Just hurry up and force Terry Dillon to sign before he has a chance to rule himself out

Why. What do you know about his experience, talent and ability?

Why. What do you know about his experience, talent and ability?

I think Golgothan is saying that tongue in cheek Redleg. Before we run out of contenders. It's a bit of a worry, these candidates ruling themselves out - must be a monumental task....CEO for Mfc.

If he has done his due diligence properly the first time then he knows where MFC is at. should know what he wants in a role, identified the issues and moved on. And you are spot on when you say "the motivation and reasons for the second decision might not be as powerful as the first decision".

His first decision should rightly be for himself based on making a full and professional assessment and he had made it and your assessment that he would feel "obligated" by some other issues is puzzling.

Its academic now given he is out of the race.

He made his decision two weeks ago, and advised MFC.

It's not Fox's fault that MFC came back and pestered him again after he had considered their proposal and rejected it. He wasn't "back in the race" again.

wow dropping out for a second time!!!

Must be frustrating stynes!

He didn't "drop out" again - he wasn't there!

Fox is being unfairly maligned for reaffirming to MFC that the answer really was no the first time you asked me!

He made his decision two weeks ago, and advised MFC.

It's not Fox's fault that MFC came back and pestered him again after he had considered their proposal and rejected it. He wasn't "back in the race" again.

That is indeed more plausible than he feels any sense of obligation. I have no issue with him hearing MFC out. I just did not think anything had changed since he rejected them and it hasnt.

That is indeed more plausible than he feels any sense of obligation. I have no issue with him hearing MFC out. I just did not think anything had changed since he rejected them and it hasnt.

"Obligation" may have been the wrong word, but pressure/flattery (whatever you like) sometimes people take jobs for the wrong reason. Nevertheless I think we agree that he made a decision 2 weeks ago, he's simply stuck to it and he's entitled to do so.

MFC's attempts at appointing a CEO are akin to St Kilda's botchced efforts at developing a new admin/training facility - shoddy strategy, poor decision making and in the public arena all the way through.

"Obligation" may have been the wrong word, but pressure/flattery (whatever you like) sometimes people take jobs for the wrong reason. Nevertheless I think we agree that he made a decision 2 weeks ago, he's simply stuck to it and he's entitled to do so.

I actually have more regard for Fox for doing what he did. If he accepted the job and there was no big increase in money then I would be wondering.

MFC's attempts at appointing a CEO are akin to St Kilda's botchced efforts at developing a new admin/training facility - shoddy strategy, poor decision making and in the public arena all the way through.

The leak to Mike Sheahan was diabolical and from then on the Club has chased its tail. I dont think it was prudent for Stynes to support certain names for the role as it clearly plays the MFC's hands even from a preception point of view of potential candidates.

I only hope that with the name candidates Schwab and Fox now out of the way it clears the air and perceptions for a potentially capable candidate to apply.

I think Golgothan is saying that tongue in cheek Redleg. Before we run out of contenders. It's a bit of a worry, these candidates ruling themselves out - must be a monumental task....CEO for Mfc.

It was said with tongue firmly in cheek. But we do seem to be running out of candidates pretty quick, especially if we want someone with a footy background.

But to answer your question Redleg, Dillon is currently COO of Hawthorn under Ian Robson. Robson is one of the people who has turned around HFC. Hawthorn posted an 11th consecutive profit last year and to top that it was a record profit of $3.6 million, more then $2 million more then they forecasted for 2007.

So what do you know about Fox? He is supposed to be a good man for the job because he is Brian Cook's protégé, Robson's is slouch either, so we could do a lot worse then to appoint his understudy. Prior to being Hawthorn's COO, Dillon was Financial Control at Collingwood, under Greg Miller (another man considered one of the savvier CEOs of the comp). Last year, Collingwood posted a 7th consecutive profit, several of those were while Dillon was controlling the purse strings. Earlier in the year Hawthorn invested in the Caroline Springs Hotel, which is expected to bring them in as much as $1 million a year, Dillon was the one credited with doing most the work to get this over the line.

