La Dee-vina Comedia

It's the TV commentators' fault that Richmond lost? Wow!

The organ grinder is the Herald-Sun. Robbo is the monkey.

Having thought about it some more, there is a piece of music composed by John Cage called 4' 33'' which would be ideal to play after every goal.

We have a winner. (OK, on a technicality it was the MRO not the tribunal, but full credit to Dr Gonzo for his perspicacity)

I can't quite understand what's being debated here. We are the Melbourne Football Club, also known as the Demons and the Dees, just like Collingwood are the Magpies and the Pies, Essendon are the Bombers and the Dons and St Kilda are irrelevant.

I seem to recall when this issue was in the media last year, no-one wanted to own the decision as to who decided that music was a good idea. I think the AFL said it was the Ground Manager (ie, the MCC) and the Ground Manager said they had outsourced the match day ground management to an outside company. In short, no-one likes it and no-one wanted to own up to authorising it. Nothing's changed - it's still a lousy idea. As an aside, the AFL has allowed breaks between goals to extend from 30 seconds to about 40-45 seconds, presumably to satisfy Channel 7 so it can run ads and replays of the goal. I wouldn't mind bringing the break back to 30 seconds. After all, everyone seems to be saying that games go too long and if a game has, say, 27 goals, that's an additional 6.75 minutes tacked on for no good reason.

It seems Robbo is being both highly aggressive and highly defensive at the same time with these selections. It's rather like a stock picker investing in Lithium stocks and fossil fuels.

A lot of the Richmond hitouts would have been against Tom McDonald. He took most (or even all) the forward 50 contests and as you can see, only won one of them. As I posted previously, this may not be a concern given it meant that it would have allowed us the luxury of having one or both of Gawn and Grundy behind the ball.

I'm still getting used to us actually being good. Not just for a game here or there, or even for one season, but consistently good over a period of years. It's not just the supporters of other teams, it's also the media. For example, look how often Melbourne stories make the media and how the media illustrate their generic stories with photos of Melbourne players when they could use anyone.

I know it was just a practice match but there are troubling signs for Richmond. Reiwoldt, Cotchin and Martin all looked "old and slow". I think they could get away with playing one of them, preferably Martin, but all three in the one team is going to help drive them over the proverbial cliff.

A few observations: Ben Brown played a mixed bag. He got a lot of free kicks in Q4 for doing what he does best - long leads and long arms, which meant the defender gave away those free kicks. In other words, he earned those frees by playing the game his way. Also, in the first half I thought rather than playing an ordinary game, he played as a decoy forward which allowed Grundy and Gawn to thrive as forwards if Tom McDonald continues to take all the ruck contests close to goal, we'll lose most of them. However, this might not matter as it allows us to have at least one ruckman a kick behind the play which will make it hard for the opponents to clear the ball I know Petty was outplayed in the last quarter. Until then, though, I thought he was absolutely dominant ANB was outstanding I loved the mixing and matching of the on ballers in the centre square. Whereas 2021 we thrived on consistency, in 2023 we might benefit from the variety I found Chandler to be a disappointment. I expected more from him Hunter has been a great pick up

The MCC membership year ends 31 August each year. Every MCC member knows that if you want to attend AFL finals matches at the MCG,you need to have paid up for the new year or you won't get in.

That's an interesting question, worthy of its own thread. My guess is that the replacement has a non-compete clause which doesn't expire until May (when Gil is meant to be leaving) and can't even be identified yet. If that's correct, it would mean the internal applicants have all been overlooked.

This a good question. Presumably when tobacco advertising was banned, sport and the media found an alternative to replace those funds. My bigger fear, though, is that if betting revenue ceases the AFL (and all others sports) will make up at least some of the shortfall by changing the spectator model altogether and make attending games a much more expensive exercise. The AFL has adopted a strategy over the last 40 years of trying to keep attendance costs down to encourage weekly attendance. It could easily decide to drop that idea and replace it with a model where attendance is significantly more expensive with an expectation that most people who choose to attend will do so much less frequently. Essentially, that's the US NFL model, also known as the "theatregoers model". That's what we already see here with the Spring Racing Carnival and the Grand Prix, but both get away with it because they don't have a product to sell for more than just a few days every year.

Apart from Las Vegas, sports betting was illegal throughout the US until about 2-3 years ago. It will be interesting to see if the US media becomes saturated with betting ads as occurs here.

The issue with the umpire giving betting information can still exist even if legalised betting is stopped. It would just go underground. At least with legal, regulated betting, these types of problems are identified because the legal betting operators work with the sports to identify these problems. In short, the problems of cheating and exchanging information of this type are likely to be greater, not less, if betting was made illegal.

The major sporting bodies claim that they do. They are arguing that their earnings from broadcast rights will be less if the TV networks have their betting advertising reduced. I suspect that claim is right. So, the question becomes not just a moral one but a business one. Are we as supporters prepared to accept a competition with less revenue which either has to be replaced (eg, higher membership or ground entry costs) or there has to be a reduction in costs (most likely to be borne by reduced payments to players). Or a mix of both, of course. When that becomes the choice, do people still want greater restrictions on betting advertising? Fair enough if they do, but it has to be understood that it comes with a cost. My position: I don't bet. But I also don't have a problem with the advertising. I find it easy to ignore.

Just for a moment I thought we had another player with the first name Hunter, surname Brody. Then I realised who you meant.

And our loyal members who pay membership fees every year (and our sponsors, but I accept that our club's relationship with them is never anything more than temporary).

Thanks Lucifer and Hawk for explaining more. It's still a fail that a person cannot confirm their own membership status online, whosever "fault" it is. I wonder how many MCC members like me think that they are also MFC members when, in fact, they are not. It's too damn hard to check, so why would people bother to do so?

Actually, the failure to renew is my mistake, not the MCC's. Where the MFC has failed is that its website does not tell me whether my membership has been renewed or not. I had just assumed it was renewed. The only reason I checked was because I did not receive voting papers for the recent election. Now I know why.

I've recently been on the MFC website looking at my membership profile. Nowhere does it tell me whether my membership is paid up, or when it might expire. I still get MFC emails and I still have a member number which is active. It turns out my membership had not been renewed. I have auto-renewal with direct debit for my MCC membership and had thought it included the MCC/MFC option, but apparently not. I tried calling the MFC today only to be in a phone queue for quite some time. I've now got it fixed by calling the MCC instead. Does anyone else find it bizarre that the MFC website can let me access my membership profile yet not tell me whether my membership is paid up or not?

If we were still in an economy where interest rates were not moving upwards, you might be right. But any fund manager would have known over the last 12 months that the only way interest rates were going to move was upwards. Hence, waiting has a low risk. If we'd moved too soon, we might have invested in less than optimal opportunities. I'm not a finance person, but I can see that what you are thinking of as a delay I could see as maximising a strategic opportunity.

Far be it for me to question the words of a writer of the quality of Hemingway, but isn't the correct expression "no holds barred"? Or perhaps this is just a typo?

Hawk the Demon's motives for raising this issue might be questioned, but the specific questions he has asked are not unreasonable. Nor are they particularly important. Morgan Stanley might have been selected because they provided the best proposal to the club's request for expressions of interest from potential fund managers. The $10 million from Leighoak may have been earmarked for a different purpose. I don't see what the problem is with the investment strategy not being ready by November 2022. It's not like the money would be sitting idle. I'd rather take the time to get it right. All the above might be wrong answers, but unless someone's embezzled the Leighoak proceeds and the club isn't aware of it, I doubt whether any other answer would change people's perceptions about the Board's actions.