Garry Lyon's six-month rescue mission over

[Whispering_Jack 29,765]

So what happens next WJ?

My comment was in the context of a discussion assessing Lyon's contribution to the "rescue mission". He's done his job and done it within the time promised Jimmy and the club so what happens next is a matter for the current board and the administration and not for Lyon or for me to decide.

[Demonsterative 3,020]

RR

what in the past 12 months has occurred that warrants getting rid of the current board? Different to what has already been named. No point going on about 186 and the handling of DB being sacked, its been said. Its not worth sacking a board over IMO. I say board as they work as a team with Jim as Pres. The guy is unwell cut him some slack. Employers are legally expected to show sensitivity is such situations. Maybe you should too.

Dont attack others for using Jims sickness as reason to make a point when you are doing the exact same thing!

[Guest melbman]

When we win the flag and I reflect on the input of Dean Bailey and Garry Lyon, I'll be reminded of the relative contributions of the pig and the chicken in the traditional big breakfast.

One gives its life while the other makes a contribution?

[The Rebbe 30]

When we win the flag and I reflect on the input of Dean Bailey and Garry Lyon, I'll be reminded of the relative contributions of the pig and the chicken in the traditional big breakfast.

If it's OK by everybody, I'll just stick to the chicken.

[daisycutter 29,600]

The problems between club Admin and the FD were telegraphed long before this when Jim felt forced to step in as Director in charge of football matters despite the parlous state of his health. These problems clearly spiralled out of control to 186 on Jim's watch - but I'm not going to blame him. Where was his great mate Garry when this was happening? I would have a lot more regard for Garry if he's stepped up at start rather than cleaned up the mess.

understand what you are saying old55, Jim should never have had to take on the Leoncelli liason role but.....why does it have to be Garry? Are you telling me that there was no-one else in the whole of melbourne who couldn't have been capable of stepping into Leoncelli's position. Were the board that enfeebled that they couldn't find any candidates except Garry who has stated a number of times he doesn't want a board position at this time. FFS are we that impoverished that the cupboard was bare of candidates that we have to blame Garry? This is sounding more like a witchunt or personal vendetta to my thinking.

I've had my issues with Garry at times, but this is not one of those times

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

RR

what in the past 12 months has occurred that warrants getting rid of the current board? Different to what has already been named. No point going on about 186 and the handling of DB being sacked, its been said. Its not worth sacking a board over IMO. I say board as they work as a team with Jim as Pres. The guy is unwell cut him some slack. Employers are legally expected to show sensitivity is such situations. Maybe you should too.

Dont attack others for using Jims sickness as reason to make a point when you are doing the exact same thing!

Well done Demonstrative. Where have I said we should get rid of the current board??

FMD. I have been vilified here because I actually recognised he had been sick which has impaired his ability to function and pondered whether he was able to continue in the role. He has struggled over the past 12 months. The Board and Jim would surely recognised that and hopefully are more pro active than some of the thinking here. And I think your 2nd sentence completely misses the point too.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

My comment was in the context of a discussion assessing Lyon's contribution to the "rescue mission". He's done his job and done it within the time promised Jimmy and the club so what happens next is a matter for the current board and the administration and not for Lyon or for me to decide.

I hope they decide sensibly WJ because we dont want another "rescue mission"

[Macca 16,906]

He probably deserves more credit than timD has given him, but he deserves less credit than you've given him. What Jim is, is a leader who has united the club on many fronts where previously it's been fractured and broken. What JIm isn't, is the second coming of Jesus.

There are lots of way over the top views on both sides of the fence in this thread.

Loyalty to Jimmy Stynes and backing him to the hilt has nothing whatsoever to do with "The second coming of Jesus" .

I'd call it unconditional support Nasher . And I reckon it's an admirable quality . A lot of us have unconditional support for family , friends , footy club , Country , etc etc .

