The Andrews Report

[45HG 1,539]

I've asked this question a number of times, most recently in the Don Argus thread, and wanted to post it here to see if I can get an actual response.

Can someone please explain exactly how everyone knows it was shelved?

If people don't know exactly what was in it, how can they be so sure that none of the recommendations have been undertaken? Or is it easier to assume the MFC are useless in all departments.

As far as I've seen it's basically been stated by Caro that the report had been shelved and that's been taken as gospel ever since.

This is an honest question, as I have no inside info or anything like that I don't know if it has or hasn't, but I'm also sceptical as to why it is so widely claimed if so few people have read it.

[Watt and Howe? 16]

good post, i would also like to know the answer

[jnrmac 20,060]

I don't know but can guess as I have had some experience with these things. They say in politics you never have a Royal COmission unless you know the outcome so I surmise that Schwab ordered the report at a cost of $80k and then didn't like what was in it.

There would have been explosive comments and conclusions about the management of the club and possibly even about the leadership of the players (ie players criticising players). As such it would have been deemed too toxic to release but hopefully the Board has it and is acting on it as they are OUR representatives.

It doesn't benefit the club overall to release such toxic things but it will come out over time as footy clubs leak like sieves. That's why journos always have the inside goss. SOmeone will want to turn the heat up on someone else. Sometimes even just to deflect heat from themselves. Standard office politics.

It would be nice to think we are all Melbourne and fighting for the same cause but life isn't like that. And not everyone in the office barracks for Melbourne.

[Guest Gareth Keenan]

You won't get an answer...

[Hip & Shoulder 64]

I don't know but can guess as I have had some experience with these things. They say in politics you never have a Royal COmission unless you know the outcome so I surmise that Schwab ordered the report at a cost of $80k and then didn't like what was in it.

There would have been explosive comments and conclusions about the management of the club and possibly even about the leadership of the players (ie players criticising players). As such it would have been deemed too toxic to release but hopefully the Board has it and is acting on it as they are OUR representatives.

It doesn't benefit the club overall to release such toxic things but it will come out over time as footy clubs leak like sieves. That's why journos always have the inside goss. SOmeone will want to turn the heat up on someone else. Sometimes even just to deflect heat from themselves. Standard office politics.

It would be nice to think we are all Melbourne and fighting for the same cause but life isn't like that. And not everyone in the office barracks for Melbourne.

I quote: "I don't know but can GUESS..." How do you know it's full of explosive commments? Have you seen the report? Have you read the report? Again, it's pure speculation on your part. And as far as 'Caro' is concerned, don't take everything you read as gospel. The only people who know what's in the report are the people who put it together and the people who've read it. And you're only guessing!

I'm sick of negative posts about the MFC based purely on guesswork! You're damaging the club even more by feeding on the media drivel that's written about the club that I've supported all my life and put 4 years of my working life into, and along with all the staff at the time, for long, demanding hours and not much money.

[Jordie_tackles 354]

I quote: "I don't know but can GUESS..." How do you know it's full of explosive commments? Have you seen the report? Have you read the report? Again, it's pure speculation on your part. And as far as 'Caro' is concerned, don't take everything you read as gospel. The only people who know what's in the report are the people who put it together and the people who've read it. And you're only guessing!

I'm sick of negative posts about the MFC based purely on guesswork! You're damaging the club even more by feeding on the media drivel that's written about the club that I've supported all my life and put 4 years of my working life into, and along with all the staff at the time, for long, demanding hours and not much money.

I think he said as you read "he would guess" or assume so

Life isnt peachy, everything at the MFC isnt peachy so why would he assume so?

The report wasnt ordered to pat everyone on the back, i would assume it was to focus on weaknesses or shortcomings within the organisation,

pretty obvious imo

[daisycutter 29,613]

I don't know but can guess as I have had some experience with these things. They say in politics you never have a Royal COmission unless you know the outcome so I surmise that Schwab ordered the report at a cost of $80k and then didn't like what was in it.

There would have been explosive comments and conclusions about the management of the club and possibly even about the leadership of the players (ie players criticising players). As such it would have been deemed too toxic to release but hopefully the Board has it and is acting on it as they are OUR representatives.

It doesn't benefit the club overall to release such toxic things but it will come out over time as footy clubs leak like sieves. That's why journos always have the inside goss. SOmeone will want to turn the heat up on someone else. Sometimes even just to deflect heat from themselves. Standard office politics.

It would be nice to think we are all Melbourne and fighting for the same cause but life isn't like that. And not everyone in the office barracks for Melbourne.

I take it from all those ramblings that you have NFI

Why bother answering a post when you have no answers and you just repeat conjecture thats already been aired?

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

I don't know but can guess as I have had some experience with these things. They say in politics you never have a Royal COmission unless you know the outcome so I surmise that Schwab ordered the report at a cost of $80k and then didn't like what was in it.

There would have been explosive comments and conclusions about the management of the club and possibly even about the leadership of the players (ie players criticising players). As such it would have been deemed too toxic to release but hopefully the Board has it and is acting on it as they are OUR representatives.

It doesn't benefit the club overall to release such toxic things but it will come out over time as footy clubs leak like sieves. That's why journos always have the inside goss. SOmeone will want to turn the heat up on someone else. Sometimes even just to deflect heat from themselves. Standard office politics.

It would be nice to think we are all Melbourne and fighting for the same cause but life isn't like that. And not everyone in the office barracks for Melbourne.

You have made a lot of unfounded claims here Jnr...that is about it.

[Guest Gareth Keenan]

Standard fare, considering the source.

