Fan, it's clear that you have concerns regarding McLardy

Ben H the sort of questions you ask are the stuff of 1000+ word replies and I don't type that well but I'll say this in relation to corporate governance.

The issue starts with the role of the Board. Now I'm not going to write chapter and verse on this but a central premise of Corporate Governance is that the Board represent the stakeholders (MFC Members) in ensuring the management of the club work towards objectives established by the Board and agreed to by management. So the MFC Board might say "a flag is our goal, go and get one" whereas the Sydney Football Club Board might have said "we need to ensure we play finals each year". What then happens is the CEO and management work towards the objectives established by the Board (and there will obviously be more than one). The Board judge/measures/evaluates managements results against the objectives and make appropriate changes as they see fit. In short the Board establish the objectives and management work to achieve them.

What is absolutely critical is the Board remain independent and separation is maintained. Once the Board get involved in day to day operations and decisions they lose their independence and are not in a position to judge management performance because they end up judging their own decisions and performance. Independence is lost and so is separation.

McLardy interviewing Green is a well publicised example of a breakdown in separation. But it goes much further and can influence areas such as list management, player contract negotiation, election of captain and leadership groups (I'm not suggesting this happened, just offering an example of where it could) and so on. The reality is that if the club is "going nicely" it probably doesn't matter but Boards are not really there for when things are going nicely. They are there for when things are going poorly, where they can evaluate management and make decisions based on separation and independence. If these things are lost then an entity is exposed

I accept that it's common that separation is lost in many clubs and it's probably lost in many companies as well. But that doesn't mean it's right or "best". If a Board has been involved in day to day operations which fail do you think it's going to sack itself? Do you think it can make fair judgement on management? Do you think it can properly protect the interest of shareholders (members)?

That's how I see it and if you understand that stance most of my opinions in this area are (hopefully) fairly predictable/consistant.

Many have suggested that Stanga's assertain of a request not to ask questions about W186 is wrong and I accept that. What nobody has denied is that Howcroft suggest we should look forward rather than back. IMO any direction to an audience at an AGM to influence a Q&A session is unwarranted.

Perhaps we'll talk more about this at some stage where it will be easier to understand each others point of view.

Ben H the sort of questions you ask are the stuff of 1000+ word replies and I don't type that well but I'll say this in relation to corporate governance.

Thanks Fan. I think I already understood most of that from previous conversations. That said, I'm not sure I'd change any aspect of my post.

In relation to what fan & ben are saying above. Well written stuff guys, i believe McLardy spoke to Brad (& the leadership group)?? because of his REACH connection, which is all about communication. Whether it was right or wrong i cannot say, but i think Don saw the trouble brewing and thought "i have to do something" Did it help? Things sure happened quick after it. That is how i observed it.

Sometimes protocol has to be broken, short term pain. But we survived & Dean Bailey has another job. I don't think Don is a "nosy" president, but if he sees a major problem/rift brewing he will act. At REACH he views that all the time.

Once the Board get involved in day to day operations and decisions they lose their independence and are not in a position to judge management performance because they end up judging their own decisions and performance. Independence is lost and so is separation.

McLardy interviewing Green is a well publicised example of a breakdown in separation.

Btw Fan, if it had come to McLardy's attention that there were serious problems within the football club (and more specifically the coaching and playing group with admin) and McLardy wasn't confident in those charged with reporting said issues to the Board then what would you have him do ? He did exactly what I'd want him to do. Should he have sat back and waited for correct corporate governance even though those relaying the message were up to their neck in the problem ? Or upon receiving advice of an implosion taking place does he think that he has to act now and quickly try and get to the bottom of what's going on ?

And as I asked earlier, what would Maguire, Elliott, or ... wait for it, Jeff Kennett have done ? Interestingly, they've all got flags next to their name.

Is it possible that footy clubs are different and perhaps occasionally one has to understand and respect that ?

