Your entitled to your opinion TimD but I have to say I couldn't disagree with you more. Cast your memory back to June 2008 & this club was on its knees again. The AFL told us that the club stood for nothing, we were 5-6mil in dept & the likelihood of survival IMO was pretty slim. It took a lot of balls for Jim to step up to the plate & put the club ahead of himself. Whilst Jim couldn't have achieved what he has without the people you speak of, would those people be doing the work they are without Jim putting them there to do that work? There is no way anyone else could have revolutionized this club to its current form the way Jim has. No other person would have had the ability to unite a club & get us all moving together in the one direction. No other person associated with the club had the vision, leadership & influence to right the sinking ship.

Bonkers, I think it is important to recognise what Jim has done, what he has failed to do and what he has not done at all. It is a myth that Jim has saved the club. Saving the club is a massive operation that has demanded many things and is not done yet. jim effectively demolished the debt with member/supporter help. He did not improve our facilities, change our list, develop Casey etc etc. All essential ingredients. Jim's done none of them. Not one. The one thing he did do was preside in an essential way over the debt demolishion. Jim hads not put the club ahead of himself. He has put himself at the head of the club. I'm not being smart - that is his position. Hundreds of members paid their money to save the club. jim did not do it by himself. He is necessary but not sufficient. It takes no balls to come in to a hopeless situation because no one will blame you if you fail. No-one at all. It is a free swing.

Did he inspire and unite - hell yes! Was he essential - yes! Is he responsible for [censored]-ups -hell yes. Has the board appeared disengaged or paralyzed behind him - yes. Are things better now - well, they look it, don't they. My hope is that Jim's figurehead position is being maintained while his responsbilities have been redistributed within the board somehow. Best of both worlds.

as for the afl, well, they can go and pleasure themselves out of the sight of delicate eyes.

And Deemonstrative, the "low moral fibre" thing is bizarre. Genuinely. I'm saying that governance is a concern and Jim's ability to discharge his responsibilities are an issue and you think that is 'low'? Ignoring it to make yourself feel good -now that is

'low' - it risks much in order to avoid pesonal discomfort. As in, it's the bottom of the barrel of moral reasoning. Nice work if you can get it.

You have made some mighty big statements there TimD. That is your right, but others can disagree. Jim Stynes has been far more than just a figure head. I would use the word "catalyst" myself. Has it been rocky...yep. But without Jim we would not be in Melbourne anymore IMO. He deserves way more cred than what you have given.

timD clearly gives Stynes due credit for what he has done.

But it's folly to not realise that even Jim has limitations and should held accountable for any failings in performing his duties as president.

timD clearly gives Stynes due credit for what he has done.

But it's folly to not realise that even Jim has limitations and should held accountable for any failings in performing his duties as president.

So would you like to list Jim's failings as President ? And his limitations ?

By the way , these failings and limitations need to be substantial to have any merit .

Cheers

Bonkers, I think it is important to recognise what Jim has done, what he has failed to do and what he has not done at all. It is a myth that Jim has saved the club. Saving the club is a massive operation that has demanded many things and is not done yet. jim effectively demolished the debt with member/supporter help. He did not improve our facilities, change our list, develop Casey etc etc. All essential ingredients. Jim's done none of them. Not one. The one thing he did do was preside in an essential way over the debt demolishion. Jim hads not put the club ahead of himself. He has put himself at the head of the club. I'm not being smart - that is his position. Hundreds of members paid their money to save the club. jim did not do it by himself. He is necessary but not sufficient. It takes no balls to come in to a hopeless situation because no one will blame you if you fail. No-one at all. It is a free swing.

Did he inspire and unite - hell yes! Was he essential - yes! Is he responsible for [censored]-ups -hell yes. Has the board appeared disengaged or paralyzed behind him - yes. Are things better now - well, they look it, don't they. My hope is that Jim's figurehead position is being maintained while his responsbilities have been redistributed within the board somehow. Best of both worlds.

Jim may well have not done all of the things you've listed above, in fact it's almost ludicrous to suggest that he would even be responsible for facilitating those outcomes.

I feel that the point you're missing is that it has been Jim that's been the key ingredient.

It sounds like you're suggesting that any candidate could have pulled this off.

To bang on about what he has not done, is plain poor form and an effort to stand apart from the general supporter consensus.

I hope you re-consider your opinion.

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.

