Garry Lyon's six-month rescue mission over

[Macca 17,113]

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.

I gave some ground to Bob on the "unconditional" bit .

Best if we agree to disagree with the rest of it timD

Cheers

[timD 994]

Jack and Maurie, on reflection I think that you are right. Having Jim removed would look bad and have potentially very negative consequences that we can ill-afford. That is why I wrote earlier that Jim should pick a replacement and resign. If not resign, then the board need to functionally by-pass him. That assumes that they can actually function.

Macca, what are we disagreeing on? I'm not trying to be clever, I genuinely don't know. Do you think that jim and the board should be questioned (like any board by the memebrs of the club)? Are they doing a good job? If you can't tell if they do badly, when do you know that they are doing well?

[Hip & Shoulder 64]

That ANYONE would suggest that Jim Stynes step aside as President of the MFC is beyond belief and shows a lack of understanding when it comes to the reality of the situation the MFC was in when Jim put his hand up to take on the President's role - which, like all board positions, is voluntary. The Club was in such dire financial straits that if Jim hadn't stepped up and put together a new board the Melbourne Football Club would not have existed for much longer. The previous board had 'fudged' the figures for too long, and their creative accounting had promoted a false impression of the Club's financial position.

Jim has earned the right to stay in the President's chair for as long as he wants it.

Likewise, Don McLardy, who has supported Jim through his health problems, and taken on much of the President's workload.

Congratulations and heartfelt thanks to both of them for what they have achieved.

[mauriesy 7,410]

Jim has earned the right to stay in the President's chair for as long as he wants it.

There's no such 'right'. We're talking absolutes again.

Jim can stay in the chair as long as the positives of his presidency outweigh any negatives. No one ought to have a divine right to a job regardless of how well or badly they are doing it.

[Macca 17,113]

Jack and Maurie, on reflection I think that you are right. Having Jim removed would look bad and have potentially very negative consequences that we can ill-afford. That is why I wrote earlier that Jim should pick a replacement and resign. If not resign, then the board need to functionally by-pass him. That assumes that they can actually function.

Macca, what are we disagreeing on? I'm not trying to be clever, I genuinely don't know. Do you think that jim and the board should be questioned (like any board by the memebrs of the club)? Are they doing a good job? If you can't tell if they do badly, when do you know that they are doing well?

Tim , I put forward the "agree to disagree" comment because I reckon we're way too far apart to find some middle ground . If I think someone ( Jim Stynes ) is doing a good/great job 95% of the time then in my eyes it becomes 100% . That's just the way I am . I choose to ignore the "5%" where it's not "good" unless that % increases too much . Or there's a major stuff up . Hope that makes sense

More people should "agree to disagree" on occasions in my opinion rather than go toe to toe . I see some arguments on some of these threads go on for too long and then become slanging matches and sometimes resort to insults etc etc . And often the subject matter gets lost . Sometimes it's best to "get out early"!

One of Jimmy's great strengths is that he never gives up . Ever . Isn't that what we want from our footy Club ?

Cheers

Edited January 29, 2012 by Macca

[Lutz 76]

There's no such 'right'. We're talking absolutes again.

Jim can stay in the chair as long as the positives of his presidency outweigh any negatives. No one ought to have a divine right to a job regardless of how well or badly they are doing it.

Great concise post.

Pretty much sums up the majority of this thread for me.

[Lutz 76]

Surely macca, it's about what Jim is able to do going forward, not what he has been able to do in the past, due to his unstable and changing condition?

Questions have to be asked and solutions have to be found to ensure the club continues to function at a high level.

Whether that means Jim stepping down or not, I don't think any of us have the answer.

[Macca 17,113]

Surely macca, it's about what Jim is able to do going forward, not what he has been able to do in the past, due to his unstable and changing condition?

Questions have to be asked and solutions have to be found to ensure the club continues to function at a high level.

Whether that means Jim stepping down or not, I don't think any of us have the answer.

Yes Lutz , you make a valid point . But as I said in an earlier post I believe the Board can cover for Jimmy in the immediate future ( if needs be ) . That's where we disagree and that's fine . I respect your opinion .

