AGM

[The Chazz 4,077]

Well you can't blame Rhino, I mean the Club Chairman has said that we're not allowed to ask any of those questions. I reckon that tell you where the blame lies and it's only partially with the players and FD.

That will be a bit hard for some.

What am I blaming him for? These are opinion-based threads, and that's my opinion. He told me to read through threads on here to understand what "actually" happened, yet as you said, no one from the Club has made comment on.

You may well be right that the players and coach are partially to blame, but I can't see how they are only partially. They are professional athletes in their chosen field. They got beaten by 186 points in a competition tha tis mean to be "even". How can the players not be mostly to blame? At the end of the day, they're the ones running out on to the oval, chasing the ball, trying to stop their opponents from scoring while actually scoring themselves. It's either that or we were just having a bad day, all 21 of them at once (with the exception of Jordie Mc and someone else - can't remember who).

No side at AFL level should allow that to happen, regardless of the amount of crap that was happening offield. Players must take responsibility and my original post is that it is never to happen again, ever. Things are in place to make sure that if they have an issue, that it's left in the change rooms, not on the scoreboard.

[stranga 328]

Questions over the last 4 years and in particular the past 12 months should be definitely answerable and members have every right to raise those questions. If McLardy was refusing to address issues of the past 12 months during question time then that is disappointing and disturbing.

They definitely clearly requested that no quesitons be asked about the behind the scenes events of the last 12 months as they felt we had movied on from it. I was slightly perplexed and disappointed. Whilst they might feel the matters are dealt with i think there are many members like myself who still have open wounds over what happened last year and would have liked some closure by having some sort of answers from the men involved directly, who technically should be answering to those who elect them.

[olgreydingo 51]

Questions over the last 4 years and in particular the past 12 months should be definitely answerable and members have every right to raise those questions. If McLardy was refusing to address issues of the past 12 months during question time then that is disappointing and disturbing.

The honeymoon for Neeld will finish when the playing starts. We certainly dont know if he can coach or not. Its easy to trot out the words.

Geez I went to 2 of those you mentioned and I did not have that impression. I had always thought that the Club had clearly outlined the need for patience, development, youth. I also think that these messages passed at the AGMs were consistently reinforced publicly through the year.

Obviously people get different things out of any meeting or event.

But I, and the other people I attended with in the past years all felt like that the year ahead was one to look forward to. Sorry if you took the words as “our year” literally. And yes I think many of us understood “I had always thought that the Club had clearly outlined the need for patience”. But how much more patience can a long suffering supporter have. Was last year just patience too? I go to the AGM for the support of the club, get some insight into the workings of club and hopefully gain some vision into the season to come. Others may have other objectives or reasons.

.

[Slartibartfast 15,761]

You may well be right that the players and coach are partially to blame, but I can't see how they are only partially. They are professional athletes in their chosen field.

When Board members decide to interview players and ask them about the management of the club they derail a players normal preparation for a game. This is a game of small percentages Billy, not some idealistic structure devoid of human emotion, confidence and focus. When Board members involve players in the political infighting of the club they act inappropriately and sabotage the efforts of the players and FD in achieving outcomes.

McLardy doesn't understand this. He didn't want to be questioned on it. He failed terribly and won't be accountable to members about it.

Don't just blame the players mate.

[Sir Why You Little 34,443]

As a paid up member of both the MFC & MCC i would have preferred McClardy to address 186 head on for 10 minutes and then answer some questions. Then say "that's it." To refuse to discuss it i have to quietly disagree. It is a moment in our history that does need some discussion between members and the club, so at least we are all on the same page, even if we do not all like it.

The details of 186 should not be forever kept as hazy as the sacking of Norm Smith has been.

We need unit on all levels. Without, we are dead and gone.

Edited February 2, 2012 by why you little

[demonoid 317]

Just playing devils advocate here.. We picked Neeld from a pretty large group of coaches. Is it too much to ask for the complete package?? Granted if we can only have a coach that is good with the media OR a coach who gets on fields results, then i'll choose onfield results, but i dont think Savorydee's comments are out of line or in need of growing up

i dont care if the bloke turns out to be a serial killer as long as the clubs win games. its not a popularity contest.

