The Chazz

Just give them the water and milkshakes to shut them up. Will also allow you to write better notes for us!

Just watching those highlights of Viney, I often forget how seriously good he is. I always know he's good, but realistically, he's seriously good. This will be a big call, but I think he's every bit as good as Selwood at the same age, and is tracking on the same trajectory. If Viney had a midfield/flankers around him that included Ablett, Bartel, Chapman, Johnson, Corey, Enright and Mackie, Jack would be considered a superstar of the competition. Easily our most important player, and you only needed to watch that first quarter of the West Coast game to know what he's capable of.

As expected. You make claims, stating them as facts, then when one challenges you, you tell them to "do the work yourself". But to entertain you (and myself), I'm happy to find this study you speak of. But to save me a bit of time, would you mind telling me which professor did the study? I, too, like Demonland. I'm going to like it a lot more now that you're on my ignore list. Good day.

WTF was that rambling? I ask again, where's the paper on your sport science theory? And your response to Collingwood's lack of success given their significantly higher investment in to the sport science area.

Where is this paper on the study/theory about larger sport science investment resulting in less injuries, which you claim is "very, very strong"? You haven't provided it, which makes me wonder if it's something you made up. Also, where's your reply about the amount Collingwood have invested over a larger period than 7-10 years? How have they been travelling, especially in the last 5 years? And you've been "lucky" to be exposed to the inside of multiple AFL clubs. Really? Do us a favour, say g'day to your Uncle Cameron, Craig or Barry (whichever one it is) for us.

Here it is again. Lever is clearly playing the defender in this contest, and Oscar a makeshift forward. Oscar is at the fall of the ball in time, and has no intention of spoiling, given that Lever "beat" him. I'm not an Oscar lover, but if you can't see that it's a positioning drill more than a full-blown contested contest, I can't help you. EDIT (Demonland): Here is the video.

I must have missed this "footage" of Oscar's training drill failure vs Lever. The footage I saw looked like a positioning drill more than a true one-on-one contest.

It's getting to the stage where you just din't bother with this "DaveyDee", Rjay. They continually bang on about how much (or little) we spend compared to other clubs, then as soon as they are challenged to provide some form of proof, they run away and bang on about the same topic in a different thread. Collingwood is great proof that the quantity you invest into areas like Sport Science doesn't assure success, it's about the quality of the people you have at the club. Same with the FD. Do you have to pay more to get quality people? Quite possibly, but Collingwood are paying a lot for minimal return. But again, this doesn't help with "DeeDavey's" agenda, so don't expect a response.

To be fair, ANB is 12 months behind Jayden Hunt in terms of being on the list, and in general development. The improvement Hunt showed in 2016 was on the back of a season where he showed nothing. While he cemented himself in the best 22 during 2016, he rubber-stamped it in 2017. Using that comparison, ANB cemented himself in 2017, so I'm hopeful that 2018 will be a consolidation year. Just what level he will get to beyond that, obviously remains to be seen. One thing about ANB though, I don't think it will be through a lack of trying, and at worst, the new draftees have some terrific training/attitude role models in the likes of ANB, Stretch, Viney and Oliver.

So in hindsight, we received Frost, ANB and OMc, for 2016 pick 57 and 59, and also got to keep our 2012 pick 23. No doubt Mahoney, Viney and co were criticised for being poor negotiators or being bent over by GWS in the original Frost trade.

The last I looked, Harmes was our number 4. Not sure what the big deal is. I also expect to see footage of Lever in an Adelaide jumper when it's day 8. People seriously need to HTFU.

Interesting, would love to read the paper on this "very, very strong theory". I'm sure there would be a connection to sport science and a pattern of soft tissue injuries. However, if you have a look at a lot of our injuries in 2017, I can't really see any pattern in terms of a flood of hamstrings, or calves, etc. Jones had his quad, Watts his hammy, Viney's plantar, Jesse's testicular cancer, Gawn's hammy, Gus' concussions, Salem's thyroid, Kent's shoulder, etc etc (Vanders, Spencer, Smith x 2). I think 2017 was just one of those crap years for us on the injury front. How this could be put down to sport science is baffling. But, given you have a clear issue with the amount we are spending in the football department, I expect you will have a different argument.

Yeah, I'd reckon Neeld wouldn't be Goodwin-esque. While I think Bailey would've been similar to Goodwin, I wonder how much CEO-influence there was in some of the selections during his tenure...

Thanks for asking the question that I raised. It was interesting to hear that JT and his team have a significant amount of weight in the decisions that are made on the night. He is certainly confident of his, and his teams ability to find the right players for us, and Goodwin gives him that respect too. Probably makes me ask the next lot of questions though. Are all senior coaches like that? Do any coaches put their foot down and demand we take "x" player instead of "y"? Do any recruiters put them on the line and overrule a senior coach? I remember talking to Ben Mathews a couple of years ago. He told me that Roos' view was that we built the team the wrong way back in the Bailey and Neeld era - built from outside in, rather than inside out - hence why we needed to start again. So, if that was the directive from the coaching team, then any wonder the recruiters got it wrong so often during that time. That said, I would've thought Bailey would be of the same ilk as Goodwin in this regard (meaning the recruiters got it wrong). Neeld, I'd imagine, would've been the demanding type.

