Is it fair to say Rhino you didn't like Stynes? You were very supportive of the previous Board, did you not approve of Stynes in some way?

Not speaking on behalf of Rhino here Clint, but from what RR wrote above, it's not a matter of liking Stynes, it's the fact that so many issues were handled terribly. That's not to say he was a total failure, as we know the things he did, like wiping out a massive debt, he did extremely well, or in his own words, first class.

Don't people think that the destabilisation of losing the coach and the CEO would have been too much for the club to handle at that time? We would have been seriously questioned regarding what was happening at the club by the AFL, the media had a sniff of it, but to have dismissed both of these people would have been a huge issue for the club to deal with. Remember Jimmy's health at that time and his press conference?

If the business side of running the club was being handled appropriately by Schwab and it was the footy side that he was told to pull his head in on, then in my opinion since 186, we haven't heard a lot from Schwab other than the issues that came about regarding sponsorship etc. (and before everyone comes back citing the Energywatch debarcle, he quickly turned that sponsorship around with Hertz, Webjet etc... and we were not the only sports club to be burnt at that time with that deal)

Not sure about the rest of you, but people can and do make mistakes all the time. It's how they come back from these mistakes thats the true test of the person. If the club chose to keep CS but told him this is what you do well, and this is what you are not to do... well perhaps he has actually done that, and possibly why McLardy has mentioned that the board is considering reappointing him. Certainly think that with Greg Healy as Football Director, Neil Craig and Mark Neeld in charge of the footy stuff, that CS doesn't really get much of a say in that side of things any more, and possibly there is a stronger relationship with these people and CS.

I still am not totally convinced that CS will be there next year anyway (just my opinion) but if he is, it will because he will have been seen by the club as our best option.

Those people commenting about the power wielded by Lyon probably also need to wake up, EVERY club has its 'powerbrokers' There are people who are sounded out in regards to decisions that take place. Lyon was very close to Jimmy and it's not unusual. I suspect that Lyons role now that McLardy is in charge will be lesser, and thats not necessarily bad.

Don't people think that the destabilisation of losing the coach and the CEO would have been too much for the club to handle at that time? We would have been seriously questioned regarding what was happening at the club by the AFL, the media had a sniff of it, but to have dismissed both of these people would have been a huge issue for the club to deal with. Remember Jimmy's health at that time and his press conference?

If the business side of running the club was being handled appropriately by Schwab and it was the footy side that he was told to pull his head in on, then in my opinion since 186, we haven't heard a lot from Schwab other than the issues that came about regarding sponsorship etc. (and before everyone comes back citing the Energywatch debarcle, he quickly turned that sponsorship around with Hertz, Webjet etc... and we were not the only sports club to be burnt at that time with that deal)

Not sure about the rest of you, but people can and do make mistakes all the time. It's how they come back from these mistakes thats the true test of the person. If the club chose to keep CS but told him this is what you do well, and this is what you are not to do... well perhaps he has actually done that, and possibly why McLardy has mentioned that the board is considering reappointing him. Certainly think that with Greg Healy as Football Director, Neil Craig and Mark Neeld in charge of the footy stuff, that CS doesn't really get much of a say in that side of things any more, and possibly there is a stronger relationship with these people and CS.

I still am not totally convinced that CS will be there next year anyway (just my opinion) but if he is, it will because he will have been seen by the club as our best option.

Those people commenting about the power wielded by Lyon probably also need to wake up, EVERY club has its 'powerbrokers' There are people who are sounded out in regards to decisions that take place. Lyon was very close to Jimmy and it's not unusual. I suspect that Lyons role now that McLardy is in charge will be lesser, and thats not necessarily bad.

I don't think it's the destabilisation thing that is the issue Oucher, it's the fact that we had sacked someone, then within hours, reappointed them. This would be very uncommon in "the real world", so how it could happen at our footy club would puzzle a lot of people.

The issue for me is that what would the damage be like now had we sacked both gents? The fact that we are still talking about not sacking CS more than 12 months since the event is the big thing. Would we be still talking about the day we sacked our coach and CEO on the one day, if they were the events that took place?

We talk/ed about the grey cloud over the club, has it passed or do we still have showers here and there? Would it be bright sunshine if both guys (DB & CS) were moved on after 186?

I think the effect of the removal of both arms whilst we had no legs might have been quite destabalising indeed.

We chose expediency and prudence over self destruction. There really wasnt a choice here. Note : Choice is different from desire.

As see it the error, the real one was not the sacking /re-instatement as such but the rush to let all and sundry know about all our dirty bath water.

Theres some leaky typs at te club, and I suspect somea re still there. They need the boot !!. Youre either with us or agin. If agin, then there are processes within the club to deal with such. If you have a devious agenda then quite frankly #uck off !!

I think the real difficulty for the club is what happens with Schwab now.

Cameron and Don would have known this was going to be in the memoirs before the book came out and before the public got their hands on it.

How does the club handle it 12 months on? Has his position been made untenable by the confirmation of the events that occurred that day?

Not speaking on behalf of Rhino here Clint, but from what RR wrote above, it's not a matter of liking Stynes, it's the fact that so many issues were handled terribly. That's not to say he was a total failure, as we know the things he did, like wiping out a massive debt, he did extremely well, or in his own words, first class.

