I think Shwab will come on board and i know that all three of connolly, stynes, and schwab are very close mates and will bind together to try and prove everyone wrong and get our demons back to being a force....

Look how well being close mates ended for St Kilda........

thats what shits me more than anything, there just never seems to be any stability, Jimmy comes in and the place seemed on the up then he does this and it spirals down again. I don't know how he's going to get people to dip into there pockets, when they keep making these stupid decisions that cost us money :angry: :angry: :angry:

Agree. We hear from one board how we are turning everything around, new CEO, Casey summer base, Bubble stadium etc etc... All of a sudden we have none of those things in place, yet again, and it is costing us more and more money. As Steve Harris mentions in his Age article we have not had continuity forever and a day.

Can we for once have a plan in place and follow it through and it continues on through successive boards??

While the decision might be the best in the long run it just seems like one step forward, two steps back.

Hopefully the interim CEO can keep momentum going whilst he find and pay the highest $$ possible to the best administrator in Australia to save our football club from death.

Also what is the continued talk of factions within the club??? What factions? Where do they sit on game day? Is there a dark red jumper section in the cheer squad that is one faction, is there an alternitaive strip section in the Southern Stand, is there an 80's light blue section in the members section? If so FARK OFF AND LEAVE THE CLUB ALONE! We need to be united and move forward together, your continued bickering and underminng each other is killing us so for the good of the rest of us leave the club alone!

/end rant

Also someone mentioned this supposed "old boys network" that has been bandied around over the last few weeks on here and in the media...

The poster made a very valid point. We have been pissing and moaning for how long about ex players not being involved in the club and shunning us. Now they are coming back to the club to try and lead us out of our darkest hour this "old boys network" pops up.

Who wants cake and to eat it as well?

Look a lot of you guys are missing the point Here. Macnamee was appointed by the previous board. Stynes has the full right to choose his own CEO. As does a new Prime Minister pick his Front Ministerial Bench. Macnamee was Gardiners man .Q.E.D.

Agreed!!!!

Just so over meaningless words.

Words from the club about false dawns serving people's self interests, words from supporters claiming to support the club while having a go at other fans.

How anyone can have a go at this cat High Tower is beyond me, he's clearly a nutter fan of the club and of course is entitled to his opinion.

Sick of reading press reports about the positives about the club, about the negatives, i just want to see the club DO. Watch them turn the corner and work for the club, not themselves.

Its been an absolute debacle where we have had the tenure of 2 CEOs determined in the media and not in the Boardroom. I have no doubt from what has been in the media from trusted journalists that McNamee was a dead duck. Sheahan's article effectively decided McNamee's future. The fact that on the one hand that Club is asking supporters to dig deep for $5m and then not release any statement or explanation for 36 hours is poor.

The Harris decision was played out in the media, fair call, but McNamee's was not until the last couple of days. Jimmy's been President since what, Queens Birthday? If McNamee was a dead duck since then the first it was mentioned in the media was 24-36 hours before he was sacked. Given our recent history of fighting things out through the media I reckon that's a pretty good effort for us.

The decision was made to sack him at the board meeting on Tuesday night, it was rumoured in the paper that morning, and it was announced at 10am Wednesday morning. McNamee cleaned out his office on Tuesday night, so he knew then, and said himself that he saw it coming weeks in advance.

Whether the club is asking the supporters to help repay its debt is completely irrelevant. The new board is left with decisions from a previous board that whether they are right or wrong they want to change and it is costly doing so. Every board is left with the legacy of previous boards, and we are still dramatically paying for the board of the mid/late 90s that moved all our home games to Sunday - a decision that has largely contributed to bringing this club to its knees.

I just reckon the club has handled the media side of this pretty well. We can debate forever whether or not its fair or unfair to sack McNamee after such a short period in the job, but that's a seperate issue to the how well we handle the public fall out. With Paul Mac doing his own damage control, and fair enough too, Jim has been out in the open telling the clubs side of the decision and why it was neccesary to happen straight away. We've had more public comment from Jim in 5 weeks than we had in the previous 5 years. The not seen and not heard days are over, and that's fantastic for the footy club.

I don't see this as a big debacle. It's ugly, but its ruthless, and its what it needs to be.

My greatest concern, from the email/announcement tonight, is the cutting of costs to help bring down the debt. As much as the debt needs to be brought down, we're shooting ourselves in the foot if we are taking money away from important areas to do so. I know its a fine line to tread, but sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Hopefully the McNamee (and Harris) decision is an example of that - I just hope football department funds are not taken away to make it happen.

An for the record, whether he becomes CEO or not, some facts about Cameron Schwab.

1. He did not initiate salary cap breaches at the MFC. He inherited them from previous administrations. And the decision to sack him because of them stands as one of the most ridiculous decisions in footy administration history.

2. He did not initiate salary cap breaches at Fremantle. The Dockers had an $8 million debt when he arrived. They now have more than 40k members.

Some people might not want him back as CEO, I'm neither here nor there about it at the moment, but facts are facts.

Stuart Fox's efforts as CFO of Geelong shouldn't be undersold either - Brian Cook gets the credit for turning that club around, but he's very quick to credit Stuart Fox for what he's done.

Some of you seem to think that being a good footy player makes you a good footy manager. Perhaps Jim shares this view and this might provide an alternative explanation for what otherwise looks like an alarming slide into back room deals, jobs for the boys and ego-driven management. Others of us have not been blinded by the glint of a Brownlow medal and we will rightly feel at least as wary about the current administration as we did about their predecessors.

