binman

41 minutes ago, At the break of Gawn said:

Dogs are 2-6 outside of Marvel and Ballarat. It's going to be a decent challenge but it's 9th vs 12th when you look at it on paper and it's at our home ground. At least we know who their mids are going to kick it to.

Gawn?

1 hour ago, Cassiew said:

Went to the game as planned. Sooo glad I did. Gawn had a fantastic game. Petty played well too. Fritch good. Only Kozzie a bit rusty. Niece and nephew had a great day and enjoyed seeing their team win. A special shout out to out to all who attended and showed their love for the team despite a setback.

I really enjoyed the game live. Was always going, but glad I did.

Even watched the replay

On the replay there was footage of koz being given some pills of some description, and the commentators notedhr might be a bit off.

Despite his quiet game, how's this for a stat to show just how important he is for us - from his 26 disposals (which is not a bad haul) he had a game high 10 score involvements.

Nearly half of his disposals contributed to a score on a day he didn't kick a goal and only kicked a point - that's seriously impressive.

Koz's pace in the middle is so important. And for the same reason I really liked Windsor in the middle.

And for similar reasons I really like Tracc playing predominantly forward - he creates a matchup challenge, is awesome one on one and him playing forward allows faster plsyers like Windsor t8 take his spot in the middle.

I've been bullish on Culley, and was super pleased he played so well. Is a rich slow but like Langford thinks quick and had high footy iq.

He's also tough, is a neat kick and has good hands. If he can get super, super quick he can cement a spot in the bbest22 as a wing or high half forward.

Speaking of high half forward chin's running was berserk yesterday. I loved his attitude and intent.

22 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

OK we beat the bottom side, but we beat them by 84 points. When was the last time we put a side away like that. This is the kind of response we have wanted from the Dees many a time and never got it.

So just a bit of praise for that, but I am still boiling from last week!

When was the last time we kicked 10 goals in a quarter?

I thoroughly enjoyed going to the footy yesterday. Loved it.

Shout to the 16k dees fans who were there with me. Great energy.

18 minutes ago, sue said:

I rarely disagree with much you say Binman, but as I've argued, the best person to tell a young bloke he is being subbed is the welfare office since he should know all about that players's circumstances and how to best deliver the news.

I'm not necessarily saying it's an issue, I was just summarising caro's points.

BUT I can see why an argument could me made that at the least it might create challenges.

The runner sends messages from the coach, and by definition is connected to the coach and has to have a close working relationship with them.

Let's say for the sake of argument Windsor was reallly upset with Goody last week for electing to sub him, which wouldn't be that surprising as he was very stiff to be subbed (when I wanted to work out who was subbed I put my binos on him.and he looked filthy).

Windsor is so upset he wants to speak to the welfare officer.

Does he really want to speak to the fella who gave him the message, is in constant dialogue with goody and has a close relationship with him?

And does he want to criticise goody to conca?

Maybe, but maybe he doesn't want to be fully honest with conca for fear it will get back to goody.

The idea that Caroline is sinking the boots in 8j that article is off the mark.

To be honest, if anything she went easy.

I mean she left a couple of easy wacks on the table.

Darren Shand was supposedly hired to lead cultural improvement and drive leadersip yet caro didn't make the obvious point that the efficacy of that work is at the very least in question.

And she mentions Pert and the home base, but gave him and the club a complete pass on the fact he was supposedly staying at the club to drive that project and 6 months lager we appear no closer to it being landed.

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

The point is he's not here, the right candidate would have been well entrenched in the job.

Particularly given the importance of implementing the recommendations of the 2024 review.

Just now, binman said:

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 May who can't start until September.

Our cooms director is covering 2 non realted roles including AFLW.

Our runner is also our welfare officer vreating 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 getbit.

Despite green pushing back on the idea he is an interim president it is widely assumed he us keeping the seat wan 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.

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

25 minutes ago, At the break of Gawn said:

Paywall. Can anyone paraphrase it?

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.

31 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-fractured-football-club-behind-melbourne-s-eight-seconds-of-madness-20250731-p5mjc5.html

Have at it.

IMO, it’s an unsurprising piece which fairly highlights the lack of leadership everywhere at the club, on and off field.

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.'

8 minutes ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

Start with the Stats File and then complaints about the umpires....😄 An hour done!

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?

4 minutes ago, Dee in a Kilt said:

Seriously, there's an argument to say a Demonland representative be on the Board. Demonland represents two critical MFC stakeholders - paying members and the fan base.

It is common to have a large shareholder on a board. The MFC members are like company shareholders and Demonland would represent the biggest block of MFC members. Also, it is critical a Board be knowledgeable of the MFC fan base. Again, Demonland would represent the MFC's biggest block of MFC fans.

Would love to see Andy, George or Binman on the MFC Board. They'd have their finger on the pulse of MFC members and fans...

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

1 hour ago, Dee in a Kilt said:

@binman, this is brilliant and exactly the kind of leadership we need to make this work. You've identified the key challenges (consensus, moderation complexity) while offering a practical solution that could actually deliver results.

Your point about free focus group feedback is spot on. The club would be mad to ignore well-considered input from a respected platform when they're likely spending six figures on consultants for inferior insights.

Starting with communication makes perfect sense. It's an area where there's already broad consensus improvement is needed, it's not strategically sensitive, and success there could build momentum for further feedback on aras of critical concern.

