is exactly where I explained I stand (so there is no confusion); "I have an expectation that it was just a case of bad luck, more than someone now doing their job, but that's an opinion." In this last quote, the undelined "now" should have been "not", but that is a minor error and not something that confuses my opinion.

Maurie - highlighting that sentence on it's own is totally incorrect, and is not me making a statement. If you included the second sentence of tha tparagraph, it showed where I sit/sat. That first sentence was me explaing what the two sides of the arguement was. It was said when I was trying to work out why I was being asked about things I hadn't even mentioned. And to Nasher and Axis of Bob, I'm not sure why you "liked" his comment. I have asked Maurie on numerous occasions to re-read my post buy he refuses to, but continues to post things to suit his arguement.

Where to start? Ok, I'll try; 1. Junior - of the opening four names you mentioend, I would rate Junior as the only decent role model amongst them. He was delisted because of his age, and the fact that his body would struggle to cope with another preseason and a full season. Would we have benefited from a season of 12-16 games from Junior in 2011? Well, in hindsight, maybe. But there was absolutely no guarantee that his body would've held up for that long. It was breaking down in 2010, that can't be argued. 2. Bruce - I am happy that he has gone. He was a liability in 2010, and struggled getting a game in 2011 with Hawthorn. Offield, noone knows what sort of influence he had around the Club, and especially on the players. 3. Robbo - I didn't rate Robbo as high as a lot do on here, but I won't go in to that. What I will say is that Robbo's forward pressure was not at the standard that has been required for the past few years, and it's that type of work ethic that can have a negative impact on a younger list. 4. Miller - I was over his play one good game, then 4 poor games. He lacked consistency, and still does, and is a classic example of a footballer who is too good for VFL, but not good enough for AFL. We seem to have our fair share of those types, which makes me question the development coaches. In regards to the picks such as Maric, Cheney, etc, it's the great unknown. Bad selections or bad developments? The problem is that these types of players had Bruce, Robbo, Junior, Miller, Yze, Brown, etc to look up to when they were starting out, and unfortunately, I'm not sure if there were enough role models to help them. As a result, I think their development took a big step backwards, and we are paying terribly for that over the past couple of years (as these are the guys that should be leading the next young brigade). As for that "next young brigade", it's been posted many times about the names such as Frawley, Jones, Grimes, Morton, Strauss, Trengove, Blease, Gysberts, Tapscott, Cook and Watts, these are our top picks of the past few years. They too have had bugger all to look up to in terms of role models, and are required to play roles that their years shouldn't require. Thanks to Sylvia, Moloney, Green, Davey and Rivers, these blokes haven't stood up when the young brigade needed them to. It won't be until that young brigade get to the 23-26 year old mark that I hope to Christ that they have changed the culture of the Melbourne Football Club. If they haven't, then it's going to be tough going for the next batch, the likes of Viney and whoever else we get this year. It may not be this year, but I'd like to think next year, with an ounce of luck that young brigade can play a lot of footy together, and in turn, start winning some matches. It will assist in creating a culture that all will want to be involved in. It won't be until then when we can start to expect the likes of Petterd, McKenzie, Howe, Tynan, Magner, etc to play roles consistently well. These guys are late draft picks or rookies, we as supporters can't expect them to produce what we hoped our first rounders need to. If the odd one can, fantastic, that's a bonus, but it would be great if those players are our fringe players won't it?

Was beginning to think that Maurie's surname was Mifsud.

Here it is for your benefit Maurie...looks to be firmly in possibility 1 if you ask me. I await your apology.

Maurie, edit your post and remove my name immedaitely, then, you can post an apology to me on this thread.

When was I on the ethical arguement?

Brilliant Maurie. Now, let's actually post the full comment that I wrote... "The main issue (from what I can understand) is that the MFC didn't do appropriate background checks on a mjor financial "contributor". Who knows, they may have done their ethical checks in regards to facebook pages, twitter, etc, but from a financial point of view, we just don't know." So, as you can see, and from all my other posts regarding this topic, I have not made the statement that I know they didn't do certain things. As I have questioned above...who knows? Obviously the Club knows, or some within it, but for everyone else, it's gueww work. I have an expectation that it was just a case of bad luck, more than someone now doing their job, but that's an opinion. Disappointing that you're like that Maurie.

