Ah yes - the reknowned Goldilocks Gambit!

Actually Old, they call it the welcome to the real world gambit these days because in the real world, football clubs don't preoccupy themselves at AGM's with wrist slashing about past mistakes in front of their stakeholders, their coaches, playing group and staff members when they're on the threshold of a new season, especially when the fruits of six months of obvious hard endeavour to rectify those mistakes is on show in front of those who bothered to turn up.

I couldn't help thinking while reading this article about Don McLardy in today's Age -Demons burning with ambition: McLardy that although it's a post-AGM piece, it really captured most of what was covered on the night.

''You get judged on what happens out the window there [on the field],'' McLardy said. ''We were disappointing last year and the rest falls in behind that.

Likewise, there was no sinister cover up on the night of the fact that we were disappointing in 2011 and it was admitted that mistakes were made but the message was about the future and our bid to become a strong club and a power in the competition.

Surely, that's how it should be?

You know, people, there wasn't a great deal of passion for, or talk of, the AGM on this site before the event.

And this place is as good a 'pulse take' of the average MFC supporter as any other entity on this green earth.

Maybe we should have done some 'spitballing' or some 'brainstorming' over what to ask. Usually we do. We did for Neeld. In fact we had a thread "Questions to ask Mark Neeld" at an earlier event.

Why didn't we have something similar?

Maybe we knew that the questions would be irrelevant (questions about the previous FD structure? Bailey? etc.), unanswerable (what happened to CS? what is happening to CS? etc), and rhetorical (should we sack a coach by phone? should the board have a active footy director at all times? etc.)...

Actually Old, they call it the welcome to the real world gambit these days because in the real world, football clubs don't preoccupy themselves at AGM's with wrist slashing about past mistakes in front of their stakeholders, their coaches, playing group and staff members when they're on the threshold of a new season, especially when the fruits of six months of obvious hard endeavour to rectify those mistakes is on show in front of those who bothered to turn up.

I couldn't agree with you more - the AGM is not the time or place to air the dirty linen unless the situation is dire, and it seems we've made significant progress to rectify some problems.

But is everything fine now? Was the whole problem Dean Bailey all along and that's fixed now? Was Cameron Schwab saying this but no-one realised he was right until 186 and then everyone changed their mind and Cam's back as part of the furniture now? Did Don McLardy's interview of senior players in the week leading up to 186 have any impact on the outcome? These are the kind of points I imagined you had in mind when you quoted we need to understand the past to avoid repeating it. Maybe the club has addressed these questions internally - I hope that that bed's not too hard, that porridge is not too hot. I guess we just have to trust ...

Actually we did not vote them back in at all. If there is no other challengers then no vote is held. Ample of opportunity to assess.

I'll move on from here. I'll let you work out the logic

I knew you'd say that Rhino! I just wanted to make the point that the directors were/are accountable .... and that it was open to the members to stand against them if they wished to do. One way or another we have just appointed them for the next three years - and that is where we should be expecting them to focus.(Sorry... I'll move on now!)

Actually Old, they call it the welcome to the real world gambit these days because in the real world, football clubs don't preoccupy themselves at AGM's with wrist slashing about past mistakes in front of their stakeholders, their coaches, playing group and staff members when they're on the threshold of a new season, especially when the fruits of six months of obvious hard endeavour to rectify those mistakes is on show in front of those who bothered to turn up.

...............Likewise, there was no sinister cover up on the night of the fact that we were disappointing in 2011 and it was admitted that mistakes were made but the message was about the future and our bid to become a strong club and a power in the competition.

Surely, that's how it should be?

Yes.... that is exactly how it should be!

Just watched Neeld's speech at the AGM on MFC.com and can't for the life of me understand some of the criticisms. I like the cut of his jib.

The what of his what?

But is everything fine now? Was the whole problem Dean Bailey all along and that's fixed now? Was Cameron Schwab saying this but no-one realised he was right until 186 and then everyone changed their mind and Cam's back as part of the furniture now? Did Don McLardy's interview of senior players in the week leading up to 186 have any impact on the outcome? These are the kind of points I imagined you had in mind when you quoted we need to understand the past to avoid repeating it. Maybe the club has addressed these questions internally - I hope that that bed's not too hard, that porridge is not too hot. I guess we just have to trust ...

To get things into their proper context, my comments were about what occurred at the AGM two nights ago and how the matters were dealt with there and I made it clear that as far as that was concerned, I don't have any real problem with the way it was conducted and that we should now look forward rather than dwell on or be obsessed with the past.

On what happened, six months ago, I don't know if everything's fine now, I can only guess the answer to the questions you posed and yes - they certainly are the kind of points I had in mind when I quoted the need to understand the past to avoid repeating it.

I accept that there are some things that happen within clubs that need to be dealt with in house and addressed internally. There is a body of evidence to suggest that significant steps have been taken to address the ones that confronted us with 186 but, to a large extent, we "just have to trust" although we can see from the fact that there have been new appointments, that personnel have come and gone and moved aside, that extensive efforts appear to have been made to address what I consider was then a catastrophic situation. It's not ideal but to some extent, the ends might have justified the means in this case - I'm speaking specifically about the removal of Dean Bailey (not the way he was removed) and the changes that have occurred since.

