186: the details according to Caroline Wilson

[Tony Tea 2,786]

Deserves to be turned into an episode of Seconds From Disaster.

Megadisasters, too, with a follow-up (in 2000 years) on Time Team, which will no doubt still be running 24 hours a day on The Future Channel.

[Jaded No More 57,981]

Like sand through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives *cue cheesy dramatic music*

Unbelievable. No wonder Neeld thinks we were a club concerned about everything but football.

[praha 10,282]

The article teaches us nothing.

It just reminds us that things were so bad that players felt they had nothing to play for. LITERALLY.

People always throw that saying around -- that they are playing without heart. That day was truly indicative.

I still haven't forgotten the club. Won't until we win a flag. Simple as that. I'm still putrid about it. And I personally don't think much has changed.

[diesel 420]

Like sand through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives *cue cheesy dramatic music*

Unbelievable. No wonder Neeld thinks we were a club concerned about everything but football.

That's it Jaded. The resignation of Chell from the board, Jim taking on the football director role when he wasn't well, the fact the admin was coming to grips with Bailey not being the right man, Bailey's insecurity, the inability of our on-filed leaders to stay out of club politics all lead to a perfect storm. No one person was to blame, only an idiot would suggest otherwise.

I've really got no interest in what happened last year except that we learn from it and it is hopefully never repeated.

Edited May 5, 2012 by diesel

[RudeBoy 164]

The rot seems to have started after the players were surveyed for their opinions by a consultant.

[Guest José Mourinho]

The rot seems to have started after the players were surveyed for their opinions by a consultant.

Gotta find the best way to improve somehow, don't you?

I can't understand why that would have such an effect.

[H_T 2,941]

Maybe I'm just not too good at reading these situations, but I don't think Mclardy reads very well in this at all. He's also seemingly lost in all commentary about the situation.

I wonder where we would be if he hadn't asked the question to Green...where would Schwab be ? How would our FD look ?

Whether or not he doesn't read very well, he instigated change. Maybe for the better...time will tell.

[Guest Jackie]

I wonder how all these alleged player gripes against CS and CC affects Neeld's current relationship with the players?

[Sir Why You Little 34,516]

I wonder where we would be if he hadn't asked the question to Green...where would Schwab be ? How would our FD look ?

Whether or not he doesn't read very well, he instigated change. Maybe for the better...time will tell.

I have no problem with Don asking for truthful answers, from whoever he asked.

He would have known that what he was doing could caise major problems, but if he did not seek the truth it would be far worse later on. I don't think it is yet all resolved, but it is healing, and i commend Don for what he did at a very tough time.

[Red&BlueBlood 61]

My opinion:

The players should have wanted to come out of the (and every) game with some respect. If they were playing for there careers or fear of job security they did themselves no favours.

Mclardy did what everyone should do with an issue - confront those involved and seek a resolution. I believe that connoly was the main issue, hence his current "role".

The fact he was late to the news isn't a slight on him, its a slight on those that kept him away from the situation.

When I played footy you wanted to get a kick and beat the other team, you did what ever you had to do to win. Maybe the leadership group should of thought the same

[Supermercado 2,617]

It's one thing to be a shattered group going into the game, but the worst thing is that pride clearly didn't come into it when we were 19 goals behind at half time. I know Geelong didn't do what teams usually do and put the cue in the rack once it starts getting perverse but still, the way most of our team (from memory McKenzie the only one even remotely worthy of credit) rolled over and died was rude - and the only people involved that day who have been shown the door are Bailey and Emo Maric. Sadly we'll never be able to haul the rest of the them over the coals for the shame they brought upon the club.

I suppose they might have lost by 38 goals instead of 31...

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

My opinion:

The players should have wanted to come out of the (and every) game with some respect. If they were playing for there careers or fear of job security they did themselves no favours.

Mclardy did what everyone should do with an issue - confront those involved and seek a resolution. I believe that connoly was the main issue, hence his current "role".

The fact he was late to the news isn't a slight on him, its a slight on those that kept him away from the situation.

Good thanks. So McLardy went behind Connolly's back to ask the players what the issues were. So excuse me as head of the FD did not know what was going on and the Club acting President felt that Connolly did not know what was going on and went directly to the players. Its terrible and damning assessment of Connolly and no wonder he is not head of the FD at all.

When I played footy you wanted to get a kick and beat the other team, you did what ever you had to do to win. Maybe the leadership group should of thought the same

How do you know they did not feel the same way?

I have no problem with Don asking for truthful answers, from whoever he asked.

He would have known that what he was doing could caise major problems, but if he did not seek the truth it would be far worse later on. I don't think it is yet all resolved, but it is healing, and i commend Don for what he did at a very tough time.

Not a good look at the time on the Board's confidence on Schwab and Connolly.

[Sir Why You Little 34,516]

Not a good look at the time on the Board's confidence on Schwab and Connolly.

everyone was obviously at fault. That is a given, even Don Mclardy.

But as the VP i have no problem with Don making a stand to actually find out some truths.

I applaud him for it.

We all know your opinion of both Schwab & Connolly Rhino, you have repeated it often.

My original post here was concerning Mclardy.

[DeeSpencer 23,134]

My main concern after reading that article was whether the whole thing could eventually repeat itself. We lost our way in 2 areas - 1. Dealings between the executive and the coach and 2. dealings between the board and the football department.