I have sometimes found fault with the way our Club has gone about things . For a very good reason . Our Club has made some obvious errors in the past . Sacking Norm Smith was a doozy ! But when it comes time to give praise and to say "Job well done" I've done so and have largely ignored any minor mistakes .

As an example , what would be the point in finding minor faults in Robbie Flower's game ?

Overall , Jim has been fantastic for our Club and we owe him a great debt and ...............we should show our loyalty .

Cheers

Edited January 27, 2012 by Macca

[Axis of Bob 11,674]

Loyalty to Jimmy Stynes and backing him to the hilt has nothing whatsoever to do with "The second coming of Jesus" .

What is wrong with unconditional support Nasher ?

I would say the fact that it is 'unconditional'.

Like, say, the unconditional faith that the christians had when they went on the crusades. Or the unconditional support the Nazis had from the SS. Or the unconditional support that Jim Jones received at Jonestown. I could go on.

Would you have unconditional support for the country if it invaded New Zealand and said that they'd exterminate the entire population?

No support should be unconditional.

[Demonsterative 3,020]

Its safe to assume Jim and current board are not extreme in their actions, or philosophies.

[Macca 16,906]

I would say the fact that it is 'unconditional'.

Like, say, the unconditional faith that the christians had when they went on the crusades. Or the unconditional support the Nazis had from the SS. Or the unconditional support that Jim Jones received at Jonestown. I could go on.

Would you have unconditional support for the country if it invaded New Zealand and said that they'd exterminate the entire population?

No support should be unconditional.

Unconditional support , Total support , Absolute support , Undying support . Fanatical support . I could go on .

It all basically means the same thing and a lot people say one of the above on a semi regular basis .

Your references to Nazi's , Jim Jones , Christians and New Zealand are rather odd and I fail to see any connection to Jim Stynes' position at the MFC .

Edited January 27, 2012 by Macca

[Guest oldman emubitter]

I would like to thank Gary for his efforts. He's done a damn sight more for the club than I ever have.

[daisycutter 29,600]

Would you have unconditional support for the country if it invaded New Zealand and said that they'd exterminate the entire population?

Hahaha..........bad example Bob.......LOL

[Macca 16,906]

Gee wizz , we've gone from the Jimmy Stynes supporters being linked to religious zealots and now we've brought the Nazis , the Christians , Jim Jones and heaven forbid " An invasion of New Zealand ! " into proceedings .

Not sure I fancy taking on those Maori's but I'm happy to ride shotgun !

Edited January 27, 2012 by Macca

[Axis of Bob 11,674]

Macca, my point is that no support should be unconditional. It is our responsibility to question everything, even if it means we occasionally end up metaphorically shooting Bambi.

Hahaha..........bad example Bob.......LOL

Ha! Yeah, maybe not a ridiculous enough example!

Edited January 27, 2012 by Axis of Bob

[Macca 16,906]

Macca, my point is that no support should be unconditional. It is our responsibility to question everything, even if it means we occasionally end up metaphorically shooting Bambi.

Ok Bob , I'll concede on the word "unconditional" to save an argument . I agree , there should always be checks and balances .

But if our Club can't cover for Jimmy on occasions then we haven't got the right people in there . Boards are always hard to judge . Time judges them .

I reckon the whole Club is doing quite well right now .Turnover 40mil ? , Terrific training facility , A new and vibrant football dept . Membership strong and growing , A playing list that's maturing and much fitter , 1.9 million jumper sponsorship ( back ) with hopefully good dollars for the front . A kind draw ( mainly the 2nd half of the year ) etc etc .

Jim should be allowed to see his vision through .

Cheers , Macca

[Guest Jackie]

Loyalty to Jimmy Stynes and backing him to the hilt has nothing whatsoever to do with "The second coming of Jesus" .

I'd call it unconditional support Nasher . And I reckon it's an admirable quality . A lot of us have unconditional support for family , friends , footy club , Country , etc etc .

