Do you believe that McNamee lined up a sponsor that he had essentially a guarantee to come on board, and wouldn't tell Stynes and the board about it?

Its a fair question and you are also right to raise the issue of McNamee's competing interests. And I can only wonder the motives of McNamee in saying this now particularly in the absence of formal proof of communication to either Stynes or the Board regardless of the relationship. If it was a sour relationship for a short time, all the more reason to have matters in writing.

And I am surprised some are jumping to McNamee' defence so quickly when they have complained repeatedly about all the continual bad press and its impact on potential sponsors.

It's just a little bizzare to me that after all this time he's suddenly come out with this.

Seems a little convenient too that he's claiming to have found a sponsor on his holiday, to which he coped a lot of flak for at the time and brought his reputation into question. Surely if he had found a sponsor it'd have probably saved his job anyway

Certainly not what we as a club need right now.

Perhaps Telstra or Bigpond as a sponsor I mean they do broadcast over the internet how involved in football they are so why not jump on as a sponsor they run half the afl.com.au website so they obviously have cash and being bigpond our logo will be on every single persons computer as they log onto internet provided they are with bigpond. it is worth a go IMO. feel free to throw [censored] at me haha its only an idea.

It's just a little bizzare to me that after all this time he's suddenly come out with this.

Seems a little convenient too that he's claiming to have found a sponsor on his holiday, to which he coped a lot of flak for at the time and brought his reputation into question. Surely if he had found a sponsor it'd have probably saved his job anyway

Certainly not what we as a club need right now.

Well we have an AGM on and we are struggling to get a sponsor.......

Do you believe that McNamee lined up a sponsor that he had essentially a guarantee to come on board, and wouldn't tell Stynes and the board about it?

In a normal working environment, you'd expect the CEO to report to the board on impending sponsorships. But this wasn't a normal working environment. The relationship between McNamee and Stynes was strained from day 1, and we are talking about a short period of time here, so it's conceivable that he was working independent of the board, in the knowledge that he was under the gun.

And if he was under the gun and had guarantees on two potential sponsors, he would then tell the board so as to no longer be "under the gun" wouldn't he?

In a normal working environment, you'd expect the CEO to report to the board on impending sponsorships. But this wasn't a normal working environment. The relationship between McNamee and Stynes was strained from day 1, and we are talking about a short period of time here, so it's conceivable that he was working independent of the board, in the knowledge that he was under the gun.

Really ? Do you remember the flak that McNamee got in the press at the time of his trip ? Do you remember the interviews he had to endure when he arrived back from Wimbledon ? If this sojourn was as triumphant as he's now making out, or even progressed to the level of 'significant discussions', don't you think he would have been at pains to relay the good news to not only his employer, but to the wider football community ?

In a normal working environment, you'd expect the CEO to report to the board on impending sponsorships. But this wasn't a normal working environment. The relationship between McNamee and Stynes was strained from day 1, and we are talking about a short period of time here, so it's conceivable that he was working independent of the board, in the knowledge that he was under the gun.

If McNamee was working independently of the Board including Stynes it only justifies the removal of McNamee from his CEO role as soon as possible. Its completely dysfunctional corporate behaviour that was going to lead to disaster or bring to a head the CEO's role. McNamee could not be that naive not to have realised that and understood th3 implications of his actions then and the scuttlebutt he is entering now.

Its already on the record that McNamee went courting Jonathan Brown without the knowledge or approval of the MFC Footy department which in itself is disturbing.

And I agree with Hannibal's questions. McNamee needed to justify his trip to Wimbledon and the time taken off on the way home. His credibility was at stake then. He could and should have disclosed the sponsorship matter then to the Board and broadly.

Unfortunately, the concerns with Wimbledon like absences by McNamee were not isolated.

Is there any chance that the age could up their cponsorship from our shorts to our jumpers i mean it will help them in the newspaper war with the herald sun.

Is there any chance that the age could up their cponsorship from our shorts to our jumpers i mean it will help them in the newspaper war with the herald sun.

