Kento, I agree with most of what you've written. Empathy is a funny one: I am a psychologists, and I have empathy for most of my patients and that absolves them of none of their responsibilities. Jimmy has responsibilities. On his watch, with his role, the FD wobbled and now has almost been entirely replaced. Did he let it happen so Bailey could be easily replaced? DId he just not notice? Ws he too sick? Why sack a bloke over the phone? What the hell were the rest of the board doing?

My concern is that Jim is controlling and relatively effective at the 'house-building' that you've described. That means decisions (of a size) get left up to him...and when he doesn't make them they don't get made by anyone. From outside, I think that is what happened. As pres, the buck stops with Jim. He needs to take responsibility and hold himself and his board to account. If he cannot do it then it begins to compromise board functioning. Can Melbourne, so flush with life but so bloody vulnerable afford that risk now? A board that didn't know what the footy dept was doing, that was unable to stop FD and admin quarrels and that was interviewing players about club functioning? WTF? All with Jim front and centre.

Thanks Jim. Without you, my kids would not know the Dees and that is a debt I can never repay. What I'll do is brainwash them and take them to games and pay my memberships and post on forums and be active and interested in the life of my club. And it is now time to recognise your limits, hand the job to a man you trust and respect and see that your job is continued.

I have empathy for Jim; I don't think he can do that job (too sick) or that the board can carry him and I don't think it should carry him. I wonder if he thinks it should? They've shown little ability to step up when Jim was so sick this year - hell they needed gary to come in and do stuff (or let schwab do stuff) to fix the mess. It might make Jim sad, but at least telling him to step down would be being honest about his capacity, genuine in assessment and respectful of where he and the club are and need to be. Empahy is great, however, if you sacrifice your values in order to not make someone feel bad, then you are basically lying to them and yourself. So that you and they can feel better. Not my thing.

Bailey had to go and the quicker the better especially with the nightmare of another 2 years more of him on the table. Any other more professional club would have booted him out quicker and more ruthlessly.

My understanding is that there was never a deal "on the table" for another 2 years of Bailey from the MFC Board. And a professional club does not need to act vindictively on its employee who act honesty but fail to achieve the success required.

why not call it our "entitlement $$$" or our "dividend $$$"

calling it our Charity $$$ is like calling it our "Bend-over and take-it $$$". Sometimes we act as our own worst enemy.

Fair assessment of the situation.

This is why I like my club being a club that asks 'how would the person feel about that'? It has a part to play in every organisation. Including a multi national company.

Jimmy Stynes and the MFC have been in a long term relationship and it has been functionally good for both parties for decades. The day the MFC turns on Jimmy due to his inabilty to act as a functional President will be the day i turn my back on the club.

He is the 'Spiritual Leader' and that plays a pivotal part in the make up of the club.

This post is not sentimental tripe. To talk tough and suggest to drop the guy as he is unable to function at 100% is just wrong. Its not even human. Jim inspires ppl and the players/club.

Stynes can still do that in an ex officio role. The role of Club President is probably the most important role in the Club. Stynes has done some wonderful things for the Club. However last year the extent of Stynes challenges lead him to step aside. As a consequence of his illness he was unable to perform his duties and areas that were under his direct control had become dysfunctional and as Fan had pointed out at Board level decisions were being made haphazardly.

MFC had to call in a "saviour" Lyon to clean up things up. Now what has been done in the past six months has been impressive in a number of areas. We need to tkae advantage of this progress. I am concerned that incumbent President who has had a momentary reprieve from the grips of his health battles is in no better poistion to fulfill his role than he was before. I think its empathetic to his and Clubs situation that his health and the future of the Club is given due consideration.

Edit: I just saw timD's post. Excellent effort Tim. You nailed it.

Nitpicking? Hardly. Jimmy saved the club? No, he did not. Cam got sponsors. Many people threw their hard-earned at the club. Decisions about development, training and list management were already in place before Jim arrived. Jim built a facade and lots of people did the saving. Jim was a supremely effective figurehead and absolutely crucial to it all - but let's not get starry eyed.

