http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/gard...2258909332.html

Wouldnt bother adding to the rumour per se other than this probably has some credibility to it. Its from our love her /hate her Caro !!

Thanks for all the good things Paul..well done son..mate..brother....fellow Demon

Again.. bloodless coups are all well and good. . A positive..shows stability etc yada yada yada !!

A Negative.. well folks..it just slightly miffs this Demon that I stil lhave no idea what teh Synesy ticket represents.

I dont like being kept in the dark..Im a bloody paid up member and Id lik eto be kept informed of these things.. None of this fait accomplit [censored] !!.

I have no doubt that Jimma is a fore us and not agin us.. but quite frankly the lack of info going forward is just not good enough for me

So MFC quit with all the secret squirrel [censored] and come clean. Where are we heading under the new regimme-elect. or ought that be UNELECT !!

I stand ready to shake Paul Gardners hand and wish him well, when he does go.

A responsible and hard-working president when the club desperately needed exactly that.

We'd be toast by now if we'd landed another Szondy or Gutnick.

While I agree I'd like to know more about what the new leadership will be up to, I'm quietly confident it won't be the half-arsed leadership which came to be expected at the board in years past.

Gardner has played a big part in changing that expectation, and whatever Stynes and his team can accomplish will be that much more achievable because of Gardner's steady hand.

A Negative.. well folks..it just slightly miffs this Demon that I stil lhave no idea what teh Synesy ticket represents.

I dont like being kept in the dark..Im a bloody paid up member and Id lik eto be kept informed of these things.. None of this fait accomplit [censored] !!.

I understand what you mean. I want Jim to give us a list of things, concrete things, to do to save the club and allow it to thrive.

Caro's piece left me with the impression that he is the only one lined up at this stage to come onto the board - that no-one has definitely been enlisted by Jimmy.

I guess Sat night will be interesting, as will Monday afternoon, and knowing Caro - Monday night.

as long as:

there is no blood shed,

the new admin have some buisness knowledge (not only a pile of ex footballers),

the new admin will get along with the afl,

and

the new admin are mfc people (not afl directives)

we should be very happy with this. im not sure if gardner wants to go or not, but there have been rumbles, and i much rather we move him on a little early to allow proper succession flow on than he leave abruptly or he is challenged.

Its all lovely isnt it.. we'll all have buttered scones for tea etc etc. But as they say despite a degree of transparency theres nothing to see !!

Again..Im not opposed to Jim. I cant be yet. I have no idea what he's on about !! Is it just me that finds this disturbing?

Its all lovely isnt it.. we'll all have buttered scones for tea etc etc. But as they say despite a degree of transparency theres nothing to see !!

Again..Im not opposed to Jim. I cant be yet. I have no idea what he's on about !! Is it just me that finds this disturbing?

im not sure i find it disturbing, but it feels to me like the group is going to challange no matter what and that PG doesnt want blood shed. he is trying to make sure the next admin is responsible enough to take the reigns and then he will step back. but i think they are effectively taking over.

i think they (both sides) are trying to make it as seamless a transition as possible...

Deanox.. Im fully for that. No need to tear limb from limb etc. It just irks me that we, as members, are so irrelevent to any event here. As a mark of respect to us, its members youd think that teh new Board members woul dhave teh decency to inform us of therir designs and intentions.

Maybe it is just me.. but it sall too much old boys [censored] here. I do appreciate the paradox there too. we need more of the olid players to get on board... but not in some secret secret hush hush manner.

As members we had the opportunity in the past o hear what the various aspirants thought, their plans together with thir skills and energies. This is aquisition by stealth!! As some one once uttered.... " I DON'T LIKE IT !! "

Deanox.. Im fully for that. No need to tear limb from limb etc. It just irks me that we, as members, are so irrelevent to any event here. As a mark of respect to us, its members youd think that teh new Board members woul dhave teh decency to inform us of therir designs and intentions.

