186: the details according to Caroline Wilson

[Guest José Mourinho]

Why is it relevant in a post that is clearly questioning the ability of Mclardy to run the footy club, whether Fan "likes" him or not? It's a rouse, like most of Fan's :"opinions". It's double edged and nothing more than "baby kissing".

When was the last time Fan posted on a footy matter? What is really going on here?

There is club politics being pushed here on this forum, I personally don't like it.

I will ask this another way. If there was a spill and a vote required, would you feel comfortable with Demonland being used by individuals to campaign and push thier agenda?

Yes. I'd prefer it.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

To be honest, I pretty much disregard things like "I've met Don McLardy and I like him" because I see it as largely irrelevant.

I find there's a lot of people in the world that I like, but it says nothing about their competency to fill any role, especially that of an AFL club president.

At the same time, I do see what you are saying.

It's a bit like saying "no offense" because you're just about to say something deeply offensive to someone.

It's a token line, small talk, and that's probably the reason why I put so little weight in it.

Surely some of the criticisms of McLardy are fair though, agenda or not?

The thing is - I'm looking for someone who will provide a solution rather than merely a criticism.

I have no problem with the club copping fair criticism, I have given the club plenty over but not everyone here just posts for fun.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Yes. I'd prefer it.

What if it were being used to destabilise the current board?

I say this hypothetically.

Edited May 7, 2012 by dandeeman

[Guest José Mourinho]

What if it were being used to destabilise the current board?

I say this hypothetically.

Hmmmmm... Look, if there had to be a challenge, I'd be happier if I was better informed as to who I'd be voting for.

And this forum could provide that.

I don't really see pointing out facts as destabilising - they stand for themselves.

If it was to happen, hopefully there'd be minimum muck-raking, but this IS demonland...

I'd hope I'm able to wade through the crap and make my mind up for myself.

But I do worry for some on this forum...

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

As long as post were not deleted on here. I have no problems with it becoming political.

The MFC are hanging on by a thread right. Next friday is going to be ugly on national TV...Hawthorn are going to kill this team.

We cannot afford to hide anything...at any level.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Yes, my interest in posting on this site has move beyond debating at length the merits of various players. Whether Watts becomes elite or is merely A grade is a moot point which others think important to debate and win. But their opinions will have no impact on the outcome and many are uninformed. Good pub talk but little substance. But unlike the development of players the members select the Board. If we get it wrong we just hurt ourselves and our history of selection is pretty poor because most don't understand the Board's role or importance.

I like Don, I've met him personally on several occasions and he has the best of intentions and is a passionate MFC man and football follower. But he heads our club, makes strategic decisions and has a huge impact on our success or otherwise. It's on that level that I comment. I note with interest that in your post you've potted me but not addressed the issues. I think I understand why.

As RR has pointed out, last year showed a failure of Corporate Governance where the Board were seduced by the smell of liniment and were (initially) influenced by the soldiers and not the officers - "We spoke to the wrong people". We were a laughing stock as a result and were inches away from reappointing Bailey which I think would have been a mistake. The Board also seemed to have failed to read or act upon the Andrews report and our Chairman has said in an extensive interview in the Age on 21st April that he is as clueless on our current situation as the supporters.

I'm not happy with this and expressed an opinion. You'll leave it, probably attribute it to personal motives and move on. That's fine. Personally I think it's a shame because whilst poor Corporate Governance almost certainly won't be fatal it will significantly if not certainly increase the likelihood that we won't see the success everyone here so clearly wants.

I'm just curious why you seem to be so anti the current Board. I understand your point about corporate governance and separation of powers, etc, as you articulated your issues well. But when I look at what they've achieved, such as renewing a strong relationship with the MCC, eliminating $5mil of debt, together with record sponsorship and membership I wonder whether there's the need to be as concerned with their performance as you seem to be. Clearly they've made mistakes and dropped the ball when Stynes was ill. The lack of a conduit between the FD and the Board was a significant issue. But I reckon they've done far more good than bad. The FD is now as well resourced as just about any club in the competition.