It has to be said that I really like Don McLardy as well . He's a good man and is a more than able Vice-President . So Don can step in like he already has on occasions ( once again , if needs be ) . I'm fine with that .

Cheers .

Edited January 29, 2012 by Macca

[Lutz 76]

Not necessarily.

If the board CAN effectively fulfil the president's duties on behalf of Jim, while he remains purely a figurehead, then I'm all for it.

I just don't have the personal knowledge to know that it can.

And I still maintain that questions need to be asked so that board can determine this for itself, rather than blindly having faith in Jimmy.

You can have all the good intentions in the world, yet still be incapable of performing a task.

And we have seen evidence of where the board has failed in recent times, so the questions maybe weren't being asked.

I just hope they are now (as they appear to have been).

[Macca 17,113]

Lutz , I'm not going to change my mind on this one . I've been involved with sporting clubs my entire life and I still am in a small way ( more of a consultancy thing ) I've served on many committee's and have seen many times how someone can be covered periodically . Big or small , most sporting clubs work in a similar way in my opinion . When somebody goes down you stick together as a team and lift a notch . Loyalty can't be measured but has to be adhered to . Otherwise things fall apart .

Now , the above paragraph is not meant to come across as me "big noting" or suchlike as I'm sure many people on this site have served on Committees or Boards . It's there to partly explain my point of view on the subject matter ( Jimmy ) .

Cheers again !

[Akum 2,660]

Yes Lutz , you make a valid point . But as I said in an earlier post I believe the Board can cover for Jimmy in the immediate future ( if needs be ) . That's where we disagree and that's fine . I respect your opinion .

Cheers

Edit : It has to be said that I really like Don McLardy as well . He's a good man and is a more than able Vice-President . So Don can step in like he already has on occasions . I'm fine with that .

Presidents are meant to exercise leadership & governance. Jim has been outstanding in his exercise of leadership, which is his great strength as president. Jim seems to be competent with governance, but there are probably others on the Board - McLardy for example - who may be better than Jim for governance. That would by no means be unusual. It would be very unusual for a club president to be outstanding at both leadership and governance.

There seemed to be a difference of opinion between the FD and the Admin, for whatever reason, and what became inappropriate (although we won't know the full story, and that's probably for the best) was that some of the players (senior players?) got dragged into it. It would be totally inappropriate for any Board member to have first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day operations of the football club, and when these sorts of issues come to a head, it's almost inevitable that the Board is a little bit off the pace. Things seemed to escalate quickly over a few days, and then 186 ...

While it's true that the president has to take responsibility for things that go wrong, they may not be responsible for things that go wrong (i.e. it might not be their fault). I don't think 186 was Jim's fault, but like a great leader, he had to take public responsibility, which was what motivated Gaza into action.

Jim is a great leader, and his leadership is to a large degree responsible for things being much better now than before he started. His inspirational attitude and conduct n the face of his serious illness only adds to this leadership quality. However, his illness probably means that, more than before, the club needs to rely on other Board members to exercise governance. In summary, while Jim's illness may impair his governance (which can be and should be covered by other Board members - that's often how Boards work, and there are other obvious examples in the AFL) it does not impair his leadership, and if anything it enhances it.

Oh, and I checked with my daughters - it was Bambi's mother who was shot.

[Macca 17,113]

Presidents are meant to exercise leadership & governance. Jim has been outstanding in his exercise of leadership, which is his great strength as president. Jim seems to be competent with governance, but there are probably others on the Board - McLardy for example - who may be better than Jim for governance. That would by no means be unusual. It would be very unusual for a club president to be outstanding at both leadership and governance.

There seemed to be a difference of opinion between the FD and the Admin, for whatever reason, and what became inappropriate (although we won't know the full story, and that's probably for the best) was that some of the players (senior players?) got dragged into it. It would be totally inappropriate for any Board member to have first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day operations of the football club, and when these sorts of issues come to a head, it's almost inevitable that the Board is a little bit off the pace. Things seemed to escalate quickly over a few days, and then 186 ...