Yes, i have wondered where the MFC would have been sitting today if Don McLardy had done nothing & said nothing. Would the club still be boiling with resentment?

It is the "sliding door" scenario i know that, but i am glad that Don spoke to people when he did. He loves this club & could see trouble brewing.

In relation to what fan & ben are saying above. Well written stuff guys, i believe McLardy spoke to Brad (& the leadership group)?? because of his REACH connection, which is all about communication. Whether it was right or wrong i cannot say, but i think Don saw the trouble brewing and thought "i have to do something" Did it help? Things sure happened quick after it. That is how i observed it.

Sometimes protocol has to be broken, short term pain. But we survived & Dean Bailey has another job. I don't think Don is a "nosy" president, but if he sees a major problemi/rift brewing he will act. At REACH he views that all the time.

Reach is all about issues do with youth. Bullying, self esteem, respecting self and others, building healthy relationships etc. Communication is a tool used to work out issues.

McLardy interviewing Green is a well publicised example of a breakdown in separation. But it goes much further and can influence areas such as list management, player contract negotiation, election of captain and leadership groups (I'm not suggesting this happened, just offering an example of where it could) and so on. The reality is that if the club is "going nicely" it probably doesn't matter but Boards are not really there for when things are going nicely. They are there for when things are going poorly, where they can evaluate management and make decisions based on separation and independence. If these things are lost then an entity is exposed.

Could you elaborate please on how a VP interviewing a captain is regarded as a breakdown in separation?

What would you have done in these circumstances where there seems to be a breakdown between the coach and administration and you were concerned how if, at all, it was affecting the players?

Who should have been reporting to the board and what if that person is embroiled the conflict itself?

Do you just sit on your hands and do nothing because you might be offending against this concept of separation of powers?

Reach is all about issues do with youth. Bullying, self esteem, respecting self and others, building healthy relationships etc. Communication is a tool used to work out issues.

Yes, and Football Clubs are full of youths from all different backgrounds, so there is similarities in terms of communications.

It is interesting reading the thread regarding the Brand Green on On The Couch interview and then taking into consideration the events that unfolded.

http://demonland.com...n-on-the-couch/

I was sitting directly behind the players at the AGM. During the speeches prior to Neeld's the players were fidgeting around, looking like they'd rather be sitting in larger chairs to fit their bulking up frames. Then Mark Neeld got up to speak. Every eye was directed at him. He had their attention from his first word to his last. That is what's important to me. I couldn't care less about how he 'presents'. If he's got the attention of the players, if they're hanging on his every word, absorbing and learning, he's got my vote. I'm not going to write off this season if we don't make the eight. I want to see improvement, week by week. If that happens I'll consider that Mark Neeld is doing his job as senior coach.

I have been critical of Neelds media performance (public speaking) and have seen an improvemenat since he started. Public speaking is extremely hard.

I get the feeling the club has told him to stop making big statements, lighten up (as he said at the AGM) and is more considered in what he says. Kudos to Mark for making improvements. I dont want big statements like making the eight etc. As it has been said let the actions do the talking.

He is obviously learning on the job

On a side note, i dont believe the blank canvas comment. Neeld already had a very good idea of the list and players. Thats why he chose to coach the Dees when he had choice to coach other clubs. He saw the talent.

It is interesting reading the thread regarding the Brand Green on On The Couch interview and then taking into consideration the events that unfolded.

http://demonland.com...n-on-the-couch/

A most interesting read that thread in Jan 2012. Sometimes the handwringing that is expressed on here is right on the money!!

Ben-Hur, not to run over an issue again, but it was Jim's job to watch the footy department. The questions you need to ask are:

(a) What was Don and the rest of the board doing before W186;

(2) What would Don actually know about how to judge a footy department?;

(3) Why was it Don and not another 'footy' person doing it?;

(4) What was the source of the discontent?;

(5) What are the players going to really understand about Admin vs FD issues?:

(6) If Don is involved with FD issues, can he fire himself for meddling or interfering which then produces detrimental results?

