Rogue

I never said Voss traded for TJ...I said Voss' trading indicates they're going all-out for a flag.

I thought you were making the opposite assertion... The MCC stats are what I'm basing that contention on. I think I've heard Schwab use these stats to make a similar point to the one I made. As you say, you can probably check these yourself on the MCC site More than 100 friends/work colleagues who are Melbourne supporters? Given that there are another 15 teams plus people who don't like footy (I know!) you have LOTS of friends and work colleagues. Phew! Anyway, your point doesn't really mean terribly much unless you're suggesting that there are not large numbers of people in the community who 'have a team' but don't go to games much or actively support their Club or check out some of the research that's been done. I don't think anyone would make that point, but it's certainly one out of the box. You only need to compare TV numbers with membership figures and gate takings versus the numbers of supporters as quoted in the various polls. Sadly, the fact that we're the 'Melbourne' football club should see people who don't have terribly much interested/knowledge of the sport pop us down as their 'team' over other Melb metro teams, leading to a somewhat inflated idea of our supporter base. On a more positive note, hopefully we can leverage this to increase our supporter base. I think it will be a bad thing. I feel we're better off if the MCC has a significant number of Melbourne supporters - we can then more easily appeal to the MCC for assistance. The MCC has a greater interest in tipping in - as they're doing now - if there are more, say, Collingwood supporters. Furthermore, the make-up of the Board might alter to reflect those interests, but at the moment there are a number of MFC supporters afaik.

I wasn't...and wouldn't be, even if Grimes didn't make it. The terms were still good. If Brisbane somehow sneak a flag - I don't think they will, but Voss' trading indicates he's going all out - they might also be happy with the trade if TJ can provide some silk.

My post was prompted by your suggestion that a Club like North is not sustainable long-term. I'm not sure what you mean by 'a Club like North', but it's not like no one's interested - their membership figures still rival that of other AFL Clubs (none of which you suggest are unsustainable), and probably surpass most of the other professional sporting Clubs in Australia! As I pointed out, the billions in AFL income is primarily generated by the Clubs, and yet they receive a relatively small share. 1/16th of net proceeds would make any Club look very 'sustainable'!* Your conclusions doesn't logically follow from the facts (not even from those you've presented). After seeing the high number of MFC stickers why didn't you think 'gee, we might have a smaller Club but we have supporters keen show their support!'? I'd say a better reading of the facts as you've presented them can bring us to a conclusion that's quite the opposite, and it's this: While Melbourne may have a smaller supporter base they have a very committed supporter base. For evidence supporting the idea that Melbourne has a smaller supporter base, you can refer to Roy Morgan Research surveys, historical crowd/membership numbers and even proclamations from the Club itself. I don't think this is a highly contentious idea. You might argue that pooling MFC members and MCC-supporting MFC fans gives you quite a large base, but that MFC-supporting MCC base is continually decling ('dying off' might be an apt term). For evidence supporting the contention that Melbourne does in fact have a committed supporter base, you can refer to the ratio of members versus supporters (as defined by Roy Morgan), statistics that shows MFC fares well on member retention, the fact we're breaking membership records while sitting at the bottom of the ladder, the amazing efforts of Debt Demolition, and even the number of MFC stickers on cars. It always stikes me as odd that a Melbourne fan, of all people, would perpetrate the myth that we're less committed than supporters of other Clubs. Oh, crowd numbers were less than we might expect because the weather was shocking or we got pummelled the other week? NEWS FLASH: It happens to every sporing club around. *Sure, I'm being a little flippant - there are various programs at grassroots level and the like that I support the AFL running - but there's ample opportunity to cut the cake so each slice provides Clubs with enough to not only survive, but prosper.

The unstated premise is that Jamar rucks 100% of the time (or we have a 190cm bloke chipping in). Still think that's very hard to disagree with? It might turn out that way, but I don't think it's very hard to argue for an alternative.

This is the Juice's week...to get dropped and not have the majority of Demonland approving of his demotion?