Spot on. About mid way through last season i posted about how i see the fundamental cause of our sustained lack of success as our history of woeful governance and divided boards. The events RB note above have reinforced my views on this. All the dollars thrown at the FD will be for nought if the board doesn't deliver sound governance and is truly united (for the long haul not just a few months). Only time will tell.

Bonkers, I think it is important to recognise what Jim has done, what he has failed to do and what he has not done at all. It is a myth that Jim has saved the club. Saving the club is a massive operation that has demanded many things and is not done yet. jim effectively demolished the debt with member/supporter help. He did not improve our facilities, change our list, develop Casey etc etc. All essential ingredients. Jim's done none of them. Not one. The one thing he did do was preside in an essential way over the debt demolishion. Jim hads not put the club ahead of himself. He has put himself at the head of the club. I'm not being smart - that is his position. Hundreds of members paid their money to save the club. jim did not do it by himself. He is necessary but not sufficient. It takes no balls to come in to a hopeless situation because no one will blame you if you fail. No-one at all. It is a free swing.

Did he inspire and unite - hell yes! Was he essential - yes! Is he responsible for [censored]-ups -hell yes. Has the board appeared disengaged or paralyzed behind him - yes. Are things better now - well, they look it, don't they. My hope is that Jim's figurehead position is being maintained while his responsbilities have been redistributed within the board somehow. Best of both worlds.

as for the afl, well, they can go and pleasure themselves out of the sight of delicate eyes.

And Deemonstrative, the "low moral fibre" thing is bizarre. Genuinely. I'm saying that governance is a concern and Jim's ability to discharge his responsibilities are an issue and you think that is 'low'? Ignoring it to make yourself feel good -now that is

'low' - it risks much in order to avoid pesonal discomfort. As in, it's the bottom of the barrel of moral reasoning. Nice work if you can get it.

I wish there was also a forum feature to dislike a post.

I find your comments particularly ungracious. I suspect you find comfort in numbers, because there's a sentiment on here from seemingly older posters along your lines. I sense a groupthink mentality from some of the forums oligarchy, although I'm not suggesting that you're representative.

Stynes was able to demolish the debt because of his ability to unite the club. This club had been fractured by factions for 30 years, but under Stynes they managed to put their considerable differences aside in the best interests of the club. This is his legacy. People that previously wouldn't financially contribute suddenly did. He cobbled together a Board that was praised by the AFL, unlike many previous administrations that they'd derided. Membership and sponsorship are now at record highs and are at odds with the club's on-field performance.

Your following comment particularly annoyed me: "It takes no balls to come in to a hopeless situation because no one will blame you if you fail. No-one at all. It is a free swing." You're an ingrate. An unpaid volunteer reluctantly accepts a position to save a club he loves that will require copious amounts of his time and keep him from his family yet you say it takes "no balls" ? A club that has a crippling debt and massive divisions within its ranks. A club that stands for nothing according to the AFL's chief. You even acknowledge that it was a "hopeless situation" he inherited, but still want to downplay his contribution. You say no one will blame him if he fails. You obviously don't know too many successful people, or what motivates them.

The Board may have momentarily dropped the ball, which is hardly surprising when such a hands on President is suddenly staring death in the face, but I suspect they'll put their mistakes behind them and learn from what proved to be a challenging year.

I wish there was also a forum feature to dislike a post.

I find your comments particularly ungracious. I suspect you find comfort in numbers, because there's a sentiment on here from seemingly older posters along your lines. I sense a groupthink mentality from some of the forums oligarchy, although I'm not suggesting that you're representative.

Stynes was able to demolish the debt because of his ability to unite the club. This club had been fractured by factions for 30 years, but under Stynes they managed to put their considerable differences aside in the best interests of the club. This is his legacy. People that previously wouldn't financially contribute suddenly did. He cobbled together a Board that was praised by the AFL, unlike many previous administrations that they'd derided. Membership and sponsorship are now at record highs and are at odds with the club's on-field performance.

Your following comment particularly annoyed me: "It takes no balls to come in to a hopeless situation because no one will blame you if you fail. No-one at all. It is a free swing." You're an ingrate. An unpaid volunteer reluctantly accepts a position to save a club he loves that will require copious amounts of his time and keep him from his family yet you say it takes "no balls" ? A club that has a crippling debt and massive divisions within its ranks. A club that stands for nothing according to the AFL's chief. You even acknowledge that it was a "hopeless situation" he inherited, but still want to downplay his contribution. You say no one will blame him if he fails. You obviously don't know too many successful people, or what motivates them.