Don needed to be separate because that is the best position to be making decisions from, and then you don't have the complications of fouling up the waters and then judging the other players while artifically forgetting or excusing yourself.

Ben-Hur, not to run over an issue again, but it was Jim's job to watch the footy department. The questions you need to ask are:

(a) What was Don and the rest of the board doing before W186;

(2) What would Don actually know about how to judge a footy department?;

(3) Why was it Don and not another 'footy' person doing it?;

(4) What was the source of the discontent?;

(5) What are the players going to really understand about Admin vs FD issues?:

(6) If Don is involved with FD issues, can he fire himself for meddling or interfering which then produces detrimental results?

Don needed to be separate because that is the best position to be making decisions from, and then you don't have the complications of fouling up the waters and then judging the other players while artifically forgetting or excusing yourself.

Yes you are correct TimD...But Don is also a good communicator, and maybe that is the exact reason he did jump in when he did. I am only speculating here.

But there are rare occasions when it is best to go outside the protocol rule book to sort something out.

If this is the reason he did it, i for one am happy...to leave problems festering any longer can be dire....too late.

The club needs a new President. Mclardy may love the club and have done his best over the last few years but he's clearly not the man for the job. Stynes should never have been allowed to become football director, Mclardy should never have spoken to the players and Gary Lyon shouldn't have been needed to help turn this club around. It all smacks of an amateur organisation. What this club now has is a well funded football department, a great group of young players, great facilities but it is weak at the top. We can't afford to be weak at the top for long or it will all turn the way it usually does at this club. Another question. How much time is Greg Healy giving to the club and is he fully committed? On what has transpired in the past we can't seriously be going into a new season with a part time football director. The link between board and FD is incredibly important as past disasters have clearly shown.

Roost It, do you have any idea what Don McLardy has done for the Club over the last three years? When Jim took over the Presidency, he brought McLardy with him into the Vice-President's position. Do you think he would have brought him on board if he didn't have complete faith in his abilities. While Jim has been dealing with his health issues, Don McLardy has been the president, and has overseen the changes that everyone has been lauding over the last four months. Now, when Jim has made the decision to focus on his health and his family, there seems to be a number of people calling for McLardy's head. Unbelievable!

Roost It, do you have any idea what Don McLardy has done for the Club over the last three years? When Jim took over the Presidency, he brought McLardy with him into the Vice-President's position. Do you think he would have brought him on board if he didn't have complete faith in his abilities. While Jim has been dealing with his health issues, Don McLardy has been the president, and has overseen the changes that everyone has been lauding over the last four months. Now, when Jim has made the decision to focus on his health and his family, there seems to be a number of people calling for McLardy's head. Unbelievable!

Whoever had a role in the weekend at Geelong should not be leading the club. Green is gone from leadership position. Connolly is gone, Schwab is hanging in there, Mclardy should not be the President for several reasons

Whoever had a role in the weekend at Geelong should not be leading the club. Green is gone from leadership position. Connolly is gone, Schwab is hanging in there, Mclardy should not be the President for several reasons

What do you propose...that the senior side and Casey teams be fired as well?

They all played a role, for whatever reason??

Ben-Hur, not to run over an issue again, but it was Jim's job to watch the footy department. The questions you need to ask are:

(a) What was Don and the rest of the board doing before W186;

(2) What would Don actually know about how to judge a footy department?;

(3) Why was it Don and not another 'footy' person doing it?;

(4) What was the source of the discontent?;

(5) What are the players going to really understand about Admin vs FD issues?:

(6) If Don is involved with FD issues, can he fire himself for meddling or interfering which then produces detrimental results?

Don needed to be separate because that is the best position to be making decisions from, and then you don't have the complications of fouling up the waters and then judging the other players while artifically forgetting or excusing yourself.

They are inane questions you've asked me.