While it's true that the president has to take responsibility for things that go wrong, they may not be responsible for things that go wrong (i.e. it might not be their fault). I don't think 186 was Jim's fault, but like a great leader, he had to take public responsibility, which was what motivated Gaza into action.

Jim is a great leader, and his leadership is to a large degree responsible for things being much better now than before he started. His inspirational attitude and conduct n the face of his serious illness only adds to this leadership quality. However, his illness probably means that, more than before, the club needs to rely on other Board members to exercise governance. In summary, while Jim's illness may impair his governance (which can be and should be covered by other Board members - that's often how Boards work, and there are other obvious examples in the AFL) it does not impair his leadership, and if anything it enhances it.

Oh, and I checked with my daughters - it was Bambi's mother who was shot.

Yep , I like a fair bit of what you've said there Akum . In the end , it may come down to a test to see how good our Board is . I want to see how well they can perform in the current circumstances . In some ways it's good that we may get to see our Board at work ( in a more visible way ) . Often Boards are a bit non-transparent . For instance , getting hold of the minutes of meetings is a lot of hard work ( I'm told ) . Though I stand corrected on that one . Be good to be able to read them hey ?

Just touching on '186' . In a lot of ways I'd prefer to forget the whole sorry day but something tells me there's a bit more to come out .

Totally off subect - I can't remember ever looking forward to the pre-season cup as much as this year . We really need to get back on track , quick smart ! Often these games are in some ways meaningless but I'm hoping we have a good go at it this time .

Cheers , Macca

[Demonsterative 3,021]

How about providing examples of bad governance and leadership instead of giving blanket statements that have yet to be substantiated. Everyone knows about the period surrounding 186, and we have come out of that a better football club. As already stated. No point going over old news, for or against this argument.

Then look into your crystal ball and let all supporters know where the boards (in particular Jim) will fail.

[Lutz 76]

How about providing examples of bad governance and leadership instead of giving blanket statements that have yet to be substantiated. Everyone knows about the period surrounding 186, and we have come out of that a better football club. As already stated. No point going over old news, for or against this argument.

Then look into your crystal ball and let all supporters know where the boards (in particular Jim) will fail.

See this is the problem with your argument.

You think because no one can come up with any conclusive evidence, then there must be none.

None of us are in a position to know either way.

And Jim shouldn't get a free pass because he is inspirational and to us on the outside his hands look clean.

He needs to be scrutinised like anybody else in the same position.

[Demonsterative 3,021]

Having an opinion is usually imformed by information, be it factually right or wrong. From your post you have formed an opinion without any information. I do not understand this at all. Whats the problem with my argument?

Im not here to win anything. If you or any one argues a very good point, im happy to form a different opinion.

[Lutz 76]

Jesus... In a nutshell, it's the simple concept that the President should be scrutinised, Jimmy Stynes or not.

Purely because of the position they hold.

I've not contended he should be removed, and I'm not sure anyone else has.

But some posters are determined to give Jimmy carte blanche because of past achievements, regardless of whether he is capable of holding the position anymore, or not.

This also includes the board being able to "carry" Jimmy by performing his duties while he remains a figurehead - if this cannot be done, then a solution must be found.

Whatever that may be.

It's the difference between blind faith, and being prudent.

[Sir Why You Little 37,302]

If Jimmy was "removed" by the board at this time, the club would fade away. The PR knock on would kill us. Jimmy is still a viable man, so he stays.

If he needs some assistance...Get it.

[Demonsterative 3,021]

A definate change of point of view there Lutz. Congratulations, you have formed a some what change in your view. Will you now admit that Grimes has had injury issues holding back his captain qualities. In the approprigate thread that is.

[Pennant St Dee 13,389]

Right I think it's time this thread was closed, it has gone from Gary's six month stint being over to those defending and those having a go at Jimmy. Now I love the man and want nothing more than a miracle to cure him. But let me say this, Jimmy is not well and we all know he has an uphill battle every day and please god I'm wrong, but he will do well to see our season out.

