DirtyDees DDC

"Inappropriate dealings". It's an unusual phrase from Ricky. Maybe he was too drunk and he meant to say 'Ina Gadda Da Vida'.

Thank you for those terrific links. It's a cooler, funkier version of the song, but missing that great Jeff 'Skunk' Baxter guitar solo in the middle. It's interesting to see a live version of this song, because they didn't do this number at Rod Laver Arena a couple of years ago. Don Fagen even had a go at a heckler in the front row who was calling out for 'Rikki...'.

He says he's called her a few times. I think it's time for Ricky to lose that number.

Another example - Aaron Davey. I believe the front loaded his contract in 2009 so the club would have more cash for the new kids on the block.

Read the fine print. It's not the $7000 that would keep him in Melbourne. It's the compliance rules. The applicant must occupy the home as their principal place of residence for a continuous period of at least 6 months, commencing within 12 months of either settlement or completion of construction.

Good points. Item 3 may be a way to keep Tom at Melbourne. If he buys a property valued at $750,000 or less, he may be eligible for the First Home Owner Grant - worth $7000. There is a special rule with the grant that requires the applicant to reside in the property for at least 6 months. It states 'the applicant must occupy the home as their principal place of residence for a continuous period of at least 6 months, commencing within 12 months of either settlement or completion of construction (the residency requirement). The First Home Owner Grant is not intended to be used for the purchase of an investment property. Accordingly, the State Revenue Office gathers information via the public, data-matching and other sources to ensure recipients of the Grant comply with the 6 month residence requirement. A targeted audit program will be conducted with agents who approve payments of the Grant on behalf of the SRO to ensure maximum legislative compliance. Further, where the SRO detects instances of blatant dishonesty, the SRO will conduct prosecution activity'. It would be mildly humorous if GWS could not lure Tom to Sydney because of the first home owner grant residency rules.

Mark Murphy didn't. Neither did Kurt Tippett. And probably dozens of other offers have been made by GC and GWS and not taken up. Can anyone tell us how much money has been offered to Tom by MFC? I haven't heard one rumour that says 'GWS has offered xxx, Melbourne have offered yyy'.

I was at the final game last year and I turned to a North supporter and said ' I really don't rate your side'. And then they beat us...again. I think that made 8 losses in a row. I heard the North supporters on SEN too. Yes they need treatment and yes they've got problems, but they also have bragging rights. If i had to pick one side i'd like to see us beat this year, it would be North.

The drums were also beating that Kurt Tippett would go to the Gold Coast. Unlike the Abletts, Bocks and Browns, Kurt was in a similar position to Scully - a young player coming to the end of the second year of his contract. He is a 203 cm key forward, a Oueenslander who came from Southport, and he was a dead certainty to go back home after a couple of years at Adelaide. The Gold Coast would have offered him megabucks - yet he stayed in Adelaide.

Interesting how we managed the kick-outs. On at least 7 occasions the fullback (often Grimes) would kick it short to himself, run 10 and kick it 60 to a contested possession. It seemed to be a good safe option to get over the zone defence. At least it eliminates the risk of turning the ball over within 50 of the opposition goals. My grump for the night was the coverage on Foxtel - far too many long shots from behind the goals, and going to replays while the ball was still alive. It was like they had their own special rules for the first round.

Here is a report from the Melbourne Leader dated 11 Aug 2010: 'Melbourne chief operations officer Matt Green told the meeting the Bentleigh Clubs profitability had fallen 92 per cent since 2000 and up to $3.7 million was needed for an upgrade. Mr Green said the venue had been unsuccessful in attracting new and younger members, and that its location on residential Yawla St was the biggest problem.' The MFC have now revised their offer to the members of the Bentleigh club. Here are exerpts from an open letter to Bentleigh Club members received today (10/2/11) from the Bentleigh Club subcommittee. FACT Club has lost money for last 3 years Has Debts of over $1.8m and bank seeking solution as no repayments are being made Has Gaming machines 2012 commitment of $1.3 mil Is faced with new legislation in regards to gaming machines and ATMs. Both are considerable risk to the club if it operated as a an independent Most gaming venues are now part of bigger groups to share costs and risks Given the potential personal risk it will be difficult to get board members/ management to be involved if it remains an independent club. MFC REVISED DEAL 1. Minimum 12 Year commitment to location unless original BC members vote to move 2. Never moves unless members vote to (all members included after 12 years) 2. First $100k of profit goes to capital upgrades every year 3. 2 positions on sub-committee to oversee management and financials 4. Commitment it will be run as a club going forward 5. MFC takes over debt of $1.8m and gaming machines liability. In summary, we are proposing to swallow up a poorly situated venue that is losing money and dropping in revenue. We are willing to cover the Bentleigh Clubs' debts to the tune of $1.8 million and the gaming machine expenses of $1.3 million, plus the venue needs another $3.7m in renovations. But what is the point of renovating a club that is regarded by Matt Green and every consultant as a dud venue? One option is the possibility of selling 2 blocks of Whitmuir Road end of the car park to reduce the debt by approximately $1.5m, but there are significant planning issues around selling the blocks. Another option is moving to a new venue. However the current Victorian Commission Gaming Regulations make it more difficult to transfer machines to other zones compared to a transfer within the current zone (Caulfield, Carnegie, St Kilda East, McKinnon, Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Bentleigh East). So it seems a transfer to Casey Is unlikely. In the original proposal by the MFC last year, the club stated 'There is a clear incentive for MFC to relocate to a venue within the zone.' Yet here we are committing to at least 12 years at this venue, unless the original Bentleigh Club members vote to move. And what are the chances of that? We have finally paid off our debts and turned a small profit. We are now planning to sink our football clubs profits into 'Melbourne's hidden treasure' that is the Bentleigh Club. This could cost us more than Tom.

