rjay

Agree with this, it makes more sense to me... So was the Sheffield Shield 'Demonland' and it's been on the back of those players that the big bash has flourished. Many of the current BBL players would never had been heard of it they stayed playing shield or local level cricket. Now some of them are household names in the game. If they get the game right and bring in a couple of ex champion players on big coin to supplement VFL listed players (like the BBL have with the likes of Warne) it could work. I don't like the current concept at all, it brings nothing but the chance of injury to key players.

Only half serious with the 2nd point there 'Red' but we should pick up some funds from outside the club. It might not happen directly but any AFL funding should take this into consideration. Everyone else seems to get an advantage on at times rather spurious assumptions and proposals.

We're victims of our ground being taken over by the rest of the competition. Maybe the co tenants should help fund our new home base.

I think the membership value has diminished significantly since the old pavilion stand was knocked down and numbers increased. They can't guarantee a GF seat anymore and on normal game days there are too many reserved seats sold in the members taking away prime viewing areas. I used to roll up on game day and have a nice little spot in the pavilion up level with where the coaches boxes were. The line up on GF day has always been a pain but at least you would be assured of a spot. There are too many members now and too many guests taking away full member seating. ...but the big draw of being a member is the waiting list. People will always join a line to get into anything and this is just about the biggest line in town. When running the odd show we would always leave the doors closed to draw a crowd out front as the intrigue would be piqued and more would join the line wanting to get in. It was well known certain venues would indeed rent a crowd to start the line and of course the classic door b.... had a prime role. I've been a member for a a long time now and every year it gets harder to find reason to pay over the cash particularly as I don't go to many games anymore because in part of the above reasons...and I don't get to the cricket now. I used to enjoy boxing day a lot, we would meet up with some people every year from the bush that we didn't even really know apart from having a couple of pots and a chat, they were always there... then we would go a find some more new acquaintances. It got too crowded with the party crowd...the same ones that go to events like the cup, tennis etc...boring mob, not interested in sport just want to be seen. Long answer...prestige, no, anyone can be a member if you're prepared to wait long enough. Value, probably not...paying for the club membership and the GF guarantee is probably a more sensible way to go. Are you missing anything. No, the old long room had some character but now it's just another bland room.

Yep, I think the old supporter base has been well and truly exhausted. The talk of converting MCC/MFC members to me is not going to achieve a lot more. Real growth will come from the areas you mention. Also note that the EFC drive came with premierships, ours will be the same.

I hope that not a lot of energy goes into this area as I think it's been well mined...and almost mined out as this supporter base is ageing. For the number of supporters we hold up extremely well even in the down times for attendances at games and memberships compared on a % basis to the so called big clubs. I would also think the ratio of MFC/MCC members will drop right off in the coming years. Picking up 50% now is a pretty decent conversion but in pure numbers it will dwindle away as time goes on. It's how we appeal to new members that's going to be the key to growth. A premiership or 2 won't hurt and providing an attractive club for people to join is going to be paramount. Establish the club as Melbourne in Melbourne and work hard for the new arrivals & converts...

Things don't work that way, it's not quite so simple. Take Hogan out & you get a different spread of goal kickers. We were still getting the ball forward & as some say, we worked as a more cohesive unit without Hogan. The argument could be made that we would kick more goals. As for Weideman, our season is not totally dependant on his success or failure. Of course it would be better if he has a good season.

'tiers' none of them has locked down a senior spot & with the exception of Hunt there have only been fleeting glimpses at senior level. I think Ronnie is not far off the mark with his comments on exposed form...lets hope with another season under the belt some of the above really make a statement and push up along with 1 or 2 of the new draftees. ...by the way, I think most teams would fall away after 24 - 26. You don't get to keep serious depth, if they're not getting a game they move on.

I think this is the issue 'george'... Given the late start to training (and required surgery) and the extra long Christmas break this year I'm not overly concerned with the rehab list. The club wouldn't want to push too many at this stage. The real measure will be after the break. I would expect the injury list to drop markedly after the first week back.

Trac's not going anywhere and can't be compared to the other 2 mentioned. I know you don't see it but he has improved each season.