Gary saved the club? Old is bang-on. Gary gets to be responsibility-free. All glory, no cost. That might not be bad - hell, I don't know. It is worth noticing though. And now he gets to back to the dark room of melbourne intra-club politics. And comment from a distance while nestled in the inner sactum (and deny it, too). This is NOT to denigrate his efforts or decisions. I want it all to work. I also want to see it for what it is. I'll see your 'nitpicking' and raise you 'spin-free understanding'.

You think Jimmy should be "moved on" as well do you?? You think the MFC could look itself right in the eye after doing that do you?

This place is only just starting to rebuild because of Jimmy....The whole club would fall over itself like a pack of cards....Let the Stynes energy through the place as long as we can.....once he has gone he is a long time gone-don't forget that.

All I'll say, is that questions needed to be asked and still do, whatever the answer may be.

It's simply prudent.

Beyond that, timD is bang on.

All I'll say, is that questions needed to be asked and still do, whatever the answer may be.

It's simply prudent.

Beyond that, timD is bang on.

You also have said there are still some serious questions(post88) that need to be asked. Then why not ask them? Or would you wait for someone else to ask them?

I don't believe Bailey should have coached beyond 2011. I believe the club could have announced he wouldn't be coach in 2012 before the end of the season, started looking for a new coach and Bailey could have been given the option to leave or see out the season. I believe he should have been given the opportunity to resign. I don't believe Garry Lyon should have been involved in any decision making on the Sunday after the Geelong game. I don't believe McLardy had any role interviewing the leadership group to gain their opinions on the MFC management prior to the Geelong game.

If you agree Bailey should have been removed why allow a charade that would have ensued if we would have kept him on?

Danny Frawley did the same and it was draining and embarrassing for all concerned.

If you make a decision, own the decision. We did that. And we did it poorly, but as soon as the decision was made to end Bailey's reign - we needed to end his reign. Jim shouldn't have called him, but after a 31 goal loss you don't dismiss the 31 goal loss for fear of looking 'knee-jerk.' That game happened, it was embarrassment after a period of stagnation and decline - my KPI thread bore that out in clear detail.

Whether or not Garry had a role in what happened, the only mistake made that weekend (other than the FD and the players) was the decision of Jimmy to call Bailey.

That's just for a start. Adelaide replaced Craig and did it gracefully. Footscray replaced Eade professionally. We replaced Bailey and looked like the Keystone Cops.

You cannot compare our coaching dismissal to others whose only similarity is that 'happened around the same time.'

Eade and Craig were longstanding servants of their clubs who achieved great success albeit not the greatest success, those clubs also didn't have a 31 goal loss as an exclamation mark.

We are in a good place now but none of that has to do with the way the Board or Lyon acted in the 48 hours after the Geelong game, it has to do with a lot of other things not the least being the AFL's equalization package which provided us the funds to support the FD and the decisions management and the Board have subsequently made. We've recovered a very poor position. Garry caused some of it and he fixed some of it. He's now left before any of his decisions have been tested.

Time will tell if Neeld is the messiah or just another Bailey that Lyon will start potting in a few years time.

Time will tell about the decisions made by our club. But Garry has never claimed to be anything other than a short-term, cheap consultant. The decisions made by the MFC while Garry was a consultant will be wrapped around his neck, either as a noose or a wreath, but that is the case for all those at the club.

If you agree Bailey should have been removed why allow a charade that would have ensued if we would have kept him on?

If you make a decision, own the decision. We did that. And we did it poorly, but as soon as the decision was made to end Bailey's reign - we needed to end his reign. Jim shouldn't have called him, but after a 31 goal loss you don't dismiss the 31 goal loss for fear of looking 'knee-jerk.' That game happened, it was embarrassment after a period of stagnation and decline - my KPI thread bore that out in clear detail.