Then I think to myself, did I read Fan make one negative comment about the previous administration ? Was there even one ? I'm sure the previous Board had some great people on it and did a lot right, but they couldn't make any headway into our debt and rightly, or wrongly, they weren't held with great regard by the AFL, which is not an issue for the current Board.

Hmm, why didn't Fan make one negative comment in four years about the previous Board when he is so concerned about the club's welfare and what is required to win a flag ? Yet he seems very concerned by the current Board when it has achieved things that no other Board has since 1981 ? I think I know why.

[hoopla 418]

Looks like Caro has done it again...............

No new facts, no fresh insights, just the same old stuff - with just a couple of subtle innuendos designed to raise a few suspicions.

From her Richmond roots , she carries some sort of strong bias against the MFC - and against Cameron Schwab - and she's constantly on the look out for opportunities to stir the pot. "Oh yes - the anniversary of 186 - can't let that chance go by - besides I can't think of anything current to write about"

Really we shouldn't give her the satisfaction of knowing that she has successfully reopened some old wounds which need more time to heal.We have a completely new management structure in place ...................... let's move on ( Please)

[Slartibartfast 17,265]

Clearly they've made mistakes and dropped the ball when Stynes was ill.

I agree. And the same person who was in charge then is in charge now and I continue to see things that concern me. I just want the best for the MFC and I think we can do better.

You're not concerned which is fine but to quote you "I just call it as I see it".

If it's my motives that concern you why don't you start a thread on it, say "The Mysterious Motives of Fan". I think Dandy will be the first respondent.

It's rather amusing to be seen as so influential that we need a current day Don Quixote following my every move.

*Sancho my armor*.......

[diesel 420]

As long as post were not deleted on here. I have no problems with it becoming political.

The MFC are hanging on by a thread right. Next friday is going to be ugly on national TV...Hawthorn are going to kill this team.

We cannot afford to hide anything...at any level.

This is the sort of hysteria that see's organsations go to water and fail. Why the seige mentaility? It's just been the most upsetting 6 months in this clubs history since Norm Smith's departure but we have many, many things pointing in the right direction. The last thing you would expect to come good is the on-field performance and this is the real source of angst for yourself (and probably Fan), not governance, so I suggest we stop pretending otherwise.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

This is the sort of hysteria that see's organsations go to water and fail. Why the seige mentaility? It's just been the most upsetting 6 months in this clubs history since Norm Smith's departure but we have many, many things pointing in the right direction. The last thing you would expect to come good is the on-field performance and this is the real source of angst for yourself (and probably Fan), not governance, so I suggest we stop pretending otherwise.

"The last thing you would expect to come good is the on field performance..."

This is the attitude i find unnacceptable. No other club is given the amount of lattitude we have taken.

Stop hiding behind sadness and excuses. Football is a most brutal sport.

The MFC seem to have turned a blind eye to this ever since '65.

Edited May 7, 2012 by why you little

[diesel 420]

"The last thing you would expect to come good is the on field performance..."

This is the attitude i find unnacceptable. No other club is given the amount of lattitude we have taken.

I say that in the context of my belief that Bailey was the wrong man for the job (appointed by the previous admin. as you would know). That our FD and players have not had, never had, the resources they needed to be competetive, let alone win a flag (all credit in hindsight to Danners). I do have a grasp of what it is that Neeld is trying to do. The moment any improvement inexplicably goes backward I'll be as quick as anyone to ask why? All I can do is give financial support and go to games. I don't have all the answers but I do know and understand we were about "everything except football" but still some people would like us to go straight back there! Go figure?

Edited May 7, 2012 by diesel

[Slartibartfast 17,265]

I say that in the context of my belief that Bailey was the wrong man for the job (appointed by the previous admin. as you would know).

Appointed by Gardner's Board in 2007 as a "newbie" coach and extended by the Stynes Board in February 2010 on two years "exposed form". They endorsed the selection and the game plan.