I think given the constant "we should've taken "X" player instead of "y" player", I'd like to know who has the biggest say in the recruitment of the players we take. Is it the coach that goes to the recruiters and says "we need this type of player, find us the best one", or do the recruiters come back with a priority list and say "here's the best 5 players in the land, who do you like best?". With all the hindsight recruiting that a lot of us do on here, I'd be interested to know the above. And if you do ask it, please don't let him get away with the "best available" line. There has to be more to it than that. There has to be!

Go back through history, DJ. It is very rare for a team to win a Grand Final with less than 2 x talls, 1 x relief ruck. And please don't stop looking at Richmond 2017. Go back further and further, and further again. What you saw in 2017 is an exception to a rule that is hardly broken.

It would be either through an application/membership/listing fee (most likely an annual fee), or through a % of the total transaction cost (with a capped amount). The other option would be a standard "spotters fee", but this would be a bit harder to do given one transaction may be worth $5, and another one could be worth $50,000. A majority of businesses in Victoria, especially the non-MFC related entities, would absolutely back their marketing departments/sales people to generate business through means other than a MFC Business Directory. As a Carlton or Geelong supporter, you'd be salivating at the idea of paying the MFC to promote your business to its 40k members, right?

Good luck getting a park... (Not because it will be busy with all the unique merchandise, but because of its bog ordinary location)

I have shot your idea down, and you didn't like it. You have done that to several people already on this thread. Irrespective of what their ideas are (even if it is as black and white as "winning"), it's their idea. Unique MFC gear would be great, but would be a long way from covering the loss of your expected pokie revenue ban. Interestingly, I've given you an example of how the Richmond FC are generating additional income, which would be far greater than that of a business directory or unique merchandise, yet you have completely avoided commenting on that. Perhaps your connections with the Richmond FC have told you not to discuss it as it is an income producer for them, and they may feel threatened if we get involved with the University of Melbourne.

Thanks for that IT update. Doesn't at all change my view of your business proposal - it still stinks. I'm trying to work out your reasoning for being on this forum. Based on your posting on this thread, as well as the Craig Cameron thread, I've finalised my list of "what/who you could be"; 1. A relation of Craig Cameron or Barry Prendergast 2. Craig Cameron or Barry Prendergast 3. Cameron Schwab (given you have intimate knowledge of the runnings of both the Richmond FC and the Melbourne FC) 4. A troll Whatever the answer, you're clearly not a Melbourne supporter. I acknowledge that you don't have to be a MFC supporter to post on here, but I'd imagine people will lost patience with your line of posting.

This idea had some merit, but now I've seen a rough business plan, it stinks. Why would "Any business in Melbourne Australia, who cares if they barrack for the Demons or they don't" register for a Melbourne FC Business Directory? There's a thing out their called "Google". If you are a business, you should really have website, that's where their marketing dollars get directed to, not an AFL club that would "just take their money". If are are a consumer that isn't a MFC member, which in Melbourne alone would be approx 3.8m people, you go straight to Google and search away. Consumers are familiar with that search engine to look for businesses, not a MFC business directory. I don't see this idea making the income you are talking. It'd be a warm and fuzzy "add on" service for our current members. That's it.

In - Pedo, ANB Out - Weidemann, Harmes I'd expect an interchange of Melksham, Salem, Lewis and Tyson. Other than that, it's a pretty strong team.

You're entitled to do that. I'm telling you what I've heard from a reliable source. But let's not forget, AFL club presidents want to win premierships, in an industry that demands you be ahead of the game in all facets to be successful.

As I have said, I am told one club (Geelong) that will bypass any introduction of AFL anti-pokie revenue rule as they have set up at least one gaming venue that isn't under their name. Also, if the AFL bring this rule in, will it be across the board in terms of lower level/grassroots leagues? I know many clubs across Australia that receive sponsorship from venues that also receive income from gaming.

I think you are being very short-sighted in your search for an additional income stream if you are talking about a business directory. Don't get me wrong, it has the potential to create some income, but is it sustainable? This will only be determined by an individual business, and the income it generates for them in the first 1-3 years. If a business is paying to be part of a directory, they will want to see an increase in their own customers, otherwise they will soon opt out. You need something that appeals to a broader market, not just Melbourne supporters. A product or service that a lot of people require, and currently pay big dollars for. Something that people access every day, and for the long-term future, will continue to be offered. Things like education, health care, aged care, child care, this sort of stuff is used and paid for every day throughout Australia. But the question is regarding the expense to get this stuff set up, considering it's a market that is already flooded. So instead of investing huge amounts of dollars to reinvent the wheel, maybe we look at strategic partnerships with providers that are leading the way already. Or do we look at having an add-on to what's currently done? With all that said, I do think there are opportunities to further grow our partnership with the University of Melbourne. They (UofM) are ranked the number 1 university in Australia, and I'm pretty sure have the highest world ranking of our universities. They have approx 50,000 students, a lot of international students (potential of new members), and a reputation that sees a lot of people wanting to study there but can't get in. To give you an idea of the Richmond FC/Swinburne program I mentioned earlier, the offer a 12 months Diploma of Sport Development/Diploma of Leadership and Management. Fees are $19,000 and this year, they are expecting around 80 students (aka $1.52m gross income). There is a pathway into other Swinburne degrees at the end of it, which is where Swinburne can see an increase in income.