I have sometimes found fault with the way our Club has gone about things . For a very good reason . Our Club has made some obvious errors in the past . Sacking Norm Smith was a doozy ! But when it comes time to give praise and to say "Job well done" I've done so and have largely ignored any minor mistakes .

As an example , what would be the point in finding minor faults in Robbie Flower's game ?

Overall , Jim has been fantastic for our Club and we owe him a great debt and ...............we should show our loyalty .

Cheers

The biggest mistake the current administration has made was keeping DB. He should have gone a long time ago. The new board was too honourable in honouring the Gardiner administration appointment of Bailey. And those clueless fools hired DB on the premise we were still as a top side with flag aspirations. I can imagine what bull DB must have presented at his interview. Other than the DB fiasco we have moved a long way forward and now have a realistic chance for some genuine improvement. Shame to see this discussion getting ugly with some latent back stabbing agendas re-appearing.

[Axis of Bob 11,674]

I am not casting judgement either way. I was only talking about 'unconditional support'. Not specifically to you (as I understand what you mean) but there are many who are viewing any discussion on the issue as being blasphemous.

I'm not saying we should get rid of him, or keep him, but people can (and should) ask the question.

I certainly agree with your point that boards are hard to judge. Especially from afar. Which is why I tend not to get involved in that sort of stuff,

[Bonkers 994]

I am not casting judgement either way. I was only talking about 'unconditional support'. Not specifically to you (as I understand what you mean) but there are many who are viewing any discussion on the issue as being blasphemous.

I'm not saying we should get rid of him, or keep him, but people can (and should) ask the question.

I certainly agree with your point that boards are hard to judge. Especially from afar. Which is why I tend not to get involved in that sort of stuff,

Discussion of the boards performance is healthy, discussion of Jim's performance as president & part time FD is also healthy.

What many have taken exception to is the discussion regarding whether Jim should be on the board or not. IMO he is the best thing that has happened to the club in a long time. He has the runs on the board & I would have thought that almost all members would be happy to let him make the decision on his future. There's special circumstances which we are all aware of, so as a club we should be supportive, respectful & trust his judgement. I think that is what he deserves from all of us.

Others are free to form their own opinions, that's why we are all here. I think a few though have mis read & mis understood the stance some hold. Comparisons to religion etc are a bit of a stretch.

[timD 994]

Ok Bob , I'll concede on the word "unconditional" to save an argument . I agree , there should always be checks and balances .

But if our Club can't cover for Jimmy on occasions then we haven't got the right people in there . Boards are always hard to judge . Time judges them .

I reckon the whole Club is doing quite well right now .Turnover 40mil ? , Terrific training facility , A new and vibrant football dept . Membership strong and growing , A playing list that's maturing and much fitter , 1.9 million jumper sponsorship ( back ) with hopefully good dollars for the front . A kind draw ( mainly the 2nd half of the year ) etc etc .

Jim should be allowed to see his vision through .

Cheers , Macca

I'm not sure how anything is misperceived in this Macca. I think that Jim's functioning is so grossly comprmised that he cannot do his job; there are periods where areas under his direct observation were out of control; the board have been ineffective (again, my view) under his leadership and him remaining president builds in a dysfunctional state into a board of limited ability (on performance to date).

Most others see the same problems and are happy that they (board and pres) continue because Jim is a good bloke. OK, perhaps a very, very good bloke. This argument is not hard to understand. Unless he has effectively (functionally) been replaced and our board has grown a set we are vulnerable to exactly the same sort of nonsense as last year. You see that as ok - indeed you think that because Jim is a good bloke he should get to see what he wants done, in whatever way it suits, regardless of any consequences and without examination. Put simply, you have faith - nearly unconditional support. Bob's point was that unconditional support has bad outcomes when you push it to real-worl extremes. 'Unconditional' IS the position of many, if not the majority of posters on this thread.