Show the man some respect, he is our figurehead and Don Mclardy is the president. I'm pretty sure Gary even said himself at the time of taking on the six month task he didn't realise how sick Jimmy was, Like most of us we thought this is Jimmy he can beat anything he will find a way to get over this. Now these men on our board are not stupid they will have put plans in place to make decisions and yes Jimmy will be part of that but the others IMO will have a big input, The whole club have worked together to make the necessary changes since the end of last season.

If you can't see how detrimental it would be to our club to move Jimmy aside in any way then you are very narrowminded. He has earnt the right to call time on his position and it is giving him something to keep living for and his mind away from his health issues. But make no mistake we are not leaving Jimmy in his role as charity he would not accept that and Mclardy, Lyon, Schwab and co would not allow that either. He has been and remains very valuable and committed to the club.

Now move on and lets see how 2012 pans out before we start firing barbs at Jimmy or Gary

Edited January 29, 2012 by Pennant St Dee

[Lutz 76]

A definate change of point of view there Lutz. Congratulations, you have formed a some what change in your view. Will you now admit that Grimes has had injury issues holding back his captain qualities. In the approprigate thread that is.

Not at all - it's been my contention all along.

Maybe the problem is with your comprehension..?

Not in any way related to Grimes as captain.

Plus I believe his past injury history has no real bearing upon injuries he may suffer in the future, unless you can point to evidence of a particular chronic injury that has caused him to miss games.

I've said it before, but the concept of a player being "injury-prone" is a simple concept for simple people.

Finally- trying to equate Grimes' injuries to Jimmy's condition is not just a stretch, it's pretty weak and misguided, IMO.

[Sir Why You Little 37,302]

Right I think it's time this thread was closed, it has gone from Gary's six month stint being over to those defending and those having a go at Jimmy. Now I love the man and want nothing more than a miracle to cure him. But let me say this, Jimmy is not well and we all know he has an uphill battle every day and please god I'm wrong, but he will do well to see our season out.

Show the man some respect, he is our figurehead and Don Mclardy is the president. I'm pretty sure Gary even said himself at the time of taking on the six month task he didn't realise how sick Jimmy was, Like most of us we thought this is Jimmy he can beat anything he will find a way to get over this. Now these men on our board are not stupid they will have put plans in place to make decisions and yes Jimmy will be part of that but the others IMO will have a big input, The whole club have worked together to make the necessary changes since the end of last season.

If you can't see how detrimental it would be to our club to move Jimmy aside in any way then you are very narrowminded. He has earnt the right to call time on his position and it is giving him something to keep living for and his mind away from his health issues. But make no mistake we are not leaving Jimmy in his role as charity he would not accept that and Mclardy, Lyon, Schwab and co would not allow that either. He has been and remains very valuable and committed to the club.

Now move on and lets see how 2012 pans out before we start firing barbs at Jimmy or Gary

Thankyou P. St. Dee. Great words.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

As already stated. No point going over old news, for or against this argument.

But you challenged the poster to come up with examples where givernance has been an issue?

Then look into your crystal ball and let all supporters know where the boards (in particular Jim) will fail.

Would you like the supplementaries with the Tattslotto numbers as well?

He has earnt the right to call time on his position and it is giving him something to keep living for and his mind away from his health issues. But make no mistake we are not leaving Jimmy in his role as charity he would not accept that and Mclardy, Lyon, Schwab and co would not allow that either. He has been and remains very valuable and committed to the club.

Hoepfully Jim and the Board can properly determine his reduced involvement in the Club (subject to his health demands) while maintaining a figure head role to the betterment of the Club going forward. While we all wish Jim well as he has been fighting a serious health condition for some time. I find it hard to believe that Garry the Board did not "realise" how sick Jim has been given his gaunt and frail public appearances and his public fight against the disease. Hopefully, the Board understand the true situation Jim is facing and have developed appropriate arrangements and infrastrucure to allow Jim's limited involvement and the Club to continue operate functionally.

