phoenix

I didn't ask for your credentials, I asked if you'd played or coached AFL football. 1. You haven't explained why watching Zebra games is relevant to my arguments. 2. You haven't told me if you played AFL footy or how many games you coached at AFL level. (I don't really care, I did it to demonstrate the illogical nature of your question) 3. You are clearly a wonderful supporter of the MFC and the SFC. Sadly that doesn't validate your argument or position. I'm happy to debate the arguments I've raised, but I don't intend to have a "mine is bigger than yours" contest. Your serve!

I think that in many cases you're right, but that is not always the case. Newton was certainly disadvantaged by the presence of Sautner and Crowe. Frawley and Garland have been held back by Lamb. It's mainly KP players because of the limited spots on the ground. It not just relates to being picked, it relates to where the player plays when they are picked. How many games did Newton play at FF for Sandy? Garland was another significantly compromised in the position he was played last year. Rucks are another issue but that is not Sandy's fault and the proposition of multiple partnerships or a system that exists in SANFL or WAFL seems sensible. If Meesen, Jamar and Johnson stay fit Spencer will most likely play a full season in Sandy seconds regardless of merit. Being so much more experienced these three will always be Sandy's first choice ruckmen and more immediate value. But in the long term Spencer may well be the best future ruckmen we have on our list. He would benefit from playing a higher standard. Let me paint a scenario. Let's assume Jamar is the only player of those 4 out of contract at year end. Let's presume he's not up to AFL standard and we've decided to delist him at year end but he is a standout at VFL level. Let's assume Spencer is playing well in Sandy 2nds and we want to give him exposure because we see him as developing into a good player. Or perhaps we just need to see him at a higher level to see if he can cope. Sandy of course, under the ZG beat my hairy chest philosophy won't pick him. I tell you what I'd do if Sandy wouldn't play ball. I'd sack Jamar. That way he wouldn't be able to play for Sandy and Spencer would get a run in the Sandy seniors. And that would be stupid. Sandy must be prepared to compromise to assist the partnership and get off their high horse about being an independent club. They are not and they decided not to be when THEY accepted a partnership.

If you can explain to me what relevance that has to the strength of my argument I'll answer. Can you tell me how many games of football you've played and how many games you've coached?

I want a change if the attitude of the Sandy Board is as unsympathetic as Zebgrowler is and doesn't recognise this as a partnership. I'd probably opt for a change if we got a better deal at a better ground. That's just business and is no disrespect for Sandy. I think on the whole the relationship has been good. You yourself have said how Melbourne were accommodating when the partnership was formed and that other partnerships were less favourable. All I'm suggesting is that the partnership has some issues that affect MFC and Sandy need to be aware of that and accommodate a solution or at least be prepared to compromise. ZG says "if you don't like it go somewhere else or do your own thing". In essence so do you. Sylvinator raised an absolutely valid issue. He, and accordingly our club, was ridiculed as a result. It's pretty insulting to say "if you don't like it do your own thing" because you know we can't. But rather than recognise the issues you want to play tough man. Where is the respect for us in this partnership? Be tough but if we do go you won't get as good a deal elsewhere and that will be your loss. Alternatively you can go it alone. Has a stand alone VFL club played in a GF since 2000?

You need to rethink your attitude Zebgrowler. What Sylvinator says is clearly right and an unthinking and tasteless reply such as yours does nothing to benefit the relationship. Whilst in partnership with Melbourne Sandy has added four Premiership Cups to the closet. And while that has happened development opportunities for Melbourne players has been hampered by the recruiting of good VFL players by Sandringham including Sautner, Lamb and Crowe who have filled key positions denying Melbourne an opportunity to develop their own players. That has clearly helped Sandy and hindered Melbourne. Your arrogance doesn't seem to contemplate the concept of partnership. Personally I'd dump the association with Sandringham in a second. If you reflect the attitude of the Sandringham Board there is clearly no goodwill toward the MFC and you'd be happier without us. Coupled with your arrogant attitude is having to play on a substandard ground that is ill managed and far too small for AFL play. This further limits the development of our players and is good reason for the MFC to consider moving. I note Casey Fields is now being considered and a relationship with the Scorpions would surely follow with the Saints moving to Frankston where another logical relationship might prosper. You might get your wish. We might [censored] off and let Sandy fend for themselves and look for another relationship. I doubt you'll find one where that new club will afford you as much respect and goodwill as the MFC. And if we do move any goodwill I felt towards Sandy will have been eroded by your narrow mindedness and tasteless attitude to the MFC. In that situation I'll look with interest at how you're going and if you manage to add another 4 Flags to your history in such short time. You should be thanking us and not being so sensitive to sensible debate and comments. And by the way, when Melbourne Supporters refer to Sandy as the "seconds" we are not being disrespectful, we are just recognising that the players on our list who are not playing in the MFC firsts are playing for Sandy which just happens to be where our second tier players play. That's why it's our seconds.

