Youth Policy

[Angry_Bird 0]

The new Melbourne board is very public in its policy that to move forward the club needs to focus on youth.

Whilst there is some merit to some of what they are saying, I harbour a few concerns.

Firstly, as far as our brand is concerned, I am not sure the focus on youth is commercially attractive. It worries me that premium brands will be reluctant to sponsor our club. Whilst focusing on youth is admirable - we need to stand for more. This club needs to become the best of the best and therefore stand for something more solid. I am not saying that the "premier club" is the way to go but we certainly need to stand for something more than just youth or Jimmy Stynes.

Secondly, on field is a major concern. I hold much hope in the ability for the club to develop this fantastic core of young players. Synes said we will have something like 15 top 21 selections on our list next year. That is very exciting. The problem is, however, by publicly stating that we are putting all our eggs in a youth basket it may have some negative implications - most notably:

- Our 24-28 year-olds (Davey, Bruce, Green etc) may become disgruntled that the club is working to such a long term plan and may look elsewhere to achieve premiership success

- The young players, by the club stating that they are our future, will have their managers adding an extra 50K to their contracts because we have so publicly said they are our future

- Sponsors may not want to get on board a club that is working to a 5 year plan (according to Stynes) or a 7 year plan (according to Connolly) as success is a long way away

I am not saying that we are screwed, I just have a few concerns that really should be addressed by the board.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

.....

I am not saying that we are screwed, I just have a few concerns that really should be addressed by the board.

And your alternative is given where MFC's list is at the moment?

[45HG 1,539]

I don't want the board making any on field decisions.

It's been precisely the problem in the past at the MFC, a lack of distinct boundaries, and I think it is finally being addressed.

Let the coaching staff, and footy dept., take control of the on field activities and let the board take care of their own job description, including getting a sponsor.

If the board of the Sport's oldest club can't use it's resources to do it's own job, it doesn't matter if we have a youth policy or an elderly policy, we'd be screwed either way

[Rogue 585]

by publicly stating that we are putting all our eggs in a youth basket it may have some negative implications - most notably:

- Our 24-28 year-olds (Davey, Bruce, Green etc) may become disgruntled that the club is working to such a long term plan and may look elsewhere to achieve premiership success

Those players would be aware of where the Club's at, regardless of whether it was publically stated.

The older guys won't achieve premiership success any sooner at Melbourne, regardless of the focus - if we were to attempt a quick fix, we'd create a situation where there was no potential for those players to see premiership success.

The focus on youth is the only way we'll be in the hunt for a premiership any time soon, and if 27-28 year old players do look elsewhere for success, it may be a win/win for both parties.

by publicly stating that we are putting all our eggs in a youth basket it may have some negative implications - most notably:

- The young players, by the club stating that they are our future, will have their managers adding an extra 50K to their contracts because we have so publicly said they are our future

If their managers couldn't tell that these players were our future without it being publically spruiked, they should be sacked by their clients.

Thus, I think this is a moot point.

by publicly stating that we are putting all our eggs in a youth basket it may have some negative implications - most notably:

- Sponsors may not want to get on board a club that is working to a 5 year plan (according to Stynes) or a 7 year plan (according to Connolly) as success is a long way away

Any sponsor worth their salt will investigate where a Club's at when they come on board, and on-field is one part - but not everything.

I'd suggest that Stynes' focus on youth, and references to his playing days, are an attempt to create a 'story' or 'narrative' about our current fortunes, which may help get sponsors involved.

Furthermore, there's no viable alternative, unless Stynes and CC were to blatantly lie about timeframes.

[rpfc 28,420]

What should be our policy concerning our playing list if not based on youth?

Our list, apart from our kids, is shallow and past their best.

What a pointless thread.

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

We must Focus on Youth-paramount, otherwise in about 2-3 years the bottom will fall right out, then a sponsor would definately leave. With Youth sponsors can see ahead. No more Kelvin Templeton ideas again please!!!

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

I don't want the board making any on field decisions.

