Rogue

Good to hear, although it's weather permitting. Unfortunately, the current forecast, courtesy of the BOM - Anyhow... Makes sense.

Care factor = 0.

I'm also disappointed Bate isn't playing. However, Bate for Whelan isn't remotely near a like-for-like switch.

Totally. Whelan's certainly worth keeping around, if fit.

Indeed. PS. Props to the guy who feels we'll get top 30 picks for Jamar and CJ, particularly while in the same breath describing CJ as 'woeful'.

I suspect there'll always be players who aren't playing for whatever reason, even when we have game day clashes with Sandringham, so that reasoning doesn't ring true. Furthermore, that doesn't excuse Coaches/officials.

I agree - McDonald isn't an outgoing guy, so with co-captains he won't need to shoulder too much in the way of extra activities. Bruce is in the leadership group, and already talks in the press a fair bit.

Not that I've been to one, but I'd have thought that functions like this would make people feel more connected to the Club. Hardly a great feeling of being part of the MFC if no one from the Club turns up.

Shinboner spirit, anyone?

Five weeks into his first season at the Club and Meesen's being written off

I agree entirely. One thing that comes to mind is the aftermatch function last week. I was thinking of attending - I've never been - but read on here that it wasn't run as well as it could. I also read - on these forums - that the reason given for the lack of Club players/officials attending was because there were other MFC functions going on at the same time in other parts of the ground. I found that strange.

I never said they were. You asked which other clubs were struggling to secure 25,000 members, and which Club had 10,000 members yet to re-sign from last year (btw, where did you get that figure from), implying that we were somehow unique in that respect. We're not.

Sure, but you trotted out the stereotype of '[censored] weak' MFC supporters that made you cry when BT on MMM banged on about it. It's far from irrelevant when there's a common perception pedalled in the media - and at times, on this site - that MFC supporters are '[censored] weak' when it comes to caring about the Club, attending games, and buying memberships. If we're to be judged as '[censored] weak', the label should be applied to the majority of the sporting Clubs in the land. How does it 'stand to reason' that if we can set a record m/ship 'on the back of 3 successive finals campaigns', that our membership would continue to rise, or keep at this record mark, after a diastrous 2007? You can use the fact that we won't set another record this year as a mark that Melbourne supporters are '[censored] weak', but if you do, this should be applied to all other Clubs in the same boat. Take a look at membership figures of other Clubs to dispel the myth that there's something unique about a correlation between MFC membership #s and recent form. For a 2008 example, take the WB and their 8,000-odd 2007 members that haven't re-signed.

I agree entirely, and would far prefer TV coverage + the game in Melb vs selling home games interstate. Yeah, you're right on both points.

^ In another thread, I read that Newton was suspended for one week.

It's pretty clear that we'd be better off losing, and that's what my mind would say. However, at the game I think that I'd be hoping Neitz kicked the goal of the year from 55 metres out on the boundary line to seal the game with a second to go. After the euphoria wore off I'd then rue the fact we won the four games before that.

Put aside the '[censored] weak' mantra for a second... As you state, we don't have the supporter base of a Collingwood or a Carlton. If we accept that our supporter base is smaller than many other Clubs, if all else is equal then it stands to reason that we will always have less members than many other Clubs. We also have a super-sized stadium, which means a membership isn't a requirement if you want to go to the footy. I'm unsure if this is much of a pull for any AFL Club - I heard it was the case with Adelaide supporters and AAMI - but it certainly is in other sports/scenes (ie. NBA). Some quick research indicates that, in recent history, we've been around the mark of several other AFL teams when it comes to memberships. In 2005, we were ~= to Sydney and the Kangaroos, and ~3,000 more than the Western Bulldogs. In 2006, we finished ~= with the Kangaroos (~2,000 behind WB and Brisbane). In 2007, our membership figures exceeded that of North and Brisbane by 6,000, leaving us ~= with Sydney and WB (~2,000 behind Geelong, Richmond, and St. Kilda). Right now, we're ahead of Brisbane by ~2,000 members, and ~= with the WB (~2,000 behind Sydney). While we were also ahead of the Roos in 07, they've recorded an astounding 38.4% increase in members, on the back of the relocation threat. While this is a great effort, it may be a dead cat bounce - I'd wager on a decline in '09. [nb: Apparently, AAMI stadium members were/are included in both Port and Adel m/ship figures, and equated to a 11,000+ boost in 2006. If correct, it explains why Port's membership looked healthy (~28,000), and yet they couldn't draw crowds.] Furthermore, most sporting Clubs in Australia would die for the membership figures and crowd numbers that we have. While MFC's supporter base and membership numbers may not be very impressive when compared to AFL juggernauts, having over 20,000 paid-up and passionate members of a sporting Club is not something that should be sneezed at, and I think this is something that's often over-looked. Sure, we need to strive to improve our member attraction and rentention rates (like we need to strive to improve all facets of the MFC). However, it'd ridiculous to repeat the media mantra that the MFC is a Club without soul and support. Our membership figures, while relatively poor for an AFL side, are around the same mark as other Clubs in the comp, and relative to other sporting Clubs in Australia, our membership figures are strong.

Were the guys giving PJ flak directing it at him personally, or the team in general? I thought he'd been one of our better players in the first few games.

I'd have thought that gate takings were relatively insignificant compared to the TV rights. The 'working families' are a) going to be working (and thus limiting a very early start time) and B) wanting to get the kids to bed at a relatively early time (thus limiting a late finish). I'm not in a 'working family' unit, but I'd have thought this was an absolute stinker of a timeslot for them for the aforementioned reasons, not to mention extra-cirrucular activities for the kids etc.

Cue the mediocrity rants PS. I do agree with you re: the singing - I thought the attitude of some posters has been ridiculous.

Seems like Monday nights won't happen until the new rights deal commences. That said, if we try and pioneer Monday night footy and it succeeds, it'll go the same way as the Kangaroos and Friday nights - we won't be able to keep a strangehold on Mondays. Furthermore, Monday's a terrible night to get a decent attendance, and we may alienate some of our existing members. Of course, the flip side is that MFC vs Freo, Port, etc get relatively poor crowds anyway, as you've pointed out.

Hardly. Hawthorn have been building a team for the future, but they chose Vandenberg to Captain. He wasn't an influential player who was going to be around in the long term. A focus on the future doesn't mean our Captain now needs to be young. We should be choosing the best man for the job, and - without knowing the players personally or having any links with the inner sanctum - that's probably McDonald. McLean's played a handful of decent games after stalling last year. His actions off-field also suggest that he might be a little immature. Regardless, the real decision will be made in 2009. Let's hope that it's an easier one than in mid-'08.

So true :|

Actually, he's been suspended. I agree with you. Well said.