Big Col

1 minute ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

I tend to agree

But we don't have a frivolous candidate problem now... so why do we need a solution?

And what's the downside even if we did when voting is electronic and low cost? 

I think it's about modernising our constitution.
I don't think we need to wait for 'bad' things to happen before we take measures to address potential 'bad' things. The 20 member nomination requirement shouldn't be a problem for genuine nominees when it's also accompanied with other open democratic processes like allowing canvassing of votes (and before that nominations). It's the other 'open democratic' processes that may encourage frivolous nominations.

Having said that, I would be disappointed if the club chooses to enact this nomination proposal without the quid pro quo of opening up the rest of the process. 

45 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Righto. What am I missing here... ?

The premise of this review is desire to allow electronic voting to reduce costly postal elections  -  fair enough

But also to increase requirements for Board nominations to have 20 members signatures, rather than 2.

How many times has the election process been overwhelmed with candidates? And given the low cost online voting amendment - why would it matter?

Additionally, the formalisation of the requirement of a nominations committee, is there something I'm missing here? Is the current committee lacking some sort of legitimacy? Will formalisation of requirement for this committee allow for Board to give committee stronger charter??

Seems to me these 2 elements are designed to increase the power of the incumbent Board to choose new board members. The way the Board campaigned against that member (Peter Lawrence??) last election made me feel quite unneasy. Is this an effort to make the Board more of a closed shop than it currently is?

As for the consultation process, the online forum is faux consultation, questions easily managed and controlled and a mute function...

Someone slap me down if I'm wrong, but I get uneasy when I see a solution searching for a problem... ?

I actually suggested this exact thing in the survey.

Board nominees should have unfair impediments to election removed (such as the board endorsing certain candidates on club paid for literature - eg  if Kate Roffey wants to write to members recommending people vote for certain candidates then she's pays for it, not the MFC). It should also more widely advertise their nomination process (eg notice should be given to members and the election process transparent) and not prevent candidates from promoting themselves including on sites such as Demonland.

But the flipside to this is in order to prevent frivolous nominations that cost the club money, we should insist that board nominees actually have some support before they nominate. If a serious board contender can't even muster 20 nominations then how do they expect to be elected? 

 

1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Lol.  I like the sentiment Big Col, but what have you been smoking in your pipe to come up with that?

Perhaps that explains the rest of the post too.

...whatever it is, can I have some?

 

P.S. I'm not sure what's more delusional.  Your last para or the prospect of Tassie ever entering the comp (which I'd personally like to see BTW).

Was I bit too conservative and pessimistic?

 

7 minutes ago, Big Col said:

1 hour ago, Glorious Day said:

There is no incentive for the top finishing team after the H&A season to bother winning any of its games in the initial round of your proposed finals series. For this reason alone, it’s flawed, and will lead to resting and not going 100%.

The top team must finish first in its group to get a home preliminary final.
If the top team finishes second in its group it qualifies for an away final
If the top team finishes third in its group then it is eliminated
 

These are the scenarios for the top team:

• In all cases team 1 has a bye in round 1 
• The loser of 6 v 7 will play team 1 in round 2.
• Team 1 will play the winner of round 1 in round 3

In Rd 3,  Team 1 has 0 or 1 wins and is playing against a team with 1 win. 
If they lost in Rd2 then they will have to win in Rd3 to have a chance at finishing 1st or 2nd. That will come down to percentage. If they lose again, they're out.
If they won in Rd2 then they will have to win in Rd3 to finish top. If they lose they will finish second and yes they will qualify for the PF but it will be for an away final. This could be an issue where the opponent is certain to be another Melbourne team, but you'd also be ranked 4 and playing the best of the other teams in the PF, rather than 2 or 3.

A team that 'relaxed' in Round 1 would do so at their peril.

1 hour ago, Glorious Day said:

There is no incentive for the top finishing team after the H&A season to bother winning any of its games in the initial round of your proposed finals series. For this reason alone, it’s flawed, and will lead to resting and not going 100%.

The top team must finish first in its group to get a home preliminary final.
If the top team finishes second in its group it qualifies for an away final
If the top team finishes third in its group then it is eliminated
 

This is my proposal for how a Final 9 could work should the AFL expand to 19 teams in the future (and want to make more money)

Final 9 Proposal

Main points:

·      Top 9 teams qualify

·      Every team that qualifies plays at least two games, and at least one home and one away game

·      All teams can win the premiership, but the higher your finish the greater your chance to play to play in a preliminary final and the greater the chance that it will be a Home PF

·      Finals series is for 5 weeks. The pre-finals bye is eliminated but each team will receive one bye in the first 3 weeks during the series. To win the premiership you must win the last 2 weeks (PF and GF) and at least one of the other 2 games (ie it is impossible to lose 2 games and win the GF)

System:

Teams that finish in the top 9 are allocated pools based on their H&A ladder position.

