Only at Melbourne would ex players and ex administrators come out at the lowest ebb and sink the boots in.

Yep - why do we always get brought up in the tanking discussions yet Carlton escapes scrutiny (even after Libba comes out and says they were tanking)? Because while their motto is "We are Carlton - f*** the rest!" ours seems to be "every rat for himself on the sinking ship."

Paul Who?

Never forget Paul Gardner spoke to interested members at the Bentleigh Club years ago in the depths of another period of Club despair. Amusingly the talk that night centered around the need to get a young Matthew Bate into the senior team.

At any rate after a stage managed talk Grdner retired to the bar and invited members to join him. Once there he surrounded himself with a group of heavies....that's fat blokes as opposed to the other type of heavies, had a few quick drinks and was gone.

Never impressed me from the time he said it was more important to go on some hiking trek than fulfill his Presidential duties. Another Melbourne lightweight.

its a shame he just didnt keep walking on that trek .

I think we should delete this thread.

This email isn't for public consumption, it stirs trouble.

I think we should delete this thread.

This email isn't for public consumption, it stirs trouble.

it can never be deleted...its been on the web.

Gardner obviously showed as much gumption in answerign NB's question as he did running our club. NB warned him of its nature and it could well be argued theres a natural progression to its publishing.

Would you defend Gardner ?

Chill pill, kiddies.

Gardner left the Club waaaay better than he found it. Debt,world class facilities(AAMI), membership, governance, Casey, FD personnel and resources, MCC relationship, inclusivity of women etc. His greatest failing was his propensity to take on Vlad and the Kremlin which hurt us (ironic given that many in his lynch mob also demand we take on city hall now).

The Stynes/McLardy board has made further progress as Gardner alluded to and praised in the SEN interview that few seem to have actually heard.

But the great achievement on his watch was unity and credible football/win- loss/finals appearances. The great fraud of the current administration is it's claim to have unified (they have not) a disunited (it was not) Club. The bitter divisions of 2011 are unprecedented since 1965. The raw wounds of this disunity are at the heart of the despondency we all feel and our dysfunctionality as a footy club.

Who wouldn't exchange the Gardner 2004-June 2008 40% plus winning record with the 20% winning performance of the last 4 years of weekend misery for which Stynes/McLardy/Schwab/Connolly are responsible?

Thanks Paul.

Chill pill, kiddies.

Gardner left the Club as Chairman waaay better than he found it. Debt, membership, facilities (AAMI), governance, FD personnel and resources.

Gardner left the Club waaaay better than he found it. Debt, facilities(AAMI), governance, Casey, FD personnel, and resources, MFC relationship, inclusivity of women etc. His greatest failing was his propensity to take on Vlad and the Kremlin which hurt us (ironic given that many in his lynch mob also demand we take on city hall now).

.The Stynes/McLardy board have made further progress as Gardner alluded to in the SEN interview that few seem to have actually heard.

But the great achievement on his watch was unity and credible football/win- loss/finals appearances. The great fraud of the current administration is it's claim to have unified (they have not) a disunited (it was not) Club. The bitter divisions of 2011 are unprecedented since 1965. The raw wounds of this disunity are at the heart of the despondency we all feel.

Who wouldn't exchange the Gardner 2004-June 2008 40% plus winning record with the 20% winning performance of the last 4 years of weekendmisery for which Stynes/NcLardy/Schwab/Connolly are responsible?

Look at the 40% plus win record of Gardner's 2004 - June 2008 Chairmanship and compare it with the 4+ years of weekend misery since.

Thanks Paul.

I think you meant to sign off ...

Thanks,

Paul.

Chill pill, kiddies.

Gardner left the Club as Chairman waaay better than he found it. Debt, membership, facilities (AAMI), governance, FD personnel and resources.

Gardner left the Club waaaay better than he found it. Debt, facilities(AAMI), governance, Casey, FD personnel, and resources, MFC relationship, inclusivity of women etc. His greatest failing was his propensity to take on Vlad and the Kremlin which hurt us (ironic given that many in his lynch mob also demand we take on city hall now).

.The Stynes/McLardy board have made further progress as Gardner alluded to in the SEN interview that few seem to have actually heard.