The self-moderation approach focused on constructive input rather than formal consensus is much more achievable. Consensus is the absence of leadership and we want Demonalnd to show leadership.

It would be brilliant if you start that thread. This could be the beginning of something genuinely valuable, for both for members who want their voices heard constructively, and for a club that desperately needs better connection with its supporter base.

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

9 hours ago, Dee in a Kilt said:

Last Sunday's devastating loss delivers us an opportunity, as does any bad event.

I've supported the Dees since the early 90's when my 6 year old son helped fly the huge cheer squad flags at a time when the squad comprising two men and a dog (today's cheer squad is brilliant!) My family has hosted draftees and a current player is godfather to one of my grandkids. But I've also had decades in executive roles in Australia, USA, Japan, China and now the UK (currently back in Melbourne during the European holiday period).

@binman's post this morning in the training session thread cut through the noise: We members ARE the club and we have power we are not using. The 57,000 of us MFC members feels like Dr Seus's "Horton Hears a Who!" Like Who-ville citizens, we members struggle to be heard.

Here's what I propose

Demonland becomes the voice. Not another venting forum, but a structured process to deliver member expectations to incoming President Steven Smith and CEO Paul Guerra by August 31st. As Smith and Guarra don't start until September, Demonalnd feedback can inform their onboarding process.

Critical areas for member agreement

First, Demonland agree on the critical areas to be addressed, for example:

• Communications strategy with members

• Transparency standards and accountability

• Complete governance review - obviously including the footy department

• Securing MFC's permanent member home

• Our message to AFL leadership (umpiring professionalism)

The Process

Constructive discussion only - enforced by moderators. I have deep empathy for member pain. Let's channel member frustration into positive action through Demonland as a unified voice.

Upon agreement on critical areas to address, then these topics become a separate Demonland thread. When broad agreement is reached on each thread, we then insert it into the official communication we send.

Andy has veto and edit powers, informed by Binman and George.

We do all this with respect to the Board and CEO.

A final point is that the word "ruthless" has been used of late. In my mind, the only time we have been ruthless was when Peter Jackson rebuilt the club.

And that ruthlessness delivered us the 2021 flag.

Since, members have spent the last 2 years as passive observers of governance failures with significant infighting at Board and CEO, resulting in Goodwin riding a two-legged horse.

Current circumstances hands us a blank slate and leaders who need to listen.

Can we channel our anger into constructive feedback the oldest AFL club deserves?

What do you think?

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.

6 minutes ago, Chook said:

I'm a supporter. It's not my responsibility to run the club. It's not even my responsibility to financially support the club. They play well, I buy in. That's where the relationship ends.

'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.

25 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

Apologies, I completely forgot to come back to add that on Monday. Potentially related to how the game ended!

Here are the team pressure numbers and I'll post the players soon.

	Melb	St K
Q1	198	170
Q2	158	187
Q3	209	184
Q4	162	165
Total	182	177

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

6 minutes ago, At the break of Gawn said:

What I have trouble understanding is that someone like Goodwin knows exactly what it's like to coach the fittest team in the AFL as he saw it first hand in 2021. He clearly knows for this season that we're nowhere near the fittest team so why isn't he demanding more from his S&C team?

I can understand how some coaches like Brad Scott might have no idea what it's like to coach the fittest team, but Goodwin does, so why isn't he asking for better results?

What makes you think he isn't?

On 28/07/2025 at 13:26, WheeloRatings said:

I have access to the quarter-by-quarter stats, but they're not readily accessible. Here are the stats for the last quarter (first table) and the first three quarters combined (second table).

Quarter 4

	Melbourne	St Kilda
Disposals	67	95
Contested Possessions	26	32
Post-Clearance Contested Possessions	19	20
Uncontested Possessions	39	62
Clearances	6	9
Centre Clearances	1	6
Inside 50s	7	18
Marks Inside 50	2	9

Quarters 1-3

	Melbourne	St Kilda
Disposals	251	260
Contested Possessions	98	92
Post-Clearance Contested Possessions	57	49
Uncontested Possessions	157	166
Clearances	34	32
Centre Clearances	12	5
Inside 50s	45	25
Marks Inside 50	13	5

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

3 hours ago, Deeko2 said:

Great post binman.

I have a little theory on Burgo as well in that he somehow keeps the players up and going for a longer by communicating with them more and reminding them how much more they can really give.

I think I can recall footage of the 21GF where he was with the playing group (maybe on the bench) just telling them that they're all good and heaps more to give.

There is obviously physical restraints to all players fitness levels but there has to be some percentage of mental blocks at times preventing the extra 10-15% which can see teams improve incredibly.

Looking at the Crows this year and I see some resemblance to us in late 21. Players giving there all for longer and longer.

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.

4 hours ago, Go Ds said:

Hmm, I would've still been scratching my head but assuming you're right about Misson I stand corrected. Obviously not everything a player does at home will be monitored. But I'm surprised with all the ways a player's ability and performance can be measured that much escapes a fitness coach.

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

29 minutes ago, Go Ds said:

Anyway we do need to improve fitness. But unless players are deliberately cutting corners or being uncooperative it's incumbent on the coaches to help guide and redirect players towards those goals.

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.

Just now, Ghostwriter said:

Define “a look.” Not sure viewing for hours on end is sneaking a look.

Time is an abstract concept

14 minutes ago, Ghostwriter said:

I’m on it, Binners!!!

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