binman

What it didn't say or ask was what is Gary Pert doing?

The breakdown in on field leadership in the last seconds was symbolic of our club wide lleadership problems. We are a rabble off field. We appoint a CEO in April who can't start until September. Our comms director is covering 2 non related roles, including AFLW. Our runner is also our welfare officer creating a potential conflict of interest (my example - telling a young bloke he is being subbed). The acting CEO went for the job and didn't get it. Not ideal given he is an acting role for 5 months, particularly given our poor onfield performance. Despite green pushing back on the idea he is an interim president, it is widely assumed he is keeping the seat warm for Smith, who is tipped to assume the seat. In September. Its been left to Goody and Maxy to carry the can all season, just as it was post match on Sunday.

Typically strong and balanced article from one of the few footy journalists I respect

Communication element: Video content for: Website Social media Emails to members Other? Opportunity for improvement Successful clubs in elite sporting competitions such as the EPL, NFL, NBA, Serie A etc produce a huge variety of video content for its fans and prospective fans. Content ranges from short videos for platforms such as X, Instagram and Tik Tok, longer form videos for platforms such as websites and you tube, feature length videos and even multiple episode series in the style of Drive to Survive. AFL clubs do not have the same resources but engaging video content is equally important for AFL clubs and is a key part of the value proposition for members and as a tool to attract new members. There are many examples of this key aspect of the club's communication being criticised by Dees supporters on Demonland, such as this thread from Feb 2024 started by @Dannyz. The OP starts with this sentence: 'I think it's time to place on record how poor our media output has been since the departure of Ben Gibson.' Since Ben Gibson's departure from the MFC in December 2022 the video content produced by, and for, the MFC has been, with some very notable exceptions (eg Koz going back home), largely underwhelming. And there has been way, way too little of it. It has been nearly three years since Ben Gibson's left and in tge intervening period the demand for video content across multiple platforms has exploded. The MFC is miles behind other AFL clubs in this space and addressing this opportunity for improvement is both a total no brainer and the lowest, of low hanging fruit given good quality video content can be produced extremely cheaply in 2025. Suggested actions Prioritise the creation of engaging video content that can be delivered across multiple platforms Ensure that content is diverse in: style, tone (ie funny, satirical, educational), type (human interest, sport science, tactics, match previews, analysis etc) length, topic, audience (ie kids, fans of other clubs, fans of the dees who are not members, new members, older members. diverse communities etc etc) Idea: Of course the production of such content has a cost. Personally i would prioritise resourcing it and employing someone to do deliver it (perhaps we do?). However if that's not possible, and even if it is, MFC could explore developing a mutually beneficial partnership with Monash University. Monash's Caulfield Campus - which is only a good Harvey Langford drop punt from our proposed new training base at Caulfield racecourse - offers a Bachelor of Multimedia and Digital Arts degree, which focuses on digital arts and multimedia design practices. And Monash Uni's Monash Media Lab, is also located at Caulfield. The Monash Media lab is 'a state-of-the-art facility for journalism, digital media production, and multimedia storytelling' that has 'purpose-built television and radio studios available for commercial use, incorporating quality recording equipment to give your production professional polish.'

And a couple more hours on how poor the MFC's comms!