Sorry Cards, I'm not sure how this makes me change my opinion of the Rebels compared to the Reds? All it says to me is that for the Rebels to be seen as a more professional club, they need to win games and championships. I'm not sinking the boot in to them, as I am fully aware of the challenges they face, and especially consdiering it's a code that is not strong in Victoria. I do wish them every bit of success, and hope that they continue to improve onfield, so that offield they have more sponsors knocking on their door other than the dodgy brothers.

Haven't changed the goal posts at all DC. Here is what I wrote in my initial arguement... "AGL/Red Energy/Tru/Momentum - I don't really see the point in using these guys in the arguement. If I owned an Energy Company, and had a broker come to me and say "I will promote your products, and get you "x" amount of customers a month, and all you need to do is give me $150 for each one that signs up", I couldn't care less what the financial background of said company is like. I only have to pay them when I've signed a new customer up, so it's a no-brainer for me. The only time I'd step in is if the company that I use (ie EW) are known to be working on behalf of my company, and they do something stupid." The last senetence could be the confusing issue, but what I am getting at is that while Energy Watch are making me money by getting new customers, I couldn't care less what their financial issues are. But, as soon as something is made public, like what happened, Tru, etc acted how they should. My understanding of the whole issue about EW/MFC is wondering if we performed appropriate background checks, with particualr emphasis on EW's financial situation. There are no doubt other issues, but that's the part I've been posting about.

Because I will! Sports science is getting out of hand if the players are told "that's enough for training today, don't touch another football for the rest of the day". I haven't been to a training session for many years, but I would like to think our forwards are practicing goal kicking a lot more than what they do in training drills. Wasn't it Cloke that used to stay behind after training with his Ipod in his ears practicing goal kicking?

The main issue (from what I can understand) is that the MFC didn't do appropriate background checks on a mjor financial "contributor". Who knows, they may have done their ethical checks in regards to facebook pages, twitter, etc, but from a financial point of view, we just don't know. Tru, etc, wouldn't need to do finanical checks, not to the extent that the MFC would've needed to. Anything discussion about it outside that is irrelevant sorry. From my understanding, the energy provider finalise all contract and payment terms, etc, so it has nothing to do with EW at that stage. It's only when that customer agrees that EW would be ontified of a "new customer", therefore, they are entitled to their "spotters fee". Edit - the last paragraph.

Said the same thing a couple of weeks ago Dr, and I also added Jones and Frawley in there too. When all these first round draft picks are aged between 23-26, we might have something special, espeically given we will continue to draft over the coming years. It's about making sure that this core group of players actually stay together, and most importantly, develop together and realise it's not just "going to happen". I'm hopeful that the leadership of Grimes and Trengove, and with Neeld and Craig at the helm, ensure that these players work their arse off for their entire careers.

Like the attitude of Scum bag when, if he missed a pass on his non preferred foot as a junior, he was out the next morning kicking 100-odd balls with that foot. Or a story I heard about Vicky Wilson (form Aussie netballer), who would, before practice, shoot 50 or so shots at goal, then train with the team, then after training shoot another 50-100 shots on her own. It's a level of dedication that sees individuals improve. And if someone comes on and whinges about load management, etc, I'll vomit.

Not sure if there is sarcasim in that post, but I'll throw it this way (in case there is!)... Why would a company is Tru, need to do a financial check on EW? As far as Tru's concerned, they see a new customer on their screen, see that it's come from EW, that customer is signed on to a 2 year contract, and as soon as the first payment is processed, Tru give EW $150. A small amount to pay from Tru's perspecitve, considering they did bugger all in getting the customer. When EW sponsor on the other hand, it's great that they claim to give us $2m a year, but we need to make sure we will get that $2m a year, espeically when we are budgeting on that money, given our increased expenditure in to the football department. Hope that clears up any confusion, and eliminates the need to compare a sporting team's CEO with an energy providers CEO, where both parties are delaing with EW. Totally different circumstances.