He's become their link man/designated kicker from defence...a lot of the footy goes through him so I'm guessing his stats are good for super coach... In real footy he's the one you tag now.

Seeing as we have been rated by Champion Data as having the best midfield, 2nd best defence and 5th best forward line some of these teams above us must have amazing interchange players....

Can't see the similarity 'bingers'

No, some of that was tanking...or conveniently bottoming out to refresh the list if you like.

Thought I might post this one here as well...in regard to the Pert interview on SEN.

I think the most interesting thing he said was that we had 3 or 4 options for the training/admin/supporter base and one of them was Yarra Park. Many on here have undersold the club by thinking that Yarra Park was the only option. This is a club now run by serious people and they are not going in without a thorough planing and options. It is also clear to me that the base we are looking at will be somewhere in or around the MCG/Laver sporting precinct. Exciting times ahead on and off field.

The Dogs have gone with fill-in rucks the last few seasons with some cameo's from English who looks a good kid. If Campbell was so good he would have locked that spot up as his own. He rarely got a look in. I will admit he's looked good to me at times but for some reason Beveridge doesn't think he's up to it. I might defer to his better judgement, I might also defer to Taylor and our recruitment team. I take what Scott says with a grain of salt...

Agree 'Fifty'...it has looked to me as though that has been the plan all along. We've basically gone in one down over the last few seasons anyway. Balic was next to a non starter, Harietia (sorry about spelling) disappeared and left us one down and there was another a year or so earlier who escapes me at the moment. Of course we might be off the mark and they will take someone next week. ...but it makes sense to take someone now if we were going to, then they get the advantage of a full preseason. I think one reason we didn't take another ruck is that we've kept a place free for any eventuality.

The Kangas have a recruiting haul something like what Port did last season. How did they finish up? Like Port in season 2018, North will be lucky to make the 8 this coming season.

As far as the football side of things goes, the Alan Joyce/Chris Scott model would be best...don't mess with what's already working. The training/admin/club home base is what he will be marked on. That's what he's here for...

No, no, no...whilst I think they both go way over the top on the 'Saty' bash apart from that they are both very good posters. ...and yes they do have a dip at others from time to time but just don't take it personally. Both 'Wise' & 'dazz' provide excellent information & food for thought. They've just got a bit of a blind spot, that's all. 'Sats' not totally innocent here either, he will play it a bit. I expect he will play the 'take my bat & ball home' card at some stage. That always gets traction. On the whole, I just find the nitpicking thing boring & skip over the posts that don't have much relevance to me.

Sorry 'DV8', but Max can take credit for this himself... The club didn't need to apply pressure, it was Max who said he was after Goldies spot as the AA ruckman. He set his goals & achieved them, well done Max.

Maybe opinion is the wrong word, maybe not.. My point is that they chose the stats and the weighting of those stats. It's not an exact science. Someone else may find a different set of figures and weighting is more representative. They sometimes overreach with their conclusions but it makes for an interesting debate and they are obviously refining the process each year. I think your original post 'pro' on the rolling 40 games is a case in point, pretty sure that's how they did it in the past but have moved on and refined it. This is the point I was getting at...not everything is based on the raw numbers. The stats they chose and weighting are generated by their experts not raw numbers. It's still an opinion based business, in their case what they think is most important in the outcome of games or positions played. They (CD) do put out their conclusions and use the media to push their profile. The media presentation is usually their (CD) representation of the data in press releases and they have their people talking about it on as many shows as possible. Good for business. Our game is a very difficult one to boil down to just a set of raw data...much easier for other games like Cricket & Baseball. Whilst like you I don't agree with the post you were originally quoting 'Brenno', that champion data is garbage, I think they do bring some really interesting information to the table and create some good debate/arguments...I don't totally buy into what they have to say either, raw data or not it's not above reproach.

That's not quite true. Yes they base their output on stats. ...but it's the stats they use & the assumptions made based on those stats that can be argued with. If it was pure stats then they would just release the stats sheet (the raw numbers) & let us draw our own conclusions. They don't, they give their opinion. It's not infallible & is arguable.

Adelaide knocked on his door before he chose us...so long as the club look after him he's not going anywhere.