[savoydee 6]

Well you can't blame Rhino, I mean the Club Chairman has said that we're not allowed to ask any of those questions. I reckon that tell you where the blame lies and it's only partially with the players and FD.

That will be a bit hard for some.

I totally agree wth you and whilst we are all in it together.,we should have the opportunity to ask questions about the last 12 months, such as the consultant's report, and indeed, the so called in fighting.Sweeping it under the carpet, just doesn't go well for the so called culture at the club.And with regards to the CS-White board Wednesday- what a [censored] that has proven to be -re integrity. openness, working together.

Edited February 2, 2012 by savoydee

[hoopla 418]

It's good there was no song and dance, just a clear message that we've now got everything in place, made the necessary changes, got who we think are the right people on board, and everything now comes down to hard work. No false hope, no timelines, just we're going to go hard.

Yes. Positive yet realistic.

Questions over the last 4 years and in particular the past 12 months should be definitely answerable and members have every right to raise those questions. If McLardy was refusing to address issues of the past 12 months during question time then that is disappointing and disturbing.

He didn't categorically refuse to ask questions about last year - he discouraged questions that would just rake over old ground. Clearly he didn't intend to answer questions like " Why didn't you let DB see out the season?" and "Why was he sacked over the phone?" and "Why did you approach Brad Green just before the Geelong game?" etc etc. There was nothing to gained by going to through issues with last years football department. A new department is now in place with a new Football Director - and as Chairman he was bound to make that point. Nothing disturbing about that,He said several times he was happy to talk with anybody about anything.

[Slartibartfast 15,761]

Yes. Positive yet realistic.

He didn't categorically refuse to ask questions about last year - he discouraged questions that would just rake over old ground. Clearly he didn't intend to answer questions like " Why didn't you let DB see out the season?" and "Why was he sacked over the phone?" and "Why did you approach Brad Green just before the Geelong game?" etc etc. There was nothing to gained by going to through issues with last years football department. A new department is now in place with a new Football Director - and as Chairman he was bound to make that point. Nothing disturbing about that,He said several times he was happy to talk with anybody about anything.

What about a question like "is it true that Cameron Schwab was told prior to the Geelong game his contract wouldn't be extended and if so what happened to change that decision".

The answer goes to the ability of the Board to manage the club and is the basis on which we elect them. If a Board refuses to answer and be accountable for events we as members are denied the information necessary to form an opinion on their ability. It is a mechanism to hide fault and is an abuse of power.

To many this refusal to discuss core issues will undermine their confidence in the Boards ability to do its job.

[savoydee 6]

What about a question like "is it true that Cameron Schwab was told prior to the Geelong game his contract wouldn't be extended and if so what happened to change that decision".

The answer goes to the ability of the Board to manage the club and is the basis on which we elect them. If a Board refuses to answer and be accountable for events we as members are denied the information necessary to form an opinion on their ability. It is a mechanism to hide fault and is an abuse of power.

To many this refusal to discuss core issues will undermine their confidence in the Boards ability to do its job.

And we both forgot to mention -one of CS's favourite words- transparency.. What happened to this Don and the board.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

That means your opinion isn't right or wrong either.

No need to be inflammatory Billy. I was not meaning to be. While you are entitled to your opinion it does not seem that the basis you have for it aligns with the events that occurred. It would appear by your response that you have hypothesized the scenarios and drawn conclusions. I dont think it is right to lay the blame at the players feet solely. Clearly they share the heat but as Fan has said there were other involved from Board members down that contributed to a terrible day against Geelong.

Obviously people get different things out of any meeting or event.

But I, and the other people I attended with in the past years all felt like that the year ahead was one to look forward to. Sorry if you took the words as “our year” literally. And yes I think many of us understood “I had always thought that the Club had clearly outlined the need for patience”. But how much more patience can a long suffering supporter have. Was last year just patience too? I go to the AGM for the support of the club, get some insight into the workings of club and hopefully gain some vision into the season to come. Others may have other objectives or reasons.