Maybe it is just me.. but it sall too much old boys [censored] here. I do appreciate the paradox there too. we need more of the olid players to get on board... but not in some secret secret hush hush manner.

As members we had the opportunity in the past o hear what the various aspirants thought, their plans together with thir skills and energies. This is aquisition by stealth!! As some one once uttered.... " I DON'T LIKE IT !! "

If Stynes and Gardner want to organise a smooth transition, how can they have the new ticket come out and publically detail their designs and intentions before a deal has been done?

I'd also like to know what Stynes had in store for the footy Club, who he wanted to bring on board, and who was getting the chop. However, if you want the smooth transition, which you've said you do, I can't see how it can be any other way.

The alternative is to have Stynes and co. announce their ticket and what they stand for, and force PG and co. into a position where they either fall on their swords, or resist the challenge...all played out in the public sphere, with all the talk of Board/Club instability that it'd bring.

Rubbish..

the two event are/can be mutually exclusive.

One : the smooth handover.. its not reliant upon ideals.. just process

two. what are the plans ii.e platform of the incumbants.

What we have here is a deal behind doors !!

This is a club where members have voting rights ( for the moment til they find a way to rid them I imagine ..that was the hint of recent survey)

So what you could have..is Stynes and Co coming out..and saying..thsi is our plan ..etc etc etc.and we wish an easy transistion.

Again..the two things CAN be exclusive.

t present..we MEMBERS have no say in it..that pisses me off !!

Rubbish? Show me a Club where a new ticket announced their preferred Board of Directors and their platform publically before any deal was done with the incumbents, and I'll show you reports of board instability etc.

If there's to be a 'smooth transition', it'll be a done deal - you and I won't get a say. I don't see where you're coming from...how do you get the 'smooth transition' that you want, with rank-and-file members (ie. everyone) being fully informed about potential challengers and their platform, and members having a say?

If there's no done deal behind closed doors, you'll have two groups competing against each other come the AGM, and further talk that we're a basket case.

And all the while we are kept in the dark.. very Medievil !!

I disagree completely.

Gardner knows his time is nigh. He's even suggested it himslef. its not like he's trying to cling on for life. You have an aspirant. Seemingly only one. wheres the barney going to be ?? You talk of a scuffel that apparently doesnt exist. What also doesnt exist is any knowlwedge of what the aspirant intends.

What is stopping Stynes and Co from talking of their ideals. Again..wheres the talked of squabble ?

You cant allude to a bun fight igf there isnt one. That may blind some to the root of this matter but it doesnt sway me.

Again I have no problems per se with Stynes.. ..and its rather hard to disagree with sopmething we know nothin gof..and thats just my very point..WE KKNOW NOTHING.

is that just a bit hard for you to fathom ?

Correct me if I'm wrong -

You've asserted that you want a smooth transition. You've also asserted that PG's gone, and it seems like Stynes is the only 'aspirant'.

If this is the case, when you hear about the Stynes vision for the future seems immaterial to me, since members won't have a say either way.

The only way members will 'get a say' is if there's a 'hostile' challenge to the Board, in which case we can all vote at the next AGM.

Couldnt car if its smooth or not..just preferable. It also seems inevitable as ther sems no contest.

None of this deals with the lack of openness re anything going forward. We are FORCED to accept whatever. That usurps the teh procvess of election and transparancy wouldnt you agree ?

Couldnt car if its smooth or not..just preferable. It also seems inevitable as ther sems no contest.

None of this deals with the lack of openness re anything going forward. We are FORCED to accept whatever. That usurps the teh procvess of election and transparancy wouldnt you agree ?

Not really.

Under the MFC rules it goes something like this.

1. The Chairman is elected by the Board from amongst its numbers. There is no requirement that the Chairman be an elected Director.

2. A person can become a Director by election by the members or by invitation of the Board to fill a casual vacancy.

3. All Board members must be elected by the members. In the case of a Director who joins the Board by invitation to fill a casual vacancy, that Director must retire at the next AGM (usually held in December) and is free to nominate for election at that AGM.