It's been precisely the problem in the past at the MFC, a lack of distinct boundaries, and I think it is finally being addressed.

That's odd, I didn't notice the previous board members pushing into the circle to sing the anthem and grope the boys...

I tend to think that one of the major strengths of the last board was the emphasis placed on clear boundaries and that this is in danger of being lost.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Sorry to de-rail the thread, I just thought I might add this quote from the Letter to Members from 24th July.

"ON-FIELD – A committee of Board members will be assisting Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly to manage our football operations. This group consists of past player and Club hero, Andrew Leoncelli, along with David Thurin and Peter Szental."

45, do you still think that the separation of the off field role of the board and the on field role of the footy dept. is "is finally being addressed"? Perhaps "eroded" is a more accurate term.

[Rogue 585]

That's odd, I didn't notice the previous board members pushing into the circle to sing the anthem and grope the boys...

That's hardly decision making.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

That's hardly decision making.

I'm not sure I follow you. Did you read the next post?

[Rogue 585]

I'm not sure I follow you. Did you read the next post?

Your comment regarding Board members - presumably Stynes - getting involved with the team in the rooms post-match doesn't add substance to your suggestion that there's any more or less 'separation of powers' under the new Board. Singing the song doesn't add up to interference in football department decision-making. Hope that explains it.

Did you read the next post?

You hadn't posted it when I clicked reply. However, I'll bite...

A Director(s) involved in overseeing football operations isn't uncommon - ie. Free at Richmond, St. Kilda.

Are you suggesting there's an unusual level of interference in football operations since the new Board took over?

Do you think it's a negative to have the football department accountable to the Board?

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Your comment regarding Board members - presumably Stynes - getting involved with the team in the rooms post-match doesn't add substance to your suggestion that there's any more or less 'separation of powers' under the new Board. Singing the song doesn't add up to interference in football department decision-making.

You hadn't posted it when I clicked reply. However, I'll bite...

A Director(s) involved in overseeing football operations isn't uncommon - ie. Free at Richmond, St. Kilda.

I'm not saying that it is uncommon for board members to involve themselves (inappropriately or otherwise) in football operations.

Nor am I saying that when Jim and other new board members encroach upon the players circle to vicariously soak up their hard fought limelight, they are "making decisions." But, pushing into that circle where they have no business being, seems indicative to me of an erosion between on and off-field delineation.

What I AM saying is that, contrary to 45's assertion, the "separation of powers" as you put it was very well maintained under the previous board and that it is preposterous to suggest that it is only now being addressed when, in fact, all signs point to the very opposite. Whether or not you think that board members should be involved with the decisions of the football dept., surely you can't pretend that the specific appointment of board members for this function doesn't repesent an increase in this sort of (in my view, inappropriate) meddling.

But, you know, hail Jim and everything...

[Rogue 585]

I'm not saying that it is uncommon for board members to involve themselves (inappropriately or otherwise) in football operations.

Nor am I saying that when Jim and other new board members encroach upon the players circle to vicariously soak up their hard fought limelight, they are "making decisions." But, pushing into that circle where they have no business being, seems indicative to me of an erosion between on and off-field delineation.

What I AM saying is that, contrary to 45's assertion, the "separation of powers" as you put it was very well maintained under the previous board and that it is preposterous to suggest that it is only now being addressed when, in fact, all signs point to the very opposite. Whether or not you think that board members should be involved with the decisions of the football dept., surely you can't pretend that the specific appointment of board members for this function doesn't repesent an increase in this sort of (in my view, inappropriate) meddling.

But, you know, hail Jim and everything...

Fair enough - you might be right when you say that 45 has got it wrong with regards the new Board's involvement in 'football matters'.

My initial post was simply replying to your assertion regarding the new Board's involvement in the footy department, which was backed up by involvement in post-match celebrations (at least, in the post I replied to ).

I don't know enough about it to have any sort of firm view with regards making a comparison between the previous and new Board when it comes to involvement (interference?) in on-field matters.

