It is you who are taking this one out of context Rhino not me. A phone call from Jim Stynes is worth way more than 22c and i am sure Dean would feel the same way.

The President made the final call as it should always be.

You don't get it. If there was bad blood out of any of this Bailey would have let on by now. He has been on radio numerous times and in print. Not one bad word about the MFC has he said.

If anyone does not get it...

Bailey has shown himself to be far more professional than to go public on this issue.

It does not need a LCD media circus to assess whether a phone call is the appropriate way of sacking someone.

What would you prefer? Tea & iced vo vo's with all the supporters telling stories before the inevitable is spoken?

The media reported it was badly handled because it makes better headlines. Dean Bailey made no mention of it.

It is really simple...

A VP or board delegate show the basic respect for someone who has worked hard for the Club and tell them to their face that they are being sacked.

A phone call from Jim Stynes is worth way more than 22c and i am sure Dean would feel the same way.

The President made the final call as it should always be.

I can see Bailey being really appreciative about getting an unexpected call from Jimma and saying "Your sacked". I wonder if he kept a copy of the call so he can cherish it in the future.

And in regard to Bailey's position, I had understood it was a Board decision but as you say he casts all the votes.

Given Stynes's fragile health and the fact that McLardy had been front and centre around the football club, it would have been reasonable for the VP or a delegated member of the Board to have the decency to have met with Bailey "face to face" to tell him. He had to go. There was no reason why the VP or delegated group could not have done that. Bailey was owed more than a 22 cent call.

I understand where you are coming from but you are predicating the entire process on a lack of decency. My point is that regardless of the cost of the phone call Stynes seemingly made a decision on this and I think it is unfair to conclude he or the club lacked decency without knowing his ulterior motives and how it played out internally.

Its was a poor execution of process.

I think we all recognise that they strayed from due process.

From my understanding Stynes did not necessarily hold Bailey in high regard so I am not sure how it could "mean more" to Bailey. A sacking of a senior role should never be done via a phone call. Its that simple.

Look, I take on board what you are saying as you seem to have some insight of the inner workings of the club and I'm a little surprised if what you say is the case. To my mind I just get the feeling that with all that had happened Stynes wanted to take back a bit of the responsibility of things and do it his way - you used the phrase "asleep at the wheel" a while back and that was quite apt. Whether it was right or not isn't in question wrt due process but I think somewhere Stynes thought he was doing the right thing both by duty and by Bailey and I don't think that our lack of due process showed a significant lack of decency given the circumstances - not in a public way anyway.

Rhino do jump up and down and take the moral high road when someone gets the sack from your work, while I like DB the facts are we went backwards a long way this year, what happened happened, move on. and stop trying to be the all mighty one, sometimes the ordinary folk just might be right.

I understand where you are coming from but you are predicating the entire process on a lack of decency. My point is that regardless of the cost of the phone call Stynes seemingly made a decision on this and I think it is unfair to conclude he or the club lacked decency without knowing his ulterior motives and how it played out internally.

I think we all recognise that they strayed from due process.

Look, I take on board what you are saying as you seem to have some insight of the inner workings of the club and I'm a little surprised if what you say is the case. To my mind I just get the feeling that with all that had happened Stynes wanted to take back a bit of the responsibility of things and do it his way - you used the phrase "asleep at the wheel" a while back and that was quite apt. Whether it was right or not isn't in question wrt due process but I think somewhere Stynes thought he was doing the right thing both by duty and by Bailey and I don't think that our lack of due process showed a significant lack of decency given the circumstances - not in a public way anyway.

I agree with you on process and that impacted the manner of communication to Bailey. You raise some interesting comments about Stynes's actions and motives. I cant speak for that. But it would appear that his way in this matter may not have been the right way. As I said I hope MFC learn from these events.

Rhino do jump up and down and take the moral high road when someone gets the sack from your work, while I like DB the facts are we went backwards a long way this year, what happened happened, move on. and stop trying to be the all mighty one, sometimes the ordinary folk just might be right.

Well done on missing the point.

I have no issue with the decision of the sacking just the manner of execution.

And to use your analogy, if one of my colleagues was sacked at work by means of a phone call, I doubt any of other workers would deem that an appropriate method of termination.

Not missing at all did DB complain about hid dismal, not from my recollection the only ones who are in debate about this are people who don't know the facts leading up to it, the club has never really said why it was done only the press.

