How do you fix Melbourne?

[Demonic Ascent]

Injuries and a sht attitude. Seems to be doing well early at North. Kind of the opposite of Pedersen, actually. Having said that, it's only NAB Cup and there's everything to play for.

He was injured for the last two seasons so was unable to build up any fitness base at all - when he did get a game last year he had no fitness to compete and was gone before 3/4 time to the point where he was practically running on the spot through the 3rd quarter. Don't know about his attitude and not upset we got rid if him as he's another rake we don't need but it wouldn't surprise me to see him have a good career at North.

I recall having this debate with you in another thread, but Naitanui was definitely a worthy AA. Contentious maybe, but there is no way Jacobs was 'robbed'.

Really? I don't remember that! Anyway I think Jacobs was a monty last year and couldn't believe he was overlooked.

 

[LouisCK]

We can go one better and fix both the Bulldogs and the Demons. A simple merger would suffice.

In 2012 we had more members than St Kilda, Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast, GWS, Port Adelaide, Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne.

We have no debt. Our membership has increased 50% in 6 years and our financials are strong.

There's many other clubs in the league suffering from viability problems, but Melbourne aren't one of them.

 

[Forward Press]

Really? I don't remember that! Anyway I think Jacobs was a monty last year and couldn't believe he was overlooked.

It was actually TPM (as stated earlier). I get easily confused.

 

[LouisCK]

How would that actually help? A short term list improvement doesn't change the quality of administrators or improve decision making.

And factually speaking, all the recent evidence points to Melbourne having a pretty good administration and are a well run club off field.

It's unlikely we're ever going to compete with the likes of Collingwood or West Coast off field, but we're a cut above a lot of other sides in the way we run our club. It's our FD that is (was?) a shambles.

 

[greennick]

That was just as big a mistake, Taspcott has done nothing since his second game unfortunately and Fyfe will be a top 5 AFL player.

Lots of teams made the Fyfe mistake...

 

[W. Smithers]

I hope you've invested in some top player development coaches. If you still have the same guys from the Bailey era, then god help you.

 

[LouisCK]

I hope you've invested in some top player development coaches. If you still have the same guys from the Bailey era, then god help you.

Agreed and we've replaced/improved that whole area.

We got Dave Misson for fitness (former Sydney and St Kilda) and Neil Craig to work specifically with developing the young players. Neeld has a pretty strong fitness background too, so I think we realised that Bailey was under-resourced (the development thing wasn't entirely his fault, he didn't have anywhere near the level of support we've given Neeld) and our FD spending has ramped up significantly starting with 2012.

Will take a few years to show the results imo, but we've addressed it.

 

[Bluelegs]

Stuff like this helps:
http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2013-03-14/schwarz-shares-his-story

 

[SM]

How do you solve a problem like the Demons?

Saw the thread title and immediately thought this! haha.

 

[Sprout]

Maybe I'm just tired and jaded after a long day's work, but I reckon this thread should just **** off and die.

Sometimes pointless navel gazing can just get a bit much, know what I mean?

Couldn't agree more Higgs.

Incidentally: http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...re-his-side-sits/story-e6frepf6-1226597618509

I believe the club is in good hands, certainly from a coaching perspective. We needed someone with the guts to walk through the door and turn the place on its head, and fortunately enough we found someone who could do that in Neeld.

 

[MarkT2]

And factually speaking, all the recent evidence points to Melbourne having a pretty good administration and are a well run club off field.

Really? What evidence is that?

It's unlikely we're ever going to compete with the likes of Collingwood or West Coast off field, but we're a cut above a lot of other sides in the way we run our club. It's our FD that is (was?) a shambles.

When did MFC become unable to compete with Collingwood? At what point after 1964?
Why did MFC go from the powerhouse of the 50's/60's to unable to make more than the odd finals series in 6 decades?
How is the quality of the FD not specifically a reflection of the capability of the administration?

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Really? What evidence is that?When did MFC become unable to compete with Collingwood? At what point after 1964?
Why did MFC go from the powerhouse of the 50's/60's to unable to make more than the odd finals series in 6 decades?
How is the quality of the FD not specifically a reflection of the capability of the administration?

Our admin was definitely a shambles in some respects, I think we had and have well credentialed people in the jobs - however the board, CEO and footy department weren't all working together.

 

[LouisCK]

Really? What evidence is that?

The fact we've eliminated our debt, drastically increased our FD spending and doubled our membership during the past 5 years - the worst 5 years we've performed consecutively since the early 80's.

I don't blame you for not being aware of it, our biggest off field issue right now is getting bigger exposuire so that fans are more aware of our club. ITs not a failing of yours not to know this info, we're barely ever mentioned in the media unless its something horrible (and 2012 was a pretty damn awful year, arguably the worst any club has ever had)

When did MFC become unable to compete with Collingwood? At what point after 1964?

