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.

A great post and just about says it all on this topic. Could not agree with you more BH.

Where does the MFC player culture of selfishness and smug self-satisfaction with modest achievements trace back to?

Where does the MFC player culture of selfishness and smug self-satisfaction with modest achievements trace back to?

I've said this before, a premiership player at another club told me that they were always amazed by the arrogant players at Melbourne in G. Lyons time. He couldn't understand it because they hadn't won anything.

I've said this before, a premiership player at another club told me that they were always amazed by the arrogant players at Melbourne in G. Lyons time. He couldn't understand it because they hadn't won anything.

That is where all the Hollywood Boullevard stuff began which i think has been carried on at AAMI.

Ironic that Garry appointed Mark Neeld to clean up these antics.

Biggest mistake melbourne makes is going back to Gary Lyon.

Gary Lyon has appointed Mark Neeld and Dean Bailey.

Ironic that Garry appointed Mark Neeld to clean up these antics.

I guess the lesson is - if you get up to these antics - you better be as good as Garry Lyon...

Biggest mistake melbourne makes is going back to Gary Lyon.

Gary Lyon has appointed Mark Neeld and Dean Bailey.

Who would you prefer?

Leading teams?

Leigh Matthews?

Cameron Schwab?

Andrew Demetriou?

rpfc?

Apart from the last option, they are all questionable as a person in charge of picking a coach of a club.

Garry knows footy and he was able to come in and be a cheap consultant that knew the frustrations that we know.

You are alluding to Neeld being a failure but maybe we can't see the forest for the trees and maybe this is exactly what the club needed?

We will find out.

Garry knows footy and he was able to come in and be a cheap consultant that knew the frustrations that we know.

Mark Maclure is a dinosaur, but he made an incisive observation when he pointed out that Garry had no place questioning Mark Neeld starting the captains on the bench against Geelong when he had appointed him as coach. So typical of all the issues I have about Garry's involvement in club business.

Who would you prefer?

Damien Hardwick.

We wouldn't have needed anyone else.

Melbourne 0/8. Five or is it six long years? Gary Lyon, over rated and he really couldn't care less.

Edited May 23, 201213 yr by Jackie

Damien Hardwick.

We wouldn't have needed anyone else.

were you saying this when Richmond were 0/9 in 2010?

hmm?

Mark Maclure is a dinosaur, but he made an incisive observation when he pointed out that Garry had no place questioning Mark Neeld starting the captains on the bench against Geelong when he had appointed him as coach. So typical of all the issues I have about Garry's involvement in club business.

Really?

You think because Lyon belonged to a panel that decided he was the best coach available for our club at that time, that Lyon then is unable to critically analyse or simply criticise any future decision that Neeld may make?

Cos I don't.

Whilst Lyon must wear some of the "blame" (or kudos) for Neeld being in place, it doesn't restrict his ability to criticise an isolated decision.

I think that would be stupid.

Really?

You think because Lyon belonged to a panel that decided he was the best coach available for our club at that time, that Lyon then is unable to critically analyse or simply criticise any future decision that Neeld may make?

Cos I don't.

Whilst Lyon must wear some of the "blame" (or kudos) for Neeld being in place, it doesn't restrict his ability to criticise an isolated decision.

I think that would be stupid.

But so would criticising said isolated decision. Talk about a nothing thing to be worried about.

Food for thought:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/crows-got-it-right-rejecting-mark-neeld/story-fn83zgw9-1226363950856

Damien Hardwick.

We wouldn't have needed anyone else.

were you saying this when Richmond were 0/9 in 2010?

hmm?

Indeed.

Maybe when people said that the Tigers were the worst team since Fitzroy some were questioning Hardwicks appointment.

Food for thought:

http://www.adelaiden...9-1226363950856

Not really, just more verbal diarrhoea - with no quotes or anything to back up the "facts", no less. Who gives a rats about which party rejected who? It's just petty points-scoring from the pro-Adelaide Rucci - kind of like those "YOU DIDN'T DUMP ME I DUMPED YOU" conversations some immature couples have when they split up. Zzzzz.

Not really, just more verbal diarrhoea - with no quotes or anything to back up the "facts", no less. Who gives a rats about which party rejected who? It's just petty points-scoring from the pro-Adelaide Rucci - kind of like those "YOU DIDN'T DUMP ME I DUMPED YOU" conversations some immature couples have when they split up. Zzzzz.

By all means be cynical and suspicious, but can someone produce facts to counter the statements in the article? What if they are correct? What does that say about MFC?

By all means be cynical and suspicious, but can someone produce facts to counter the statements in the article? What if they are correct? What does that say about MFC?

Aren't you being cynical and suspicious about the Neeld appointment?

Good old Gary, was never cheap in the old days. Salary cap breaches cost us serious real moola and draft picks in the late 1990's. Now he came, he saw, he conquered. And Blind Freddy could read Malthouse's recommendations in the papers and offer his consultancy for a slab of beer. Gary moves in and out like a flash. Its all WAM, BAM, thank you mam and heres your man.

Edited May 23, 201213 yr by Jackie

By all means be cynical and suspicious, but can someone produce facts to counter the statements in the article? What if they are correct? What does that say about MFC?

No - as I seem to say a lot on this forum these days, the onus isn't on me (or anyone else) to disprove Rucci's statement, the onus is on him to prove his own statement. You make a claim, you back it up. He's done nothing of the sort. You can believe what you like of course, but to me that article comes devoid of any credibility.

And I stand by my original comment that it's all just boring waffle that has no meaning anyway. Having a different preference on the senior coach isn't an indictment or a credit to either club. It certainly doesn't "say" anything about the MFC.

By all means be cynical and suspicious, but can someone produce facts to counter the statements in the article? What if they are correct? What does that say about MFC?

It says that we got the coach we wanted. And that Adelaide got the coach they wanted. Presumably, as a postscript, both Footscray and the Saints got the coaches they wanted.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Not really, just more verbal diarrhoea - with no quotes or anything to back up the "facts", no less. Who gives a rats about which party rejected who? It's just petty points-scoring from the pro-Adelaide Rucci - kind of like those "YOU DIDN'T DUMP ME I DUMPED YOU" conversations some immature couples have when they split up. Zzzzz.

Yes food for thought. Perhaps Neeld did not get the club he wanted.

Bottom line is it's up to Mark Neeld to prove his worth. He has 3 years.

Aren't you being cynical and suspicious about the Neeld appointment?

No - as I seem to say a lot on this forum these days, the onus isn't on me (or anyone else) to disprove Rucci's statement, the onus is on him to prove his own statement. You make a claim, you back it up. He's done nothing of the sort.

And I stand by my original comment that it's all pointless, boring waffle anyway.

Comments such as those from Rucci and Caro require careful consideration, especially given the situation in which MFC finds itself.