Is the revelation in the Members Update that Leoncelli and other directors are to form part of a subcommittee that is to oversee football operations an unusual one for the Melbourne Football Club?

Since you're suggesting that the new Board is much more involved in the football side of things, how did the previous Board's modus operandi differ when it came to the on-field activities?

[deanox 9,915]

...

would you have preferred we kept ward, and bizzel, and godfrey, and nicho and then play holland and yze every week? we could have also traded all our picks to try and get players from opposition. well we were never going to get judd, but we could've traded pick 4 to get someone. and maybe this year we could trade pick one for brown. is that what you want us to do?

we might be more competetive, but we'd be going backwards fast. and thats the only on-field alternative.

[e25 5]

Yeah, i reckon we should forget this 'youth policy' and follow St Kilda's lead and draft old rejects from other clubs... cos its worked so well for them

[H_T 3,047]

would you have preferred we kept ward, and bizzell, and godfrey, and nicho and then play holland and yze every week?

Imagine what state we'd be in if we did that...now that would be going down the gurgler....

we might be more competetive, but we'd be going backwards fast. and thats the only on-field alternative.

Not even sure we'd be more competitive on-field, let alone off-field.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Fair enough - you might be right when you say that 45 has got it wrong with regards the new Board's involvement in 'football matters'.

My initial post was simply replying to your assertion regarding the new Board's involvement in the footy department, which was backed up by involvement in post-match celebrations (at least, in the post I replied to ).

I don't know enough about it to have any sort of firm view with regards making a comparison between the previous and new Board when it comes to involvement (interference?) in on-field matters.

Is the revelation in the Members Update that Leoncelli and other directors are to form part of a subcommittee that is to oversee football operations an unusual one for the Melbourne Football Club?

Since you're suggesting that the new Board is much more involved in the football side of things, how did the previous Board's modus operandi differ when it came to the on-field activities?

Once again, I'm sorry to go off-topic. I would suggest that further discussion on these matters should be conducted in a new thread. Having said that...

The last board did indeed set up a Football Strategy Review Group. This consisted of board representatives (Gardner, Phillips, Coglin and eventually Leoncelli who was invited to attend by the board), Management (CEO and General Manager (Footy Operations)) and Footy Dept senior staff (Senior Coach, assistant coaches, recruitment/list manager). This group met 2-3 times a year and these meetings took the form of presentations by the footy guys followed by a period in which their presentation was questioned, challenged and debated. So for example, if they said they were interested in drafting Pickett they would be interrogated on the reasons, cost etc and how this fitted with strategy but at the end of the day it was their call. The board did not view it as their job to tell the footy dept how to go about their business - but to instead determine if their buisness was delivering results. If it was found that they were not then the consequences were straightforward as Ray Ellis, Steve Harris (off field) and Neale Daniher could all tell you.

So is the Jim model significantly different form this? I'm not sure. But the line that "A committee of Board members will be assisting Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly to manage our football operations" suggests to me that the board is likely to play a more instrumental rather than observational role. My worry is that this could all too easily degenerate into a kind of Pre-Clarkson Dermott Brereton fiasco where Jim and friends can get away with interfereing with Bailey's plans beacause, well, he used to play for us. To show how easily this might happen, ask yourself what your view would be of some middle-aged businessman who you've never heard of squeezing his way into the players circle after the match to give sweaty-palmed back slaps and arse gropes to players who have earned the right to be there by playing their guts out for the last couple of hours. Then ask yourself why you think it's appropriate for a middle-aged businessman named Jim Stynes to be there. The last board never took those kinds of liberties and never abused their position to interfere with the football department (except to replace them when they didn't perform) and it is to their great credit.

Cheers.

P.S. For the record Regarding the intial youth poilicy post:

"Our 24-28 year-olds (Davey, Bruce, Green etc) may become disgruntled that the club is working to such a long term plan and may look elsewhere to achieve premiership success"

1. That doesn't bother me as long as we get something for them. If I had to pick one of those to stay it would be Green. I actually hope that Bruce gets traded at the end of the year. Also, 24-5 year olds are still a chance to play in a Grand Final in my opinion.

