Influence at board level

[Guest fitness]

Reading Caroline Wilson's article today (Dees divided: Lyon called in), one thing toward the end of the article seemed to explain a lot:

Lyon continues to deny that he intervened and Stynes and McLardy supported Schwab at Sunday night's board meeting, then director Guy Jalland sided with the beleaguered CEO and he was saved. Then Connolly was reaffirmed by Stynes as football boss

In my opinion, Jimmy clearly looked like a man at his press conference who had delivered a board decision (i.e. sacking Bailey) he did not entirely agree with. The above statement might reveal whose voices on the board are, let's say, the most influential.

After the weekend's loss, of course Bailey's position would be under threat. And I acknowledge that if the decision has been reached to part ways with the coach, then better to do it sooner rather than later in order to maximise the time available to find the next coach.

My issue is the board making the decision within 24 hours of the Geelong game. The way I see it, board members are just people, like you and me. They are passionate Melbourne supporters, who are on the board because they want to contribute to the club and who often have clout in the business world. They have been sensational the last few years with the way they've rebuilt the club. But with any board making a group decision, no doubt some voices and opinions would be more persuasive than others.

In this instance, I think they made a decision which on the surface looks reactionary and makes our club look extremely amateurish. Surely - SURELY - after a game like that, you give yourselves a few days to let the dust settle, the emotion subside, so that you can then convene and make a more rational and objective decision. They may well have still arrived at the same conclusion. But at least we, the supporters - who elect the board to make these decisions in the best interests of the club - would have more confidence in their decision-making process.

As for the Schwab/Connolly affair, it appears to be the timing of Schwab's contract decision, coinciding with the Geelong game, that have confusingly mixed up the two issues. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and again smacks of amateur hour. I just hope the board know what they're doing, presuming all the journos are correct and that the board did indeed do a backflip. The sacking of Bailey within 24 hours, however, has dented my confidence in their decision making ability.

[H_T 3,049]

I didn't know where to put this and rather start another thread on the Board, I will just add it here: -

Earlier in the year after the Andrew's Report came out and it was expressed that there was a void since Leoncelli stepped down, Jimmy filled the position to report back to the board after obvious problems b/w CS and CC. I said at the time the sooner the board filled that position the better. Unfortunately, it's been left to fester and one thing has led to another. It should have been sorted in an appropriate manner IMO. They had since 13th December 2010 to address this. Unacceptable.

Agree. Although I'm a little perplexed that it's taken so long to fill the void since Leoncelli stepped down. They may have thought they could save in the meantime by job sharing with CS and CC.

Also agree re: McLardy and the role if it falls to him.

Nevertheless, the media are circling. Thankfully it's Jimmy to the rescue. But the sooner they find the right person, the better it is for Jimmy as President.

Bailey and the players for that matter are on notice. Important time at the club. We need cool heads to prevail and the right decisions need to be considered, both on and off the field.

Stynes step in thread

Leoncelli steps down - 13th Dec 2010.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

By the looks of things, the most influential Board member isn't even a Board member, it's Garry Lyon.

As for you HT, it is no secret that you are a serial apologist for the Stynes Board. but you are not alone. Here are some more gems from that thread:

This very much the Stynes crew now stamping their brand over the dept.. Heres a bloke who never laid down..didnt even know what giving in meant/means esp on the footy field. Going to rather interesting from here on in.

Cant help but get the feeling this is only the begining of change

'S funny but if it was anyone else I'd see it as a power tussle but with Jim I see it as a firm hand being applied to the tiller.

I hope I'm right.

We have a very special man at the Helm of this club....remember he played 244 in a row.....in a F@#$in' row. I cannot even begin to imagine that!!

Anyone who has ever had anything to do with Stynes, who is a very hands on person, would bet that this is more a Stynes initiative than a Board initiative. No doubt it's been ratified by the Board, but equally I have no doubt that Stynes has CLEAR concerns about the coach and FD, otherwise he wouldn't take this approach.

He obviously is more concerned than the well-meaning Bailey apologists that post here. Thank God for Jimmy.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing.

Finally, here is one from the thinking minority:

Given MFC have:

1. A coach in his final year of contract with question marks about his future and the Board not having a Board director reporting on football operations.

