On 04/05/2012 at 22:54, Biffen said:

This sounds like a fairly honest version of events .

Baileys biggest mistake was turning his men against Schwab.

Players should never be privy to political discussions inside a sporting club .

Cam Schwab over -doing his job is not as bad as Bailey underperforming.

Brad Green and Rivers got involved in backing the wrong guy .

Schwab and Connolly had gotten rid of Old MacDonald and Bruce-so they freared being next .

The Moral of the story is-as always-mind your own business .

Brad Green & Rivers, didn't back the wrong guy!

They Should Not have backed any guy. They should have stayed out of club politics, seeing politics for what it is, dirty crapp. This was their mistake.

# There's no one to blame here. Everyone doing they're jobs, but trying to go about things in the shadows.. AGAIN I'll say it, Not enough Honesty & TOO Much Political correctness, working around corners, instead of Face to Face honesty.

# This is just the Fallout from a Fast Tracked List Rebuild where winning wasn't the main objective.... and careers hurt.

This inturn is the fallout from mismanagement that allowed the club to first Fall into dysfunction & financial peril, then trying to play attractive bruise free footy through the early 2000's. Remember cheap kicks down back, slow tempo footy, and this in turn arrested the development on some of our top recruits, playing in a 'Tempo' footy structure.

  On 05/05/2012 at 00:41, Jackie said:

Nothing much new to this article but I am still mystified to the real reasons that caused the shambles and whether the monster from THE THING still lurks within the club. I am not convinced this issue is dead and buried yet. I await for someone to to write the tell all book one day.

Even though today they have been instructed, as per Fawlty Towers "Don't mention the war" , today's game and the attitude shown by the players, and I would single out BM for obvious reasons, will go a long way to showing whether there has been much or enough change at the club.

  On 05/05/2012 at 00:41, Jackie said:

Nothing much new to this article but I am still mystified to the real reasons that caused the shambles and whether the monster from THE THING still lurks within the club. I am not convinced this issue is dead and buried yet. I await for someone to to write the tell all book one day.

And just like the monster from The Thing, if just one tiny part of the old culture remains within the club, it will likely grow back and consume us all again one day.

  On 05/05/2012 at 00:30, José Mourinho said:

Did they publicly undermine Bailey?

I don't recall this - how did they do this?

Early last year Schwab publicly came out and supported a number of people in the FD. He did not mention Bailey. At best it was an oversight (being generous). At worst, it unnecessarily destabilised a person's position in their final year. The media picked up on this. It could have been alot better.

I am aware a senior member of the FD was making public criticisms of Bailey outside the Club which raised concerns amongst some of those party to those comments (not involved with MFC) what the hell was going on at MFC. This was within the year leading up to 186. It should have been handled far more professionally.

  On 05/05/2012 at 00:30, José Mourinho said:

I think McLardy was doing his best in a bad situation, where he & stynes shouldn't have been filling the role of football director, and at that point stynes probably shouldn't have been involved at all.

Neither should McLardy by the looks of it. The Board should never have let an ailing and incapacitated Stynes take over the FD when he did.

  On 05/05/2012 at 00:47, dee-luded said:

They Should Not have backed any guy. They should have stayed out of club politics, seeing politics for what it is, dirty crapp. This was their mistake.

So they should not have said anything to McLardy as leaders of the Player leadership group. Mclardy drew them into it by his confrontation. What does that say

  On 05/05/2012 at 00:47, dee-luded said:

# There's no one to blame here. Everyone doing they're jobs, but trying to go about things in the shadows.. .

Really??? I thought there were a number of people at a number of levels failing in the exercise of their duties

Players play.

Coaches coach.

Adminsitrators administor.

Learn it, live it. We should change the 12 stars on the back of the jumper to 186 as a perpetual reminder of what happens when it is forgotten.

  On 04/05/2012 at 22:45, 45HG16 said:

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'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.

  On 05/05/2012 at 00:53, Rhino Richards said:

Early last year Schwab publicly came out and supported a number of people in the FD. He did not mention Bailey. At best it was an oversight (being generous). At worst, it unnecessarily destabilised a person's position in their final year. The media picked up on this. It could have been alot better.

I am aware a senior member of the FD was making public criticisms of Bailey outside the Club which raised concerns amongst some of those party to those comments (not involved with MFC) what the hell was going on at MFC. This was within the year leading up to 186. It should have been handled far more professionally.