"The young players, by the club stating that they are our future, will have their managers adding an extra 50K to their contracts because we have so publicly said they are our future"

2. Well, we have to spend the %92.5 on something. Better them than Yze, White, etc.

"Sponsors may not want to get on board a club that is working to a 5 year plan (according to Stynes) or a 7 year plan (according to Connolly) as success is a long way away"

3. Sponsors aren't going to want to get on board the club if things stay the same.

[Rogue 585]

Thanks for the info on the Football Strategy Review Group.

Fwiw, I recall hearing some players sounding genuinely excited to hear Stynes around. I've also read the new Board say they won't be interfering with what DB and CC are doing. That said, I guess both could be taken with a grain of salt.

Your concerns could be on the mark, but I think you might be reading too much into Members Update and Stynes changeroom appearance. It doesn't seem uncommon for Presidents to pop up in the changerooms post-match - from memory, I think I've seen Smorgan or another Pres taken into the huddle when singing the song.

On the previouis administration, although the previous Football Strategy Review Group may not have made any calls when it came to football, their appointee was trying to nab us a marquee player, something DB's asserted was not what he wanted...

NB: I do think that it's important not to get blinded by Stynes the Brownlow Star when it comes to the new Board, which is a theme of your posts.

[Adzman 2,154]

Youth Movement= We are going to lose lots of games.

5 year plan= Our list is "not yet" ripe enough to compete at the top level.

7 year plan= Start following the Melbourne Storm, as we are not going anywhere fast!

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Thanks for the info on the Football Strategy Review Group.

Fwiw, I recall hearing some players sounding genuinely excited to hear Stynes around. I've also read the new Board say they won't be interfering with what DB and CC are doing. That said, I guess both could be taken with a grain of salt.

Your concerns could be on the mark, but I think you might be reading too much into Members Update and Stynes changeroom appearance. It doesn't seem uncommon for Presidents to pop up in the changerooms post-match - from memory, I think I've seen Smorgan or another Pres taken into the huddle when singing the song.

On the previouis administration, although the previous Football Strategy Review Group may not have made any calls when it came to football, their appointee was trying to nab us a marquee player, something DB's asserted was not what he wanted...

NB: I do think that it's important not to get blinded by Stynes the Brownlow Star when it comes to the new Board, which is a theme of your posts.

Consider it taken with a large amount of salt then. (I would be interested to read that stuff about the new board not interfering by the way. Do you have a link or something? I live in terror that Dean Bailey isn't going to be allowed free reign to get on with it.)

Once again, just because something isn't uncommon doesn't mean it's good. I remeber Dermott Brereton getting in the huddle - does that make it better or does it present an alarming precedent where a board member is allowed to overstep their boundaries and implement an inappropriate corporate governance model with no accountability (or worse - accountability to oneself)?

The previous administrations appointee (PMac) only spent around two months under that administration. It is impossible to predict how that situation would have been resolved but I can only assume that any such resolutiion would have taken all expert views into account and involved an amicable compromise as this was the precedent set by the board in question. I'm not even sure that the J. Brown plan was definitively announced during their tenure anyway, and I certainly don't think the handling of P Mac and the CEO postion reflects well on the subsequent board in any case...

...but all this is a discussion for another thread I guess.

I'm glad that you agree with me that Stynes is just another human after all.

[Rogue 585]

Consider it taken with a large amount of salt then. (I would be interested to read that stuff about the new board not interfering by the way. Do you have a link or something? I live in terror that Dean Bailey isn't going to be allowed free reign to get on with it.)

If I find one I'll post it up/PM you, but I'm not inclined to go hunting atm.

I'm not in terror over the issue, but we both want DB and the other footy department staff to be able to get on with the job.

Once again, just because something isn't uncommon doesn't mean it's good.

For sure.