It's no surprise that Melbourne struggles for members and money

[Cudi_420]

Melbourne is going to great lengths to get itself back on track both on and off the field, but I remain skeptical: I think that the league has changed the past 3-4 years, and it's harder to come back from years at the bottom than it was, say, in 2010. I think the league's changed a LOT, especially with free agency. The club has to make inroads in 2015 and if it doesn't, I remain skeptical that it can in the near future.

I always wondered how a team that essentially dominated the league in the 50s and 60s, created the game, and was so firmly embedded in the inner-city 'burbs and eastern area, could continuously struggle with support, members, money and interest.

Now, the obvious answer is of course that, well, they're not a very good football club: no one wants to watch or buy a crappy brand. I get that. Trust me, I watch them every week and I know how hard it can be to support a bad club.

But let's look at Melbourne's two worst eras: the period between 1965 and 1986, and the period between 2007 and 2015.

These eras are important, because they represent important cultural shifts in the ways in which we engage with, share and embrace information: the rise of television, and the rise of social media.

1965-1986
In this period, Melbourne never made the finals.
Melbourne won 4 wooden spoons
My dad and his brothers often tell me that this period was far worse than anything we've seen from the club during any other "down" time
100-point beltings were frequent

2007-2015
No wins at Etihad
No wins against Geelong, Hawthorn, North
No wins in Perth
No finals appearances
2 wooden spoons
Five seasons with only 4 or fewer wins (2008: 3, 2009: 4, 2012: 4, 2013: 2, 2014: 4)

In 1965, we were starting to see a rise of the television, and by the 70s, it was expanding and networks were moving out into regional areas. Football's reach was expanding but Melbourne was always at the bottom of the ladder and interest rankings.

In 2007, we started to see the growth in social media, Facebook and Twitter: since then, during a time when people share stories and videos, the good stories are shared and spread at an intense pace...but so are the bad stories.

Is it viable to consider that Melbourne could very well be the unluckiest club in the land, to have not just bottomed out, but bottomed out during two of the most important eras of technology and media?

 

[lamaros]

So Melbourne is crap because TV and social media. Right.

I think I've heard it all now.

 

[TedDougChris]

Melbourne is going to great lengths to get itself back on track both on and off the field, but I remain skeptical: I think that the league has changed the past 3-4 years, and it's harder to come back from years at the bottom than it was, say, in 2010. I think the league's changed a LOT, especially with free agency. The club has to make inroads in 2015 and if it doesn't, I remain skeptical that it can in the near future.

I always wondered how a team that essentially dominated the league in the 50s and 60s, created the game, and was so firmly embedded in the inner-city 'burbs and eastern area, could continuously struggle with support, members, money and interest.

Now, the obvious answer is of course that, well, they're not a very good football club: no one wants to watch or buy a crappy brand. I get that. Trust me, I watch them every week and I know how hard it can be to support a bad club.

But let's look at Melbourne's two worst eras: the period between 1965 and 1986, and the period between 2007 and 2015.

These eras are important, because they represent important cultural shifts in the ways in which we engage with, share and embrace information: the rise of television, and the rise of social media.

1965-1986
In this period, Melbourne never made the finals.
Melbourne won 4 wooden spoons
My dad and his brothers often tell me that this period was far worse than anything we've seen from the club during any other "down" time
100-point beltings were frequent

2007-2015
No wins at Etihad
No wins against Geelong, Hawthorn, North
No wins in Perth
No finals appearances
2 wooden spoons
Five seasons with only 4 or fewer wins (2008: 3, 2009: 4, 2012: 4, 2013: 2, 2014: 4)

In 1965, we were starting to see a rise of the television, and by the 70s, it was expanding and networks were moving out into regional areas. Football's reach was expanding but Melbourne was always at the bottom of the ladder and interest rankings.

In 2007, we started to see the growth in social media, Facebook and Twitter: since then, during a time when people share stories and videos, the good stories are shared and spread at an intense pace...but so are the bad stories.

Is it viable to consider that Melbourne could very well be the unluckiest club in the land, to have not just bottomed out, but bottomed out during two of the most important eras of technology and media?

There is no doubt that timing is important - just look at the successful clubs at the start of the Premier League era - when the wealth became unequally divided in England and created haves/have nots These divides largely still exist. Also look no further than Fitzroy - who if they weren't deliberately driven out of the league may have thrived in a more enlightened time.

And timing of bottoming out is also critical - as those near the bottom in the expansion era have found.

And there is no doubt the favouritism and deliberate bias shown by the AFL impedes some clubs - but Melbourne are not alone here.

The timing of FA has certainly advantaged certain 'destination clubs' - and disadvantaged others.

But as Carlton have found out, self inflicted gunshot wounds take a long time to heal and this is the root cause of Melbourne's current woes.

 

[Tony Harrison]

This is funny. Maybe the attitude of blaming outside factors is a contributor though.
1965-86 was more than 20 years.
I think other clubs bottomed out and rose in that time.