Neither should McLardy by the looks of it. The Board should never have let an ailing and incapacitated Stynes take over the FD when he did.

So they should not have said anything to McLardy as leaders of the Player leadership group. Mclardy drew them into it by his confrontation. What does that say

Really??? I thought there were a number of people at a number of levels failing in the exercise of their duties

You're right, I forgot about that snub.

Royal had strong opinions, but I think he was right, and wasn't being listened to.

He went about making himself heard the wrong way though.

McLardy was in a difficult position with Stynes.

Try telling that man to take a step back.

But yes, they should have done better.

I see no problem with McLardy confronting the players.

He needed to get to have a full understanding of the problem at hand.

I think that's the crux of it - people failing in their duties and looking to shift the blame because they're concerned about their job security.

There were a few people in positions that simply weren't up to AFL standard.

Others who just weren't up to a challenge like the MFC presents.

  On 05/05/2012 at 00:43, Ben-Hur said:

I suspect that Schwab and Connolly came to the view that he wasn't coaching and developing the players to play a game-plan that was competitive against most teams. They didn't press, they couldn't handle a press, they didn't play with any accountability, or defensive mindset. After nearly 4 years it was pretty obvious he wasn't a great coach and I suspect factions within the club were forming and perhaps the air around the place was becoming a little thicker.

Well yeah it was obvious the team wasn't performing on the field, but was the reason just bad coaching or was there some other "unrest" or unfinished issues with the players or FD?

  On 05/05/2012 at 01:09, Fan said:

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.

You virtually only raise your head these days to pot McLardy and the current Board, but when your good personal friend Paul Gardner was in charge I don't remember you once expressing dissatisfaction.

You've made some excellent points previously about corporate governance and separation of powers, but you're at risk of appearing like a dog with a bone. Then again, I suppose I too am with my posts on Watts. And I wouldn't take much notice of McLardy's comments on radio. I think everyone is a bit surprised as to how slowly the players have taken to come to grips with a new game-plan and fitness regime.

  On 05/05/2012 at 01:14, daisycutter said:

Well yeah it was obvious the team wasn't performing on the field, but was the reason just bad coaching or was there some other "unrest" or unfinished issues with the players or FD?

Doesn't everything ultimately stems from the playing field and wins and losses ?

I find it strange that some would blame the board

the board don't run the club, that's the responsibility of the CEO and his team

the board appoint the CEO and provide oversight

You can criticize the board's oversight performance in this issue but not for being the cause of the 'problem'.

  On 05/05/2012 at 01:10, José Mourinho said:

I see no problem with McLardy confronting the players.

He needed to get to have a full understanding of the problem at hand.

Why wouldn't he have spoken to Schwab and Connolly. They were appointed by the Board. If he was not getting a "full understanding" he did not need to confront the players without Schwab and Connolly present. Bizarre behaviour and hardly supportive of the CEO who they backflipped on a couple of days later.

  On 05/05/2012 at 01:28, daisycutter said:

You can criticize the board's oversight performance in this issue but not for being the cause of the 'problem'.

The lack of oversight could be one of the causes of the issue. It does appear the Board and its members where not aware of the issues. Its also odd given Schwab and Connolly would and should have been in the position to update them.

  On 05/05/2012 at 01:37, Rhino Richards said:

Why wouldn't he have spoken to Schwab and Connolly. They were appointed by the Board. If he was not getting a "full understanding" he did not need to confront the players without Schwab and Connolly present. Bizarre behaviour and hardly supportive of the CEO who they backflipped on a couple of days later.

well it seems they back-flipped twice in the week

originally they were going to extend his contract then

backflip 1: they (some) were considering not extending then

backflip 2: they extended his contract

so, if they (some) were not supportive of CS it seems it was only for a matter of days - hardly a watergate situation there

  On 05/05/2012 at 01:37, Rhino Richards said:

Why wouldn't he have spoken to Schwab and Connolly. They were appointed by the Board. If he was not getting a "full understanding" he did not need to confront the players without Schwab and Connolly present. Bizarre behaviour and hardly supportive of the CEO who they backflipped on a couple of days later.

Who said he didn't?

But clearly McLardy hadn't been getting the whole story from any of the involved parties up until that point.

And having Schwab & Connolly present with the players sounds counterintuitive.

Having the CEO present would have made the players less inclined to divulge details about the issues between him and the football dept.

And clearly, going by Caro's article, Schwab was largely unaware of the feelings from the football dept also.