The way I see it is that the coach needs to be the head of the football department. They can and should have a trusted offsider who works for them and can at times overrule them but isn't actually above them.

Neeld has to be the man now. Mahoney or Craig must work with Neeld and work to get what Neeld wants in place. Those 2 guys also have a responsibility to the CEO in terms of football department operations but at the end of the day it's Neeld's head on a plate. Hopefully Mahoney and Craig have the personalities to know where the limits of their power lies but also not to be yes men. Geoff Walsh and Neil Balme have been leaders in this area, I hope our guys can follow.

Schwab's job regarding football is to do what Neeld tells him to do in terms of vision for the team and to frame what can be achieved within the limits of the club, the main one of course being financial. I hope he's learnt from last year and of course we don't want to limit his passion for football and the football department.

The other issue at play here is dealings between the football department and the board. Last year was undoubtedly a mess. Jim was never in the position to do this vital job and we shouldn't have let him. I've got no problem with McLardy's actions if they are as reported. I hope we've got the football director sorted now and I also hope we can get some more footy people on our board. I think we are a bit short in industry knowledge on our board. We have top quality experts in business, law and marketing which would rival the board of any top Australian company but it isn't much good unless they are well informed on the product.

As a final note I'd like to see Josh Mahoney more present in the media. I think he's not a bad performer and he could take heat away from Neeld. Obviously the press want everything from the coach but I'd like to see Josh step in and as a high level person at the club be responsible for more.

[old55 21,352]

The way I see it is that the coach needs to be the head of the football department. They can and should have a trusted offsider who works for them and can at times overrule them but isn't actually above them.

OK ...

[Slartibartfast 15,785]

You virtually only raise your head these days to pot McLardy and the current Board,

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.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I'm not happy with this and expressed an opinion. You'll leave it, probably attribute it to personal motives and move on.

Well it must be a coincidence that you only post to take ridiculous pot-shots at Neeld for a lack of footy content at the Commencement Dinner, and to continuously express your dissatisfaction at the way things were "handled" with the sackings last year. Yet you insist that you believe the right outcomes have been reached?? Sounds like a disingeuous political game to me.

If you want people to stop suspecting that you have an agenda, stop providing them with evidence.

By the way the name is "dandeeman". It's a bit childish and simple and I wish I had picked something different but I am stuck with it. It is however the ONLY name I will use on Demonland according to sites rules.

I don't think your attitude and posts do anything positive for the football club, your obsession with these issues is a little sad. I think it is time you moved on for the sake of this forum, yourself and more importantly the club.

Edited May 7, 2012 by dandeeman

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I'm with you.

Why did Don and his Board speak to the "wrong people". Surely the CEO is one of the "right" ones.

Why wasn't Don aware of the issues when the players had spoken about them to Andrews.

Why does Don really think the fiasco of the week leading into the game didn't effect the players. particularly the leadership group who had been meeting with him and Stynes.

Isn't it concerning that in a recent newpaper article Don said he doesn't really know what's gone wrong this year.

Big questions for me 45HG16.

Four potshots at "Don".....but you like him don't you?

Edited May 7, 2012 by dandeeman

[Guest José Mourinho]

...

I take on board what you have said, and you make some sense, but I see a distinct lack of solutions in this post - only problems.

Where to from here?

If the answer isn't McLardy, who is?

(It'll be me one day, but that day is still some time away...)

[Guest José Mourinho]

Four potshots at "Don".....but you like him don't you?

I think that's a bit disingenuous.

It's possible to like him as a person, yet still be critical of decisions he has made.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I think that's a bit disingenuous.

It's possible to like him as a person, yet still be critical of decisions he has made.

If you read the post properly it smacks of agenda.

Fan talks about liking Don, which is pretty irrelevant as he/she is questioning how he has been running the club. " You know the old, I like you old mate but you really suck at running the footy club....." That is absolutely disingenuous and patronising.

I see it for what it is, and the history behind it.

[Choko 493]

If you read the post properly it smacks of agenda.

Fan talks about liking Don, which is pretty irrelevant as he/she is questioning how he has been running the club. " You know the old, I like you old mate but you really suck at running the footy club....." That is absolutely disingenuous and patronising.

I see it for what it is, and the history behind it.

Disagree.

I have met Don quite a few times, and he is a hard bloke not to like on a personal level. He loves the club, and is entertaining and engaging.

However, I have some reservations about his presidency, and the "default" nature of the manner in which he is in the position. The two statements are not incongrous.

[Biffen 12,331]

We have to remember that the whole thing had the insidious undertone of Contracts ,KPIs ,rats in the ranks ,Jmac ,Bruce etc .

Hopefully the players know now that they are fodder until they support this club and each other on the field and off .

Through all this our Captain came out and signed for 5 years .We got a new coach .It's over .We're on the way up .

[Guest José Mourinho]

If you read the post properly it smacks of agenda.

Fan talks about liking Don, which is pretty irrelevant as he/she is questioning how he has been running the club. " You know the old, I like you old mate but you really suck at running the footy club....." That is absolutely disingenuous and patronising.

I see it for what it is, and the history behind it.

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.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Disagree.

I have met Don quite a few times, and he is a hard bloke not to like on a personal level. He loves the club, and is entertaining and engaging.

However, I have some reservations about his presidency, and the "default" nature of the manner in which he is in the position. The two statements are not incongrous.

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?

Edited May 7, 2012 by dandeeman