Spirit of '87

Doc Larkins just said on 3AW that Mitch Clark's foot has swollen up and that he's looking at "extended time". He said it's more than just a sprain, as the club is saying.

Ron Walker - Demons supporter, successful business man, very well connected, if he can organise an Olympic Games, who knows, maybe he can organise the current mess that is MFC.

Th Ch7 commentators last night were discussing Richmond seemingly being "on the way up", and attributed it to the club having a good president, good CEO, good captain and good coach, making the point that they have a good club, not just a good team. MFC give the impression that they are lacking across all this fronts at present.

I don't think we do wonder why anymore - I think we pretty much know the reasons by now, and that's one of them.

Apparently Sandilands has re-injured his left hamstring, which could mean more gametime/opportunities for Hannath.

Yes Old Dee in his eternal less-than-positive wisdom was expecting him to not return before June...

Yes, there were suggestions last week and it was reported on tonight's Ch 9 news that he will play for Casey this week and, if he gets through that, he's likely to play Round 1.

You may yet be able to include Mitch Clark in your potential Round 1 teams - Ch 9 News reported that he'll play for Casey this weekend and, if he gets through that game, could play Round 1.

Don McLardy said at an MFC breakfast this morning that they expect to announce a new second tier sponsor in the next week or so.

Sky News sports program is saying that "the tanking saga will come to a head tomorrow"

Various journalists, including in today's Age, keep stating that Melbourne and some of its officials "face charges" in relation to tanking. Definition of "face charges/counts": "to be accused officially of committing a crime; have legal charges brought against you as a crime" It seems premature to be saying in these press articles that the are "facing charges" when at this stage they are only being required to respond to the matters raised in the AFL's investigation.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the views of a forum where their supporters refer to us as being, and I quote, "diabollickal"! Interesting spelling...speaks for itself really, in terms of the type of fans that we are dealing with over there.

Yes the club has until 29th Jan to respond

I was watching Sky News just before and they said that they "can reveal further details about the case against Melbourne, AFL investigators questioning why the Demons made four changes before their round 21 2009 loss to Carlton. That day the Demons played three ruckmen, and made only 56 rotations instead of the average of around 100..." They then showed the team selections for that game - Out: Nathan Jones, Clint Bartram, Brad Miller, Lynden Dunn In: Mark Jamar, Jake Spencer, Matthew Whelan, Jordie McKenzie. I would have thought that those selections and changes were quite in order at that time. Remember that Jones was nowhere near the player then that he is today, so nothing ground-breaking about him being dropped back then, and Bartram, Miller and Dunn had all been in and out of the side then and in subsequent seasons. Mark Jamar, the leading ruckman, Jake Spencer a young promising ruckman in 2009, Matthew Whelan one of Melbourne's best in that era when fit, and Jordie McKenzie, a promising young midfielder, all justifiable inclusions I would have thought. If that is typical of the material contained in "the case against Melbourne", then I wouldn't think that Melbourne and their legal representatives would have much difficulty at all in responding to that and defending their integrity.