But the great achievement on his watch was unity and credible football/win- loss/finals appearances. The great fraud of the current administration is it's claim to have unified (they have not) a disunited (it was not) Club. The bitter divisions of 2011 are unprecedented since 1965. The raw wounds of this disunity are at the heart of the despondency we all feel.

Who wouldn't exchange the Gardner 2004-June 2008 40% plus winning record with the 20% winning performance of the last 4 years of weekendmisery for which Stynes/NcLardy/Schwab/Connolly are responsible?

Look at the 40% plus win record of Gardner's 2004 - June 2008 Chairmanship and compare it with the 4+ years of weekend misery since.

Thanks Paul.

lol

Oh can we? Can we win 40% of games? Oh heavens! That will make us 11th...

FMD.

Don't care about having a pissing contest with those for and those against the Gardner board. That is a yawnfest about the past. Don't care.

Only care about the present and future of the MFC and Gardner did not help when he gave quotes to the Sun and he did not help when he talked to SEN.

We thank him for his service, and respectfully ask that he shut up.

We thank him for his service, and respectfully ask that he shut up.

This ^

I actually agree with this.

It would have been preferable that he not buy into this even if he was at pains to point out "as a supporter" not in any official capacity at the time in question or since.

But this does not justify the revisionist history of his period as Chairman or the vilification of a man who made our club better than it was at his cost and without consideration of personal reward.

I actually agree with this.

It would have been preferable that he not buy into this even if he was at pains to point out "as a supporter" not in any official capacity at the time in question or since.

But this does not justify the revisionist history of his period as Chairman or the vilification of a man who made our club better than it was at his cost and without consideration of personal reward.

You are correct, Paul and his Board like all our Boards tried to do their best and he and his Board did a lot of good for the MFC. That should never be forgotten. Having said that, Wednesday was not his finest day.

Agree.

You are correct, Paul and his Board like all our Boards tried to do their best and he and his Board did a lot of good for the MFC. That should never be forgotten. Having said that, Wednesday was not his finest day.

History has shown him to have been rather ineffectual and otherwise focussed.

He did a sterling job

and continues to do so

Agree.

In fact, he may have undone all his good work that he so proudly displays "7 years pro-bono"

But if it's all media hoopla, then the AFL are the biggest suckers (as in being sucked-in) of all. I mean honestly if it was as meaningless as you're purporting above then why are we here having this conversation? The AFL should have just said that McLeans and others comments will have no influence whatsoever on the decision following Baileys comments...

The AFL are not biggest suckers at all. Someone (McLean) has made allegations of impropriety. The AFL are going to investigate those comments with the said individual. Its called due process. And the process will deliver that there is nothing to the comments.

The AFL cannot just come out and whitewash McLean's comments without have the common sense approach of speaking with him. It would be mega dumb to do otherwise.

I cant believe you dont get it.

This has all been investigated before. There has previously been no case to answer. Unless McLean says "Dean Bailey told us not to win" then its case closed. There is no new evidence. Even if McLean says that he still won't be able to prove it.

The case is closed. There is nothing McLean can say that would establiish any basis of fact that his allegations are true.

And Garnder's comments add nothing but media hoopla. I can only think Gardner did it as some veiled dig at Vlad. Those 2 never got on.

The one part I do disagree with in your follow up reply NB is this:

"Dean Bailey sacked as coach - did he take parting shots at the club which he had every right to do when he was marched out the door ? He handled his exit with class."

I think he most certainly did ... http://www.foxsports...3-1226106261751

For what its worth - it is questionable as to whether Dean Bailey had rights to having a go at the club. He was at the helm at the time and despite whatever was asked of him (or not) he was responsible. If we had the greatest coach of all time come in to coach after DB and they said this is the way I am doing it and that is that, the club would have been forced to go that path. Likewise Dean, if he said this is the way I want to do it, the club would have been supportive.

At some point (if we think that "expirimentation" took place) the club and Dean would have discussed what each party felt was the best way forward for the club. Whatever the conclusion was it lead to what happened. I imagine DB would have accepted an agreed pathway forward in teh early stages thinking that it would mean that he would have a better chance being the long term coach of MFC down the track. Rightly or wrongly. The flaw in the whole thing was that we did not get better under whatever strategy was adopted, and he could not coach himself to a secure position.