As one who is outside the board, I feel uncomfortable about 186 and am curious to know what happened but understand that there might be many reasons why I, along with many others, will never know all the facts. That said, I might be naieve in trusting but I'm impressed enough by what Jimmy, Garry, Cameron and Don have done in resurrecting the situation to do so with some confidence.

As one who is outside the board, I feel uncomfortable about 186 and am curious to know what happened but understand that there might be many reasons why I, along with many others, will never know all the facts. That said, I might be naieve in trusting but I'm impressed enough by what Jimmy, Garry, Cameron and Don have done in resurrecting the situation to do so with some confidence.

Me too, time will tell.

As one who is outside the board, I feel uncomfortable about 186 and am curious to know what happened but understand that there might be many reasons why I, along with many others, will never know all the facts. That said, I might be naieve in trusting but I'm impressed enough by what Jimmy, Garry, Cameron and Don have done in resurrecting the situation to do so with some confidence.

Jack, the problem is that this (186) is now history and I dare say that no-one knows all of what happened and why, or all the 'facts'. I'm sure though there would be no end of people claiming to know all.

This issue would be full of many grey areas, emotions and speculations. There would be no black and white answers, just interpretations.

That's the interesting thing about History, everyone has their own version or interpretation. Just ask David Irving.

The important thing now is as you said that it brought things to a head and resulted in a massive amount of change. We will just have to trust that the current administration have made the right choices and give it enough time before a future judgement

Again as you said, poring over the entrails would achieve nothing and risk much, as the club has 'acted and moved-on' dramatically from 186

I'm optimistic that it was all for the better and I have tucked away any lingering doubts over already spilt milk

I really liked what Cameron Schwab had to say at the AGM...A steely resolve i think it is called.

I really liked what Cameron Schwab had to say at the AGM...A steely resolve i think it is called.

I agree wyl

I have a small amount of experience in dealing with people from the middle kingdom.

But I do know they will not be rushed on important decisions.

If we have a sponsor close they will not be rushed by the approaching season.

They will not have a decision date.

If it takes 2 months then it takes two months as far as they are concerned.

By the way mate I was tempted to wear my hat backwards but alas I left it in the car!

I agree wyl

I have a small amount of experience in dealing with people from the middle kingdom.

But I do know they will not be rushed on important decisions.

If we have a sponsor close they will not be rushed by the approaching season.

They will not have a decision date.

If it takes 2 months then it takes two months as far as they are concerned.

By the way mate I was tempted to wear my hat backwards but alas I left it in the car!

i couldn't get there mate...i would have found you...Cameron's Speech, not only the sponsorship deals...He knows the business is moving & growing in the right direction.

The MFC is becoming known to more people...influential people.

The way he spoke about Neeld...he was the one they wanted all along.

I do not know how anyone can call Mark Neeld pathetic after watching his AGM speech either...

Filled me with confidence actually...this year and beyond...No bullsh!t predictions..just tells me the team will be ready for round 1.

What more can the man do?....

i couldn't get there mate...i would have found you...Cameron's Speech, not only the sponsorship deals...He knows the business is moving & growing in the right direction.

The MFC is becoming known to more people...influential people.

The way he spoke about Neeld...he was the one they wanted all along.

Well you did not miss a lot wyl.

as stated my many it was very flat.

But perhaps this year we are about action not talk. lets hope so I could do with a good year from the Dees

Well you did not miss a lot wyl.

as stated my many it was very flat.

But perhaps this year we are about action not talk. lets hope so I could do with a good year from the Dees

If i had sat through those speeches i would have been stoked....

no extra fluff....just solid growth and steely resolve.

My experience with new coaches is that they're all very charming at their first AGM and then, after a couple of years their hair starts turning grey and it starts falling off and if they're lucky enough to last beyond that their faces turn craggy and their voices become croaky. Unless they strike it lucky like Chris Scott.

Yep ... Just watched Neelds AGM speech and also can't understand the negativity .

I'm confident his bloke will deliver to me a side that I've been wanting since watching Essendon belt us around during the '80's .

Tough , strong and aggressive that like him , won't die wondering .

Any-one who doesn't fit the vision will not last long .

Bring it on Neeldy ... I am pumped .

My experience with new coaches is that they're all very charming at their first AGM and then, after a couple of years their hair starts turning grey and it starts falling off and if they're lucky enough to last beyond that their faces turn craggy and their voices become croaky. Unless they strike it lucky like Chris Scott.

I often wonder why anyone does it WJ.

It must be close to the most thankless job on earth.

If you do not win the flag you are a failure!

I often wonder why anyone does it WJ.

It must be close to the most thankless job on earth.

If you do not win the flag you are a failure!

Whenever I discussed a different job or profession with my father, he used to say,

"It's a living!"

I suppose the pay must be good.

My experience with new coaches is that they're all very charming at their first AGM and then, after a couple of years their hair starts turning grey and it starts falling off and if they're lucky enough to last beyond that their faces turn craggy and their voices become croaky. Unless they strike it lucky like Chris Scott.