I dont believe the Club set the agenda for the expectations you had. The Club had clearly outlined the issues with the youth of the list getting at least 50 games into the playersetc. It cant be helped if you ignored the request for patience and resolved that the year would be brighter than what was being painted by the FD.

They definitely clearly requested that no quesitons be asked about the behind the scenes events of the last 12 months as they felt we had movied on from it. I was slightly perplexed and disappointed. Whilst they might feel the matters are dealt with i think there are many members like myself who still have open wounds over what happened last year and would have liked some closure by having some sort of answers from the men involved directly, who technically should be answering to those who elect them.

Agree stranga.

Nothing disturbing about that,He said several times he was happy to talk with anybody about anything.

Well then that comforting indeed that he happy to do that........ except he didnt want to do that at all.

Postcript I think Fan's last post nails it why the members deserve accountability.

[The Chazz 4,077]

When Board members decide to interview players and ask them about the management of the club they derail a players normal preparation for a game. This is a game of small percentages Billy, not some idealistic structure devoid of human emotion, confidence and focus. When Board members involve players in the political infighting of the club they act inappropriately and sabotage the efforts of the players and FD in achieving outcomes.

McLardy doesn't understand this. He didn't want to be questioned on it. He failed terribly and won't be accountable to members about it.

Don't just blame the players mate.

Sorry Fan, I was under the impression that the players went to the Board, my mistake - I must have read that in the paper as opposed to here on Demonland.

FWIW, if the board of the company I worked for and questioned me about aspects of the business, I'd front up the next day and put in 100%. I have a job to do, I get paid to do it, I get on and do it. But that's me. I don't sit back and think "f*** it, this place is in ruins", and then sit on my arse and do nothing.

The amusing thing I find about this thread is that it is about the Annual Generaly Meeting. Normally that is a time to reflect on the past 12 months, covering all aspects of the business. They'd be the first to talk about a purchase we made 11 months ago that is generate X amount of millions of dollars. Well, why not review all aspects, not just those that we pick and choose.

[hoopla 418]

As a paid up member of both the MFC & MCC i would have preferred McClardy to address 186 head on for 10 minutes and then answer some questions. Then say "that's it." To refuse to discuss it i have to quietly disagree. It is a moment in our history that does need some discussion between members and the club, so at least we are all on the same page, even if we do not all like it.

Having said that I had no problem with last night, there is one uncertainty surrounding 186 that is relevant going forward ... and that I would have liked Don to clarify.

Someone asked me this morning - "Was anything said about Cameron Schwab's position?"" Is he still under a short-term contract that expires at the end of this season?". The press reported last year that he was on very thin ice.

It can be inferred from last night that everything flows out of CS's red and blueprint - and that he is integral to our long-term plans. It might help erase any remaining suspicions about our off-field unity - and kill of any media mischief - if the Board came straight out and said that.

[hoopla 418]

think Fan's last post nails it why the members deserve accountability.

4 of the directors resigned and stood for re-election. Anyone unhappy with their perforamnce had the right to stand against them.You can't have greater accountability than that.

[The Chazz 4,077]

No need to be inflammatory Billy. I was not meaning to be. While you are entitled to your opinion it does not seem that the basis you have for it aligns with the events that occurred. It would appear by your response that you have hypothesized the scenarios and drawn conclusions. I dont think it is right to lay the blame at the players feet solely. Clearly they share the heat but as Fan has said there were other involved from Board members down that contributed to a terrible day against Geelong...

RR, I have not said that the players are the only ones to blame. If anything, I indicated in the below paragraph (of my original post in this thread) that the Club isn't saying they were not guilty in those events, but they have fixed areas of concern...

"To the players; if you have issues with certain things inside the Club? Don't punish us members and supporters by putting on displays such as 186 EVER again. There are things in place, personnel in place, that should never allow you to act in the fashion that you did. I would imagine you have got everything you asked for, and most importantly, you have got everything at your fingertips that even some recent premiers don't have. Now it's up to you to deliver something to us, the ones that have stuck by through thick and thin, the good times and the sh!t times."

I have looked at threads, articles, and spoke to people involved with the Club not long after 186. While I wasn't at the game, I watched it all. From my observations, of course I have come to a conclusion, and that's wholey and soley my opinion.