[Freddy Fuschia 741]

What if the members demanded that the report be put on the club's website.

[Guest Gareth Keenan]

What if the members demanded that the report be put on the club's website.

Surely you're joking??!

No report like that, at any club, would ever ever be made public.

FFS.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I've asked this question a number of times, most recently in the Don Argus thread, and wanted to post it here to see if I can get an actual response.

Can someone please explain exactly how everyone knows it was shelved?

If people don't know exactly what was in it, how can they be so sure that none of the recommendations have been undertaken? Or is it easier to assume the MFC are useless in all departments.

As far as I've seen it's basically been stated by Caro that the report had been shelved and that's been taken as gospel ever since.

This is an honest question, as I have no inside info or anything like that I don't know if it has or hasn't, but I'm also sceptical as to why it is so widely claimed if so few people have read it.

I think the fact we all no about this 'Andrews' study, means It has been written & read, and would assume that we've heard about it, that the Board has to, and I'd go so far as to assume the may well have Read the report.

So, I think I can feel OK, that they would be working on things, In House... That's all, nothing more to say.

[Freddy Fuschia 741]

Surely you're joking??!

No report like that, at any club, would ever ever be made public.

FFS.

You miss the point.

The fact that it has not been made public means that most of the comments about its contents are purely speculative and, in all probability, ill-informed.

[Guest Gareth Keenan]

You miss the point.

The fact that it has not been made public means that most of the comments about its contents are purely speculative and, in all probability, ill-informed.

..?

You draw some pretty strange conclusions from the club following standard practice across the industry.

[Deeoldfart 8,027]

What if the members demanded that the report be put on the club's website.

Making the report a public document would be totally unprofessional and, regardless of its contents, lead to far more problems than you could poke a stick at.

[Chicken Deelicious 0]

I am a member, not on the board. I should NOT be immediately privy to this information.

The club has acted poorly in allowing innuendo to be the only news on this topic. A clear, concise communication from the board that said they were 'acting on' or 'considering' the recommendations would provide less scope for the gossip mongers. Instead we get 'buried', 'damning', etc etc. I hope the report was valuable for the investment (about 2 games from Scully next year).

Sees like in this whole 'mess' we have not heard too many steadying statements, just white noise and silence. In times of uncertainty, simple comms are most effective.

MFC - Improve your PR and comms.

[Freddy Fuschia 741]

I am a member, not on the board. I should NOT be immediately privy to this information.

The club has acted poorly in allowing innuendo to be the only news on this topic. A clear, concise communication from the board that said they were 'acting on' or 'considering' the recommendations would provide less scope for the gossip mongers. Instead we get 'buried', 'damning', etc etc. I hope the report was valuable for the investment (about 2 games from Scully next year).

Sees like in this whole 'mess' we have not heard too many steadying statements, just white noise and silence. In times of uncertainty, simple comms are most effective.

MFC - Improve your PR and comms.

At last, someone who gets it!

[Dr. Mubutu 851]

As far as I've seen it's basically been stated by Caro that the report had been shelved and that's been taken as gospel ever since.

Since this is the only source, who cares.

[45HG 1,539]

Since this is the only source, who cares.

I care as it's essentially the basis for this thread (which was brought on by continual references to this report for months by our own supporters).

The silence is deafening. Where are all those people who rabbit on about how it's been buried and ignored? It's been mentioned ad nauseum for a long time, even in that Don Argus thread. Yet those same posters haven't appeared here to give any semblence of a back up source or reason to belive that it's true.

Apparently the report cost roughly the same as a desk, many people belive Schwab should've lost his job because of what it revealed - why aren't they in this thread?

[Freddy Fuschia 741]

hahaha pathetic attempt to infer that this is what you were saying all along...

haha pathetic attempt to cover total confusion about the whole thing

[Dr. Mubutu 851]

I care as it's essentially the basis for this thread (which was brought on by continual references to this report for months by our own supporters).

The silence is deafening. Where are all those people who rabbit on about how it's been buried and ignored? It's been mentioned ad nauseum for a long time, even in that Don Argus thread. Yet those same posters haven't appeared here to give any semblence of a back up source or reason to belive that it's true.

Apparently the report cost roughly the same as a desk, many people belive Schwab should've lost his job because of what it revealed - why aren't they in this thread?

Shock, horror! People posting on DL with absolutely no knowledge of the topic. What's the bet it's like every other organisation, and the report actually showed absolutely nothing?

[45HG 1,539]

Shock, horror! People posting on DL with absolutely no knowledge of the topic. What's the bet it's like every other organisation, and the report actually showed absolutely nothing?

I'm quite sure you're missing the point of this thread. Entirely.

[Gouga 569]

I'm quite sure you're missing the point of this thread. Entirely.

What is the point of this thread?

It was reported that the Andrew's Report was shelved. Whether that is correct or not who knows? Unless the club tells us otherwise, how else are we ever going to know?

I don't understand that what you are getting at? You ask - "how do we know it was shelved?" We don't.

[Guest Gareth Keenan]

What is the point of this thread?

It was reported that the Andrew's Report was shelved. Whether that is correct or not who knows? Unless the club tells us otherwise, how else are we ever going to know?

I don't understand that what you are getting at? You ask - "how do we know it was shelved?" We don't.

And THAT is the point.

So why anyone on this forum is stupid enough to reference the report, it's contents, the "fact" it has been shelved, or the "fact" it's contents have not been acted upon, is well beyond my comprehension...

*

[Demonland 72,176]

Could some of the posters here stop the abuse and stick to the topic.

Thanks.