What a fantastically appropriate username. Who helped you?

I'd rather have pick 3 in the PSD than pick 37 in the ND.

Lets start by getting the spelling right. MeesEn.

How? We were told we'd have a $1 million dollar profit. Then $500,000 and now breakeven. He's the CEO of an organization that has paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in early termination payments. If you believe the rumours the AFL think nothing of him. Nor by the look of it do his staff. And now he puts out this muck. You're easily pleased Gouga.

Rarely have I seen a post more determined to say more about the poster than the intended target. Now, I'll preface this by saying I stopped reading this thread when I got to this sentence so I hope you've said this statement in jest and you've gone on to reflect that Cam Bruce has been easily one of our best players for a good many years now. If you've made the above comment seriously then go see someone, you need help. Cam Bruce is not a knock them down bash through packs type of player. He is a fantastic running player able to find the ball in contested situations and do something with it. He can play any position on the ground except ruck and has been used by Danners to fill holes in our lineup and take the oppositions most dangerous player. He's thrashed players like Johnson and Peter Bell, no mean feat for anyone. He's played this role to his detriment for the good of the team. To suggest he is anything but a credit to our jumper is just ignorant. Why do these sites attract people who think it is their right to abuse, insult, offend and deride people at the club. As someone once said "With freedom of expression also comes responsibility. You exercised none of the latter. It's one thing to have an opinion, albeit an ill informed one, but another not to have the decency to use moderation when expressing a view." I hope they don't mind me quoting them here. I hope you use whatever limited intellect you have when you post in future. You've wasted none with this comment.

Don't worry Barry, I used the word incorrectly for years, and I suspect even the astute Whispering Jack learned something on Wednesday. No crime in getting that one wrong and nice to have friends smart enough to help you get it right!! Cheers and thanks for the fantastic reports you provide on Sandy, particularly when the Melbourne faithful can't make it because of a fixture clash!

How would you have rated his game yesterday Goodoil?

A thought provoking answer Old. I doubt it will have that effect on CB though, I doubt even the lights are on.

Yes, the risk takers get some rewards, but they can also pay a high price. We took a risk on Hayes and now everyone is saying "why". For every "risk" there are many more losers than winners.

Well let me have a go Redleg. Daniel Hayes is/was a talented footballer who had all the attributes to play AFL other than his mental application. He was a high risk high reward player. As a result taking him as a late in the Rookie draft was appropriate. Valenti is already an accomplished VFL footballer, and at VFL level has done particularly well. But the good performances in VFL don't necessarily translate to AFL. David Gallagher, Adam Fisher and David Robbins show that. With Valenti I think that what you see is what you get. There won't be a lot of upside. I don't pretend to have the ability to judge which players can make it at AFL level. I've got it wrong many times. But I do think that Valenti fits the mould of the three I have mentioned. Good VFL footballers. I think he is just a little bit small and a little bit slow. Before BRB, who is obviously passionate about his favourite Zebra's, damns the club for not picking Valenti he needs to remember that no club did. So the sum total of AFL talent scouts and recruiting managers were unanimous in their verdict. Perhaps they are wrong. But our blokes are hardly unique in their view.

Out of all the gloom and disappointment of this season, finally some good news.

Ah, the cream is rising to the top!!

The answer was that Yze was played deep in the forward line as early as the first quarter. He struggled so he was moved. The bloke is sadly out of form and has been for about 2 years now. Some would look at that and make some conclusions. Obviously not everyone.

Yes DD, in the crud that is our season to date Daniel Bell is probably THE positive. The kids commitment and courage is second to none and I agree that his decision making in improving as is his awareness. What a shame many of our other players don't take a leaf out of his book. Can you imagine Travis or Yze with Daniels endevour? He's always given the hardest task (Chapman and Ablett yesterday) and he delivers. No player kicked a goal while Bell was on them yesterday. On current form he is the teams best defender. What amazes me is the posters that continue to bag Belly are also the ones calling for a "youth policy". Go figure. Excellent 31st game Belly. I look forward to many more.

The debate on CJ is a fair one. He did star during the preseason and he has been disappointing in his 2 games. He's had no influence. But to suggest he has not had ground time is just plain WRONG. He was on for 88 minutes last week for about 7 possessions. I don't know how long he was on against the Saints but with McLean and Whelan off the ground early it would have been a fair part of the game. Bate was on the ground for a similar time to CJ last week and had about 19 possessions. At least one is getting the ball.

What's the relevance? Rather than trying to shoot down his arguments based on the fact that he's in some way associated with the club you should try and shoot down his arguments based on their substance. At the moment your approach is doing nothing other than convincing readers you have no counter to offer and are now trying to discredit the poster. You'd be perfectly suited to politics. In my opinion RR is one of the few who go beyond the emotional swill that characterizes many of the offerings of posters as he tries to rationally assess the situation. Thanks Rhino. That you show the energy to debate in the way you do is amazing. That so few listen to you is even more so.