No. They have just recently sacked their CEO, Lead Editor and a number of journalists and are looking financial weak.

We will struggle to maintain the existing sponsorship on expiry.

Really ? Do you remember the flak that McNamee got in the press at the time of his trip ? Do you remember the interviews he had to endure when he arrived back from Wimbledon ? If this sojourn was as triumphant as he's now making out, or even progressed to the level of 'significant discussions', don't you think he would have been at pains to relay the good news to not only his employer, but to the wider football community ?

True, but how many "significant discussions with potential sponsors" have we heard lately that have eventuated to nothing? Maybe McNamee waiting for the deal to be signed before any fanfare.

I admit that's it's not the norm for the CEO to withhold sponsorship discussions from the board, but McNamee probably realised that he was unwanted by the Stynes board regardless of any sponsorship deals he could wrangle.

You joined this forum the day of our 150th birthday dinner at Crown. Your first post was on the 'Jim Stynes President' thread the same day last June. Your second post was flowery in its congratulations of Paul Gardner and his team during the handover, your subsequent 90% posts are derisive of the present Board and in particular Stynes. You clearly have been associated with the club and its previous administration. You're an agitator with an axe to grind ably supported by your minion Hazy. Your head only popped up when it became clear that Stynes was in the throws of a takeover. Of course this could all be coincidental, as your minion would have us believe. Yeah, right.

Everything you post of a political nature should be read with the above understanding. That of course isn't to say that some of what you write isn't without foundation or reasonable basis, but it is to say that balance will, and often does, escape you.

Stynes has been in your gun since your first post. Only a fool thinks that they're debating a like minded, anonymous, and even handed supporter that forms independent views from a distance.

Thanks for the free character analysis - I'll take it on board and it means a lot to me.

Actually my first post was in a thread titled "President Stynes". I have searched the site and can find no thread called "Jim Stynes President". My first words in the first thread were: "The suspense is killing me. Gardner has done a so so job but everyone reaches a use-by date and now it's time for Big Jimma to come on down".

My interest as a poster is in the accountability of the Club's administration. I know that this goes against the prevailing starstruck romance surrounding Brand Stynes. I don't expect too many people to see it my way. There was once a point in Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes" where only a single person in the crowd (a kid) was prepared to say "But he has nothing on". The balance you rightly call for is achieved by weighing up the views of the majority ("I have every faith in Stynes and his associates" - see above) with those like me prepared to offer comment on the cut of Stynes' new clothes. Would you prefer not to hear this?

And BTW regarding your "only a fool" comment:

- there's not a lot of point or interest in debating someone likeminded

- we are all anonymous, aren't we?

- I will take a position - that does not mean that I am not evenhanded. I will also give credit where credit is due, particularly if someone else has yet to do so.

This whole McNamee thing puzzles me. On the one hand, I can't believe that McNamee had those sposors lined up as he claims he did. If he did, why didn't he use that as a bargaining tool to keep his job? I also thought I read somewhere that Primus wasn't interested in renewing their sponsorship.

On the other hand, what does McNamee have to gain by lying openly about sponsorship deals he never made? I can't see why McNamee would say this if it wasn't true.

So I'm confused.

This whole McNamee thing puzzles me. On the one hand, I can't believe that McNamee had those sposors lined up as he claims he did. If he did, why didn't he use that as a bargaining tool to keep his job? I also thought I read somewhere that Primus wasn't interested in renewing their sponsorship.

On the other hand, what does McNamee have to gain by lying openly about sponsorship deals he never made? I can't see why McNamee would say this if it wasn't true.

So I'm confused.

He's bitter at the way he lost his job, it made him look incompetent.

That's his motivation for doing it whether its true or not. And if that's his motivation it makes it easy to believe he made it up.

I think its that simple.

True, but how many "significant discussions with potential sponsors" have we heard lately that have eventuated to nothing? Maybe McNamee waiting for the deal to be signed before any fanfare.