Bill Clinton/Obama style??

That would be an excellent slogan in the Rooms...."Don't Die Wondering"

Having sat through AGM's in the 70's, 80's, and the last two decades, I was more than happy with the way things went. We didn't have a president thanking wine companies for the product he had obviously been sampling for hours before the meeting; or one who refused to allow any questions. There was no bull, just that it's all about the future.

Perhaps some people think we should have appointed a great public speaker as a coach, but I liked what I heard from the man who was appointed. I want the players to not die wondering.

Redleg - you were there. You could have asked the questions that you wanted answers to. Why didn't you?

Rhino you're quite right that the Board is not responsible for the last 47 years but they are responsible for the last 4 and we, as members, surely have the right to question them about the events of that period.

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.

Fan, it's clear that you have concerns regarding McLardy and issues of corporate governance that stem from last year. Do you really expect the same level of corporate governance from a footy club to that of BHP ? I wonder whether it's this type of attitude of doing things absolutely by the book that has left the MFC behind by the more street savvy Carlton, Essendon, or Collingwood over the last decades. Melbourne is usually loathe to step on toes. I don't find that appealing (although we did cheat the cap and then own up ). I'd suggest that running a footy club will always be different to running a publicly listed company. I've no doubt that you're right in that good corporate governance wasn't followed when McLardy met the senior players and I know that you're far more knowledgeable about such matters, but I'm not certain that it's quite the issue you're making it out to be. Is it big picture stuff ? Or was it more important for McLardy to get a real handle on the issues that were causing an implosion within the club ? What would Eddie Maguire have done ?

Would John Elliott have tightly held the corporate governance you crave ? Do you think Elliott would never directly go to a player, or cross certain boundaries ? John Elliott presided over an era that won flags. I've already mentioned Eddie. Would he interfere if he thought he had to ? Do you think he's upheld every perfect principle of corporate governance ? How about the way Essendon's President David Evans handled the sacking of Knights and the sham fisted way they interviewed potential candidates while Hird all but had the job ? Btw, I know that some will point to the parlous state in which Elliott left his club, and the lines can start to blur between strong leadership and outright cheating, but that's a whole new discussion. I don't think Don is about to start orchestrating under the table payments. The opportunity for such breaches are well and truly gone. I've given these examples to highlight how footy clubs are very different to any business on the planet. And I'm not saying that corporate governance should be thrown out the window, far from it, just that there will always be circumstances where a footy club may feel the need to do things differently.

I've met and like McLardy. He's a successful business man in his own right, who met Jim through the Reach program. He's a down to earth no nonsense type. He's not in it for the ego, unlike some other recently retired presidents, or well known vote riggers. He's been around footy clubs for decades. There's just no BS about him. I'm certain that it's those types of characteristics that endeared him to Stynes in the first place. And he's ably supported by Spargo and Jelland who are also real doers. I'm a little bemused why you're bemused that supporters aren't up in arms over the process. It seems the logical transition to me, but may be you're concerned by more governance issues.

As for not being able to ask questions at the AGM ? Apparently that's not quite right, as no doubt you've subsequently read. But do you really expect that you're going to get direct answers to the questions you want to ask in that type of forum ? Really ? The club knows it needs to move on, I know we need to move on and I suspect you do too. You were never going to get the answers you craved.

Btw, I'm not sure McLardy is Jimmy's best mate. Apparently that title belongs to a former captain. Maybe Jimmy has lots of best mates ?

Ben Hur.

You make some interesting points on the concept of corporate governance, some of which have in particular been on my mind since the events of last July.

I'm going to start a separate thread later in the day on the subject and wouldn't mind if you could repeat your post there. It would be a pity if discussion on this important aspect of the club's operations was drowned among the rest of the subject matter of this thread.

I was quite happy with Mark Neeld's speech last night - a little bit of insight, a little bit of humour (even at himself for being told to lighten up), his amiable targetting of a young supporter and making him feel important on the night, no false or rash promises (top 8 too low for some, top 4 too high?), the promise only of not dying wondering - and to leave no stone unturned - about all we can reasonably ask at this stage, the introduction of the 8 new players and a broad overview of the pre-season under a new regime. Anything that might have been offered about specific players other than the draftees - form, injuries, expectations, positional changes etc could have been asked during question time. No questions were forthcoming.

I just watched the video of Mark's speech. Frankly, I reckon the negative comments about it are very unfair. Personally, I thought it was a well crafted and well delivered speech. Well considered, and lot's of dry humour. Well done, Mark!

Would love to know if anyone agrees or disagrees with my point of how pathetic it was, that only Mitch Clark of the 8 new boys was interviewed and that his interview was moronic.

After the formal part of the AGM concluded I would have thought the most important thing to do, in front of several hundred fans, was to see and hear all of the new boys for a minute or two each. Considering the whole meeting went 75 minutes I just thought that was pathetic.

To top it off they deliberately sent the players home about 5 minutes before closing the meeting, so no one could have a chat with them. Some people came a long way and a few minutes after the meeting to chat would not have been asking too much.

Great PR, pathetic IMO. BTW this was about my 30th AGM if not more.