The Board may have momentarily dropped the ball, which is hardly surprising when such a hands on President is suddenly staring death in the face, but I suspect they'll put their mistakes behind them and learn from what proved to be a challenging year.

Absolutely spot on BH. You hit that one right in the middle.

I wish there was also a forum feature to dislike a post.

I find your comments particularly ungracious. I suspect you find comfort in numbers, because there's a sentiment on here from seemingly older posters along your lines. I sense a groupthink mentality from some of the forums oligarchy, although I'm not suggesting that you're representative.

Stynes was able to demolish the debt because of his ability to unite the club. This club had been fractured by factions for 30 years, but under Stynes they managed to put their considerable differences aside in the best interests of the club. This is his legacy. People that previously wouldn't financially contribute suddenly did. He cobbled together a Board that was praised by the AFL, unlike many previous administrations that they'd derided. Membership and sponsorship are now at record highs and are at odds with the club's on-field performance.

Your following comment particularly annoyed me: "It takes no balls to come in to a hopeless situation because no one will blame you if you fail. No-one at all. It is a free swing." You're an ingrate. An unpaid volunteer reluctantly accepts a position to save a club he loves that will require copious amounts of his time and keep him from his family yet you say it takes "no balls" ? A club that has a crippling debt and massive divisions within its ranks. A club that stands for nothing according to the AFL's chief. You even acknowledge that it was a "hopeless situation" he inherited, but still want to downplay his contribution. You say no one will blame him if he fails. You obviously don't know too many successful people, or what motivates them.

The Board may have momentarily dropped the ball, which is hardly surprising when such a hands on President is suddenly staring death in the face, but I suspect they'll put their mistakes behind them and learn from what proved to be a challenging year.

Excellent post . And one that should hopefully hit home .

But It probably won't because the "Stynes detractors" have got their back's up .

In a way , these "Stynes detractors" are on safe ground because their "wish" to replace Jimmy is never going to eventuate . Therefore they can nitpick and take potshots to their hearts content and pick up the dummy vote .

Some people are just never happy . Muckrakers , who are not team players , and never will be . The type who would rather find fault than acknowledge good points . These type's usually disappear when the going gets tough . Yet they want team success . Astonishing.

Cheers Ben-Hur and keep up the good work .

Macca

I barely post on Demonland anymore because of things like what I have read in places in this topic.

If you are one of the few cowards, naysayers, and obvious contrarians spewing forth your self important, jealous, and negative rhetoric about where Jim Stynes has "failed" then you can eff off to another club, as the Melbourne I've always loved, and is on the way back to it's passionate and soulful culture, does not want your type any longer.

There's a difference between recognition and satiety. None of us will feel truly fulfilled until we can win a premiership, but to discount the MASSIVE improvements and feel Jim has brought to the club is pure idiocy and an obvious case of the disunity we have suffered through for so long.

Lift your game Melbourne supporters. Our club, including it's President, are far from perfect, but they are OURS. You don't have to always be positive, but this constant negativity and bashing of our own club is old and unwanted.

Lift your game Melbourne supporters. Our club, including it's President, are far from perfect, but they are OURS. You don't have to always be positive, but this constant negativity and bashing of our own club is old and unwanted.

There are only a couple of people expressing the view that you have outlined and ironically through this comment you have been sucked in to the negativity.

But without Jim we would not be in Melbourne anymore IMO. He deserves way more cred than what you have given.

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.

So would you like to list Jim's failings as President ? And his limitations ?

By the way , these failings and limitations need to be substantial to have any merit .

Cheers

That's just it - I don't have an accurate list of them and none of us are close enough to do so.

But if there are any, they should not be ignored out of hand purely because he is Jim Stynes.

Some people in this thread are letting their own thoughts run away with them.

Saying that ANY president should be held accountable for failings while in his position does NOT equal "Stynes should be sacked".

It means, there should be some form of quality control, and "irregardless" of what has been done in the past, realising that ALL people are capable of failings and they should be monitored.

And back to the earlier point, Jim's condition has considerably worsened since assuming the post, and IF he is deemed to no longer be able to fulfil his duties, SOME solution must be found to rectify that.

We can't just sit on our hands hoping the POTENTIAL problem might fix itself, purely because he is Jim Stynes.

Calm heads, people.

I barely post on Demonland anymore because of things like what I have read in places in this topic.