So i'd say after being CFO at the biggest melbourne club under one of the better CEOs and then COO at one the biggest improvers in the last 10 years under another well respected CEO, that he has some pretty solid credentials to support his appointment to a CEO position.

What else do you want to know, what he had for breakfast?

He made his decision two weeks ago, and advised MFC.

It's not Fox's fault that MFC came back and pestered him again after he had considered their proposal and rejected it. He wasn't "back in the race" again.

He didn't "drop out" again - he wasn't there!

Fox is being unfairly maligned for reaffirming to MFC that the answer really was no the first time you asked me!

There was a day a week or so back when Stynes rang Fox 5 times in a single day. It got so bad that Fox complained to Frank Costa who had to have a word with Jimma.

Sort of sad when you think about it.

There was a day a week or so back when Stynes rang Fox 5 times in a single day. It got so bad that Fox complained to Frank Costa who had to have a word with Jimma.

Sort of sad when you think about it.

More than sad - it displays a level of anxiousness which telegraphs to a potential target that you are desperate. Not good from a negotiating position, nor for the image of the organisation.

More than sad - it displays a level of anxiousness which telegraphs to a potential target that you are desperate. Not good from a negotiating position, nor for the image of the organisation.

If true......

........What else do you want to know, what he had for breakfast?

And thanks for the info Golgothan it's nice to hear some background on the guy who is probably now the frontrunner for the role, maybe?!!!

There was a day a week or so back when Stynes rang Fox 5 times in a single day. It got so bad that Fox complained to Frank Costa who had to have a word with Jimma.

Sort of sad when you think about it.

Is that fair dinkum? Costa had to tell Jimma to back off?

Well isn't this turning into a gripping contest...

I think the only one remaining is Terry Dillon (assuming Waldron's out), so you'd think he's got the job if he wants it. But then again, we might find out tomorrow that Schwab is reconsidering...

Well isn't this turning into a gripping contest...

I think the only one remaining is Terry Dillon (assuming Waldron's out), so you'd think he's got the job if he wants it. But then again, we might find out tomorrow that Schwab is reconsidering...

Dillon was not good enough to make the final cut which reduced the field to 3 when McNamee was appointed. Jim was part of the group that eliminated him and reduced the field to 3.

Dillon was not good enough to make the final cut which reduced the field to 3 when McNamee was appointed. Jim was part of the group that eliminated him and reduced the field to 3.

I don't think that's correct. Jimmy was apart of the interview process but was not involved in any of the decision making, as far as i'm aware. So what Gardiner's board & Jimmy's board consider a good candidate may vary greatly

Dillon was not good enough to make the final cut which reduced the field to 3 when McNamee was appointed. Jim was part of the group that eliminated him and reduced the field to 3.

From a Stynes press conference when PM was dumped -

"Stynes emphasised that PG and the previous board made the appointment, and Stynes said that he wasn't really part of the process, which disappointed him. Reported that the extent of his involvement was shortlisting candidates and having an informal interview with three applicants (incl. PM and Fox). PG then took over the process, and Stynes was unhappy that he wasn't involved with the latter stages. As such, Stynes said he couldn't comment on which of the candidates was the best choice."

There was a day a week or so back when Stynes rang Fox 5 times in a single day. It got so bad that Fox complained to Frank Costa who had to have a word with Jimma.

Sort of sad when you think about it.

How do you know that?

I don't think that's correct. Jimmy was apart of the interview process but was not involved in any of the decision making, as far as i'm aware. So what Gardiner's board & Jimmy's board consider a good candidate may vary greatly

What actually happened was this - Slade's drew up a long list which was reduced to 5. These 5 were interviewed by a group comprising 3 Board members plus Stynes and an outside independent expert (Jim Watts). At this stage Jim Stynes preferred candidate McNamee over candidate Fox despite his protests later that his views were ignored.

The list of 5 was reduced to 3, including Fox and McNamee. There was a second interview conducted by a panel of Directors. Jim Watts and Jim Stynes took no part in this or subsequent deliberations. The interview panel and Slade reported back to the Board who unanimously (contrary to Caroline Wilson's assertions to the contrary) chose McNamee. He accepted the job the next day.

