Rogue

Like I said, semantics re: the phrase 'winning position'. WYL hasn't asserted that we were favourites at that stage but that we had a serious 'sniff'. You might argue about the odds of Australia winning at that stage, but I think you're pushing it a little here. Sure, Australia may not have had any quicks who were 'likely to run through the Indians' but I think it's pretty clear that White and particularly Hussey were less chance than some of the other options.

I think you two are playing at semantics From what I can see both of you agree that we were a chance of winning at the time Ponting decided to bowl White and then Hussey, after which a win became a remote possibility.

Absolutely.

Katich is under-bowled and I don't really understand why. Given that Clarke has a bad back I don't see why we over-bowl him while virtually refusing to throw the ball to Kat. It's worked out that way sans the declaration. We bat fairly deep so we're still in the game...but it'd be an amazing win. We'll need to come up with something better if they decide to try and choke us with an 8-1 off-side field again though. I think Jaques is out for a while, so a more likely replacement would be Marsh or even Rogers. That said, I think that - providing he's fit - Hayden will play versus NZ regardless of what happens this innings. If he fails in that series he may be in trouble, particularly if we somehow lost. It's a shame Oram's going to miss the tour. Given the conditions I think Clark's performed okay. If we had played a decent spinner Clark would have been able to tie up the other end and keep the pressure on even if he wasn't claiming wickets himself. If that's the reason - and I can't see any other explanation - it's a disgrace. It'd be interesting to see who came up with this idea, assuming it was to avoid Ponting being suspended.

Or that the appeal would have been delayed until after the next Test - pretty surprising.

Bangladesh are hapless and should have Test status revoked. In the meantime, we have stats like this: DL Vettori 1 1 0 3* Talking of hapless, Vettori has saved NZ from embarassment this series. However, there's still a fair gap between the two sides. * the wickets were batsmen 2,3,4.

So what's your answer, considering you said we needed to get a quality spinner in there? I don't think there's one available, let alone one on tour. I agree with McGain. I'm really surprised Kreza got the call though. Obviously Casson being overlooked was a bit of a surprise. Doran seems to have fallen off the radar a bit (while you could argue he was never on it, Kreza was fourth in line at NSW when he left). Deep breath first, then write your replies

Absolutely. Ah well, that's cricket.

Huge mistake, isn't it? India would have been 5/236 with 20 overs left in the day.

For many people, the membership itself is a donation. Furthermore, even for people that have a 'spare few bob', there are plenty of worthy causes. Anyhow, $2,905,681 is the total raised so far.

I think the debt demolition 'month' has been a really good idea, because I don't think this sort of call-to-arms is something you can keep going indefinitely. The direct-debit options are a good idea to keep money coming. I think people will make sacrifices, but to ask them to do that over a long period of time is a big ask - 'donation fatigue'. I believe Stynes has asked supporters at one of the events (luncheon or dinner) to consider donating half again next year - might be something he asks all members to do. That'd get us close to the $5M mark.

They won't. You won't even have 10% of members at the event, and I'd say that the majority of those will probably have already donated. Absolutely. Donating money to a football club - particularly if you already buy a membership, which is essentially a donation for many - isn't the top priority for many people. Who's to say that's wrong, either? Not I. The only thing that's pathetic is people lambasting people for not donating money to a football Club, IMO (particularly when, as members, they're already contributing $ - which for the majority is at least part 'donation').

I'm sure they'll be happy to continue taking your money It's not at all surprising, although I do think the number of supporters donating money will grow. Many supporters feel their membership is a donation, and that's already at least ~$165 for the standard 11-game membership. I can understand that many supporters have other priorities.

Hopefully it didn't cost us anything - " Last night, the Club’s naming rights partner Primus, gave the Club use of one of the Primus call centres for a Debt Demolition Telethon." http://www.melbournefc.com.au/tabid/7415/D...px?newsid=66050

At $0.20 p/call you'd only need one $20 donation p/100 calls to break even, and I'd be disappointed if... a) the Club were spending that much on calls B) the calls didn't prompt more donations

$75K in the past few days isn't bad.

I think the aim is to wipe $3M in August, and you're right to be worried - I'm not sure we'll make it to $3M, and can't see us entirely demolishing the debt. However, it's still been a great effort to raise so much money, and I'm sure there's more to come. I'm certain I read about an event planned for those who want to donate $500+, but I haven't seen any more info on that in the members email, debtdemolition site, etc.

Fair enough, as long as you don't complain about figures from other Clubs taking little pot shots at us Haha.

Two wrongs make a right?

On the Collingwood thing, I'm sure it was just for show. However, we do score $500K from each QB game, as we're always taking the gate - wouldn't want to upset that applecart.

If so, then there was no 'payout' at all - we had simply already paid him for work that he had done (ie. wages). I think it would be unlikely that there was no severance pay. It seems more likely that the 'payout' is equal to three months of work, as has been reported: "McNamee lasted only 106 days, but will receive a payout believed to be $115,000, equal to three months of his annual salary at Melbourne." http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/stor...5016161,00.html "The Demons are contractually obliged to give the departing chief executive a payout of about $115,000." http://news.realfooty.com.au/sport/paul-mc...80723-3jmn.html If there was in fact no payout, we've done a terrible PR job.

My understanding is that there was a three month 'payout'... However, with Spargo acting as CEO for nothing for at least that period of time, it's a non-issue.

From memory, the raffle is for footy department funds.

I think that would have been significantly more work than the current debt demolition site, which looks like it was slapped together pretty quickly.

That's silly. We're going to have a CEO work for free for the next couple of months, so we won't be paying any more than what we'd done if we'd kept McNamee for the next couple of months and not had to pay him out.