Lucifers Hero

Revenue is important to Clubs but Sponsors and TV Broadcasters care about the Numbers. The more members the better FTA broadcast time slots, more profitable opp at the G, more merchandising, more match attendances and more attractive to sponsors etc etc etc.

Thanks for those figures. We've come a long way since the PJ/Roos era started and added some 10,000 members. But disappointingly we are still at the bottom of the Vic teams. I suspect North is somewhere near the same level. Even, Carlton are now 51,860 Anyway, we are moving along slowly and today we are 42,057. Just 178 to go to beat last years record. But sadly I don't think we will reach any great heights this year. I'm at a loss to understand why our membership is not increasing rapidly. One wonders whether, even if we win a Premiership, we will reach the 'dizzy' heights of 50,000 members let alone the fantasy land 70,000 to 90,000 levels of the big clubs.

Clarrie will win a Brownlow first!?

The story that goes with the tweet: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2018-05-18/key-defensive-pillars-continue-to-build A simple membership of Oscars progress: “He’s probably gone from being a guy who halves contests to actually winning some now, so we’ve been really pleased with his progression... ...He’s had a fantastic year, but the challenge for him is to maintain it for the whole season and really start to put himself among the top defenders in the league.” Oscar isn't (yet) up with the top defenders like Talia, Hearn, Hurley, Rance but I reckon by the time he reaches their level of experience and age he will right up there. I just hope it is with us.

I agreee - one in all in. But why is the Tribunal not prepared to hand down each decision separately since they agreed to hear them separately. The cynic in me thinks it is so they can phrase their verdict so that it is acceptable to all parties...

Given that Gleeson QC requested the two be heard concurrently but Clark QC objected and the Tribunal chair agreed with him why is the Tribunal reserving its decision till after Ed's case has been heard? They are heard and decided separately or as one...seems a bit 50/50...

Especially since he acted for the AFL in the Hawkins case. Had he had it from the beginning, we would have had a consistent line of legal argument from one week to the next. Gleeson is very convincing! Charlie may have got off on Tues night but now if one bro goes down, both go down...

Finally, a thoughtful commentary on 'deliberately' 'touching an umpire: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/sense-of-proportion-needed-when-imposing-penalties-for-umpire-contact-20180516-p4zfqf.html Six umpire touching incidents in the last 3 weeks resulting in 3 fines for 'careless' and 3 'deliberate' referred to Tribunal: Hawkins suspended and the Curnow's downgraded to 'careless' and fined. I suspect had Hawkins not been suspended no-one would raise an eyebrow about the Curnow decisions. The issue for most people is 'consistency'. The AFL made a rod for its back by toughening the interpretation of 'careless' or 'deliberate' mid year with the Hawkins' decision. Like the Tribunal did this week, maybe Michael Christian should get some evidence from umpires before making the assessment.

Danger turns up the heat on the inconsistency: Farcical! http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-16/danger-slams-tribunals-farcical-ump-ruling I hope that behind the scenes, the umpires association also turned up the heat to ensure the message is loud and clear to football at all levels that you don't deliberately touch an umpire.

An article about the stars teams cannot afford to lose. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-16/aflw-players-your-team-cant-afford-to-lose "The star: Karen Paxman: The general of Melbourne's star-studded midfield and capable of hitting the scoreboard if required. The role-player: Meg Downie: Injury robbed her of a chance to play properly in the first season but she impressed on tall and small opponents. Even more important now, given the loss of Mel Hickey to Geelong. The young star: Katherine Smith: Emerging leader who is also an incredibly consistent lock-down defender". Obviously the author hasn't heard of Daisy Pearce... She is an out and out star. Fabulous captain and leader. Never gives up. Her teammates stand taller with Daisy in the lead. Love Paxman but instead I would name Daisy as 'The Star' of our show.

"Ebony Marinoff is weighing up a shock move to Melbourne" https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/womens-afl/melbourne-is-aggressively-pursuing-young-adelaide-aflw-star-ebony-marinoff-who-is-weighing-up-her-options/news-story/96785b39401a9249a0660d4404a1e743 She won the 2017 Rising Star and would be an excellent replacement in the midfield for Cranston and is reportedly good friends with Daisy and Paxman as she played with them in the Darebin premiership last year. Not sure when the Trade period officially opens/closes but it happens by the end of May.

Thank you. The acid test might be if the AFL appoint last weeks Tribunal members to hear the Appeal...at least there would be consistent minds reviewing

Well, I never! AFL to appeal! https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-afl-confirms-it-will-appeal-tribunal-decisions-for-carlton-brothers-ed-and-charlie-curnow/news-story/7a480a865412ed41f3ee1975ab318781 I eat humble pie for my earlier commentary of possible behind the scene machinations by the AFL!

I saw that, thanks. My issue is that the only official example the AFL gave clubs was highlighting a Melbourne incident (which actual was legal) when really they should have used various incidents from various clubs. I just felt that it was poor of the AFL to highlight us as culprits when everyone is doing it. The AFL using Hawthorn as a culprit would be good but that would show up Clarkson as a hypocrite...?

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-bows-to-alastair-clarkson-pressure-sends-extraordinary-memo-to-clubs/news-story/cc76fd83c4da1db9b273ae77fa8907e9 You have to feel for the umpires. The email that went to clubs covers: "Umpires are looking for the following cues regarding blocking: — A player who is coming off his line to prevent an opposition player from genuinely attempting to contest the mark. — A player who is using their arms in a shepherding motion. — A player who is not contesting the ball (eyes for the ball vs. eyes on the opposition). Umpires are being coached to look forward of play and to ensure that players making the ball their prime objective should be permitted to contest. – Umpires are looking for players that are held in the contest, in particular with armsaround the opposition". How on earth is an umpire supposed to determine that if there is a bit of a pack? Ah, the mighty AFL have the answer: - If a kick comes from the wing into the forward 50, the umpire in the forward 50 has been instructed to keep his or her eyes firmly planted on the marking contest, rather than the ball that’s flying in. AFL, seriously? Talk about micro control. Btw where is the umpire supposed to look if the kick comes elsewhere the wing? My fear this might kill off the extra man up in a marking contest. How often are 2,3,4 players jostling for position and the extra comes in and marks. Will they now be paid a free against. Thinking Jake Lever here...