Well done on missing the point.

I have no issue with the decision of the sacking just the manner of execution.

And to use your analogy, if one of my colleagues was sacked at work by means of a phone call, I doubt any of other workers would deem that an appropriate method of termination.

It seems to me it was a question of VP face to face or President over the phone. Rightly or wrongly, Jim decided that his heath meant he couldn't present face-to-face, but that he ought to do the "deed" and not delegate the toughest of jobs to his VP (who, let's face it, is a more active VP that he would like to be and should be all other things being equal). Not perfect, but hardly a hanging offence in the context of Jim's health.

I actually think the problem was that we should have honoured the contract and let him see out the year if he wanted to (and I understand he would have wanted to), not reacted to the media hounds in an oh-so-predictable way.

Not justifying the Board's conduct but Bailey would certainly not have been blindsided by their action.

IIRC Bailey was asked by the media after the 186 game whether he was considering resigning and he said that he was not. The subject was the talking point in newspapers and talkback radio and he would have known exactly what was coming before the phone call.

I also agree that you can't compare the situation with Adelaide and the Bulldogs while Fremantle's behaviour with Harvey was infinitely worse.

part of the job mate

Would you have preferred Jim to get out of his sick bed to speak to Dean would you Rhino?

I'm sure Dean understood the circumstances a phone call was the best option.

I have no problems with it.

I can see Bailey being really appreciative about getting an unexpected call from Jimma and saying "Your sacked". I wonder if he kept a copy of the call so he can cherish it in the future.

And in regard to Bailey's position, I had understood it was a Board decision but as you say he casts all the votes.

By the way, it's 'you're sacked'

Also Rhino comparing workers to AFL players is drawing a long bow, could one of your workers get re drafted to another company while under contract happen? so lets not compare that view.

Not missing at all did DB complain about hid dismal, not from my recollection the only ones who are in debate about this are people who don't know the facts leading up to it, the club has never really said why it was done only the press.

Why does Dean have to bleat to the press about it to make it inappropriate? Its not a matter whether the victim accepts it or not.

The facts leading up to the decision are irrelevant.

Sorry the Club has indeed spoken about why it was done and how it was done.

It seems to me it was a question of VP face to face or President over the phone. Rightly or wrongly, Jim decided that his heath meant he couldn't present face-to-face, but that he ought to do the "deed" and not delegate the toughest of jobs to his VP (who, let's face it, is a more active VP that he would like to be and should be all other things being equal). Not perfect, but hardly a hanging offence in the context of Jim's health.

I actually think the problem was that we should have honoured the contract and let him see out the year if he wanted to (and I understand he would have wanted to), not reacted to the media hounds in an oh-so-predictable way.

Choko,it was just a poor judgement call. I dont accept that an individual's health should necessary dictate not doing the appropriate steps in regard to a serious matter. I think it was well within the remit of the VP to do the job.

I dont believe keeping Bailey on until the end of the season would have been the right thing to do.

Would you have preferred Jim to get out of his sick bed to speak to Dean would you Rhino?

I'm sure Dean understood the circumstances a phone call was the best option.

I have already stated what I thought should have been done. Why do you ask facetious questions? Which parts of the discussion dont you follow?

If we go by your take on the issue, Bailey should have been duly humbled and honoured to have received an after hours call. The circumstances seemed to suit persons other than Bailey who was not given due consideration.

Also Rhino comparing workers to AFL players is drawing a long bow, could one of your workers get re drafted to another company while under contract happen? so lets not compare that view.

You are kidding 3165. It was you that raised workers in post #55."Rhino do jump up and down and take the moral high road when someone gets the sack from your work,"

Firstly Bailey is not an AFL player. He was a coach of MFC. And neither any of my colleagues nor an AFL coach can get drafted.

Secondly, Bailey was an employee of the MFC (employer). I am an employee of an unnamed company (employee).

The comparison and analogy is completely valid.

By the way, it's 'you're sacked'

Your right! B)

had to go either post 186 or at season's end. He deserved better than a phone call.

Maybe he did but the decision was the right one. We have moved on as a club and now we can only hope he does as well and isn't like a Grant Thomas or KB figure carrying a grudge. The future is now and Neeld is the man to lead us.

Come on, surely people aren't trying to argue that a phone call to sack someone is appropriate? I'm starting to see what some around here mean when they say people will just defend the club over everything no matter what. This is as black and white an issue as I've seen for a while.

