chookrat

68-69k is a solid number and in terms of year on year % growth bodes well. I'd imagine that we have a core ~40-45k of rusted on supporters and the rest would mostly be new supporters we have picked up in the past 5 years. These new supporters should also help in converting new supporters in future years so these numbers should continue to increase at a steady pace over the next 5 years.

Lets hope chatGTP does not trawl through game day threads for its sporting nous.

I've been a massive fan of Harmes over the years. He is a very good player who has added alot of versatility to his game, brings alot of experience and is a true clubman. This said given the profile of our list I think its more important that we retaining Rivers and JJ who will be with us for the next 5+ years. I wouldn't be against the club facilitating a trade for Harmes to move to a club that could use his versatility and experience for the next few years, e.g. a Hawthorn, Essendon etc.

Does anyone know if Michael 'Juice' Newton has a son?

I reckon Tomlinson would be extremely stiff to miss out given the way he's been playing but its difficult to find a spot in the team for him. May comes straight in for him. I like the Hibbo v Papley matchup which probably means either Harmes or McVee come out and really comes down to whether we want an extra midfield/forward rotation (Harmes) or want to add to our backline (McVee). We could play Harmes and use McVee as the sub but I reckon we should play McVee instead of Harmes then it frees up Brayshaw to rotate into the midfield. Thommo could be the sub in case we lose a tall and then gives us the flexibility to play Petty or May forward if we become desperate.

Gus moved back to the midfield last season but went to the backline to cover while Salo was injured. His best position is..... everywhere.

No defender would have stopped the Cameron lead out mark and goal.

Jaded if they can't find a real doctor immediately then surely the club could post the images here for a Demonland non-medical opinion.

Not only this but we probably freed up approx $500k of cap space over 2 - 3 years if we consider that Watts would have commanded $400k+ per year while Fritch would have been on ~$150k for his first couple of years.

I've just read the past 3 pages and have no idea whats going on or who is likely to be available to play on Friday night.

The Fritch one was one of the most ridiculous suspensions offered given Fritch had the ball and was evading a tackle. While a high bump is deemed rough conduct the MRP got confused that a high fend off is not rough conduct.

In fairness the AFL can make its statement, but rather than go after one of the big boys - Melbourne - they should go after one of the lesser clubs who aren't in contention. Personally I'm comfortable with 1-2 weeks with the second week being due to the impact grading of high vs medium. I could accept a high grading due to potential to cause injury, but only if the evidence shows head high contact otherwise it should ne a fine. A bump with body contact should nto be a suspension.

I'm surprised the AFL doesn't play a SportsBet ad after every goal

Perhaps it is their offsite injection rooms that will be affected?

It is no coincidence that Geelong is able to attract players from other clubs without having to pay overs. They have by far spent/received the most taxpayer money in the league on facilities, and are the only club who are allowed to train on their home ground.

This thread has a stench about it that reeks of the poor Melbourne of old. Lets close it down and instead celebrate when Kozzy signs a long term deal.

Fully agree DD. With JVR I suspect only one of BB and TMac will play consistently and with Schache back it provides the opportunity for Petty to permanently move forward. By the end of 2023 there may not be room for TMac and BB in the side, although both could go on for another couple of years if they are fit.

As frustrating as it is Demonsone I believe we will get there with a decision within the next couple of years that we will be happy with. I get annoyed seeing the amount of funding other clubs receive for facilities while we have not yet been able to get commitment from stakeholders for a site. Personally I reckon our facilities will be planned in alignment with the Southern Stand redevelopment, e.g. as part of the business case they are looking at access and transport links to the MCG which will require quite a bit of planning in the surrounding area which any MFC facility would be connected to.

At a minimum we could put a portaloo there so the players have somewhere to go when their training on Gotch's.

Thanks OD. I'm thinking that we would still play at the G for our home games but also host 2 - 3 games per season at the smaller stadium at Docklands which would primarily be used for AFLW, VFL, perhaps a cricket team and other codes we align with. For VFL I think we should seriously look at breaking away from Casey and either aligning with an existing team (e.g. Port Melbourne if they ran into financial problems and needed to align with an AFL team for survival, or start our own Melbourne based team). While I get the logic of aligning with a growth corridor I'm not convinced we are converting many new members from Casey and I suspect we would do better focussing on growth in the Melbourne / Docklands precinct over the medium to longer term.

If we look at the Docklands I'm wondering if we look at breaking away from our 'relationship' with the MCC and the a lesser extent the MCG. Make the Docklands precinct our own and include a small boutique stadium with capacity for 10-20k (with room to expand capacity in future decades) for our AFLW and VFL side as well as matches with GWS, GCS and the new Tassie team. The area is a wasteland and the presence of Melbourne would benefit the area, as long as it's not just a place for the admin to function and footy department and team to operate behind closed doors. To do it properly we would also want to break away from Casey and go "All In"to the new location as it will be something we need to work not only for 5 - 10 years but the next 50. I don't see the point in moving from MCG/Olympic Park/Gotch's to Docklands unless it is a whole of club move that we own as part of our identity. It would also be worth considering aligning with teams from other codes, e.g. United, Storm, Rebels etc. And making the move together.

I still think we should have a preliminary discussion with the Tasmanian Government re what sort of facilities they could offer if we were to consider relocation. The AFL and State Government would both have kittens. Imagine the headline that the oldest sporting club in the world is considering leaving it's spiritual home due to a lack of commitment and investment from the State Government over the past 30 - 40 years.

It could be nothing but is anybody here concerned about May's body language?

Thanks BDA. Re the 'second stage's feasibility study does anyone know when the 'first stage' was undertaken? E.g. is it the stage that we self funded before securing joint funding and the process set out by the State Government or was the first stage completed recently and have we progressed to a new stage?

Bandicoot, the political benefit isn't for voters in the electoral district of Melbourne, but rather the areas where Melbourne supporters are based such as in the Inner South and Inner Eastern suburbs. While these are traditionally safe Liberal seats, a couple of thousand votes in some of these electorates, e.g. Sandringham, would be enough for the seat to change hands. I don't see much political downside in the State Government pledging facilities in the MCG precinct as the only votes they would lose are a handful of inner city residents in seats that they will not win.