What actually happened was this - Slade's drew up a long list which was reduced to 5. These 5 were interviewed by a group comprising 3 Board members plus Stynes and an outside independent expert (Jim Watts). At this stage Jim Stynes preferred candidate McNamee over candidate Fox despite his protests later that his views were ignored.

The list of 5 was reduced to 3, including Fox and McNamee. There was a second interview conducted by a panel of Directors. Jim Watts and Jim Stynes took no part in this or subsequent deliberations. The interview panel and Slade reported back to the Board who unanimously (contrary to Caroline Wilson's assertions to the contrary) chose McNamee. He accepted the job the next day.

That's the second time you've mentioned details which most of us in the public are not aware of (the other being the phone calls to Fox), where are you getting your info?

All of that is besides the point. When those board members, Stynes and Watts interviewed those candidates they were looking for a candidate who best displayed the qualities that Gardner & Co had decided on. There's no reason why this time that Dillon is not a more appropriate choice now that they are focused on a different type of person.

It was said with tongue firmly in cheek. But we do seem to be running out of candidates pretty quick, especially if we want someone with a footy background.

But to answer your question Redleg, Dillon is currently COO of Hawthorn under Ian Robson. Robson is one of the people who has turned around HFC. Hawthorn posted an 11th consecutive profit last year and to top that it was a record profit of $3.6 million, more then $2 million more then they forecasted for 2007.

So what do you know about Fox? He is supposed to be a good man for the job because he is Brian Cook's protégé, Robson's is slouch either, so we could do a lot worse then to appoint his understudy. Prior to being Hawthorn's COO, Dillon was Financial Control at Collingwood, under Greg Miller (another man considered one of the savvier CEOs of the comp). Last year, Collingwood posted a 7th consecutive profit, several of those were while Dillon was controlling the purse strings. Earlier in the year Hawthorn invested in the Caroline Springs Hotel, which is expected to bring them in as much as $1 million a year, Dillon was the one credited with doing most the work to get this over the line.

So i'd say after being CFO at the biggest melbourne club under one of the better CEOs and then COO at one the biggest improvers in the last 10 years under another well respected CEO, that he has some pretty solid credentials to support his appointment to a CEO position.

What else do you want to know, what he had for breakfast?

Sorry I didn't realize where your tongue was.

Thanks for the background info it was informative.

What did he have for breakfast?

That's the second time you've mentioned details which most of us in the public are not aware of (the other being the phone calls to Fox), where are you getting your info?

All of that is besides the point. When those board members, Stynes and Watts interviewed those candidates they were looking for a candidate who best displayed the qualities that Gardner & Co had decided on. There's no reason why this time that Dillon is not a more appropriate choice now that they are focused on a different type of person.

You are exactly right. Good work.

There was a day a week or so back when Stynes rang Fox 5 times in a single day. It got so bad that Fox complained to Frank Costa who had to have a word with Jimma.

Sort of sad when you think about it.

How do you know that?

You are exactly right. Good work.

Avoided that other question nicely

Avoided that other question nicely

As if!!!

That's the second time you've mentioned details which most of us in the public are not aware of (the other being the phone calls to Fox), where are you getting your info?

Clearly, the information comes from the old board which leaked like a sieve. Hopefully, the new regime will be much less loose with its tongues.

Clearly, the information comes from the old board which leaked like a sieve. Hopefully, the new regime will be much less loose with its tongues.

How would the old board be privy to that information? Was it leaked by the new board? How did the McNamee sacking and the new Boards confidential assessments of him get leaked?

How would the old board be privy to that information? Was it leaked by the new board? How did the McNamee sacking and the new Boards confidential assessments of him get leaked?

If you care to read rflowerwing's post of 4:12 pm you would realise that it refers specifically to the process of selection of McNamee as CEO by the old board. The members of the old board would most certainly be privy to such information. Where else do you think this information came from?

As to information about McNamee's sacking, do you really believe that McNamee hasn't been spilling his guts out to those on the old board who appointed him?

I stand by everything I said in my first post.