diesel

Which should also mean don't be a dill and have a look or share of the OTHER clubs vids like some twits I've seen on Facebook. Go back and have a look after the comp is over if you're really that keen. I mean St Kilda players rapping WGAF! That's Mad Monday schoolboy stuff.

It's a very valid point that Melbourne has had to/is trying to construct its rebuild through drafts diluted by the expansion sides. In any other year we would have the No. 1 pick after 2 wins but again we are pushed back, not because GWS are necessarily rubbish, but because their list is so young/inexperienced. If the AFL reject Melbourne's request for a PP it will be purely as a result of the emotional response of other sides. By all measures we would be entitled to get one.

We should be able to trump any club on $$ and a trade so we'll know soon enough if MFC (Roo's) is interested. I suspect we might be...interested?

Yep, I'll leave it at what I said and not enter further. I trust others will do likewise?

No one can answer 'factually' because the people who have taken over the site have not come clean about it. If you are a member over there and feel this issue is critical to your thinking then perhaps go over and ask?

No, this is classic Demonland. One person with an agenda to be a pain in the r's takes over a thread, unintelligently engages others and it soon ends up 50+ pages long with little discussion of the actual issue at hand.

Well you'll never post there again if it continues to track the way it's going? Looks to me like the formation of an oligarchy which will be as relevant as that of Hutt River Province.

So am I.

Cheers. Noticed you quoted BH in your profile. Did you understand his post or did you only notice the error in grammar?

Granted, less serious than if they were paid employees but volunteers must still adhere to a code of practice. I've already said I don't know on whose behalf they are acting. Do you? If not, it does matter.

I'll err on the side of caution thanks. It's not up to me or you decide, but the people involved have been less than forthcoming.

Again you've missed the point, that the person(s) involved has or have done volunteer work inside the club. We all get your point, you don't GAF. Fine, but I might add that the reason why I so rarely read (or post) on 'land is that often threads stretch over pages and pages of non-contributory content, which yours on this subject is leaning towards becoming.

His mantra Is to make money through web traffic. The bloke is clueless in terms of how he would do this with Demonology and it will be an abject failure, but the fact he has created havoc and is annoying other people in the process is affronting to the few people who have stuck around at 'ology.

In some respects I agree. The point though is that the persons creating the havoc appear to be motivated by the opportunity to make money (for who and what we don't know?) and have leveraged the opportunity off their association with and volunteer work for and inside the MFC. This goes to more than a simple of issue of the web being the wild west and may have implications of governance for the MFC?

The rah rah comes from the fact that the previous owner of Demonology has been unwell and may have been duped. It comes from the fact that 'ology (like 'land) is a community and that someone may have hijacked it for personal purposes/gain inclusive of its members personal details. I comes from the fact that many posters there have spent a decade discussing the MFC, donating to it and volunteering for it but that legacy is now owned by a person(s) with an unknown agenda which they will not state?

I wouldn't be so dismissive. As rpfc says there is a concerning mix of people and entities involved in this, club volunteers and one of the protagonists appears to wish to make $$$ though on-line activities. Demonology might have been a busted arse for a while but it has been used to recruit volunteers to the club and if people are seeking to make profit for themselves off the back of it then there is a serious breakdown occurring.

That's targeted advertising. Google bots have selected that ad for you based on your browsing history

I find this topic interesting. IMO the Hawthorn and North models were never going to be long term sustainable. Tassie always wanted and will eventually get its own side despite the naysayers. I would suggest this talk is actually designed to flush out an established Melbourne Club into committing and eventually relocating to Tassie. Not such a bad arrangement for that teams supporters because they will get to keep a larger part of their identity than was retained for Fitzroy when it merged with Brisbane. One or perhaps both of Hawthorn and North are going to see a large part of their revenues dry up in a few years time. The work that club will have put into establishing a following and a relationship down there will be largely wasted. It may be that Melbourne with a base in Casey and a single game in Darwin look like they are on the smart track?

No Primus! Can we lure Jeff Geischen away from the Umpiring job maybe?

I agree 100%, but the MRP judged Spencers actions as intentional as well. That is absolute [censored]. It was in play and Spencer was trying at the last minute to avoid contact but it was too late. There is no accounting for the fact he is 7 feet tall which has been an out for big guys in terms of collecting opponents high. Simpkins' action act behind the play was simply 'dog-like' and that should always attract the harshest penalty and not be simply interpreted on a grading system of impact, intention and height/severity.

Place was busted before Neeld got there and that's not to say he didn't make it worse because he clearly did. Brent Moloney however is still a petulant sook and was never Captaincy material.

Caro is an AFL tool (she works for them)

Trying to make the point (sarcastically) that many of Melbourne's problems are historical and a result of being punted around by the MCC and AFL. The costs associated with games at the 'G' are inhibiting and there is a need for a cheaper venue for ALL teams to plan the AFLs experimental sides at especially since it looks like Melbourne will have home games against GC and GWS for perpetuity. It would be tragic for things to continue as they are or Melbourne might end up in Tasmania and that would also be bad for Hawthorn and NM's business models.

I'm in general agreement with the thrust of your post. I've got an idea that will return Melbourne to success. How about al the clubs that have moved into our ground F-off back to their suburban nests so we can train and base our FD at the MCG and have the club united for the first time in 40 years? These ideas being floated are unsustainable BS designed to serve the needs of other teams not ours. Same could be said of expansion. Self interest has seen the talent spread thin. Hawthorn must be quaking that they might draw a home game against Melbourne next year? Maybe they can ask to play us in Launceston?

95 points! We lost by 95 POINTS!!