What a great team the 49ers had in the '80s. Joe Montana as QB, Jerry Rice as the best receiver in history, and rugged Ronnie Lotts as the safety. We they are struggling at the moment. i think they even sacked their coach at end of season.

If it is, do i win a prize for starting the post? oh yeah!!!!! Here's my request. A full TV version copy of the 1964 grand final. Not the movietone news stuff. I read that the yanks finally found a copy of the very first Superbowl so maybe there's hope for us. Isn't it great to see the passion in the supporters. Not bad for a club that was written off a couple of years ago by Demetriou and Kennett.

Wow. 29,659 views for a thread about a young kid being offered a big contract by another club. And the only reason given for Tom accepting the contract is the money. I just think he needs more reasons than that. Scully told the recruiters at the draft camp in 2009 that he wants be the best footballer he can possibly be. Money alone will not achieve that goal. The job of the MFC is to convince Tom that his best chance of achieving his goal lies with the Dees. By the way, is anyone interested in the rumour that Melbourne is after Malthouse for next year? I heard that one tonight on AW.

THE PACKERS WIN THE SUPERBOWL!!!! IT'S AN OMEN!!! GO DEES IN 2011!!!!!!!!! What a match. Pittsburgh were far more experienced, but they threw 2 interceptions and tossed in a fumble, and that was the difference. Green Bay had 3 key players injured by 1/2 time yet they hung on against the powerhouse steelers. It was probably the proudest victory in their proud history. Lombardi would have loved 'em.

A quote from Matthew Primus on the AFL website - 'Primus said the combination of reduced game time and experimental rules meant the lightning cup-format games on Friday night would be irrelevant to his team’s preparation for round one.' I'm not too optimistic because of our terrible record there, but as the new coach of Port Adelaide says, it will not have much bearing on our round one match. I am disappointed it won't be shown on 'free-to-air' tv. It's the first competitive match of the year ...where are you channel 7? I guess i have to ask the dumb question...how do we 'win' on Friday? Do we have to win both matches or is it a cumulative total? What happens if we lead Adelaide by 6 points; then we lose to Port by 6 points, then Adelaide beat Port by 6 points? Is that a 3-way tie? I checked the AFL website and found nothing to explain the finer points of the rules. All it says is 'The six winners from each pool, plus the two sides with the best records among the remaining clubs, will qualify for round two of the competition, allowing for a traditional quarter-final set-up of eight teams, before progressing into semi-finals and a Grand Final.' There will be a number of sides with just one win. Do we split them by percentage?

I've seen a photo of Watts and Scully standing together as team mates in a national under 11 footy carnival. Watts was still taller, and i think Scully had dyed his hair blonde!

That's an interesting variation on my proposal, and would fit with the oval shape of the grounds. One catch here is the rule for taking a mark anywhere in the 10 metre square, where a player can have a shot from directly in front of goal regardless where the mark is taken in the square. Would you still retain the 10 metre square for this rule, or would you expand the rule to cover anyone who takes a mark within this arc?

It doesn't necessarily have to be a torp. Some players can kick long distances by using the drop punt. The full back could also kick the ball further if we expanded the 10 metre square by 5-10 metres. This could stop the congestion at the kickouts and open up the game. I'm just trying to think outside the square.