4. A Director is required to retire at the third AGM following the AGM at which he/she was last elected. The only exception to the 3 year rule is that if in a given year no Director retires by application of the 3 year rule or by resignation then at least one Director must retire and can stand for re-election.

So any appointment to the Board to fill a vacancy must retire prior to and be voted upon at the next AGM. This is a usual practice with Corporates. You have the opportunity to vote for or against the appointee at the next AGM.

I think Rogue has it right on this.

Dont let the door hit you on the way out.

I see where you're coming from with regards the backroom deals and lack of transparency, but it's not unexpected.

In fact, if I were a betting man I'd wager that most would probably feel that this is actually preferable to having two tickets fighting for election at our AGM.

So any appointment to the Board to fill a vacancy must retire prior to and be voted upon at the next AGM.

Sure, but if PG and co. retire, Stynes and his group will stand for election, and it'll essentially be a no-contest.

ffs...lol.. now dont confuse me by seeing the argument..

Again.. I have no real problem with the man. The process does leave it open to fait accomplit..would not people agree??

Maybe in teh big picture that is not the problem..or for me the poi nt of contention.essentially someon can be all but in the seat.. without displaying his/her wares.. before an opportunity to put it to the membership, all the whiles no one is wise to what the intentions are.

Does this not strike as screwy to anyone ?

I see where you're coming from with regards the backroom deals and lack of transparency, but it's not unexpected.

In fact, if I were a betting man I'd wager that most would probably feel that this is actually preferable to having two tickets fighting for election at our AGM.

Sure, but if PG and co. retire, Stynes and his group will stand for election, and it'll essentially be a no-contest.

I dont think there is enough prospective incumbents to form two tickets. So you are right about the no contest. However under my point 4, a director has to stand for reelection every 3 years so it would have been the same for the rest of the Board during that time. I dont believe there have been any challengers for vacant positions.

I understand that Gardner has been looking to vacate the MFC Board for some time.

I dont know if I see the reason for the angst and the frustration over Stynes election.

Given the state and position of MFC the last thing we need is a mid year stoush at Board level. Lets leave that to Carlton.

Rhino..my issue is not with teh man per se. . the process is a little dubious, but even that isnt my concern.

its that NO oNE knows what he intends. Are people happy with this ?

ffs...lol.. now dont confuse me by seeing the argument..

Again.. I have no real problem with the man. The process does leave it open to fait accomplit..would not people agree??

Maybe in teh big picture that is not the problem..or for me the poi nt of contention.essentially someon can be all but in the seat.. without displaying his/her wares.. before an opportunity to put it to the membership, all the whiles no one is wise to what the intentions are.

Does this not strike as screwy to anyone ?

Not given the short time between now and the next AGM when he faces the members.

So if Gardner resigns now do we have to wait until after the AGM to fill the role?

The rules were structuring to address the reality of providing continuity of management in case of sudden resignation, incapacitation or death of an officer. It would have been nice if it had been timed for the AGM but I understand PG wants out.

Rhino..my issue is not with teh man per se. . the process is a little dubious, but even that isnt my concern.

its that NO oNE knows what he intends. Are people happy with this ?

And what is the option?..... Appoint no one.

As Chairman, its not so much what he intends but the Board intends. Its basically the same board at this point. However, I expect there will be further retirements from the Board positions.

Well I suppose I like others wil have to wait. I abhore that, I think its wrong. I wil have to do it whether I like it or not.

I shall have my eyes peeled for revelations

As an aside.. I do appreciate that at least we can discuss these things in a forum..and that the various "sides' ..contributors can do this amicably.

long live the Dees

Agree. If there was a competing ticket to Stynes, I think you have a point and the issue should be subject to more open assessment by members at the earliest point at an EGM prior to the AGM.

ffs...lol.. now dont confuse me by seeing the argument..

Haha.

Haha.

ya bugger..lol