Rogue

Haha, I love the analogy. Seems like we'll be announcing something soon though Two points - First, wasn't it CC who made the comment re: not knowing what he was doing 30 years ago? I may be wrong but I know Connoly has used that line before. Second, the speaker wasn't criticising the length of the contact IMO - simply stating that it's very difficult to make a 30-year contract. We're the ones who want a long contract with Casey... I think the term 'hybrid model' was been used to describe our half-half presence at the 'G and 'bubbledome' - I'm not sure Casey is part of that. I didn't hear anything about having a gym at Junction Oval - did Schwab state that we would be using facilities there after we move in at Bubbledome? I do remember him emphasising how good the facilities will be at 'bubbledome', albeit shared. It's definitely disappointing. Previously, the new administration has talked about getting everyone under the one roof. Even Schwab admitted that he wasn't sure this was the best fit for us in the long-term, but he explained that other alternatives (like moving everyone into the 'G) would be too expensive - around triple the rent of the 'hybrid model' iirc.

I don't mind the general idea but your implementation sounds very messy (with members keeping receipts and forwarding them to the Club). Fwiw, a somewhat similar idea was discussed at the 'Summit', with a loyalty-card style discount for members at participating businesses.

Any other view of how we should approach list management leads nowhere (except mediocrity).

You could say that again. PM's reputation was harmed by his sacking, and he copped much flak for going to Wimbledon. Indicating that he had a sponsor lined up, he worked on it while at Wimbledon, and that the sponsor bailed because Stynes and co. sacked him, he addresses those points - and inflicts some harm on those who made him walk the plank. I'm not asserting that this is his motivation, but I can understand how someone might feel there was something to gain. Ofc, lying about any potential sponsorship deals isn't smart, but who can verify or disprove his story?

Yeah, what sort of business tries to connect with its consumers? The summit is probably worth holding just to create a strong connection with attendees and network with members that may benefit the Club directly (ie. voluntary contributions from individuals and businesses), let alone any ideas that the Club picks up on and utilises to add value, are bonuses. Such a rubbish call.

There are car parks on Flinders St (near Fed Square). Otherwise you could drive around and try and find some non-permit street parking (ie. north of the 'G or opposite side of Punt Rd).

I believe the circumstances he is referring to are the 'global economic crisis' rather than the Melbourne brand crisis.

We unveil it. May as well put it on ice while we're looking for a sponsor. It can then be unveiled with a logo. ...except we've canned the silver clash jumper.

The fact that he can play, but is tagging, is a good thing IMO. Given the choice, it's better to have someone decent playing a run-with role than another Godfrey. It means that he can develop an attacking bow to his game, and when we have the ball he can use that to hurt the players he is tagging. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cum

Zing.

Pretty much as expected. All bar Moloney were virtually locks for a leadership nod.

...and the same reason particular posters haven't been banned.

I'd say the thread was closed because many of the posts had dropped to petty squabbling and personal attacks, rather than a discussion of the issues. However, I didn't close it and don't have any 'inside' info. I agree that people have the right to critically assess and debate aspects of the Club, but personal attacks are probably breaches of the Demonland Code of Conduct that have been around a while (before I agreed to help out with moderation). You know what they say about assumptions... If you want to know why Fan did something I'd suggest asking him. Despite the subject suggesting this was about our sponsorship woes this isn't really a footy topic, it's a moderation one. As such maybe it should be on the moderation board.

Fair enough, but even the official MFC site refers to Stynes as the President so it's an understandable mistake: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/TheClub/Boar...91/default.aspx

Yes, you've certainly been consistent. I don't agree with you - for reasons I've stated previously - but I do understand where you're coming from. My point, which you didn't address, is that the CEO and Board needed to be on the same page. Regardless of whether PM or Stynes & co. are correct, if they weren't on the same page things wouldn't work out.

Great choice with the Dees! Regarding the arguments here I think all want to see the Dees succeed, and most are pretty amiable even when differing on how we should go about that success. If you check out similar boards for other Clubs you'll find the same sorts of debates. In the whole I think MFC supporters get along just as well as others. IIRC last Melb v Coll match someone reported seeing a fight in the Collingwood cheer squad, so lets not romanticise them (or any other group).

The CEO needs to be singing the same tune as the Board. Btw, are you suggesting Schwab doesn't understand the urgency of the situation we're in? From his first press conference he's stressed the seriousness of our plight.

Correct. I think Directors - all of them - generally get a bad wrap. You'd be crazy to get involved if you didn't have the best interests of the Club at heart, given the level of involvement required. However, as you rightly point out, this doesn't mean that they should be immune from criticism (even if they have a Brownlow). Sure, but PM didn't secure that sponsorship. I'd be surprised if this wasn't already decided eight days out. Fwiw I heard that Primus were having financial difficulties, but I'm not sure if this is correct. Fair point regarding PM and sponsorship but if he was singing to a different tune than the Board was it would have made things difficult. I haven't been following this very closely but from the little I've read on here and in the media I wouldn't characterise missing out on Mission as an embarassment. What makes you characterise it as that? On the surface it seems obvious that WB are a better choice for a potential sponsor - better draw, FTA coverage and better finals prospects for starters.

I didn't say it was part of the proposal, I said that given it's been touted as one of the major soccer centres - dubbed 'centres of excellence' it seems - it's not terribly surprising that this rumour is going around.

The subject is pretty misleading IMO. Anyhow, Casey Fields has been slated as a soccer 'centre' so it wouldn't be terribly surprising.

Including the 118 year old Blease?

Comments like this are such rubbish. If you want to have more supporters / members you should be encouraging those who aren't hardcore fans to get on board. How do you think we - or any other Club - would go if only those who turned up every week bought memberships? Do you think Hawthorn suddenly have 40,000 hardcore, 'there every week', fans? Characterising those who didn't rock up to x game as 'gutless wankers' is ignorant. Your life might revolve around attending the football each week, and you might see it as a battle in which you're showing your intestinal fortitude by turning up, but for plenty of people other priorities are higher than getting to the footy each week. We're fortunate that so many of those still fork out for a membership, despite it being little more than a donation. Have a think before you take a crack at fellow supporters (let alone paid up members) who don't share your viewpoint on football attendance.

What's Petterd's one trick?

That's really irrelevant considering everything's relative - when people say XYZ is a poor footballer they're generally ranking him in relation to his peers at whatever level he's playing at. Some of the guys delisted from AFL Clubs might be good footballers in comparison to all others playing football - and often go on to play well at state or district level - but in relation to AFL players are not 'good'.

Wheatley isn't a KPP IMO. I'm not sure he's even a defender to be honest - if he is it's as someone who's primarily used to make play. There's probably room in the team for the other five, but who knows whether they'll all make the grade (in Rivers case, whether their body will hold out). Garland could probably play forward, and a few people on here have suggested Martin has the makings of a forward.