This post has been created following a discussion about the intra club match. I noted that Strauss twice used the torpedo punt when kicking out from full back, and I said that nothing happens on the field without Bailey's permission (i pinched that line from the Jack Nicholson movie - 'A Few Good Men). Demon Land 7 posting this reply. "So so interesting you say this DD DDC i was about to come on and write that James was told on Friday that every kick in was to be a torp unless their is a short option on. He was [censored] himself and that second one that went about 65 he claimed was the only one he hit in 2 weeks of trying it. Really impressed though Bailey is thinking of these things. 1 point down to Collingwood with a minute to go and we do have a gameplan for it. I'm really starting to warm to the guy and his ideas." Very interesting theory. If you can't go thru 'em, go over 'em! If Strauss kicks out from the 10 metre square and it goes 60-65 metres, then it gets punched on or bounces another 20-30 metres, that should take us over the centre square. We could position Bennell, Jurrah and Davey to run from the 50 metre line thru the centre, pick up the loose ball, and head for goal. I think we even did that against Hawthorn in round 20 last year (Jurrah's soccer goal). My biggest gripe with todays footy is 36 guys on one half of the ground, and we saw it again yesterday in the last quarter of the intraclub match. Clubs don't worry if they kick a behind; they just bring all 18 players up to their forward line and try to force a turnover. It worked for Collingwood last year. I'd love to see sides use the torp as an offensive weapon to break up the zones and 'half court' pressure. It could force the kick-off side to keep some of their forwards up forward -it might even cause the return of the 100 goal full forwards. I'm not keen on changing rules, but a simple extension to the size of the 10 metre square could encourage the use of the torp as an offensive weapon. Imagine if there was a 90%+ chance Strauss could land the ball past the centre square at every kickout. It might be worth the risk. Here's a simple proposal. The width of the 10 metre square is limited to the width of the gap between the goalposts - so no change there. What if we extend the length of the 10 metre square by 5 to 10 metres? The full back or kick-off player can still kick it wherever he likes, but he now has the option of launching his kick from a point that is 15 to 20 metres away from the goals, and the ball could effectively land 5 to 10 metres closer to the centre square. It could eliminate the need for the full back to kick it to himself if he wants to cross over the line. The torp is an option because it travels further in flight than the drop punt. It doesn't have to be super accurate because you are aiming for an area the width of the middle of the ground. It would bring back one of the great 'lost' features of our game, and it could help reduce the conjestion at the kick-offs. I would also bring some fun back into the game, even though Barass might not like it.

That is very interesting and opens up some unusual possibilities. Anything is better than watching 36 players on one half of the ground.

As jimmy and Bails stated last night, we were a bit rusty yesterday at the intraclub match. A lot of passes by hand and foot went astray. They spend a summer doing handpass and kicking skills, yet they failed to hit targets on too many occasions, and not always under pressure. I also thought there was too much lateral movement of the ball and not enough quick movement into the forward 50, as is evident in the low scores. It was good to see Maric, Jetta and Strauss get a bit more of the ball. One surprise was Strauss using the old torpedo punt on a couple of occasions when kicking out from full back. I haven't seen that since Paul Wheatley's last game gainst the saints in 2009. Could this be Bailey's new game plan for our kickouts - to get around the oppositions' forward defensive pressure? Nothing ever happens on that field wsithout Bailey's permission.

One of the questions related to the Bentleigh and Leighoak clubs. The good news was we made about $300,000 from the Leighoak club after struggling in previous years. The Bentleigh club is still a concern. Cam Schwab talked about a possible merger (takeover?) of the Bentleigh club. The current site is not working as it is run down and loses patronage to clubs like the Bentleigh RSL in Centre Rd, however Schwab acknowledged that they club is in a core support area for the MFC. We may require $3-5 million to resolve the issues here. I hope we don't stuff it up like Collingwood did with their hotel deals.

Cannot agree Wolfie. We are not talking about your average wage and salary earners. Theses kids don't grow up with posters on their wall of bags of money, or shares in BHP, or how to set up a self managed super fund. They have posters of their stars or their team holding up the premiership cup (if they're lucky). It's their dream and there is only a limited timeframe for players to achieve their goal - say from 18 to a max of 35 years. Tom will want that to happen sooner rather than later, and Melboune should be pushing for top 4 within 3 years, whereas GWS seem to be looking at an 7-10 year timeframe. There are also enough chances for a player to earn good money off the field once they finish their career, as coaches or player development officials or even AFL management. They don't have to put all their eggs in one basket and go for broke on player wages. They also increase their employability if they are part of a premiership team.

Good Grief! 14,000 at GWS home matches? Is that that per month or per year? They will be lucky to get 5,000 paying customers per game at their home matches. I know some mad keen sports fans in Sydney and they are adamant that AFL will not work in the western suburbs. Sydney is the most anti-AFL city in Australia, and Western Sydney is the most anti-AFL region in Sydney. They don't like AFL. It's not tough enough for Rugby fans, and it has no international connection for soccer fans. Scully is a footy fanatic who has dreamed at playing games at the'G' in front of big crowds. Is he really going to give up his dream; move away from family and friends, and play in a suburban park for a team that might fold in 10 years? I don't think money is the main issue here. Tom is like every kid that plays AFL - he wants premierships and he wants to win. He knows he will get paid very well wherever he plays, but he does not know if he will play in a premiership team. Let's say he plays for another 12 years after 2011. Assume 9 clubs win flags in those 12 years (same result as 1999 to 2010). That means the remaining 9 clubs will miss out. Tom has to be a part of one of those nine successful teams. If he thinks the Dees will win a flag, and he can stay in Melbourne and play in big games at the 'G', then I reckon he'll stay.