Preamble Dee in a kilt created a thread called From anger to action: A call for constructive feedback to leadership that asked the question could the Demonland community constructively identify opportunities for improvements the Melbourne Football Club (MFC) could actively and meaningfully consider. I think it is fair to say that many members of the Demonland community, myself included, are skeptical the MFC would take on board any such feedback, or least not in a meaningful way. To be honest that skepticism says something in of itself. Organisations that are serious about continuous quality improvement ensure they have effective consultations processes with their key stakeholders so decisions, planning, new processes, changes etc are directly informed by those stakeholders. Key to good consultation is having multiple consultative strategies and forums. MFC has periodic member surveys, take (very few) questions at the AGM and no doubt receive a considerable amount of 'direct' feedback in the form of phones call and emails - particularly after losses like the one last weekend. This thread is an effort to provide the MFC another strategy to get constructive feedback from it's most important stakeholder - supporters. It is worth noting in this context that Demonland is likely to be one of the biggest, perhaps even biggest, football cub form dedicated to a single club. More than a million posts have been made about all things MFC since its inception. I'm not sure how many regular posters there are, surely in the many hundreds. But what i do know is that there are many, many more dees fans who read Demonland but don't post. Right now there 266 online users on Demonland which is a lot given how we are travelling and the fact its 1:30 on a Friday arvo. I suggested we start with one issue and see if we can come up with some opportunities for improvementsand then go from there. And my suggestion is we start with constructive ideas to improve MFC's communication and related sub elements. I'm really thinking aloud here, so to speak, but i think we need an agreed purpose ( clarity on what it is and what it isn't), structure and process. So, in the spirit looking for consensus my suggestions for those elements are: Purpose Constructive ideas to improve MFC's communication Opportunity for improvement Communication from the MFC includes, but is not limited to, the following elements: Fan engagement Member engagement Communication with members Website Social media strategy Injury reporting Press interviews Player interviews Content Crisis management Other? There is a significant body of evidence on Demonland indicating Dees fans think communication from the MFC acorrs ll tese areas could, and should be improved. Sustained success is not possible without a robust membership which is why increasing the number of members is a key strategic goal of the club. Improving the MFC's communication would support achieving that strategic goal. Process guidelines My proposal: Interested posters choose one or more of the above elements of the club's communication strategy and provides constructive ideas to improve any or all aspect of that element Such posts begin with a simple statement of the identified opportunity for improvement or improvements (note: not a long rant or rationale) And then provide a constructive idea or ideas on how that opportunity for improvement could be addressed To get a sense of whether there is consensus, and also to provide some numerical data (eg 25 MFC fans support this idea) other posters indicate support, or otherwise with a thumbs up or thumbs down (noting in this context a thumbs down is not to being critical) Posters engage with such posts as per normal and if the original poster wants to they can edit the initial post to reflect any changes they think are warranted BUT we try to avoid any back and forth - the purpose is not to debate each point but to land on constructive ideas to improve that element of MFC's communication The focus is on constructive ideas and being solution, not problem, focused We self moderate and don't ask or need the site moderators to play a role (unless of course they want to) We close the thread in 2 or 3 weeks Before doing so we use an AI chat bot to succinctly summarize the entire thread and also short summaries of each element club's communication strategy Posters indicate approval of these summaries with thumbs up and we have focus on getting as many posters doing so as possible to increase the likelihood the MFC take the ideas seriously, or at he very least be less likely to dismiss them out of hand We could also possibly do a poll for each of the elements and/or identified opportunities for improvements Ultimately we would would generate a list of opportunities for improvements the club could consider when developing their next communication strategy (which i assume they do on an annual basis - if they don't there's a low hanging fruit opportunity for improvement right there!) If the model works, and posters thinks it is of value to continue we could review what worked and what didn't and repeat for another topic/area (eg Securing MFC's permanent member home, governance etc) Thoughts?

Board meetings would go way too long with the way i bang on!

I'm flat our today but will create the thread, with relevant guidelines, goal, purpose, process, what it is, and perhaps most importantly what isnt (a place to unload) tomorrow. Kudos for driving a process that is solution focused. And respect fr putting yourself out there in a vulnerable space - ie one where it's easy to have pot shots at you for thinking outside the box.

Interesting read. Almost reads as if the board drafted it for Gleeson. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/1m-payout-won-t-stop-demons-making-tough-call-on-goodwin-if-necessary-20250729-p5min1.html

I think a stripped down version is feasible, one that doesn't involve moderation per se (just a commitment for posters contributing to a thread to focus on constructive criticism and positive ideas not raging at the club). The reason I say that is consensus would be all but impossible given the disperate views and the risk would be it wouldn't actually be representative. And the moderation would simply be too time consuming amd complex I'm thinking something less focused on creating a platform so to speak, more on a space to contribute ideas on specific topics/areas that the club could tap into. In that sense there is an opportunity for the club to get free of charge the sort of direct feedback and input from consumers big organisations spend huge sums on in the form of focus groups, research, surveys etc etc. Would the MFC be interested in such feedback (and I don't mean the sort they have been copping)? They would be absolutely crazy not to. If done well the info they would get back woyld be miles better than the joke member surveys they do every year that likely cost a 150k or more. Business doesn't seek input from consumers for [censored] and giggles. The drive for such processes is usually profit, to sell more products, the bottom line. No different for AFL clubs that increasingly rely on membership sales to survive, let alone thrive. It would be plain stupid to ignore FREE well considered feedback, input and ideas from passionate supporters of the club, the majority of whom are paid up members - in business speak the key stakeholders. The trick might be to have some communication with the club to let them know the feedback exists and what its intended purpose is. I suggest we start with one topic area, see if we can self moderate, see if we do in fact come up with some agreed good ideas and consensus and go from there. Because it's a hobby horse of mine, is an area where there is actually pretty good consensus already (ie that it's poor) and is not that loaded, I reckon we could start with a thread on how the club could improve communication (all aspects - ie engagement, social media, crisis management, injury reporting, website, content etc etc) When I'm at a computer tommorow I'll happy to start a thread to get the ball rolling if there is support for it.

'They play well I buy in'. The corrally is they play poorly you don't buy in. Sounds more like the classic fair weather theatre going fan than supporter to me.

Thanks wheelo. Strange pattern- almost 200 in the first (200 being considered elite, 180 AFL average) only 158 in the second- massive drop off Come out after half time firing -209 in the third would be one of our highest rated quarters all season i reckon. Back down to 162 in the last

What makes you think he isn't?

Have you got the pressure ratings for the Saints game @WheeloRatings ?