I was always a Danners man but he'd run his race in the end. He got extraordinary results with limited resources and in many ways it's the limited resources then that have resulted in much of our on field problems now.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

I say that in the context of my belief that Bailey was the wrong man for the job (appointed by the previous admin. as you would know). That our FD and players have not had, never had, the resources they needed to be competetive, let alone win a flag (all credit in hindsight to Danners). I do have a grasp of what it is that Neeld is trying to do. The moment any improvement inexplicably goes backward I'll be as quick as anyone to ask why? All I can do is give financial support and go to games. I don't have all the answers but I do know and understand we were about "everything except football" but still some people would like us to go straight back there! Go figure?

My angst is not at Neeld at all. But after 8 months i am very concerned our list is still in a shambles, trying to grasp basic fundamentals. These are things that the list should take upon themselves, within a fortnight.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I think Dandy will be the first respondent.

Probably, and I won't respond under any aliases to support myself. It will be just little old me, Melbourne member saying what he thinks.

Edited May 7, 2012 by dandeeman

[Guest José Mourinho]

Appointed by Gardner's Board in 2007 as a "newbie" coach and extended by the Stynes Board in February 2010 on two years "exposed form". They endorsed the selection and the game plan.

I was always a Danners man but he'd run his race in the end. He got extraordinary results with limited resources and in many ways it's the limited resources then that have resulted in much of our on field problems now.

My intel at the time was that the board didn't think Bailey was the man to take us to a premiership in the long run, but at that stage stability was more important for the playing group.

[Slartibartfast 17,265]

Probably, and I won't respond under any aliases to support myself. It will be just little old me, Melbourne member saying what he thinks.

That's a relief, I was really worried you'd post under another name.

My intel at the time was that the board didn't think Bailey was the man to take us to a premiership in the long run, but at that stage stability was more important for the playing group.

I'm sure the players appreciated the stability in July last year!!

[Guest José Mourinho]

That's a relief, I was really worried you'd post under another name.

I'm sure the players appreciated the stability in July last year!!

Not sure there was a perfect solution though.

Are we any worse off for having Bailey for a bit longer?

I'm not sure what you're getting at or what you want conceded, Fan.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I'm sure the players appreciated the stability in July last year!!

I thought you suggested the right outcome was reached, but this post indicates otherwise. Other than the fact that you don't support McLardy and are suspect on Neeld we really don't know what you think.

[DEELIGHTED 16]

that was interesting. I can kind of now understand why the form of some of the senior players was pretty poor last year. If the coach backs you, you back the coach. Players obviously develop close relationships with their coach and not so close with other ie Cameron. The senior boys were obviously backing Dean whilst there was a sh*tfight going on behind closed doors. Big Jim then wanted answers and the boys told their side as they would be expected to do. The rest is history but those senior boys would feel a massive part of Deans sacking ande they were in his corner. Cant imagine how hard this would be on them. Anyways lets just get on with and turn this great club around.

[Hannibal 5,814]

to quote you "I just call it as I see it".

What ? If that was actually the case I'd have no problem, but your history suggests otherwise.

Knowing that you never once queried the Gardner led Board in its 4 years when there was $5mil worth of debt and Daniher had to coach with "limited resources" (your own words) I consider it a bit rich that you now refer to yourself as someone that "calls it as you see it". Having said that, I have empathy with the position you were in. But it does make me bristle a bit that now when the restraints are off you seem only to eager to have a swipe at the incumbents.

The current Board has wiped out the debt and given the Football Department the resources Daniher never enjoyed. Despite your stony silence one can only wonder what you really thought of the previous Board.

[loges 6,767]

I thought you suggested the right outcome was reached, but this post indicates otherwise. Other than the fact that you don't support McLardy and are suspect on Neeld we really don't know what you think.

No his opinions are all a bit Hazy

[rpfc 28,405]

No his opinions are all a bit Hazy

Yeah, where is HSOG?

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Oh i am sure Hazy is lurking in the shadows. Sharpening his army knives by the campfire...

[rpfc 28,405]

Oh i am sure Hazy is lurking in the shadows. Sharpening his army knives by the campfire...

Oh, if he's camping he may not have Internet access.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Oh, if he's camping he may not have Internet access.

I got a best mate works out in the NT mining. If he can find internet access i am sure H will work it out!!