Benno, I think they are doing well considering their age, but let's put it in to perspective. Getting 11,000-15,000 is a great effort, considering the other codes they are competing with. Red's average around 30,000 to their games, and Warratah's, who are in a similar situation to the Rebels, around 18,000. Australian Rugby has 4 sides at this level, so of course they are going to have Wallabies players. The team, as you rightly said, is coached by a former World Cup winning coach. He coached the Wallabies back in the late 90's to 2001. It's like saying how good GWS' coach is becuase of how many premierships he has won. As I said, when you compare them to the other sides in the leauge, and base it on current facts, I wouldn't consider the Rebels to be a professional outfit, especially when I'm looking at how sides like the Reds go about things. It's not an attack on them personally, it's just my view.

FFS Maurie, it's a massive difference. Most obviously, in your above post it requires Melbourne receiving money from EW. In my point, it is EW receiving money from Tru or whoever. In that case, I wonder if EW did their background checks on Tru, etc. Who knows, and who cares. The principles in this example are totally different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzPBUGUM7KQ The only excuse I could come up with from our club's point of view is the fact that CS originally valued our brand at something between $1m-$1.5m a year, then EW came in, at a time when his days were numbered, and offered an amount far greater than what he was hoping for. Other than that, I got nuffin!

You talking to me Jose?

Dunno Benno. I guess the easiest way for me to explain myself would be that I feel they are amateur compared to the likes of the Reds, who from an adminstration level are a level under the Crusaders, etc. Kind of like comparing GWS to Us (maybe a bad example) and Collingwood.

I'm not sure it's as simple as that Maurie. Now, before I start, I may be incorrect about a few of these things, and will happily change my mind where I am incorrect... Melbourne Rebels - new kids in their league, and to be honest, quite an amateur club, trying to compete in a sport that is not a strength in Victoria. Dollars to them are valuable regardless of where they come from. Melbourne Vixens - at the end of the day it's a netball sponsorship. If the going rate is $200k for a major sponosr, and someone walked in and offered them $400k, in a sport that struggles with funding at all levels, I'm sure they would've jumped in boots and all. Bendigo Gold - in the 2nd tier Aussie Rules comp, where clubs, especially country clubs like Bendigo and North Ballarat, find it hard to secure big paying sponosrs. AGL/Red Energy/Tru/Momentum - I don't really see the point in using these guys in the arguement. If I owned an Energy Company, and had a broker come to me and say "I will promote your products, and get you "x" amount of customers a month, and all you need to do is give me $150 for each one that signs up", I couldn't care less what the financial background of said company is like. I only have to pay them when I've signed a new customer up, so it's a no-brainer for me. The only time I'd step in is if the company that I use (ie EW) are known to be working on behalf of my company, and they do something stupid. 3AW and The Age - Media sponsorships are a fair bit different to any of the above. You want to advertise your company, you need to use either print media or radio/tv. Big names such as #AW and The Age will have those spots snapped up well and truly by now, such is the demand to advertise with them. Melbourne Victory, like the Melbourne Football Club, I would've thought would have done appropriate background checks. Both should be professional enough to ensure this won't happen again in the future, however, money talks, and sometimes when your fighting hard to hold on to your job, you sometimes take little shortcuts that often bite you on the arse.

Bailey didn't have 186 next to his name half way through 2010 either. Perhaps read the post again. It is a fact that at the start of 2007, that Thompson's coaching career was going to be terminated early to mid season if results didn't improve. While it's no secret, I was told that by a Geelong insider. Thompson's 2007 turned out to be Bailey's 2011. Offield, Geelong had their sh!t together in '07, something that was far from evident for us in 2011.

Sorry Maurie, I thought I saw Sellar playing as the 2nd ruck on Saturday. And at 196cm, is 2cm shorter than Martin, and I also believe reading somewhere after we picked Sellar up that he, like Martin, could pinch hit in the ruck when required.

No, he was playing, his name was James Sellar. You know, the guy we picked up with pick 50+ and a lot on here thought it was like daylight robbery how we got him??

I think it's a combintation of the two. I always thought, like most on here, that it was the way you said, but I watched Jamar's work quite closely on Saturday )albeit via telecast) and his tap downs did not put us to advantage. It will be argued that our mids (ex-Moloney) should shark his taps better, but if Jamar only has one trick when it comes to effecitve tap work, he's in a lot of trouble. Depending on who our opposition is, and how they set up at a centre bounce or clearance, we should have 3 or 4 set plays that will ensure if Jamar wins the tap, he has the choice, and most importantly the ability to put the ball in those areas. At the moment, he has 1 (as Jumping Jack mentioned above).