It's interesting that people throw around the word sustainable, suggesting some Clubs are sustainable while others aren't, but what do they actually mean by that? I think it's fair to argue that the AFL's income - broadcast deals, sponsorship, etc - is earned by the (atm) 16 teams, so why they shouldn't be entitled to a reasonable sum of that is beyond me. The argument that some Clubs are independently sustainable is a furphy - all Clubs receive money from the AFL. Furthermore, the more successful Clubs are successful in large part because they receive non-monetary benefits that they use to make money - better TV exposure and more desirable game scheduling leads to better gate takings, more expensive corporate packages and more sponsorship money.

Two lines of reply, but couldn't choose which... 1) Oh no, another injury to a Dees player...oh wait. So, do we really care that much? 2) So McLean's body is stuffed, he retires at the end of the year and winks 'I gave you $10K and pick 11, my beloved Dees'. Ahem.

I think I disagree with almost every opinion you gave in the above

Indeed - I've pointed out more than once that I don't think our forward structure is helping Newton kick goals.

No need to reply to everyone who quotes you. As an aside, it'd be a pretty boring forum if we couldn't post on things we know less about than the people who work at the Club full-time.

I was in the Southern and couldn't hear it very well (and likewise with the people around me).

If any Clubs deserve the help it's the Clubs that are heading downwards now. The Clubs already at the bottom had chances to pick up early draft picks in previous years. Good luck to those about to bottom out - they'll need it.

No problems. For what it's worth, it wasn't me. Given that he was selected for the Adelaide game, I don't see why the selectors would then decide he needs to prove himself at Casey. I think your point has merit, but if the selectors wanted to go down that road they could have picked someone like Cheney last week.

I'd quite like McNamara as a lead-up forward - a few passages of play versus North suggested to me that he could be handy providing a link from defence to attack. He was. He's now had the gallop. Indeed. Aw, c'mon - I imagine the bigger difficulty is to go back in time and have Melbourne playing Richmond, but that's what a forum is for

You can try the Punt Road flank, Southern Stand. As you move towards the wing you'll hit the AFL reserve, which I think extends around to the Ponsford stand. Obviously the opposite side is the MCC and I'm not sure what's unresreved in the Northern stand.

Pretty sure it was nothing to do with the crowd. Fwiw I thought the crowd noise was less than it was in our wins versus Brisbane and Freo last year, for exampe.

The only comment worthy of a sigh is your assumption that I looked at the stats before I formed my view of Bail's use of the footy the past couple of weeks. The problems you cite with the stats are applicable to everyone, and also work the other way - if you handball to a bloke's ankles while under no pressure it's an effective disposal. I don't think the discussion was about whether he helps 'break the lines', it was whether his disposal was as good as some suggested. Do you agree with the assertion that's he one of the few best users at the Club? ...and some posters talk up every young kid as the next big thing after they play okay. I don't think anyone's 'potting' Bail in this thread, but let's have some balance.

Your response suggests my view is bordering on crazy, so I decided to look at the stats. Against Adelaide, Bail had a disposal efficiency of 67% (team average 72%), including 4 clangers. The week before, Bail's disposal efficiency was 60%. I'm not a huge fan of the efficiency stats, but they suggest that Bail wouldn't exactly be exploring new territory if his disposal improved, don't you think?

Plenty of Demonland posters seem to notice his mistakes.

Interesting you point out that Newton's 'years in and still average' and then go on to suggest we should be trying PJ instead. Do you know that PJ is three years olderr than Newton? I think he looks precisely the opposite. Did you happen to get to the NAB game v Essendon at Visy? Martin provided a good target for us and got his hands on the footy plenty of times (although he unfortunately dropped many marks). However, as america de cali has said, his kicking is a problem.

I meant to write Miller, not Martin, but the point stands regardless. There's no reason we can't play two talls up forward. Fwiw, I wouldn't bring Miller in for anyone atm.

.

I have a pretty different view. While I quite like Bail, I think he needs to use the footy better and that seems to be the biggest issue with him as we build towards a flag. Nice size and motor though, and I'm sure he'll get plenty of opportunities.

I think we can play both Newton and Miller (edit: or Martin). Newton has been criticised for his 'second efforts' at times but I think this is one area where he's been pretty good lately. While I don't think our forward structure is particularly helpful for a player of his type, he needs to hold his marks and make sure he finishes well when he has the chance.