Hannabal

I agree.

He's playing his first game this weekend.

No

We must have been the only ones completely underwhelmed. From standing in a queue for 20 minutes to get in, whilst some [censored] waltzed to the milling front, to the shambolic ticketing system to get on a ride. My wife and kids waited in a queue for the ghost train for 45 minutes, the ride was over in 30 seconds and the most boring thing they've been on. They waited in another queue and when the clock struck 11am they were told that that was it and they'd have to go and buy a ticket, even though they'd been waiting for 15 minutes. Later on there was no-one at the dodgum (?) cars, but of course they had to buy a ticket by now, except the queue to get a ticket for a ride no-one was using was 100 metres long. The area around the jumper presentation was also too small. And then the music from a speaker started before the presentation was over drowning out the Coach. The venue was just too small for so many people. I only go to support the club, so I was pleased to see it packed. I don't go to chat with players or officials, or to get autographs, so if that's your bent you probably had a good time. I wouldn't go back to Luna Park.

I must add that I was terribly disappointed in McLean. He looked very slow and underdone. But even when he's caught he just doesn't have the crisp damaging disposal of the competition's best.

Bennell was terrific. He needs to develop his body, but the class is obvious. Jones was Melbourne's best, but 2 errant handballs caused opposition goals. He was far better at taking the first option today and his disposal on the was whole excellent. Green's disposal and decision making at times was woeful. Newton had a terrific first quarter and was pathetic thereafter. He surprisingly put his body on the line in one marking contest. I'm a Jetta fan, but things didn't work out for him after an excellent first quarter. All in all the backline was very good, the midfield lacks class but kept having a crack, and it wasn't a day for forwards. Newton, Bartram, Bell, Dunn, Meesen, are very limited footballers and will be replaced by Watts, Grimes, Strauss, Bail, PJ and others in the not too distant future.

He did ok. Had a few of his trademark spoils and linked up a bit. It wasn't a great day to show off one's aerial ability. Pass mark.

It was certainly a positive to have him play a full game. Although I was surprised he squibbed a contest.

In other words, the reason that "c ) The Casey issue is another area where I'm afraid that you will have to give credit to the previous board." is due to Chris Connolly being employed by the previous Board. A tenuous reason to hand out the plaudits at best, but hardly surprising coming from the previous Board's sycophant, or should I say 'lap-dog'. Keep clutching at straws.

I'm informed that the Casey arrangement is completely Chris Connolly's idea. This is from one of your previous Board members. Perhaps you can expand on why the previous Board should be congratulated for Chris' idea and efforts ? As for your spelling ? It's pretty good. The continual "argu'e'ment" spelling is a little hard to take, but I'm getting used to it.

1. a ) We have a promising young team that can only improve What a trite response. Doesn't every club have a team with potential ? Does our team have potential because it's young and they're the reigning wooden spooners, or because you have facts that make it more appealing. You're trying to convey that we're attractive to sponsors because our team "can only improve". On prospective sponsors list of key criterion in choosing a club to sponsor yours doesn't make top 50. Especially when it's so subjective. However, it's no surprise that it suits your jaundiced views. 2. Every other club, including the bulldogs, is in the same recession. We were the last ones to get a sponsor. Was every club looking for a naming rights sponsor at the same time ? No, but it doesn't suit your agenda to point out such inconveniences. Not even one fifth of the competition was coming out of sponsorship. And every impartial AFL fan would say that we were the least attractive. 3. I didn't put my hand up for the job in the first place. How do we know ? You're an anonymous forum user. From your past offerings I'd hardly wager that the 'truth' was your major at Uni. 4. It's not a fantasitic effort it is only barely a Pass grade. Fair comment in isolation. More work needs to be done. And most of us recognise the extenuating circumstances. 5. I'm not on their backs, I'm simply adding my view on what constitutes "perspective" - just like you. However, I feel that your "perspective" is decidedly rose-tinted. Fancy you calling someone 'rose-tinted' when your only reason for joining this forum was to agitate against Stynes and his new Board due to your connections with the old Board. You've got about as much chance of getting a dose of perspective as you have of spelling the word 'believe' correctly.

That would make sense for most other posters, but I don't see Rhino as your typical forum geek with the associated 'speak'.

Indeed. Thankfully, it's great news for the MFC and its supporters.

I find myself in agreement with Trag twice in as many days. Whilst my views on Sylvia as a player are known - lacks footy nous, overrated talent, 'just a player' - it's not earth shattering news. If anything I'm impressed with the decisions our leadership group are making. Prior to the last 12 months he'd have got away with it.

Tragic is right on the money. It's not unreasonable at all to say that Watts is the most important player on the list. And yes, Morton is the other. Everyone knows that we're crying out for a star, not only because they win flags, but because they make your club relevant, increase crowds and boost membership sales. Watts and Morton are the 2 most likely to elevate themselves to that status.

Granted Sylvia attacks the man hard, but he's never attacked the ball with vigour in one game I've seen.

Exactly. I've read the fantastic biography on Norm Smith (which surprisingly has received little discussion here) and I reckon I know what Norm would have thought. Amazingly, he was involved in 10 of our 12 flags and I suspect such trivialities would have made him laugh. I can just hear him telling a committeeman "you worry about nonsense like that and let me get on with building sides that win premierships."

I'm not overly fussed, so I wouldn't be perturbed if we went down that path, but I'm more interested in creating our next chapter of history than seemingly wanting to highlight our past. I wonder if it smacks of "we know we're [censored], but do you know how old we are ?". I don't think anyone cares about our tradition other than success starved supporters. But I understand why most supporters like it. And no doubt most won't agree with my sentiments. It fazes me not.

I noticed Port Adelaide with 1870 on their back against Geelong. Bit of a [censored] imo.

Hall had a dog of a day. And yes, he's on the way out. And yes, I like his aggression.

A coach has to do both. They're not mutually exclusive.

I disagree. I thought Hall's aggression was well controlled and the type of display that puts fear into the opposition backmen, as evidenced by no one holding Hall to account. The Demon players were soft in their acceptance of Hall's show of strength. I'd love to have that type of player in our line up.

From a reliable source I was told a few days ago that a sponsorship deal was imminent with 2 companies in the picture. At this stage one sponsor is more desireable, "but even the second sponsorship get's you up there".

You're being kind.

I reckon Col's "talent" is severely overrated. Yes he can take the odd strong mark, yes he can do the occasional great kick, but his decision making is often poor, his disposal is often wayward, and he's poor in close. Most of all, he lacks footy nous. Just a player. But will have the odd good day.