Whether or not Garry had a role in what happened, the only mistake made that weekend (other than the FD and the players) was the decision of Jimmy to call Bailey.

You cannot compare our coaching dismissal to others whose only similarity is that 'happened around the same time.'

Eade and Craig were longstanding servants of their clubs who achieved great success albeit not the greatest success, those clubs also didn't have a 31 goal loss as an exclamation mark.

Time will tell about the decisions made by our club. But Garry has never claimed to be anything other than a short-term, cheap consultant. The decisions made by the MFC while Garry was a consultant will be wrapped around his neck, either as a noose or a wreath, but that is the case for all those at the club.

Agree.

It would have been best for Jim to do it in person rather than on the phone. Other than that, taking into consideration the magnitude of the loss and the KPI's from the season, and given Adelaide were already in the market, we had to move. It's a dog eat dog world out there. It wasn't a time to play Mr.Nice and think we would just land the best available letting Bailey finish his tenure, especially after that 186 disaster. So much has to be taken into consideration, including corporate dollars. We could have lost more with inaction, not just the best coach prospect.

Great post RP.

Dean BAILEY perfromed a job that was required for the club at the time and he probably was a good man for the new kids at the club. But I am not sure he had the ability to take them to the next level after their initial introduction. I think 2011 and the Geelong game made that very clear to the board and selection panel and the plans to move forward started prior to the Kardinia Park debacle, that was just the straw which broke the camels back. The unrest at the club which was spoken about around the time IMO was workings occuring for planning from 2012 and beyond.

A fresh start was required straight after that game and planning for 2012 onwards had to commence before September and that is what happended, Gary & Jimmy along with others realised Bailey could not take us forward. Comparing the Adelaide and Bulldogs scenarios is like comparing apples & oranges. I see Gary as being honest throughout he said he was here for 6 months to sort the mess out. IMO he realised Jimmy due to his health could not do the job. Cam SCHWAB much maligned has assisted with the debt demolition (he also cleared a large debt at Freo) and other ares in which we have moved forward.

I think Gary has put a cesession plan in place when as much as I hate to say it Jimmy can no longer be our sripitual leader. Cam SCHWAB is now doing what he does best looking after the business side of the club and hopefully cease meddling in football department affairs. You don't have to be liked to be a good CEO and he is one of the best. Gary has not walked away from the club he will still have an interest it is just the end of his every day input he loves the club and will continue to help in whatever way he can.

In Mclardy I saw a silent assasin he says little but when he speaks I like what he says, he is not Jeff KENNETT or Eddie but I am still confident in him bringing the club forward.

Neeld seems a no nonsense man who demands success and the tools required to achieve it, IMO underperforming players will be shown the door fairly quickly.

2012 will see us move forward it may be a small step but it is the foundation for a succesful future and it started last year.

What did the club learn from 2011 - Things don't just happen no matter how talented you are, You make them happen

But Garry has never claimed to be anything other than a short-term, cheap consultant.

That's what I said.

Gary & Jimmy along with others realised Bailey could not take us forward.

That's a big part of the concern I've got with Garry - doesn't want to commit to real ongoing involvement but wants to stick his oar in when it suits him.

Dean BAILEY perfromed a job that was required for the club at the time and he probably was a good man for the new kids at the club. But I am not sure he had the ability to take them to the next level after their initial introduction. I think 2011 and the Geelong game made that very clear to the board and selection panel and the plans to move forward started prior to the Kardinia Park debacle, that was just the straw which broke the camels back. The unrest at the club which was spoken about around the time IMO was workings occuring for planning from 2012 and beyond.

A fresh start was required straight after that game and planning for 2012 onwards had to commence before September and that is what happended, Gary & Jimmy along with others realised Bailey could not take us forward. Comparing the Adelaide and Bulldogs scenarios is like comparing apples & oranges. I see Gary as being honest throughout he said he was here for 6 months to sort the mess out. IMO he realised Jimmy due to his health could not do the job. Cam SCHWAB much maligned has assisted with the debt demolition (he also cleared a large debt at Freo) and other ares in which we have moved forward.