If you are one of the few cowards, naysayers, and obvious contrarians spewing forth your self important, jealous, and negative rhetoric about where Jim Stynes has "failed" then you can eff off to another club, as the Melbourne I've always loved, and is on the way back to it's passionate and soulful culture, does not want your type any longer.

There's a difference between recognition and satiety. None of us will feel truly fulfilled until we can win a premiership, but to discount the MASSIVE improvements and feel Jim has brought to the club is pure idiocy and an obvious case of the disunity we have suffered through for so long.

Lift your game Melbourne supporters. Our club, including it's President, are far from perfect, but they are OURS. You don't have to always be positive, but this constant negativity and bashing of our own club is old and unwanted.

Quite. TimD has a long history of playing politic with board and governance matters. Be aware he has a well established agenda in this area.

I don't agree with timD and others that Stynes should be removed, but I think it's important they should be able to express their concerns without being burnt at the stake.

If we are to be a successful organisation people should not be afraid to ask the hard questions. If these questions had been asked and addressed last year we may not have got to the point of 186. We need to grow up a bit, it's not necessary to question someones moral fibre or label them a coward for raising a concern they have.

We only get one shot at a premiership with this list that has been patiently rebuilt, and I for one don't want to blow it because of over sentimentality. If we are going to win a flag we need a functional board and admin working with the footy dept. I think it's pretty clear this wasn't the case last year.

It seems to me the problems from last year are being resolved, Sugar Healy being the final piece of the puzzle. Jimmy has realised his limits and so has the board. He clearly had too much on his plate last year. I'm happy for Jim to remain President for as long as he wishes and is able, the positives he brings to the club far outweigh the difficulties presented by his illness. His workload will need to be monitored and support given where necessary but I'm sure McLardy and co are aware of that now.

Quite. TimD has a long history of playing politic with board and governance matters. Be aware he has a well established agenda in this area.

Wow. A bit overstated isn't it?

And does it make his arguments any less valid?

I'm going to name my kid James, but i still agree with a lot of what he says.

I understand that some of us don't like the reverence in which Garry and Jim are held but everyone needs their heroes.

If nothing else - we were in a great deal of trouble and needed a leader to get those to the club (Foundation Heroes, members, board members, personnel, etc) who, collectively, could save the club.

Jim did that and he is revered because of it.

timD clearly gives Stynes due credit for what he has done.

But it's folly to not realise that even Jim has limitations and should held accountable for any failings in performing his duties as president.

So would you like to list Jim's failings as President ? And his limitations ?

By the way , these failings and limitations need to be substantial to have any merit .

Cheers

That's just it - I don't have an accurate list of them and none of us are close enough to do so.

But if there are any, they should not be ignored out of hand purely because he is Jim Stynes.

So you speculate about Jim's limitations and failings , then offer no evidence to back up your comments other than "If there are any"

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.

i have never mentioned the words religion or Jesus when speaking of Jim Stynes Nasher. You have.

Please do not associate my words with cartoon characters. Jim is better than that.

Love the way some people think they know or know someone who told them this and that, the real truth is only those involved know and the rest belong to the Schitt family, "don't know schitt, jack schitt. pisa schitt and fulla schitt" why cannot we just move on as the club has!!

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.

I'd like you to quote some of these "over the top" views, as I've yet to see them from those that support Stynes. I don't think anyone thinks that the Board hasn't made mistakes. Fan's posts in other threads on their lack of corporate governance prior to sacking Bailey was very salient. But I reckon they're well ahead on the ledger when it comes to their successes. Stynes and co aren't immune from scrutiny, in fact on-going analysis is a must, but some of the personal derision is unfortunate.

It's the off-season and there's not a lot of footy discuss, which is probably why this topic has more legs than imo it deserves.

I'd like you to quote some of these "over the top" views, as I've yet to see them from those that support Stynes. I don't think anyone thinks that the Board hasn't made mistakes. Fan's posts in other threads on their lack of corporate governance prior to sacking Bailey was very salient. But I reckon they're well ahead on the ledger when it comes to their successes. Stynes and co aren't immune from scrutiny, in fact on-going analysis is a must, but some of the personal derision is unfortunate.

It's the off-season and there's not a lot of footy discuss, which is probably why this topic has more legs than imo it deserves.

I think WYL has been a little over the top...

I think WYL has been a little over the top...

In what way rpfc have i been over the top concerning the work of Jim Stynes towards the MFC since 2008?

Bring on the captaincy, please.