 

[ziad]

This is funny. Maybe the attitude of blaming outside factors is a contributor though.
1965-86 was more than 20 years.
I think other clubs bottomed out and rose in that time.

what about the inside factors?
who cares

 

[Colonial]

Melbourne is going to great lengths to get itself back on track both on and off the field, but I remain skeptical: I think that the league has changed the past 3-4 years, and it's harder to come back from years at the bottom than it was, say, in 2010. I think the league's changed a LOT, especially with free agency. The club has to make inroads in 2015 and if it doesn't, I remain skeptical that it can in the near future.

I always wondered how a team that essentially dominated the league in the 50s and 60s, created the game, and was so firmly embedded in the inner-city 'burbs and eastern area, could continuously struggle with support, members, money and interest.

Now, the obvious answer is of course that, well, they're not a very good football club: no one wants to watch or buy a crappy brand. I get that. Trust me, I watch them every week and I know how hard it can be to support a bad club.

But let's look at Melbourne's two worst eras: the period between 1965 and 1986, and the period between 2007 and 2015.

These eras are important, because they represent important cultural shifts in the ways in which we engage with, share and embrace information: the rise of television, and the rise of social media.

1965-1986
In this period, Melbourne never made the finals.
Melbourne won 4 wooden spoons
My dad and his brothers often tell me that this period was far worse than anything we've seen from the club during any other "down" time
100-point beltings were frequent

2007-2015
No wins at Etihad
No wins against Geelong, Hawthorn, North
No wins in Perth
No finals appearances
2 wooden spoons
Five seasons with only 4 or fewer wins (2008: 3, 2009: 4, 2012: 4, 2013: 2, 2014: 4)

In 1965, we were starting to see a rise of the television, and by the 70s, it was expanding and networks were moving out into regional areas. Football's reach was expanding but Melbourne was always at the bottom of the ladder and interest rankings.

In 2007, we started to see the growth in social media, Facebook and Twitter: since then, during a time when people share stories and videos, the good stories are shared and spread at an intense pace...but so are the bad stories.

Is it viable to consider that Melbourne could very well be the unluckiest club in the land, to have not just bottomed out, but bottomed out during two of the most important eras of technology and media?

Well. At least you guys have found something else to blame besides the Giants and Suns....

 

[wowlace]

3/4 posters missed the point.

edit: make that 4/5

 

[Mitchell Madness]

The issue is urban sprawl
No longer are the cbf and inner suburbs populated by families and the working class, which make up a large proportion of all supporter bases
In melbournes successful era, it was
Now immigrants move to the outer areas, and support those teams

The demons tried to embrace this by moving to casey, but have failed to put in the time to engage the community

 

[pazza]

Melbourne hasn't always had bad years since 1965.

In 1976, they finished half a game outside of the final 5 and if it wasn't for Footscray managing a draw in Round 22, would have played in September (with a team containing a fairly young Robbie Flower, Steven Smith etc).

Come 1984, it seemed they were destined for finals, but, a July-August collapse and great form by Fitzroy saw the latter make it.

They perhaps should have put up more of a fight to keep Richmond, then North Melbourne, Essendon, Hawthorn and Collingwood to keep these clubs from using the MCG as their home ground. The lack of fight saw the club get rolled over so easily.

Part of the problem has been personnel.

The amount of stuffing around the Dees did in getting Ditterich in only for him to leave and then come back at the end of his career and losing Alves held the club back. They lost 2 players for Ditterich and really got nothing from North until Jarrott turned up in the 1980's. As for letting barassi go in 1965 well that's madness.

Part of it has been coaching.

Sacking Norm Smith must rate as the most ridiculous decision in football history, given he coached a premiership in 1964!

Skilton was a champion player but didn't have the cattle.
Thorogood had no hope.
Ditterich had too much responsibility on him.
Barassi arrived too late or too early depending on your point of view.

 

[Colonial]

3/4 posters missed the point.

edit: make that 4/5

What? That you guys are unlucky? Thats what we have been hearing for 4 years, GC 5, that it was unlucky about bottoming out when the expansion clubs came in.

Just happy to hear an excuse that doesnt involve us as a reason that its so hard to rebuild.

 

[Tony Harrison]

3/4 posters missed the point.

edit: make that 4/5

How so?

 

[Timewaster]

That's an interesting analysis, thanks.

There are similar hypotheticals about what would have happened if Fitzroy had not narrowly missed GF in 1983. They were on the cusp on the TV age, and a premiership at that time would have allowed them to not sell their good players and fall into the cycle of poverty and lost support that killed them. Timing means a lot, and many fans of the richer clubs would do well to remember that.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/09/2...near-premiership-fitzroys-influence-lives-on/

 

[Balance]

Melbourne struggles for everything because every year they decide to tank. Why would fans turn up to see that? They're never going to get out off the ground until they decide to go for it.

It's a stupid cycle they've gotten themselves into, it goes like this:

Phase 1: Melbourne's crap so they tank to get the best youngsters for the next few years.
Phase 2: Youngsters take time to develop so they're crap for a few years.
Phase 3: When the youngsters are supposed to have developed, some of them leave, some don't turn out as good, some develop serious injuries, the older players are still crap.
Phase 4: ...therefore... because they're still struggling, the coach gets sacked. Few board members get sacked and things change in order to "turn over a new leaf".
Phase 5: Melbourne now has to go through another re-building phase so they tank again. Back to Phase 1.