I'd say around the 70's when we split from the MCC and endured a shocking run on field, we simply weren't getting enough kids to support the club. We still haven't completely recovered, but at least we're sustainable in the near future.

Why did MFC go from the powerhouse of the 50's/60's to unable to make more than the odd finals series in 6 decades?

AFL's a tough gig, we overperformed if anything during the 90's and early 00's considering our financial situation. Not every club can be a powerhouse, but not every powerhouse is ALWAYS going to be a powerhouse either.

How is the quality of the FD not specifically a reflection of the capability of the administration?

It is, of course it is. And we're working on it, we will just have to wait and see if the increase in spending to the FD correlates to better on field performances. But our off field side of things has been pretty good, I don't think anyone can argue against that in light of the facts.

 

[SM]

Will be interesting if going forward no team thinks that tanking is a good idea - I think Carlton and Richmond have certainly learnt their lessons. Will be interesting if we get to a point where all clubs go out each week genuinely trying to win, as they realise that instilling a winning culture in the team is sometimes more important than picking up early draft picks. Because at the end of the day a team still does need to come last... Will be interesting.

 

[LouisCK]

Will be interesting if going forward no team thinks that tanking is a good idea - I think Carlton and Richmond have certainly learnt their lessons. Will be interesting if we get to a point where all clubs go out each week genuinely trying to win, as they realise that instilling a winning culture in the team is sometimes more important than picking up early draft picks. Because at the end of the day a team still does need to come last... Will be interesting.

The incentive is largely gone now. GWS "tanked" last year against GC, but I don't think we'll see it happen again. It certainly isn't the same as when Melbourne did it. I mean we'd already sucked for a year and a half, and a bonus pick at the start of the draft was on offer, how could any club NOT tank in that situation?

But now, the most a club could gain is a higher pick, maybe if they're by chance in that situation in round 22 they will "tank" but you won't see clubs systematically try to lose over longer periods than that, because its too counter productive.

 

[CF]

It sounds like Neeld is going about it the right way. It's a shame for him that he has to rebuild the rebuild and many of those early draft picks that Bailey & Co. selected have turned out to less than stellar. Although you could blame the culture of the club for that as much as anything. A quick fix is never a good idea in this sport unless you have a team of stars already and you just need to bolster the ranks.

I think the Melbourne brand has been besmirched through all the tanking allegations which is an obvious thing to say I know. The only way they can claw back any credibility now is on the football field. They need to start to show improvement by winning more games each year from now on (than the previous year). With some of the talented kids they have now and a coach who knows what he's doing then they have no excuses from now on.

 

[Forward Press]

A reminder to all who enter this thread - as posted earlier:

The pointless potshots (people know what they are) are to be avoided. Don't turn this into a thread for Bay 13-style insults.

 

[Tulip]

A reminder to all who enter this thread - as posted earlier:

A good mod wot is this even

 

[ManOfClay]

I really just want to know why some posts are deleted but a blanket bay 13 style "team x (GWS in this case) tanked" with no reasoning or thought behind it is not allowed to be questioned. Is it because there aren't many supporters of that club on here?

 

[Forward Press]

A good mod wot is this even

I know right?

I really just want to know why some posts are deleted but a blanket bay 13 style "team x (GWS in this case) tanked" with no reasoning or thought behind it is not allowed to be questioned. Is it because there aren't many supporters of that club on here?

If you have a problem with a post, report it.

Either way, you cannot expect a every post in every thread on the AFL board to be carefully scrutinised by the mod team. We however do carefully scrutinise all reports.

 

[ManOfClay]

I don't have a problem with him making the post - but does that mean I can't question it?

 

[Ando727]

4. Supporters
Stop going to the snow, stop driving Range Rovers, stop wearing jackets with leather patches on the elbows and stop with the little golf claps.

Have you ever actually seen anybody like this? I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. There are plenty of myths about Melbourne supporters, but just because people find it funny to keep repeating them doesn't make them true.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I really just want to know why some posts are deleted but a blanket bay 13 style "team x (GWS in this case) tanked" with no reasoning or thought behind it is not allowed to be questioned. Is it because there aren't many supporters of that club on here?

So, now Melbourne have been 'proven' not guilty by the AFL does that mean you can't say we tanked... ever?

 

[ManOfClay]

So, now Melbourne have been 'proven' not guilty by the AFL does that mean you can't say we tanked... ever?

You have supporters admitting you tanked.

I strongly believe the afl didn't find you guilty of tanking as a result of their abortion of an investigation because if they did, then they'd be admonishing a monster they created. They grew the forbidden fruit, you ate it. Which is why they still punished you, but for a lesser charge.

That doesn't change anything regarding GWS and the downright ludicrous deflective assertion that they tanked.

 

[LBJ6]

You have supporters admitting you tanked.

You seem to have confused the words 'admitting' and 'believing'.