[Sir Why You Little 34,443]

Having said that I had no problem with last night, there is one uncertainty surrounding 186 that is relevant going forward ... and that I would have liked Don to clarify.

Someone asked me this morning - "Was anything said about Cameron Schwab's position?"" Is he still under a short-term contract that expires at the end of this season?". The press reported last year that he was on very thin ice.

It can be inferred from last night that everything flows out of CS's red and blueprint - and that he is integral to our long-term plans. It might help erase any remaining suspicions about our off-field unity - and kill of any media mischief - if the Board came straight out and said that.

Absolutely hoop. Clear the air and wash the dirty laundry...my mum would say. Then the entire club can move forward with clean crisp sheets of new paper to fill.

The way it is now , even after last night. There shall still be siscussions on here about 186. I do not want that. I want resolution and closure. I do not wish to wait for Bailey's "tell all" book. The board owes the members some truth, regardless of what actually happened. Potentially it may cost us memberships.

[Slartibartfast 15,761]

4 of the directors resigned and stood for re-election. Anyone unhappy with their perforamnce had the right to stand against them.You can't have greater accountability than that.

At the time of standing we thought Jimmy was Chairman.

Look, I don't think there is any desire for change because Jimmy's greatest achievement is to have brought a unity to the club that has been lacking in the past. I don't want that changed, it's a wonderful thing. But it was wrong not to give the members the opportunity to have some input when Jimmy left. That, and the failure to address the failings of the past 12 months, are worrying.

[daisycutter 28,514]

What about a question like "is it true that Cameron Schwab was told prior to the Geelong game his contract wouldn't be extended and if so what happened to change that decision".

The answer goes to the ability of the Board to manage the club and is the basis on which we elect them. If a Board refuses to answer and be accountable for events we as members are denied the information necessary to form an opinion on their ability. It is a mechanism to hide fault and is an abuse of power.

To many this refusal to discuss core issues will undermine their confidence in the Boards ability to do its job.

Well to a certain extent the lack of discussion of unpleasant topics is also an indictment on the attendees of the AGM. Nothing was stopping them from asking the hard questions. They were perfectly entitled to do so, but they either weren't fussed or squibbed it. That is not to say they would have received extensive or adequate answers but at least it would be on record for all to see

There is always two sides to the coin

It would seem the members who attended weren't that fussed (except for one guy re issues of "culture")

[Sir Why You Little 34,443]

Well to a certain extent the lack of discussion of unpleasant topics is also an indictment on the attendees of the AGM. Nothing was stopping them from asking the hard questions. They were perfectly entitled to do so, but they either weren't fussed or squibbed it. That is not to say they would have received extensive or adequate answers but at least it would be on record for all to see

There is always two sides to the coin

It would seem the members who attended weren't that fussed (except for one guy re issues of "culture")

Good point DC. If enough members had demanded answers it would have had to be addressed. Opportunity missed. I hope during rhe year it is resolved so it can then be left in a garbage can to slowly decompose and become something else. At present it still festers on.

[Redleg 37,582]

They definitely clearly requested that no quesitons be asked about the behind the scenes events of the last 12 months as they felt we had movied on from it. I was slightly perplexed and disappointed. Whilst they might feel the matters are dealt with i think there are many members like myself who still have open wounds over what happened last year and would have liked some closure by having some sort of answers from the men involved directly, who technically should be answering to those who elect them.

Yes, great, a robust discussion on whether or not the CEO should have been sacked last year, while he sits at the side of the President at the AGM.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

4 of the directors resigned and stood for re-election. Anyone unhappy with their perforamnce had the right to stand against them.You can't have greater accountability than that.

You dont understand accountability. Its not a matter of just tossing the incumbents. How can you logically and vaidly assess performance if there is no clarity of what actually took place aside from what is leaked or published in the Press. Surely members deserve better than being treated like mushrooms. Particularly when its many of the said members that showed the leap of faith to make donations to the Club that wiped out over $5million of debt.

RR, I have not said that the players are the only ones to blame. If anything, I indicated in the below paragraph (of my original post in this thread) that the Club isn't saying they were not guilty in those events, but they have fixed areas of concern...