Pool A - 1,6,7 

Pool B - 2,5,8

Pool C - 3,4,9

Each team plays 2 games (1xH and 1xA) against the other 2 teams in its pool. 

The teams are then ranked 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd in their pool.

Percentage is used to separate those teams on equal wins, calculated using only the results from finals games.

The winner of each pool advances to the Preliminary Finals (3) as does the highest H&A ranked team from those teams that finished 2^nd in their finals pool.

(ie of the 3 teams that finished 2^nd in their pools, select the one that finished highest during the H&A season to advance to the PF)

All the teams that finished 1^st in their group are re-ranked for preliminary finals. The highest finishing team in H&A who qualifies for the Preliminary Finals is ranked 1. The second highest is 2 and third is 3. The team that qualifies by virtue of being the highest ranked team to finish second, is re-ranked as 4^th.

Preliminary finals are 1v4 and 2v3

Grand final is the winner of each PF.

The schedule in the Qualifying Rounds and How to avoid dead rubbers 

Each team is ranked 1,2 or 3 within their pools (eg Pool A, team 1 is 1, team 6 is 2 and team 7 is 3) depending on their H&A position. Each pool has the same system with each team playing one home and one away game.

Week 1: 2 v 3 (team 1 has a bye)

Week 2: 3 v 1 (team 2 has a bye) OR 1 v 2 (team 3 has a bye)

Week 3: 1 v 2 (team 3 has a bye) OR 3 v 1 ( team 2 has a bye)

The winner of week 1 advances to week 3, so that will determine which of the two options is played in week 2 and which is played in week 3.

There can be no dead rubber in the final round.

Example, with winning teams in bold.

The teams finish like this at the end of the H&A season:

1 GEE

2 MEL

3 FRE

4 BNE

5 CAR

6 COLL

7 SYD

8 RICH

9 STK

POOL A: Gee, Coll, Syd

POOL B: Mel, Car, Rich

POOL C: Fre, Bne, St K

Week 1:

Coll v Syd

Carl v Rich

Bne vs StK

Byes:  Geel, Melb, Freo

Week 2

Syd vs Geel

Rich vs Melb

Freo vs Bne

Byes: Coll, Carl, St K

Week 3

Geel v Coll 

Melb v Carl

StK vs Freo

Byes: Syd, Rich, Bne

In Pool C, Freo have a solid win over StK and win their group and St Kilda finish 2^nd. But as the 9^th placed team it’s impossible to finish as the best runner up, so they’re eliminated. 

In Pool B, Melb comfortably defeats Carl who finish 2^nd in their group and await the results of other games to see if they can be the highest placed runner-up. Rich, having lost both their games was already eliminated.

In Pool A, all 3 teams finish on 1 win, so the result comes down to the percentage over the three games (2 each). Geel are up by 20 points with seconds to go in the last quarter, but a behind after the siren makes it only a 19 point, win allowing Coll to top the group while  Geel edges Syd out for 2^nd place in their group. Geel qualify as the highest placed runner-up. If Geel had won by 20+ and topped the group, then Carl would have qualified as the highest ranked runner up.  

POOL A WIINER: Coll

POOL B WINNER: Melb

POOL C WINNER: Freo

Best placed runner-up: Geel

Preliminary Finals: 

Mel vs Geel

Freo vs Coll

GF:

Mel vs Coll

Melbourne go on to win by 634 points, after a shock 1^st quarter where they were held to only 11 goals straight.  Weideman returns to the team after 3 years in the reserves and kicks 27 goals while Oliver racks up 132 possessions. Petracca receives his 7^th consecutive Norm Smith Medal. On the down side, Gawn has a disappointing 347 hit outs, while Jackson watches from the sidelines in his Freo scarf regretting life’s decisions.

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Gold Coast are a real footy club now

This is where supporter culture comes from. Without pain there's no pleasure.
Imagine if you were a supporter and had to put up with the rubbish they've provided over their existence. If they make the finals in 2022 you'd be ecstatic. More importantly, many more potential fans will come on board if they're up the top for a few years.

Fair weather? Yes, but some will stick. But you have to lose and lose  and lose and still be a fan, to be a real fan. 
 

Not many would have predicted how well Bowey would play in 2021 (although it was obvious after just one game that he was the real deal). If we're going to debut JVR or Laurie, we should do it soon.