I admit that's it's not the norm for the CEO to withhold sponsorship discussions from the board, but McNamee probably realised that he was unwanted by the Stynes board regardless of any sponsorship deals he could wrangle.

So if he thought he was unwanted then why would he conceivably contractually commit the Club to a major financial agreement that the Board has no prior knowledge of?

Further given Stynes made it patently clear to McNamee who was in control how could he have logically justified going off independently of the Board to act. Talk about a CEO signing a death warrant. Smacks of incompetence and a breach of a fundemental tenet of being a CEO. No one could be that naive. Its no wonder the Board had considered getting McNamee a mentor. If that indeed is the turn of events then any Board would have been wise to cut him at the first instance

Its bizarre why you would come to McNamee's defence and try oddly to substantiate what purports to be clearly inexplicable and unacceptable behaviour then by the CEO and vindictive sour grapes now. Especially given the farcical blowtorch campaign you have tried to wage (and been exposed for) in regard Bailey from the day he walked in the door.

In my biased opinion this was done;

- In spite, to destabilise the AGM.

- To muddy the waters re his capabilities or lack thereof.

Poor form. Put up or shut up PMac.

I admit that's it's not the norm for the CEO to withhold sponsorship discussions from the board

You could say that again.

On the other hand, what does McNamee have to gain by lying openly about sponsorship deals he never made? I can't see why McNamee would say this if it wasn't true.

PM's reputation was harmed by his sacking, and he copped much flak for going to Wimbledon.

Indicating that he had a sponsor lined up, he worked on it while at Wimbledon, and that the sponsor bailed because Stynes and co. sacked him, he addresses those points - and inflicts some harm on those who made him walk the plank.

I'm not asserting that this is his motivation, but I can understand how someone might feel there was something to gain.

Ofc, lying about any potential sponsorship deals isn't smart, but who can verify or disprove his story?

Ofc, lying about any potential sponsorship deals isn't smart, but who can verify or disprove his story?

Make him come out and say who they were so we can verify it and if he is lying shame him for being a [censored] trying to bring down a rebuilding club

Its bizarre why you would come to McNamee's defence and try oddly to substantiate what purports to be clearly inexplicable and unacceptable behaviour then by the CEO and vindictive sour grapes now. Especially given the farcical blowtorch campaign you have tried to wage (and been exposed for) in regard Bailey from the day he walked in the door.

How can McNamee's comments be construed as "vindictive sour grapes" when you have no facts to disprove them?

And I've come to the defence of McNamee because I believe that his sense of immediacy and urgency of our on-field situation was the right way to go.

Whilst I've been supportive of Stynes, and believe that he was one of the few people capable of driving the Debt Demolition Fund, his views on how we should progress on-field are contributing to our off-field woes.

Actually my first post was in a thread titled "President Stynes". I have searched the site and can find no thread called "Jim Stynes President".

My interest as a poster is in the accountability of the Club's administration. I know that this goes against the prevailing starstruck romance surrounding Brand Stynes. I don't expect too many people to see it my way.

And BTW regarding your "only a fool" comment:

- we are all anonymous, aren't we?

I knew that the title of the thread was not exactly as I quoted, but when in the act of quoting one does not need to quote verbatim, or transcribe, as long as the substance is clear and identifiable. But surely you'd know this despite your pedantic attempts ?

Where was this interest in accountability you refer to prior to Stynes administration ? You only joined when it became apparent there was to be a changing of the guard and you've had itchy fingers from the moment it was announced McNamee was being sacked. You've basked in the lack of sponsorship options, as well as the adverse publicity created by McNamee's demise, under the pretext of asking pertinent questions and keeping the current Board "accountable".

As for anonymity ? I'm not anonymous to a couple of present employees of the MFC as well as some past Board members. Many posters/supporters on here know my true identity. Still, I won't shy away from candid views. But I don't have an axe to grind.