[timD 994]

Tim , I put forward the "agree to disagree" comment because I reckon we're way too far apart to find some middle ground . If I think someone ( Jim Stynes ) is doing a good/great job 95% of the time then in my eyes it becomes 100% . That's just the way I am . I choose to ignore the "5%" where it's not "good" unless that % increases too much . Or there's a major stuff up . Hope that makes sense

More people should "agree to disagree" on occasions in my opinion rather than go toe to toe . I see some arguments on some of these threads go on for too long and then become slanging matches and sometimes resort to insults etc etc . And often the subject matter gets lost . Sometimes it's best to "get out early"!

One of Jimmy's great strengths is that he never gives up . Ever . Isn't that what we want from our footy Club ?

Cheers

I agree about things getting personal Macca. Avoiding that is good. It really should be my new years resolution!

I'm not so sure we are so far apart. The issue for mine is whether the board can functionnally by-pass Jim. In the paper's before x-mas Jim was pretty clear that he was awfully close to dying. It is unreasonable to expect any man or woman to work effectively under those pressures. I hope the board is picking up the slack. My concern is that they were not pre-186. Why...I don't know - and as you nicely put, hard to know without being there. BUT we had rumors of Schwab being sacked, bailey been given an extension and then 186 led to to cam being given a 12 months extension and bailey being sacked. Don spent time interviewing players before the 186 match to figure out what was happening. Jim sacked Bailey over the phone (which still bemuses me) and then the resurrection of the club was handed to a mate.

Now, all of this might end up working out. I think you can mount a decent case that the board was was functionally AWOL before 186. I hope to hell that they've recognised that and done something about it. So, I guess that I see Jim and the board's part of 186 and surrounding events as worse that 5%.

[Hannibal 5,814]

The issue for mine is whether the board can functionnally by-pass Jim. In the paper's before x-mas Jim was pretty clear that he was awfully close to dying. It is unreasonable to expect any man or woman to work effectively under those pressures. I hope the board is picking up the slack. My concern is that they were not pre-186. Why...I don't know - and as you nicely put, hard to know without being there. Jim sacked Bailey over the phone (which still bemuses me) and then the resurrection of the club was handed to a mate.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I suspect that every member of the MFC Board is as intelligent as any person that has posted in this thread. They were all hand picked by Stynes for a reason. Do you think that the concerns you and some others have raised have somehow escaped the attention of those Board members, especially after they were caught short on some governance issues late last year ? Or is it more likely that they are well aware of their duties and responsibilities given their President's plight ? I'll put my faith in a Board and club that is debt free for the first time since 1981, has more members than ever, is once again a section of the MCC, and has orchestrated one of the best sponsorship packages in the AFL. And they managed all of this while we were [censored], which is no mean feat. I said earlier that any Board needs to be scrutinised and held accountable, but I also like to weigh up the pros and cons and for the life of me I can't understand why some of you aren't more gracious and appreciative of what these unpaid servants of the club have done. When I look at the afore mentioned pros and cons they're well and truly ahead of the ledger.

As for your last sentence that I've bolded ? I'm sure that Stynes would have preferred to see Bailey face to face, but in the overall scheme of things it's a minor matter. Bailey's time was up and circumstances dictated that it was difficult to see Bailey face to face. Not ideal, but, oh well.

And the "resurrection" of the club wasn't handed to a mate. Firstly, the club wasn't in any grave danger when Lyon was temporarily appointed. Why be so disingenuous ? Secondly, Lyon isn't just a "mate". He's a highly respected football person that captained the club and is a member of our Team of the Century. Why be so disrespectful to a club icon ?

You said that you're a pyschologist. If so you'd be familiar with the extensive lists of "cognitive bias". If you like I can provide a link, as I'm certain some are affecting your judgment.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Ben-Hur

[Sir Why You Little 37,302]

Good point Ben Hur. Why is Garry Lyon always referred to around here as just "Jimmy's Mate?" Garry is in the Team of the century as i recall. Sitting up near the front listening to coach Smith very closely. Yes Jim & Garry are close. But that began on the field of combat wearing the MFC jumper.

The anger thrown at G Lyon by some here i find sad and disturbing tbh.

Edited January 30, 2012 by why you little