2. A CEO that would seem to have some questions about aspects of the FD.

3. A comprehensive external study of the Club and its football needs that highlights the need for a Football Director.

Why has the Board been so slow to have replaced Andrew Leoncelli who had resigned from this critical role presumably prior to his announcement at the AGM? This announcment while welcome is a knee jerk reaction by Board that has seemingly been asleep at the wheel.

[Hip & Shoulder 64]

Reading Caroline Wilson's article today (Dees divided: Lyon called in), one thing toward the end of the article seemed to explain a lot:

Lyon continues to deny that he intervened and Stynes and McLardy supported Schwab at Sunday night's board meeting, then director Guy Jalland sided with the beleaguered CEO and he was saved. Then Connolly was reaffirmed by Stynes as football boss

In my opinion, Jimmy clearly looked like a man at his press conference who had delivered a board decision (i.e. sacking Bailey) he did not entirely agree with. The above statement might reveal whose voices on the board are, let's say, the most influential.

After the weekend's loss, of course Bailey's position would be under threat. And I acknowledge that if the decision has been reached to part ways with the coach, then better to do it sooner rather than later in order to maximise the time available to find the next coach.

My issue is the board making the decision within 24 hours of the Geelong game. The way I see it, board members are just people, like you and me. They are passionate Melbourne supporters, who are on the board because they want to contribute to the club and who often have clout in the business world. They have been sensational the last few years with the way they've rebuilt the club. But with any board making a group decision, no doubt some voices and opinions would be more persuasive than others.

In this instance, I think they made a decision which on the surface looks reactionary and makes our club look extremely amateurish. Surely - SURELY - after a game like that, you give yourselves a few days to let the dust settle, the emotion subside, so that you can then convene and make a more rational and objective decision. They may well have still arrived at the same conclusion. But at least we, the supporters - who elect the board to make these decisions in the best interests of the club - would have more confidence in their decision-making process.

As for the Schwab/Connolly affair, it appears to be the timing of Schwab's contract decision, coinciding with the Geelong game, that have confusingly mixed up the two issues. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and again smacks of amateur hour. I just hope the board know what they're doing, presuming all the journos are correct and that the board did indeed do a backflip. The sacking of Bailey within 24 hours, however, has dented my confidence in their decision making ability.

"Lyon continues to deny that he intervened...". So, is she calling Garry a liar? Just like all the journos who've been putting the pressure on Tom Scully all year saying that he's definitely going to GWS, he's 98% signed, blah, blah, blah... Is everyone so blinkered that they believe everything they read in newspapers?

[dee-luded 2,959]

After the weekend's loss, of course Bailey's position would be under threat. And I acknowledge that if the decision has been reached to part ways with the coach, then better to do it sooner rather than later in order to maximise the time available to find the next coach.

My issue is the board making the decision within 24 hours of the Geelong game. The way I see it, board members are just people, like you and me. They are passionate Melbourne supporters, who are on the board because they want to contribute to the club and who often have clout in the business world. They have been sensational the last few years with the way they've rebuilt the club. But with any board making a group decision, no doubt some voices and opinions would be more persuasive than others.

In this instance, I think they made a decision which on the surface looks reactionary and makes our club look extremely amateurish. Surely - SURELY - after a game like that, you give yourselves a few days to let the dust settle, the emotion subside, so that you can then convene and make a more rational and objective decision. They may well have still arrived at the same conclusion. But at least we, the supporters - who elect the board to make these decisions in the best interests of the club - would have more confidence in their decision-making process.

As for the Schwab/Connolly affair, it appears to be the timing of Schwab's contract decision, coinciding with the Geelong game, that have confusingly mixed up the two issues. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and again smacks of amateur hour. I just hope the board know what they're doing, presuming all the journos are correct and that the board did indeed do a backflip. The sacking of Bailey within 24 hours, however, has dented my confidence in their decision making ability.

Just a suggestion to whom it may concern >

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztz28iWzC-E

[H_T 3,049]

By the looks of things, the most influential Board member isn't even a Board member, it's Garry Lyon.

As for you HT, it is no secret that you are a serial apologist for the Stynes Board. but you are not alone. Here are some more gems from that thread:

I think you've conveniently ignored my critical post, as well as the post from the link provided back in May, Hazy.

But by all means, interpret them any way you want.