 

4 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

hopefully riak andrew is the dylan to mac's jack grimes

Or the Robbie to the Tom (Flower) ...

Or the Kylie to the Danni (Minogue) ....

Or the Eddie to the Frank (McGuire) ...

Been a long time, but check out http://tonywilson.com.au/[censored]-siblings

 

Just one issue to take up with @Ben E's post.

The VFL only had a 22-game season from 1970.  For example, in 1925 it was 17 games long. In 1964 there were 18 games and it was 20 games long in 1968. Most seasons were 18 games long and teams played the reverse rounds of 1-7 and only played the teams from rounds 8-11 once.

The VFL/AFL has a long proud history of unfair, inconsistent and incomprehensible fixtures. 

( but I otherwise fully concur with @Ben E )

6 Petracca

5 Oliver

4 Langdon

3 Brayshaw

2 Viney

1 Harmes

3 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Is Hunt playing? 

yep

 

On 6/22/2022 at 2:30 PM, ucanchoose said:

Would rather poke myself in the eye than ever go to that dump again

But kudos to @Bring-Back-Powell for an awesome effort to get to Geelong on a Thur night (unless he/she lives in Geel anyway in which case you'd expect nothing else)

Cast my vote for Freo and I forgot about St Kilda. I'd like them to win one soon but I SO don't want them challenging while we're at/near the top and  taking the 'neutral' crowd from us. I think in a GF we might still be 'neutral' favourites against anyone except the Saints
Once we've won 3 or 4 that wouldn't be the case and I wouldn't care any more ayway.

Surely he won't be available at Pick 18?

 

...our record against Ben and Brett from the Ratten family is pretty good though? Or was that the Rutten family? I get confused...

My takes ...

• Tommo BOG and comes in to the seniors next week
• Hibbo will need more time before he's considered
• Mitch Brown crashes packs and atm if Tom Mc doesn't get up I'd say he's a good chance of a game (perhaps even if?)
• We really have to look at Cory Ellison - perhaps a Rookie spot next year?

 

Here's the link. Starts at 2:05pm

https://www.afl.com.au/afl-tv/stream?streamId=State League CH13&player=1Djg1qHoh

all sorted now

Thanks Mr Mullet

 

Can anyone help with this? It's a first-world MCC question.

So ...
I have an MCC/MFC Premium Membership that entitles me to 3 MCC guest passess for the season

As far as I can tell, all my guest has to do is scan the barcode on my membership app. (I suppose I should send him the barcode because it's only on my phone atm)

I can't work out what to do re reserved seats. Up until now I'd been booking a seat on Ticketek, but I can't work out how to book a seat for me and my guest without paying for the seat. I don't want to just grab any old seat when I get there because it might be someone's reserved seat. What am I missing?

To be fair to D17, the reference in the OP is only to the 'modern era of football', and every MFC supporter knows that the modern era only started in 2021.
The period between 1965-2020 are now known only as the Dark Ages.

 

12 minutes ago, Deedubs said:

Essendon (10 points up with 8 mins to go), Hawks (10 points), Gold Coast (2 goals). This is being pushed, bottom line. This late in the game you're relying on umpires, ball bouncing your way and good play. You don't played for 3.5 quarters of footy only to be 10 points up.  That aint by design. 
 

Yeah. Nah. 
Not once this season have I thought we were going to lose. It sounds weird saying this but I'm hoping for a team that can challenge us. Where are they?

Salem's TAC and early Melbourne games were as a forward so I wouldn't be surprised to see him to move there - but not this season. 

Of course, I'd love to see him in the midfield, but there's a few others at the moment he'd need to replace (Petracca will become a forward in later life, you'd think?).

If we can keep this group together I'd love to see the players develop so that they can play multiple roles - not only to fill roles (eg McDonald goes back when Smith is injured) but strategically (theoretical: Petty goes forward, clunks some marks and kicks a bag when no-one thought it was an option)

Last week I was having a few beers with a Roos-supporting friend. It was all "Horne-Francis this, Horne-Francis that". 
"You're cute" I told him. "I used to be like that with Jack Watts..."

That didn't stop him. "Oh no, this guy's good" etc

Now, I'm not dissing Horne-Francis at all  (or Jack Watts) . He looks  a very good player - and may even be elite one day. 
It's just that I could see the desperate desire to find something positive in what is yet another abysmal year for NM. One that must hurt even more knowing they got rid of a player  of Brown's calibre for (relative) peanuts.to the team his mate supports.

He's in the middle of the denial phase.

Next will come anger which will be ugly.

Finally acceptance.

Only then will he move forward.

I feel for him. Not.