Yep. A mantra of burgess, one I heard the players repeat so often it was clear they believed it, was they were the fittest, strongest teames, could not be outworked and even if they thought they had hit the wall they could find something extra. I have a related theory. Key to burgess' philosophy, particularly that psych aspect of it, was his teams train harder than they play and train thru niggles. Griffith worked under Burgess and I believe has a very similar philosophy. I wonder if there's a shelf life to that approach. Senior players would have had that hard core approach drilled into them for the last six years. That's a long time to be under the kosch. Perhaps a new approach is needed.

With all due respect I think you've still misunderstood my point.

Absolutely, i didn't mean to imply otherwise (though i was actually referring to the High-Performance team not coaches, though they of course have a role in the fitness space too). I'm 100% not suggesting players are deliberately cutting corners or being uncooperative. What i am suggesting is that perhaps the entire playing list is not 100% dialled in that space and some might be thinking they are giving their all but in reality are not. That was certainly the feedback from some players when Burgess first arrived - they thought Misson had them dialled up but soon realised they still had levels they could get to. I'm to elite fitness to what the MFC is to good governance, but from what I've gleaned over the years the gap between optimal, super elite fitness and elite fitness can be very small and it's in those margins that all the difference is made. That's true for a single elite athlete so one assumes that multiplied across 44 athletes the effect can be significant.

Time is an abstract concept

I mean i'd probably sneak a look to see what all the fuss was about!

I agree with much of that Bing But id add that in my opinion there is little doubt we have not been sufficiently fit. BUT it doesn't necessarily follow that that's all on the high-performance program. A huge amount of responsibility has to fall on the shoulders of the players. To get to the comparative fitness advantage we had on the comp in 2021, the sort the Pies and Lions have had in the last 2 years requires all team 101% buy in and fierce desire to push beyond that. Perhaps it's also between the ears with a critical mass of players thinking they are pushing to their limits but in fact not doing so. An important impact of not being fit enough is how that intersects with the psychological aspect you are talking about. Put simply people under fatigue are less likely to make good decisions and more likely to make what appear to be complete brain fades.

My point writ large. Who's fault is that nothing changes. An analogy is constantly moaning about how hopeless government is when we live in a relatively well-functioning democracy. We get what we want.

Ironically that could be fund raising opportunity. I suspect an Only fans page with 44 fit young athletes self-flagellating would be pretty popular.

The negativity on DL fir the last 18 months has been relentless. But is peaking right now on the back of the disaster that unfolded in the last 30 mins of last week's game. I was there, sitting directly above the Dee Army, (whose support was awesome from go to whoa). So I got the full immersive angst experience. Don't get me wrong it was certainly something to behold. But at the risk of being howled down, whilst I understand ans share the anger and frustration fans feel, frankly I find many of the attacks on our club pathetic. What amazes me is that people attack the club like they are not part of it. Supporters of the dees, regardless of whether they are a paid up member or not, ARE the club. Boards, coaches, players, CEOs etc come and go. Supporters don't. Supporters support. We are the club. I love the dees, and have done since I started supporting them I'm 1972. I have seen my fair share of woeful performances, including full seasons when we struggled to win a game. Perhaps is just me, but I've never once felt the urge to mindlessly attack the club and spew vitriol towards it. Criticise sure, blind negativity and anger never. The one constant in the 50 plus years I've supported the dees is for almost all that time we have been a rabble off field. Successful organisations, whether in business, community or sport, have one thing in common - strong governance. Calls for the coaches sacking all you like, bag the the players until you are blue in the place, but we won't see sustained success until we sort our chronic, half century long governance problems. The great irony is, unlike how players and coaches perform or our trading decisions etc etc, supporters actually CAN do something about improving our governance. We are a member based organisation and we have power. In my book, if we choose not to use that power (and I don't mean by refusing to buy a membership or attend games - which of course doesn't help) angst should be directed at us not the usual scapegoats. Part of the problem not part of the solution. Peter Lawrence copped a bit of stick for activelly trying to do something about improving our governance. I for one look at PL's efforts to improve our governance last year thru a different lens now given we end yey another season in turmoil with the shadow President and new CEO on holidays in Europe and not returning to seasons end (even if we wanted to make major changes to the FD how can we). I'll put my hand up and admit that i have shown little interst in actually trying to ccontribute to efforts to improve our governance. I'll start thinking about how i can change that - for a start I'll go to our AGM for only the third time.

Not being facetious kev, but do you think that rather than contradicting Bing's point it actually reinforces it? I mean, it sounds like we significantly changed our recovery program, presumably to increase the likelihood we would coming out firing given our woeful starts goody referenced in the post blues presser. We do in fact come out firing and are all over the Saints. Before falling in a compete heap, and stopping to a walk in the last quarter. It's hardly a stretch to suggest that such a dramatic change to the recovery program potentially contributed to us being more fatigued in the last q than we have been in recent weeks, and otherwisemight have been (and if so fatigue would def contribute to some of the brain fades we saw).

Or alternatively be OK for three quarters of the show before falling in a complete heap for the last quarter.... ('tell me Andy, do you think we should take the opportunity to change our allegiance to the Tassie Devils - I mean Demons to Devils is not such a big idealogical or conceptual leap, and there's a certain synergy in swapping support from the oldest football club in the world to the newest')