Rogue

I haven't seen Naita or Rich play, so a question to those that have - I've read Naitanui described as very athletic and a great jump, yet he doesn't seem to rack up the possessions. I also haven't heard people talk about him taking strong contested grabs. Does he kick goals? How quick is Rich?

You and me both B)

Fevola's the kind of guy that we'd be looking to trade, IMHO. By the time the majority of our list has developed, he's likely to be past it.

Which ones? Not Brisbane, Sydney, Port afaik. Nor Freo before 2007. I'll take your assertions at face value when it comes to WCE and Adelaide. Premiership success bumped Swans m/ship substantially; I imagine we'd see a similar bounce.

We did? I only signed up in May '06, but I know there were others who agreed that we weren't in the hunt after the '06 season. Talking about making simple assumptions without much depth, you've given us an example here!

Not 'everyone' said it was just injuries - we were so over-rated after the 2006 season (yes, I said it at the time). This is primarily ND's list - ignoring first-year players who can't be expected to have a great impact - and they're not performing. Our senior players, who would have played pretty much their whole careers under ND, are maligned for a lack of leadership etc, and have been for some time. Again, these aren't DB's creation. Responsibility for delistring and trades coming into this year can be placed at the feet of DB, and I think it's fair to argue that we could be more competitive if we'd had guys like TJ, Brown, etc. However, I'm entirely happy with the tack we took in that regard. We now play a team with 17 players under 24, and have to expect it to be a painful and at times unpleasant ride.

If we got him for free (PSD) and there was nothing else (like a Warnock), maybe.

Very true.

I'd love to know why Hawthorn deserves the blockbuster over us, when they got 11,000 to a game at the 'G a few years ago. We've managed better crowds than that this year and last.

On one hand you say that those who are influenced by premierships will be too young to contribute for 10+ years, but you then go on to say that if we win a premiership it won't count for much in the long run. I'd suggest that success/winning a flag will count for something, and will be one of the few ways we can grow our supporter base. However, I do agree that it's probably going to have the biggest influence on kids, who won't have a disposable income for ~10+ years. CarnTheDees is also right in that 'supporters' as defined by this poll aren't necessarily those who will actively contribute to the Club. I imagine that teams in one and two-Club towns will have more people that say they barrack for x team without contributing than those Clubs in Melbourne, though.

Nice to see you jump on any Newton thread, irrespective of what board it is Who wants your man Newton, in the case that we don't retain him?

In what sense did we get beaten to the punch by St.Kilda? Irrespective of how the Sandy alliance was going, if we're building facilities at Casey Fields, it makes sense to affiliate with the side there, rather than have our 'reserves' players at one place, and our summer training base at another. You're right to say that training there every now and again won't do much, but we're just got on board with the VFL side and will have Dees players competing there every second week of the season, as well as all of us training there at the summer. Once again, probably not enough to do a heap, but it's yet another step towards becoming part of that community - there will undoubtedly be more. I think it's also smarter for St. Kilda to associate with the bayside area, and Sandringham is a nice fit - particularly with Frankston not interested in affiliating. For us, this is another step on the way towards building a presence in Casey Fields. The swap seems a win/win for both AFL Clubs.

Haha.

I agree with much of what you've said. I also think that consistent negative stereotyping etc can create something of an air of inevitability about the Dees as a struggling Club, and much of the comments are uninformed and unfair. Indeed - the 'fickle' tag probably annoys me the most. Hawthorn had pretty poor m/ship figures a few years ago, when they were struggling. It's good now, on the back of on-field improvement and some pretty marketable players. If our m/ship figures suggest we're 'fickle', then fans of all Clubs are (which is probably a fair call).

Here's the gist of the article (from what I can recall reading on here a second ago): - Brisbane failed on the Gold Coast, and people didn't turn up to the match there this year - Brisbane, on the back of 3 flags, only have 22,000 members (lowest in the AFL) - The AFL will have to fork out serious $ to play games in QLD away from Brisbane until 2015 (?) - Broadcasting revenue won't necessarily increase with more matches p/wk (3x more people watched rugby when Coll v Bris was live) - The AFL's national expansion was prompted by Carlton's Elliot - who was apparently planning a breakaway national league in the late 80s - and Elders went bankrupt ...and that means that Crikey isn't puttng the article out there for everyone to read. We might not like that, but someone's putting their resources into publishing the article. It's bad form to copy and paste whole articles onto other sites anyway, especially considering many sites are sustained - at least in part - by advertising revenue NB: It seems that if you're keen, you can register for a free 'trial'.

I would rather keep Davey and Rivers ahead of Jamar and CJ, but that's also beside the point. If you think Rivers and Davey are worth more than Sylvia and Green, it's a fair guess that some other Clubs might agree. Thus, it's like comparing apples and oranges.

It's obviously been mentioned before, but it's worth highlighting the fact that the AFL makes it more difficult for the smaller Clubs to increase supporters and members with their fixturing/broadcasting. It's a very vicious cycle. I've also heard that we have the lowest 'churn' rate in the AFL. ...which is all somewhat unfortunate in a way, considering it's more difficult to improve our lot.

I won't repeat what I've said on this board recently (I've banged on about the same thing in this thread and others), except to say that I largely agree. NB: I think last year's performances are just as relevant, if not more so, than this years. As well as their 'call to arms', the Kangaroos made the prelims. WB weren't too shabby either, while we were terrible.

The same reason the Roos didn't have 30,000 last year, I imagine. That said, I think it's almost pointless to bring up the 'if we were on the absolute brink' argument unless it's in comparison to Roos figures this year, since every Club would get a bounce in members if they were 'on the absolute brink'. Fwiw, we'd have 40,000+ if all the MFC supporting members took out a Dees membership, regardless of our other fans out there.

Good to see Petterd back in action.

Not that it invalidates your point, but in 2004 Geelong actually finished 4th. They haven't finished bottom four in a long time, but 2001-03 they finished 12th, 9th, and 12th.

Oh please. This is pure hyperbole.

Considering our lack of KPPs atm, I wouldn't put the house on that. I'm also not convinced Rivers is a KPP.

Make sure you're there on Monday! I agree re: the rain, though. The latest forecast is 17 and fine, so it's okay atm.

I was talking about Whelan. I agree with you re: Bell, though