I think Gary has put a cesession plan in place when as much as I hate to say it Jimmy can no longer be our sripitual leader. Cam SCHWAB is now doing what he does best looking after the business side of the club and hopefully cease meddling in football department affairs. You don't have to be liked to be a good CEO and he is one of the best. Gary has not walked away from the club he will still have an interest it is just the end of his every day input he loves the club and will continue to help in whatever way he can.

In Mclardy I saw a silent assasin he says little but when he speaks I like what he says, he is not Jeff KENNETT or Eddie but I am still confident in him bringing the club forward.

Neeld seems a no nonsense man who demands success and the tools required to achieve it, IMO underperforming players will be shown the door fairly quickly.

2012 will see us move forward it may be a small step but it is the foundation for a succesful future and it started last year.

What did the club learn from 2011 - Things don't just happen no matter how talented you are, You make them happen

Agree with all of this. Nicely put.

That's a big part of the concern I've got with Garry - doesn't want to commit to real ongoing involvement but wants to stick his oar in when it suits him.

Have you got it in for Garry Lyon....are you not impressed with what the last 6 months have done for the MFC?

I honestly do not understand why there is all this bitter innuendo being thrown at one G. Lyon???

That's a big part of the concern I've got with Garry - doesn't want to commit to real ongoing involvement but wants to stick his oar in when it suits him.

Weren't you one that posted sometime last year that given the list we have and the position we're in and considering the challenger's (like Gold Coast and Greater [censored] Sheedy) in the year's ahead, that we better get our act into gear as a club and get the best out of these kids if we're going to win our 13th ? (along the lines of...) - I actually agreed with this sentiment btw.

Maybe sticking his oar in (or rudder? ), help put us on the right path.

That's a big part of the concern I've got with Garry - doesn't want to commit to real ongoing involvement but wants to stick his oar in when it suits him.

Who cares.... if it is to the benefit of MFC.

Let's get one thing straight here....Garry Lyon did not jump up & down demanding to be given the position he was given.

Garry was asked by Jimmy & the board to help out-which he has done.

And if you heard Don McClardy on Radio wednesday afternoon...Garry was thanked & given a glowing endorsement for all his work.

Get off his back...comment like......."Garry - doesn't want to commit to real ongoing involvement but wants to stick his oar in when it suits him." are just not on....

Garry has work outside the MFC which he has never denied...

I am one of the few people who thought Bails was a good coach, but frankly, we'll never know. More importantly, I think a lot of people are overestimating the role and importance of the coach. The fact is that throughout 2011 the club suffered from internal division between the football and administration departments. We all read reports of dissension and conflict involving Schwab, Bails, Connolly, even involving senior players, who's views were sought on the club's predicament. Added to that was the long drawn out Scully saga, which would have impacted negatively on team morale.

I don't know enough about the inner workings of the club to apportion blame for any of this, but any organisation, whether it's a football club or not, is bound to fail if it is divided. Neeld may or may not prove to be a good coach, to date he hasn't coached a single AFL game. However, the club's best chance of success is if everyone associated with the club unite and support each other. That, rather than the influence of any one individual, will do more than anything to generate on field success.

Let's get one thing straight here....Garry Lyon did not jump up & down demanding to be given the position he was given.

Garry was asked by Jimmy & the board to help out-which he has done.

And if you heard Don McClardy on Radio wednesday afternoon...Garry was thanked & given a glowing endorsement for all his work.

Get off his back...comment like......."Garry - doesn't want to commit to real ongoing involvement but wants to stick his oar in when it suits him." are just not on....

Garry has work outside the MFC which he has never denied...

Don't rewrite history, Lyon said no to helping out when he was asked..