You believe. I don't. I value the club and my team much more than I care about Jim. I'll question him and whoever/whatever else I see fit to question. That differentiates me from you and most supporters I guess. So boards are hard to judge. So are governments, councils, judicial processes, PTA"s etc etc. I'm sure you manage there.

[mauriesy 7,256]

I think that Jim's functioning is so grossly compromised that he cannot do his job; there are periods where areas under his direct observation were out of control; the board have been ineffective (again, my view) under his leadership and him remaining president builds in a dysfunctional state into a board of limited ability (on performance to date).

Shooting Bambi is exactly the reason why Stynes should stay. He's the face of the club, and without his 'aura' we'd lose some support, and forcing him out would create huge negative press.

As is usual with a dilemma, you need to sieze one of the horns. At the moment I'd still take the 'motivational horn' ... keeping Stynes on for his public presence, his ability to galvanise support and raise funds, even the ability he has to engender empathy for the club. It's far more valuable than shunting him off to overcome any deficiencies in board management due to his health problems.

The rest of the board needs to work around the 'management horn' and do a good job, which I think they currently are after Lyon's intervention.

[Guest Jackie]

Jimmy despite his illness still wishes to lead the club in any capacity he can. It is up to him to choose to relinquish his position if he wants to. Any attempts to move him will be the biggest ever PR and goodwill disaster for the club. Then again we are always all too willing to shoot ourselves in the foot when there is some brightness ahead of us. Some people cant help themselves.

[Whispering_Jack 29,765]

Shooting Bambi is exactly the reason why Stynes should stay. He's the face of the club, and without his 'aura' we'd lose some support, and forcing him out would create huge negative press.

As is usual with a dilemma, you need to sieze one of the horns. At the moment I'd still take the 'motivational horn' ... keeping Stynes on for his public presence, his ability to galvanise support and raise funds, even the ability he has to engender empathy for the club. It's far more valuable than shunting him off to overcome any deficiencies in board management due to his health problems.

The rest of the board needs to work around the 'management horn' and do a good job, which I think they currently are after Lyon's intervention.

Well said Maurie. I don't find it problematic at all that people criticise Jimmy or any of the board, administration or the football department for their mistakes if and when they are made but, at the same time, I find the notion of "shooting Bambi" rather than merely criticising him (was Bambi a he or a she?) both unnecessary and distasteful. 

In addition, with the mooted introduction of Greg Healy as football director and other changes that have taken place in the past six months, I think a change at the top would be counterproductive at this stage if done for the reasons you mention.

The club would be rightly skewered everywhere and with Mark Neeld and the team about to embark on a new campaign, we hardly need that sort of distraction which is likely to damage morale - not to mention what it might do to one of our favoured sons in Jim Stynes.

For now its enough that the whole of the board and not just Jimmy are on notice after their performance in 2011 and a repeat won't be good news for the incumbents. 

I might also add however, that there are no apparent replacements clamouring for their positions.

[jnrmac 20,053]

I'll make the point here for those that have forgotten, DB was out of contract at the end of 2011. The club was weighing up whether he should be given an extension or not. After some of our insipid efforts throughout the year the Board and supporters were agitating for change. As you would expect when we had not shown any improvement.

186 meant things were spiralling out of control and a circuit breaker was needed. DB was likely dead man walking by this stage. And the perceived fact the players were whinging about the footy department meant that they rightly needed to be told to pull their heads in. In particular our senior players who showed a disgraceful lack of leadership throughout the year (Beemer excepted).

That (IMO) was deemed more important than the rising angst against CS. What has happened to our club has been terrible but where we sit now I am glad it happened and we are where we are. We are in a better place although time will tell of course.

Or as someone wise once put it: It is always the darkest hour before the dawn - so if you are going to steal your neighbours newspaper, just before the dawn is a really good time to do it.

[mauriesy 7,256]

I'm just hoping that when we win the 2014 or 2015 premiership, glowing articles will be written in the media about how '186' and the subsequent fallout was a watershed that dragged a club from the absolute doldrums to the top of the tree.