"To the players; if you have issues with certain things inside the Club? Don't punish us members and supporters by putting on displays such as 186 EVER again. There are things in place, personnel in place, that should never allow you to act in the fashion that you did. I would imagine you have got everything you asked for, and most importantly, you have got everything at your fingertips that even some recent premiers don't have. Now it's up to you to deliver something to us, the ones that have stuck by through thick and thin, the good times and the sh!t times."

I have looked at threads, articles, and spoke to people involved with the Club not long after 186. While I wasn't at the game, I watched it all. From my observations, of course I have come to a conclusion, and that's wholey and soley my opinion.

And they were the only party you singled out for admonishment for the result and your take on what happened was clearly incorrect as you have acknowledged. I am glad that no one at the Club is pointing any fingers because the failures that contributed to the results involved not just the players,

[Bonkers 915]

Tend to agree with what you have stated above daisycutter. McLardy may have asked for people not to ask the questions, however we all know that every member in the room had the right to ask them.

[H_T 2,941]

If I'm reading the reports correctly attendees were asked not to ask questions about last year. Surely I've misread that. Is the Board really saying "I won't answer questions about the last 12 months"? If that's the case it a gross omission of accountability and responsibility. Can you imagine the CEO of BHP asking shareholders not to ask questions about the last 12 months, especially if things happened that were very poorly handled?

I'm bemused at this forums confidence in McLardy. McLardy was the one who, as a Board member, decided to interview the leadership group about the management of the club without reference to the rest of the Board in the week prior to W186. That was a gross misjudgement on so many levels and showed me that his understanding of a Boards role is poor and he was not suited to the role. That he is Stynes best mate and Jimmy wanted him President has allowed him the position out of respect for Jim.

For him as President to refuse to discuss the last 12 months shows his judgement is not improving. Jimmy has been a wonderful figurehead for our club but as a member I feel a bit disenfranchised that Jimmy's retirement was announced on the day of the AGM, McLardy appointed Chairman and we as members were given no time to approved or otherwise this move.

I agree. Surely as members we're entitled to a little transparency. Isn't that what this board and CEO was spruiking from the start ?

It hurts me to say that, because all I want is smooth sailing for our club. I'm apprehensive because any digging towards transparency may cause unsettling within the ranks. Which is not what I want for the club... but wouldn't it be healthy for the club to remain trasparent and be accountable ??

Perhaps we should look forward ... at least our current FD staff and 2012 list could do without any distraction.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Tend to agree with what you have stated above daisycutter. McLardy may have asked for people not to ask the questions, however we all know that every member in the room had the right to ask them.

McLardy should not have asked for that at the AGM and should have been prepared to address all questions.

The Board could have used that platform to clear the air. They didn't. An opportunity lost.

[Redleg 37,582]

Here is my 2 cents worth on last night.

It was decidedly flat. It is not too much to have a rousing rendition of the club song.

Russell Howcroft, the director who chaired the AGM looked like a clown with his silly shirt collar and performed like one. I thought he was pathetic. He had the chance to interview Mitch Clark and came up with the big questions we all were dying to know, " who did you follow as a kid and who are the better guys us or the lions". Really!!!!!!!!!! Mitch put him in his place. What about a question on his pre season and his fitness and how he has settled in to life in Melbourne.

The Finance Director sees himself as a stand up comedian. While Stuart Grimshaw is funny the financial reports don't need constant wisecracks and jokes so that he can endear himself to us. He has done this at a number of AGM's now and I personally tire of it. I would rather some analysis of the financial situation of the club. Typical of his report was " what do those graphs mean, they mean we have spent a lot on new computers". Again really.

The CEO's speech was a bunch of meaningless jargon and catchphrases. I don't know what he said.

Then what we all came to see and hear, the new players and what happened, they were paraded up the front and then told to sit down. Why wasn't each one interviewed briefly? A few minutes each would not have overly lengthened the shortest MFC AGM ( 75 minutes ) that I have attended. What in the hell do you think most members wanted, answer, to hear and see the new boys. On this I say , pathetic.

My conclusion on our AGM, "amateur hour" or make that "amateur hour and a quarter".