Garry was asked by Jimmy and the board and he said no, several times. Instead he took pot-shots for six months from the sidelines. He forced Jimmy to get out of his sick bed and take action to sack Bailey. When he mouthed off on radio he did not say that he would contact the club, the board, the ceo or that he would do something himself. He said that he would be phoning Jimmy to have him do something. After Jimmy had to sack Bailey, and front the media looking extremely ill, Lyon then turned up to get involved, but said that he was not willing to put in more than a few months.

Bailey had to go, no doubt about it, but the club could have done it on their terms, and had McClardy, Schwab or Connelly do it. Lyon threw Jimmy under a bus by directly forcing him to get involved, then stepped in to clean up his own mess, but only if it could be done in the off season when he doesn't have to host the footy show.

Jimmy Stynes is president of the MFC. he is more of a trooper than almost anyone i have ever known or that i could think of for that matter but it is not an honorary title. if the coach was going to get sacked from any other club it would be the president that would do it. i honest to god hope that jimmy gets better and i wish him all the best BUT if he is going to be the president he has to do the presidential duties otherwise stand down. i love what he has done for the club, i love the support that he recieves and i hope that he can continue to lead the MFC on its glorious resurgence but it was his job to wield the axe, noone elses.

Garry came in and did us all a favour in rebuilding the footy department but he always said he wouldn't be there for the new season so i don't really see where the bitterness comes from

I don't know enough about the inner workings of the club to apportion blame for any of this, but any organisation, whether it's a football club or not, is bound to fail if it is divided. Neeld may or may not prove to be a good coach, to date he hasn't coached a single AFL game. However, the club's best chance of success is if everyone associated with the club unite and support each other. That, rather than the influence of any one individual, will do more than anything to generate on field success.

Absolutely.

That's a big part of the concern I've got with Garry - doesn't want to commit to real ongoing involvement but wants to stick his oar in when it suits him.

The above post doesn't make sense.

Proposition 1: Gary & Jimmy along with others realised Bailey could not take us forward.

Proposition 2: That's a big part of the concern I've got with Garry - doesn't want to commit to real ongoing involvement but wants to stick his oar in when it suits him.

What does 1 have to do with 2?

In any event the concern should not be with Garry but with the Board for allowing him to stick his oar in when it suits him if they don't want him to. Otherwise, everything he's done has been by invitation of the board and he made it known for the outset he wasn't in for the long haul.

Don't rewrite history, Lyon said no to helping out when he was asked.. Garry was asked by Jimmy and the board and he said no, several times. Instead he took pot-shots for six months from the sidelines. He forced Jimmy to get out of his sick bed and take action to sack Bailey. When he mouthed off on radio he did not say that he would contact the club, the board, the ceo or that he would do something himself. He said that he would be phoning Jimmy to have him do something. After Jimmy had to sack Bailey, and front the media looking extremely ill, Lyon then turned up to get involved, but said that he was not willing to put in more than a few months. Bailey had to go, no doubt about it, but the club could have done it on their terms, and had McClardy, Schwab or Connelly do it. Lyon threw Jimmy under a bus by directly forcing him to get involved, then stepped in to clean up his own mess, but only if it could be done in the off season when he doesn't have to host the footy show.

Garry forced Jimmy to get out of his sick bed and take action to sack Bailey?

Exactly what was the nature of the force?

Was it at gunpoint?

Im a fence sitter on this one.

No doubt that Garry Lion has helped out the club over the last little while, but I can also see why people would be saying negative things about the set of circumstances that were required in order for him to become involved. He's obviously made some things happen but i wouldnt paint him as the messiah in all of this.

If anyone is the unsung hero, its Schwab

... the concern should not be with Garry but with the Board for allowing him to stick his oar in when it suits him if they don't want him to.

Yep, that's hard to argue with that.

I'm not bitter about Garry Lyon's contribution - he has made one.

I'm not deifying him as a saviour - he contributes when it suits him or he's shamed into it.

Garry forced Jimmy to get out of his sick bed and take action to sack Bailey?

Exactly what was the nature of the force?

Was it at gunpoint?

Read the next line after the one that you quoted.