I have no problem with the "backflip" on the CEO, if the board discovered information had been witheld by those in trusted positions and they were about to make the wrong decision.

  On 05/05/2012 at 01:43, daisycutter said:

well it seems they back-flipped twice in the week

originally they were going to extend his contract then

backflip 1: they (some) were considering not extending then

backflip 2: they extended his contract

so, if they (some) were not supportive of CS it seems it was only for a matter of days - hardly a watergate situation there

Yep.

Backflip 1 - they found out about some alarming issues between the CEO, the football ops mgr and the football dept, with a lot of the blame being apportioned to the CEO.

Backflip 2 - after a short amount of time, they discovered more about the root cause of this dissent.

All issues the board should have been well informed on a lot earlier, but for certain factions witholding information and playing power games.

I place most of the blame on those parties.

But we must ask why were they appointed to that position in the place?

I think a lot of it came down to money at the time.

Makes me really furious at last years leadership group.

  On 05/05/2012 at 02:32, mephis said:

Makes me really furious at last years leadership group.

I think it's good that they brought it to a head otherwise it may still be festering

  On 05/05/2012 at 01:43, José Mourinho said:

Who said he didn't?

But clearly McLardy hadn't been getting the whole story from any of the involved parties up until that point.

And having Schwab & Connolly present with the players sounds counterintuitive.

How would McLardy have believed that to be the situation? And if it was "clearly" the case then McLardy would have had a loss of confidence on Schwab and Connolly if he believe he was not getting the whole story. Especially given McLardy has already declared full confidence in his FD since then. If he had full confidence then there is no reason to have run a witchhunt behind their backs.

Schwab could not have been unaware given he was spending so much time in the FD.

Keystone cops stuff that put the players in a terrible predicament.

  On 05/05/2012 at 01:51, José Mourinho said:

All issues the board should have been well informed on a lot earlier, but for certain factions witholding information and playing power games.

I place most of the blame on those parties.

Wow. Want to name names? Or shall we just call them "faceless men with hidden agendas"? Oh no that the Labor Party. CS and CC were both reporting to the Board. If they were withholding information then its amazing they are still there in the Club.

  On 05/05/2012 at 01:09, Fan said:

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.

Lets go over the whole Norm Smith saga again as well ...

I support the current admin and I love the current coach. Let's get on with it shall we.

There is a football match to be played today.

  On 05/05/2012 at 00:43, Ben-Hur said:

I suspect that Schwab and Connolly came to the view that he wasn't coaching and developing the players to play a game-plan that was competitive against most teams. They didn't press, they couldn't handle a press, they didn't play with any accountability, or defensive mindset. After nearly 4 years it was pretty obvious he wasn't a great coach and I suspect factions within the club were forming and perhaps the air around the place was becoming a little thicker.

Ok, well Ben-Hur is Hannabal - glad to see you are back.

I see the same dynamic as you but can I also drop in the fact that at no point in Bailey's reign did we look at employing a Misson-type nor invest in the department to the extent we have now.

Bailey saw the writing - it said 'we are waiting you out' and his supporters were not happy about it.

Everyone looks bad in this.

  On 05/05/2012 at 00:14, daisycutter said:

It's been said before and sounds like motherhood but we just have to give it time to settle in and have faith they get it right this time.....what other choice is there?

No choice.

Just one thing - the board lost Leoncelli and left Stynes in charge of keeping wind of this stuff - he wasn't able to and suddenly the board is on another plane of existence to the club. That's where they effed up.

Glad it's over, and I hope the Bailey backers are gone - not because they were the protagonists of the disaster but because we need to get behind Neeld.

I've never wanted to see a win more than today. I know it's not likely, but it would be the biggest statement possible about the new direction of this club.

C'mon Dees!

  On 05/05/2012 at 03:07, rpfc said:

Ok, well Ben-Hur is Hannabal - glad to see you are back.

It took you this long?

Wow! What a a read. As Mick Malthouse said a few weeks back we were really about everything "except football"

To me the whole event occured because the club tried to do to much with not enough $$ invested. It worked to a point but then went horribly wrong.

Caroline Wilson writes it all nicely here but doesn't shed any new light.

If she wanted to do that write about the weeks leading up to it.

When Stynesy went in.

  On 05/05/2012 at 03:11, José Mourinho said:

It took you this long?

I don't like to rush to judgement.

Hell, you should appreciate that...