It wasn't so much the sacking but rather, they way in which it was done that was problematic.

Bailey should have been told to his face that the club had no confidence in his ability to continue as coach. It should have been relayed to him personally and there should have been scope for discussion on the proper way to handle the announcement. I got the impression that the situation was almost forced by the presence and pressure of the baying media. Whatever the case, it didn't look good that Bailey wasn't told by someone face to face.

Other than that, he would have been a lame duck coach had he carried on after 186, a position that was untenable for all concerned.

I absolutely agree. Doing by phone was poor - especially from Stynes. Here's a bloke who by his actions and manners sets pretty high standards and sacking a bloke over the phone who had done club dirty work was well short of standards that Jimmy and the board should have set themselves.

I have already stated what I thought should have been done. Why do you ask facetious questions? Which parts of the discussion dont you follow?

If we go by your take on the issue, Bailey should have been duly humbled and honoured to have received an after hours call. The circumstances seemed to suit persons other than Bailey who was not given due consideration.

facetious...i don't think so. i follow the discussion very well...We all know the Circumstances of Jimmy's health and because of this the use of a phone call is more than fair.

It probably was discussed at length as to who was going to deliver the message, and as President Jimma probably had the last call.

He did it.

We have no idea how long the conversation was or what was said, but i bet my house Jimma did it with as much honour as he could.

Dean would have known in his own mind as early as Half time down at Geelong that his tenure was looking shaky...the Media sure did.

So i don't see it as bad or shoddy management at all, as you seem to.

facetious...i don't think so. i follow the discussion very well...We all know the Circumstances of Jimmy's health and because of this the use of a phone call is more than fair.

It probably was discussed at length as to who was going to deliver the message, and as President Jimma probably had the last call.

Jimmy should've gone face to face. If he was unable, then he should've sent McLardy or Schwab (actually I'd say that as the coach reports directly to the CEO then Schwab should've delivered the message, but this is a separate and probably less important issue). The phone call is the worst of both worlds option.

With the technology of today, it could've at least been a video call on Skype.

facetious...i don't think so. i follow the discussion very well...We all know the Circumstances of Jimmy's health and because of this the use of a phone call is more than fair.

Clearly you dont follow discussions. If you did you wouldnt ask ridiculous question when I have made my position clear. I dont find the ill health of a President as an appropriate reason to not to do the right thing and have either the VP or senior Board representative see Bailey personally to do the sacking. As you have deemed him a "good bloke", at the very least for what you have credited him with doing at the Club, he deserved it and was owed it. The phone call was expedient to the disposition of others with little honour attached.

Doing by phone was poor - especially from Stynes. Here's a bloke who by his actions and manners sets pretty high standards and sacking a bloke over the phone who had done club dirty work was well short of standards that Jimmy and the board should have set themselves.

If he was unable, then he should've sent McLardy or Schwab (actually I'd say that as the coach reports directly to the CEO then Schwab should've delivered the message, but this is a separate and probably less important issue). The phone call is the worst of both worlds option.

You know 2 nutshell comments and the value of them will be missed here by those that dearly need it most.

Lest we forget ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQeaGFXqvTQ

"Cones on training drills" I reckon I could coach then to do that.

Bailey knew it was coming he said that; it was just a matter of who would tell him. The fact that we played the way we did would indicate he had either lost the players and couldn't motivate them or he simply couldn't coach.

Bailey has had a bit to say and it doesn't surprise me after Jimmy said what he said the other day; he's a professional Coach in the AFL system and has to protect his reputation. I think we should all move on and he should be happy it didn't go on for another year; if we had failed again next season under him would he ever get a job again?

Clearly you dont follow discussions. If you did you wouldnt ask ridiculous question when I have made my position clear. I dont find the ill health of a President as an appropriate reason to not to do the right thing and have either the VP or senior Board representative see Bailey personally to do the sacking. As you have deemed him a "good bloke", at the very least for what you have credited him with doing at the Club, he deserved it and was owed it. The phone call was expedient to the disposition of others with little honour attached.

No Rhino i follow the discussion just fine...i just don't agree with your Suit & Tie line...If Jimmy was well enough i am sure he would have made the honourable journey to Dean's abode and said the same things....as he was recovering from surgery at the time, he chose to use the phone.

My questions are not ridiculous....you just don't like an alternative view to your own.