All fair enough and you make your point well unlike many other posters. However I think you way underestimate the integity of Jim Stynes. He has taken over a basket case that he loves and I very much doubt he would make any appointments that were based on just "friendship" Remember Connolly was already at the club. He has assembled a very capable bunch of directors with wide ranging business skills, all very capable people in their own right. I doubt any of them would be spending their free time helping Jim create some ego driven establishment for him and his mates. And also these mates of his are all very capable football people, not some bunch of hacks wanting a free lunch. I for one am backing Jim because I think so far he's done all the necessary things to start turning this club around. I will admit to being shocked at the last few day's events but I don't think McNamee was the right person in the current situation.

Every board is left with the legacy of previous boards, and we are still dramatically paying for the board of the mid/late 90s that moved all our home games to Sunday - a decision that has largely contributed to bringing this club to its knees.

I thought this was one of Gardiner's initiatives

Gutnick I believe.

ED: Oops

Gutnick I believe.

Gutnick couldn't go to the footy on Sunday (orthodox Jew) so I very much doubt it was his idea

Saturday is the Sabbath dude, not Sunday

Saturday is the Sabbath dude, not Sunday

Correct, my mistake

Every board is left with the legacy of previous boards, and we are still dramatically paying for the board of the mid/late 90s that moved all our home games to Sunday - a decision that has largely contributed to bringing this club to its knees.

I agree Hards. Obviously aside from winning, its probably the single most important factor in our inability to attract crowds and generate revenue. But I have no idea who requested it or how it has arisen.

I do know there was conjecture about Gutnick wanting Sunday games due to religion but believe it was all part-joke. I do know that the AFL has continued to allocate us Sunday games against the requests of the previous board. Gardner made a statement to the effect that if the AFL was going to continue to give us Sunday games then we would have to go about making it our own. This statement has continually been misrepresented as the MFC requesting Sunday games and is now used to further discredit the previous Chairman.

Its obvious the AFL is more interested in allocating the games first to the higher profile clubs. Subsequently, Dees get relegated to Sunday as an after-thought.

I'm sick of fronting up on Sundays week-in, week-out. I know others prefer it due to sport commitments etc. but as far as getting exposure is concerned it is damaging to the club. I suspect its the way the AFL wants it.

Can someone confirm the history behind this relentless Sunday allocation?

Just so over meaningless words.

Words from the club about false dawns serving people's self interests, words from supporters claiming to support the club while having a go at other fans.

How anyone can have a go at this cat High Tower is beyond me, he's clearly a nutter fan of the club and of course is entitled to his opinion.

Sick of reading press reports about the positives about the club, about the negatives, i just want to see the club DO. Watch them turn the corner and work for the club, not themselves.

Cheers 45Hotgod...........at least someone understands, and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I want to see the club do, I want to see excitement, longevity, prosperity, turn the corner, be successful and most of all be around so my kids can support the Dees throughout their lives...and then their children!

I think the President is elected by the Board. The Board is elected by the members. Under the Constitution, all appointed Board members are due to stand down at the next AGM and stand for re election. Given there is unlikely to be an alternative ticket to the current administration, they should be re-elected unopposed.

Agreed. And I have no doubt Jim would have been elected. But I am simply saying that if has underwent an election campaign we would have better understood his approach and agenda and he may have been required to refine it based on opposition, feedback, etc...

The BIGGEST problem with our club is the pesimistic, sour, depressed supporters who always find a reason to complain, its amazing, i bet when we win a flag you blokes will still find an issue somewhere along the line.

Choko save your calls for the Power my man - lighten up and get on board

Firstly, that is not our biggest problem. But I assure you, I am not a pessimistic supporter. And "getting on board" does not mean unquestioning support.

I didn't say that I don't support Jimmy, but I simply say that his agenda and approach, to the extent that they differ from Gardner's, have not yet been made clear. I am not saying that it means he shouldn't do things his way or that he should sit back idly, but I do think it is something to be wary of. And for what it's worth, if Caro's article in today's paper is any indication, I think Jim agrees and is in the process of drafting a letter to all of us explaining his vision. Usually that would occur before an election.

And for what it's worth, if Caro's article in today's paper is any indication, I think Jim agrees and is in the process of drafting a letter to all of us explaining his vision. Usually that would occur before an election.

That letter has already been written, is on the MFC website here, and has also been posted on this forum.

It was emailed to members last night, and I think it will be mailed out, too.

It is my understanding that a board sets the targets/objectives/goals of an organization and that a CEO or GM then administers to achieve what the board has set. If the CEO is working for a different set of targets/objectives/goals, how long can she/he expect to last?

Also, is it possible that PM was being paid substantially more than an alternate CEO - so his replacement, in the long run, would save money? A CEO on $250K pa would cost 1/2 a million less in 2.5 years.

Every board is left with the legacy of previous boards, and we are still dramatically paying for the board of the mid/late 90s that moved all our home games to Sunday - a decision that has largely contributed to bringing this club to its knees.

The fact that we are playing a preponderance of games on Sunday can't be blamed on administrations from the mid/late 90s. Clubs get the opportunity annually to provide the AFL with their fixture wish list. Our old Board simply didn't go hard enough to get the more lucrative Friday night spots. We're now the fillers on the worst game day of the fixture and it's our own fault.

Hopefully, the club will now go about setting that right.