Your constant reference to supporters being starstruck by Stynes is tiresome, not to mention belittling and condescending. Stynes sold me insurance at my home in the late 80's and I thought he was a great bloke. In a handful of subsequent casual meetings since I've changed my opinion, but he has my full support during a difficult time of the MFC. I'm hardly in awe of him. And I'm sure you'll say he has your support too as you're only interested in the best for the MFC, but your constant carping and eagerness to deride suggests there's more than meets the eye despite your predicted protestations.

Imo you've had an agenda from day one. But you can set me straight. Have you been a former Director or closely associated with a former Director of the MFC ?

Ofc, lying about any potential sponsorship deals isn't smart, but who can verify or disprove his story?

I'd like to see Primus come out and state whether or not they did talk with McNamee and whether or not what he has said about them is true. I would be quite surprised to hear them say that they were close to signing but bailed because McNamee was sacked.

How can McNamee's comments be construed as "vindictive sour grapes" when you have no facts to disprove them?

Whether what he says is true or not is not the point. Bringing it all up at this time is most definately sour grapes.

And I've come to the defence of McNamee because I believe that his sense of immediacy and urgency of our on-field situation was the right way to go.

We couldn't afford JBrown, he would never in a million years come to us, He wouldn't of lasted the contact, we've just recruited some of the best youngsters in the country. What other lasting way to we have to go besides the one we have chosen. Are you telling us that the current footy dept. aren't well aware of the urgency. Maybe you should go and talk to Bailey and Connolly and then see how you feel.

Whilst I've been supportive of Stynes, and believe that he was one of the few people capable of driving the Debt Demolition Fund, his views on how we should progress on-field are contributing to our off-field woes.

The truth hurts.

Where was this interest in accountability you refer to prior to Stynes administration ?

It was never otherwise.

You've basked in the lack of sponsorship options, as well as the adverse publicity created by McNamee's demise

Bask? You're kidding me, right? I am distressed to watch Stynes lead this great Club headlong into the valley of tears to the cheers of leghumpers like you who think that he is the man for the moment because he did a good job selling you insurance in the 80's or because he was Brownlow medallist with a great story to tell.

Your constant reference to supporters being starstruck by Stynes is tiresome

Sorry to bore you. Solution - don't read my posts.

Have you been a former Director or closely associated with a former Director of the MFC ?

No. Have you ever crossed the Alps with elephants? But it's not about us, is it?

How can McNamee's comments be construed as "vindictive sour grapes" when you have no facts to disprove them?

What constructive purpose is McNamee's comments in the absence of irrefutable evidence of such and isnt the timing wonderful with our AGM and recent gazumpings on sponsors? Its that easy

And I've come to the defence of McNamee because I believe that his sense of immediacy and urgency of our on-field situation was the right way to go.

What and the current Board does not have sense of the immediacy and urgency of the on field position?? And aside from the Brown debacle, what was McNamee's plan are you saying was the right way to go? What was his plan Mo? He did not seem to articulate it anyone within MFC. A smarter person would have recognised the folly of McNamee's behaviour and actions regardless of the intent.

Whilst I've been supportive of Stynes, and believe that he was one of the few people capable of driving the Debt Demolition Fund, his views on how we should progress on-field are contributing to our off-field woes.

What crap. How do we progress on the field given the list we have to ensure enduring success Mo? You have articulated nothing of any substance on this but have mindless parroted on about how we cant afford to lose games. No kidding Einstein! Stynes comments on the situation of the Club on field is something blind Freddy could see. Its been played out in graphic colour for all to see for the past two years. His comments have nothing to do with contributing to our off field woes. Those problems were already there and inherited. Its up to Stynes and his cohorts to move forward with a solution particularly in these difficult financial times.

Roost It comments are spot on as well.

I am not surprised in a way you do defend McNamee actions. There's a common bond.

I like the idea of what primus have to say. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of this, I'm sure there would be media all over this...

I the interim I wonder if any such sponsership was conditional of landing brown which would have been unlikely. He was always going to finish his career in brisabane. So if this is the case PM comments are strange, I wonder what hidden agenda there is here, (AGM???) Might make for an interesting night?