 

[Roobs321]

I think it's largely down to Melbourne not having the reliable geographic supporter base to withstand a half century premiership drought. The likes of Geelong and even the Bulldogs have a more clearly visible heartland to withstand such a drought, and of course South Melbourne moved to Sydney. St. Kilda also has that weird underdog appeal, and finds a way to be competitive at the right times. Melbourne's 1965-86 era probably resulted in it losing a lot of geographical traction (as well as falling outside the 'big 4'), and despite being largely competitive from 1987-2006, they only had 2 GF appearances (and floggings at that) to show for it, plus a lot of yo-yoing after the very solid 1987-91. Melbourne have now had 2 eras of sustained ineptitude (including the all important 70s that the baby boomers grew up in) since their last premiership, which is never helpful.

There is something eerie in how Melbourne and St. Kilda's fortunes drastically changed in 1965.

 

[Fear Boner]

Melbourne needs to invest heavily in virtual reality before it hits the mainstream and be ahead of the curve , virtual reality may be the only place melbourne could make the top 8 also ....

 

[jack son 5]

Could've just posted in the other MFC history thread.

We are rubbish because of bad appointments, drafting and progression. Has nothing to do with luck or media rights. I do agree on poor timing. But hey, Richmond have been just as bad, but have a strong supporter base seeing 50 - 60k crowds. Swing's and roundabouts, Hawthorn and Geelong might be rubbish in 10 years time. Who knows. Fremantle might never win a flag, ever.

Club SHOULD be ok, as we have appointed the right hierarchy to see us forward.

 

[Tas]

Is it viable to consider that Melbourne could very well be the unluckiest club in the land, to have not just bottomed out, but bottomed out during two of the most important eras of technology and media?

I agree, it was not a great time to hit the skids.

 

[jack son 5]

Melbourne needs to invest heavily in virtual reality before it hits the mainstream and be ahead of the curve , virtual reality may be the only place melbourne could make the top 8 also ....

But yet the club seems to trump your mob. What is it now, 6 - 1 over the last 5 year's.

 

[Dez!]

Melbourne struggles for everything because every year they decide to tank. Why would fans turn up to see that? They're never going to get out off the ground until they decide to go for it.

It's a stupid cycle they've gotten themselves into, it goes like this:

Phase 1: Melbourne's crap so they tank to get the best youngsters for the next few years.
Phase 2: Youngsters take time to develop so they're crap for a few years.
Phase 3: When the youngsters are supposed to have developed, some of them leave, some don't turn out as good, some develop serious injuries, the older players are still crap.
Phase 4: ...therefore... because they're still struggling, the coach gets sacked. Few board members get sacked and things change in order to "turn over a new leaf".
Phase 5: Melbourne now has to go through another re-building phase so they tank again. Back to Phase 1.

Well this is an utterly stupid post, perhaps one of the most stupid on BigFooty.

Congratulations.

 

[master bate]

What's the line about checking the thread hoping it is started by an opposition fan.

 

[go you pups]

Could've just posted in the other MFC history thread.

We are rubbish because of bad appointments, drafting and progression. Has nothing to do with luck or media rights. I do agree on poor timing. But hey, Richmond have been just as bad, but have a strong supporter base seeing 50 - 60k crowds. Swing's and roundabouts, Hawthorn and Geelong might be rubbish in 10 years time. Who knows. Fremantle might never win a flag, ever.

Club SHOULD be ok, as we have appointed the right hierarchy to see us forward.

Brendan McCartney will be good for you guys, there's still hope, if it wasn't for him we wouldn't of found some of our gun kids.


Replying to the OP, would it be fair to say you lost a generation of supporters from 65-86? Then the follow on effect is most of them would barrack for say a Hawthorn or Richmond as they were arguably the two most successful sides of that era outside of Carlton. Nowadays they'd be about 30-45 years old, have kids themselves and their kids don't support Melbourne either? Hawthorn has 20k junior members and Richmond 10k, the biggest junior followings in the AFL.

 

[jack son 5]

 

[coniglio_number1]

Port turned it around during the expansion era. West coast did alright in 2011 despite gc taking away pick1 from them which could've netted swallow or bennell.

That being said I really want Melbourne to succeed given it's historical significance. How about I buy a membership as an act of goodwill towards your club?

 

[Topkent]

People are still missing the point , he was pointing out the lack of membership and support for the old power club of the vfl
Not saying that were s**t because of luck or anything

Surely the 20 years of depth cost us , who wants to jump onto a team that spent 20 years doing nothing

That being said people will follow success
Not surprising the memberships of the hawks and power have surged since recent success

 

[go you pups]

There is something eerie in how Melbourne and St. Kilda's fortunes drastically changed in 1965.

Nah..... Why do St Kilda only have one flag then? Bad decisions I think back then.