I feel that whatever directives were or were not given from above, that both the Coach and the Club agreed to a strategy (whatever it was) and that was accepted in the knowledge that it was best for all parties and was bought into by all parties. There should be no ill feeling from DB. If he hated the strategy that badly he would have never signed up for it.

,

It would have been preferable that he not buy into this even if he was at pains to point out "as a supporter" not in any official capacity at the time in question or since.

This is where it is ludicrous and naivety of the highest order- you can be at as much pain to point out you are only a supporter and have no official capacity but the reason for him being interviewed is because he was MFC President.That part of your life doesnt wash away just because you are no longer in office.

Every time another underworld figure gets bumped off Chopper Reid is not interviewed because he is an interested onlooker - he is interviewed because he was a criminal.

The AFL are not biggest suckers at all. Someone (McLean) has made allegations of impropriety. The AFL are going to investigate those comments with the said individual. Its called due process. And the process will deliver that there is nothing to the comments.

The AFL cannot just come out and whitewash McLean's comments without have the common sense approach of speaking with him. It would be mega dumb to do otherwise.

I cant believe you dont get it.

I can't believe you change your stance just to disagree with people.

Anyway, carry on.

The case is closed. There is nothing McLean can say that would establiish any basis of fact that his allegations are true.

What if ..... McLean told the investigator that the leadership group were told what the coaching intentions were......to put the team in a position that would enable a manufactured result(s) for the best picks. And further investigation (now the AFL have widened the investigation) revealed the coach and other members of the LG were on the same page and supported McLean's claims.

Would the case still be closed ?

This is where it is ludicrous and naivety of the highest order- you can be at as much pain to point out you are only a supporter and have no official capacity but the reason for him being interviewed is because he was MFC President.That part of your life doesnt wash away just because you are no longer in office.

Every time another underworld figure gets bumped off Chopper Reid is not interviewed because he is an interested onlooker - he is interviewed because he was a criminal.

Just because they interview Chopper doesn't mean he committed the crime, has any first hand knowledge of the crime, was at the scene of the crime or even has any more knowledge about the crime than you, me or the lamp post. Whatever Chopper says does not make life any more difficult for the criminal.

I can't believe you change your stance just to disagree with people.

Anyway, carry on.

I didn't. I have been clear about this issue all the way along. Its a media beat up that is going nowhere. I now believe where I previously expressed disbelief.

What if ..... McLean told the investigator that the leadership group were told what the coaching intentions were......to put the team in a position that would enable a manufactured result(s) for the best picks. And further investigation (now the AFL have widened the investigation) revealed the coach and other members of the LG were on the same page and supported McLean's claims.

Would the case still be closed ?

What if? What if? What if?

McLean has naively made a point of view that alleges wrongdoing. Its an issue that extremely difficult to prove. The AFL "investigation" will involve interview (and I think verbally belting Brock for making unsubstantiated claims) McLean. Its just his word with no formal proof of motive. Case closed.

Given that the AFL have i/v a number of people including Bailey and Ratten in the past and determined there is no issue, I cant see them widening an investigation.

If we deal with the actual situation there is nothing to build an investigation on. And for the profile of the game and what has transpired to date its not in the AFL's interest to pursue or prolong it in some drawn circus that will prove nothing

Just because they interview Chopper doesn't mean he committed the crime, has any first hand knowledge of the crime, was at the scene of the crime or even has any more knowledge about the crime than you, me or the lamp post. Whatever Chopper says does not make life any more difficult for the criminal.

I would suggest that if Chopper was once part of the criminal gang and then comes out and says "yeah they did it" - it certainly wouldnt be helpful.

Edited August 3, 201212 yr by nutbean

I would suggest that if Chopper was once part of the criminal gang and then comes out and says "yeah they did it" - it certainly wouldnt be helpful.

Part of the criminal gang? No tanking on Gardner's watch.

Unhelpful maybe but Chopper won't be a witness for the prosecution whatever his theories.

What if ..... McLean told the investigator that the leadership group were told what the coaching intentions were......

I imagine Brock has spent considerably more time training with Carlton PR and media management than with the team on the track this week.