Roost it, shouldnt you judge the board for its 3 years of service. Going on your thoughts Eddie Maguire should be sacked from the filth for making bad investments in buying pubs.

Time to let it go

What I'm interested in is more the nature of the discussions McLardy was supposed to have had with Brad Green and which other players he spoke to in the week leading up to 186?

I understand the point Fan makes about separation of powers but such a requirement surely wouldn't bar board members from speaking with their players at all? If that's the case, then there's a line that has to be drawn between what's acceptable discussion and what's not.

Further, how do we determine whether what was discussed offended against any rules of corporate governance? In McLardy's case, was there a fly on the wall?

It's got me a bit stumped because I have in the past seen at least two AFL Presidents from different clubs dining at restaurants with players from their own clubs. Aren't such people at risk of being accused of meddling as some are claiming with McLardy?

Particulary when the organisational structure at the time didnt allow for reporting tools that would give the board information and the ability to make an informed decision. Structures have changed now with CS and NC providing reports on there prospective depts.

If CS and NC were having a rift i would expect the Board to seek information from other sources. Its good management and governance and the captain is expected to represent the players.

Yes, i have wondered where the MFC would have been sitting today if Don McLardy had done nothing & said nothing.

Far better for it he had done nothing in this instance. Its disturbing that the Club did not re appoint the FD role after Leoncelli departure. It was a further worry that the consultant report commissioned 12 months recommended that they re appoint that role. It was further worrying at the time that McLardy went behind managements back and went directly to the players to air their grievances about management because he did not know what was going on. Hardly the right climate to prepare players for a tough match.

Reach is all about issues do with youth. Bullying, self esteem, respecting self and others, building healthy relationships etc. Communication is a tool used to work out issues.

Agree.

Yes, and Football Clubs are full of youths from all different backgrounds, so there is similarities in terms of communications.

There isnt in this instance. McLardy was dealing with troubled youths. He was trying to sort out his own mysteries

But Don is also a good communicator, and maybe that is the exact reason he did jump in when he did. I am only speculating here.

But there are rare occasions when it is best to go outside the protocol rule book to sort something out.

If this is the reason he did it, i for one am happy...to leave problems festering any longer can be dire....too late.

Agree on the speculation. There may will be rare occassions. This was not one of them. And the catalyst for the situation was the Board's inability to ensure proper communication to it post Leoncelli's departure.

Far better for it he had done nothing in this instance. Its disturbing that the Club did not re appoint the FD role after Leoncelli departure. It was a further worry that the consultant report commissioned 12 months recommended that they re appoint that role. It was further worrying at the time that McLardy went behind managements back and went directly to the players to air their grievances about management because he did not know what was going on. Hardly the right climate to prepare players for a tough match.

Agree.

There isnt in this instance. McLardy was dealing with troubled youths. He was trying to sort out his own mysteries

Agree on the speculation. There may will be rare occassions. This was not one of them. And the catalyst for the situation was the Board's inability to ensure proper communication to it post Leoncelli's departure.

Rhino's right.

[1] Leoncelli's role was pivotal to the board/club and he should have been replaced immediately. A bad mistake.

[2] McLardy approaching/involving players re club politics was definitely a no-no for a board member

OK lets recognise these mistakes and put them behind us. I think the board now recognise they were mistakes.

The club has made massive structural changes for the good and these issues are now a blip in history and we need not dwell on them.

We can all play judge on McLardy's (and the board's) performance in light of the changes at the end of the season.

For christsakes bring on the footy

The role of football director is an important role. I would hope the club were doing everything in its power to replace Leoncelli. Maybe there wasnt a good candidate which forced Jims and McLardy hand to step in for the time they did. Definately not a good situation but id rather wait 6 months to get someone good, than just employ anyone.

From where i stand (from the outside looking in) both Jim and McLardy are good men, highly respected and intelligent. Im sure they didnt like the situation either.

Its all speculation but so are alot of posts.