AFL 360 showed the video, of an infringement, that was sent with the email. Guess which team infringed? Yep, our Demons was the one and the only 'offender' highlighted in the 'official' video, a video which will be in widespread use by media. Thanks to that exposure there is every chance we will be under the microscope of opp supporters and umpires. Will be interesting how many 'blocking' frees are paid against us this weekend. The video shows Oliver 'blocking' Carlisle for Hogan to mark. Ironically, Jack Riewoldt thought it wasn't a block as Oliver also had eyes for the ball. Anyone confused? Would have preferred they used several examples of different situations from various teams.

No problem as long as they give frees against the Hawks when their players block. AFL programs last night showed numerous times Hawks players block, including incidents vs Swans last Friday night, without penalty. Pot.Kettle.Black. On a more serious note. It is one thing for Clarkson to by-pass the usual channels and go straight to the top guy to complain. But another for Gil to validate that by reacting to complaint and issuing a missive. Bad look for the CEO dismissing due process. He should have sent Clarkson to complain to Hocking or Head of Umpires. Clarkson is probably smarting from being left off the new super duper AFL Competition Committee!

It is telling that the AFL used a different legal Counsel. Jeff Gleeson QC vs Hawkings. Andrew Wood vs Curnows. From my google search he seems junior. Add that the three Tribunal Members selected for tonight were different to those last week. And, it all sets the stage for a perfect whitewash by the AFL.

Is anyone really surprised? The AFL loves Carlton and is determined to favour them at every opportunity. As evidence I offer you the number of Thur/Fri/Sat night FTA games they have been gifted. I also offer the number of Home games (vs some high member teams...good for the $ coffers) at the G (somewhat at our expense). Integrity? Pfft! Consistency? Pfft! Impartiality? Pfft! This is Carlton folks. This week is their home game and need to get people thru the gate to bring in the revenue. Whatever helps Carlton the AFL deliver! Surprised? Nope!

Re not valuing the last 3 wins against 'lesser sides' - I would be concerned if we had just got over the line. But they have been very good wins: Ess: 24 scoring shots. 36 point win. StK: 26 scoring shots. 39 point win. GCS: 41 scoring shots. 69 point win I'll take 6 to 10 goal wins every day of the week regardless of who they are against! There are still a few things to sort out with structures, how we play the G and finding the best-fit position for some players. So, there is every reason we can beat the 'better sides' but perhaps by not such a big margin as recent weeks. In the meantime, I'm happy to boost our percentage.

Congratulations to Tom Mc - selected in TOTW as a forward! http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2018-05-15/mcdonald-in-team-of-the-week Not bad for a defender-turned-forward in only his second game of the season and precious few as a fwd for the whole game.

It certainly won't help their cause with Mike Fitzpatrick coming out and saying the drugs in 2012 were: "almost certainly performance enhancing" in an interview with Mike Sheahan. Not wishing to derail this thread by posting that here- (The Bomber's Saga thread is now in the General Forum for further discussion on the Fitzpatrick comments) just wanting to highlight the deep, deep abyss they are in...and getting worse. They have increased their membership by about 50% since the 2012-2015 nadir. Will be interesting to see how many hang on after this year, especially as they can't readily sack Worsfold. They have the cash but his payout would be included in their football spend cap which restricts their wriggle-room. There could be be 'riots' among those sanctimonious supporters at the hangar! They are already restless!

Just when Ess thought their season could not get any worse: "My point of view is that it was almost certainly performance enhancing," Fitzpatrick said of the injected substances" https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/retired-afl-chairman-adds-to-bombers-woes-20180515-p4zfb1.html Doesn't get any more damning than! Fitzpatrick would know! The doping saga will haunt them forever and a day!

I just heard Whately and Robbo say Ess should get Craig Jennings to Ess to help Worsfold- that is OUR Craig Jennings! Hope he has enough sense to see we are going places and not be tempted by the money they might throw his way.

The gory details from from Foxfooty: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/mark-neeld-resigns-from-coaching-role-at-essendon/news-story/c1c9569342c0f29a9bbb181edccfd71e "Foxfooty.com.au understands the dynamics among the coaching panel had become unsustainable this year, which filtered down to the players". "It’s believed that aside from John Worsfold, Rob Harding (game intelligence and opposition strategy coach) and Neeld, no assistants were permitted to discuss specific strategy and tactics with the senior coach or players. This extended to game day in the coaches’ box, with almost every suggestion regarding a heavily criticised game plan funnelled through Neeld. This alienated other assistants Mark Harvey, James Kelly, Paul Corrigan and Hayden Skipworth. On several occasions, at least one of the assistants who was not allowed to discuss strategy or tactics, had to discreetly tell the runner messages behind Worsfold and Neeld’s backs in order to get their message out there. Ultimately, the structure didn’t work and Neeld was moved on — the scapegoat in a system that had broken down". It is a terrible structure and process to channel everything through one person and keep other assistants out of the loop but Neeld didn't put the structure in place - that is a Football department decision. Key word in last para of quote: Scapegoat. Glad for him he is out of there Watching the arrogant EFC implode again will be such fun...more popcorn anyone!