Macca dumping a disgrace

[GIRO 63]

Melbourne dump him just four months into the job. What's he supposed to do in that time? Bailey has had a terrible season but Melbourne give him the benefit of the doubt?

The board trust Bailey who is not proven at all to get rid of a guy who is proven to attract big name players to Australian events both in tennis and in golf; he tries to get a marquee player to the club (which Melbourne don’t have) and he gets shown the door so Jimmy can recruit his old mate back from WA.

[mattie 0]

Melbourne dump him just four months into the job. What's he supposed to do in that time? Bailey has had a terrible season but Melbourne give him the benefit of the doubt?

The board trust Bailey who is not proven at all to get rid of a guy who is proven to attract big name players to Australian events both in tennis and in golf; he tries to get a marquee player to the club (which Melbourne don’t have) and he gets shown the door so Jimmy can recruit his old mate back from WA.

What is the point in having a 'marquee' player at full forward if the ball doesn't get down there enough for a few years? By the time the rest of the team has enough experience to do so, the marquee player will be hobbling around on crutches.

Anyone trying to recruit such an expensive player without getting the OK of the football department that it fits into its plans is asking to be removed.

[Guest melbman]

Hi Giro

I don't think Macca was sacked due to not doing anything but more because what he wanted to do didn't fit in with the views of the majority of his MFC peers ie the board & Pres, coach, footy operations manager etc

Conversely I think Bailey is following a proven path of list rejuvination which, unfortunately, has short term and well known consequences such as the inexperience of youth and its short term effect on winning.

The public reason for Macca's removal was for my mind his cheque book approach to problem solving, extra Canberra game and cheque book drafting.

cheers

[GIRO 63]

All im trying to say is that we are giving bailey a fair go why not Paul Mac

[Rogue 585]

All im trying to say is that we are giving bailey a fair go why not Paul Mac

It's quite simple.

Bailey's vision is one shared by the Board - ie. 'play the kids, focus on youth'.

MacNamee's vision was not shared by the Board - ie. 'recruit a marquee player, make Melbourne the elite "Premier Club"'.

[Guest melbman]

All im trying to say is that we are giving bailey a fair go why not Paul Mac

And a fair question it is too GIRO.

Maybe it was obvious to Jim where the Macca thing was heading and more time to make a descision wasn't needed and could in fact be harmful. I don't think Macca was sacked because of the on field lack of success but more due to what Macca offered or didn't offer as a CEO.

If the players under Bailey continue to improve this year and next at the rate they have done since the opening rounds then I don't feel anyone will question Bailey whereas Macca wasn't employed to develop others as such, he was meant to be a ready to go CEO off the bat but there seem to be questions hanging over him re his ability as a footy CEO as opposed to an events CEO

Possibly because Macca and Bailey had differing roles they are judged by different criteria and time frames although IMO Bailey seems to have the goods but that remains to be proven by results.

[rpfc 28,055]

He was a mistake.

A bold move by Gardner but the fact that as CEO he was chasing J.Brown illustrates he had little idea of what was expected of him.

It's embarrassing but let's get Fox and begin moving in a forward direction.

[Deeoldfart 7,999]

Possibly because Macca and Bailey had differing roles they are judged by different criteria and time frames .....

Spot on Melbman. Exactly as it should be.

[iw_s 0]

McNamee repeatedly demostrated he was out of his depth as CEO of an AFL club.

He may be great at luring "Federer, Agassi, Graf" (his own words) to appear at an event like the Hopman Cup or the Australian Open. But to open negotiations with Brown's management, against the wishes of Dean Bailey and the football department, to dredge up branding like "The Premier Club" which is reminiscent of all the blueblood rot that has made the club the butt of countless jokes, and to think that Brown would be worth $1 million a year for FIVE years when he already is beset by injury problems, shows an extraordinary naivity.

The world of AFL football was simply beyond him. He's great at what he does best... creating marquee events. But the cut-throat world of AFL football, which exists beyond a two weeks of Aus Open fortnight, was not his world.

Ivor

[Neita3000 37]

Giro really not that disgraceful. Good luck to you

[Courtney_Fish 183]

I just love topics that include "a disgrace". Thanks

[Little Goffy 14,086]

Yep, MacNamee was a mistake. Though I'll qualify that by saying it's not because MacNamee is a fool or anything like that.

His plans and public talk was very much in tune with the last board - the board that kept on celebrating the 'Range Rover snow bunny' stereotype like it made us the 'elite club'.

Targeting Brown is the main tanglible thing we have to chew on when thinking about it, and what it says to me is that he just hadn't grasped the current situation. The fact that he persisted with it even against the inclinations of the Footy department makes me think there was a train wreck waiting to happen there.

I must admit, I'm relieved there was no termination payout, just the three months salary. The fact that it's a hundred thousand dollars anyway makes me think; if someone gets paid a grand a day I'd expect something more in three months.

Meanwhile. The Spargonaut takes on the job pro bono. Legend.

[Pates 9,625]

From the sounds of it PMac was a right fit for the old board, but the fact is that Jimmy and his new board are going in a different direction and while Paul has great credentials, they felt it would be better to nip this in the bud early and get someone that they felt confident in driving us in the same direction.

I also think the reason for his early sacking is his (relatively) low pay out, i have a feeling that there was a clause saying that if he was given the flick in X amount of time they would not have to pay out the rest of the contract.

[titan_uranus 24,707]

It's quite simple.

Bailey's vision is one shared by the Board - ie. 'play the kids, focus on youth'.

MacNamee's vision was not shared by the Board - ie. 'recruit a marquee player, make Melbourne the elite "Premier Club"'.

Exactly.

End of discussion (I hope).