Fair comment Billy. And I am not using the term failure in anyway to Stynes. A number of issues could have been handled better under his reign. In regard to the debt it should always remember that it was the members and the supporters who gave generously to wipe the debt. Jim did a great job in selling a vision to them and galvanise the energy to achieve that.

Those people commenting about the power wielded by Lyon probably also need to wake up, EVERY club has its 'powerbrokers' There are people who are sounded out in regards to decisions that take place. Lyon was very close to Jimmy and it's not unusual. I suspect that Lyons role now that McLardy is in charge will be lesser, and thats not necessarily bad.

For the protection of members interest, ideally those "powerbrokers" should be responsible for the power and accountable to the members. Lyon is neither and has had far too much say in the Club with so little skin in the game. And you are only speculating as to what Lyons role is with McLardy. And I share your concern with not knowing who exactly is in charge.

We talk/ed about the grey cloud over the club, has it passed or do we still have showers here and there? Would it be bright sunshine if both guys (DB & CS) were moved on after 186?

Billy, i think the Club is still working through the wreckage. 186 was the one of the outcomes for matters that had been building for some time under the current administration. Holding just DB and CS responsible for the situation is somewhat expedient. They have removed Bailey and thats fine although the process of doing so was unprofessional. I think given what has transpired in the past 12 months I believe CS and McLardy have mutual interests in the Club.

While we can ponder it here, I hope the Club has moved beyond the who should have gone and who should have stayed process arising from the debacle of 2011 (which is similar to the debacle of 2012!!)

I think the real difficulty for the club is what happens with Schwab now.

Cameron and Don would have known this was going to be in the memoirs before the book came out and before the public got their hands on it.

How does the club handle it 12 months on? Has his position been made untenable by the confirmation of the events that occurred that day?

Its not difficult. They have extended his contract allegedly.

And while the book should have said as little as possible on the issue given the Club's situation, its just one persons (although significant in the scheme) opinion and no it does not make his position untenable.

We talk/ed about the grey cloud over the club, has it passed or do we still have showers here and there? Would it be bright sunshine if both guys (DB & CS) were moved on after 186?

I don't think we can say...

I guess the club gave itself 12 months to settle the new coach in, and then figured it would get time to look at the recruitment of a new CEO too. Now if the discussion with CS has turned things around to the point that the board doesn't have the concerns that it had previously.... I don't know who we are to object to it, so he must be doing something right in what has been a season from hell for the MFC.

Don't people think that the destabilisation of losing the coach and the CEO would have been too much for the club to handle at that time? We would have been seriously questioned regarding what was happening at the club by the AFL, the media had a sniff of it, but to have dismissed both of these people would have been a huge issue for the club to deal with. Remember Jimmy's health at that time and his press conference?

If the business side of running the club was being handled appropriately by Schwab and it was the footy side that he was told to pull his head in on, then in my opinion since 186, we haven't heard a lot from Schwab other than the issues that came about regarding sponsorship etc. (and before everyone comes back citing the Energywatch debarcle, he quickly turned that sponsorship around with Hertz, Webjet etc... and we were not the only sports club to be burnt at that time with that deal)

Not sure about the rest of you, but people can and do make mistakes all the time. It's how they come back from these mistakes thats the true test of the person. If the club chose to keep CS but told him this is what you do well, and this is what you are not to do... well perhaps he has actually done that, and possibly why McLardy has mentioned that the board is considering reappointing him. Certainly think that with Greg Healy as Football Director, Neil Craig and Mark Neeld in charge of the footy stuff, that CS doesn't really get much of a say in that side of things any more, and possibly there is a stronger relationship with these people and CS.

I still am not totally convinced that CS will be there next year anyway (just my opinion) but if he is, it will because he will have been seen by the club as our best option.

Those people commenting about the power wielded by Lyon probably also need to wake up, EVERY club has its 'powerbrokers' There are people who are sounded out in regards to decisions that take place. Lyon was very close to Jimmy and it's not unusual. I suspect that Lyons role now that McLardy is in charge will be lesser, and thats not necessarily bad.

By not taking action I think it has left unfinished business that still hangs around the club, it should have been dealt with so we could move on. We haven't.

The energywatch deal was of his own doing and I don't give him credit for fixing the mess he created in the first place. After the Geelong debacle it was too convenient to get some good news out on the footy show with the signing of a big new sponsorship deal, smoke and mirrors.

My understanding was Schwab was shouting from the rooftops to get rid of Bailey, all board members couldn't see that and Schwab wouldn't back down thus the board saw him unteneable.

After 186, it opened the boards' eyes that he may not be the man for the job- and furthermore Cam had been correct. Thus the reversal, once Dean had gone there was no requirement for Cam to leave- he was proven correct.

Its not difficult. They have extended his contract allegedly.

Have they? I must have missed that bit sorry, I recall an article where Don was hopeful that they could extend him, but haven't seen / heard confirmation.

Hmmm.... that was done pretty quietly huh?

The energywatch deal was of his own doing and I don't give him credit for fixing the mess he created in the first place. After the Geelong debacle it was too convenient to get some good news out on the footy show with the signing of a big new sponsorship deal, smoke and mirrors.

I know he would have signed off on the deal, but didn't the Storm have a very similar deal, what I am saying is that several sporting clubs got burnt by Energywatch. Heck even the company itself got burnt and had to remove the guy, the negative publicity from that idiot has probably all but killed off the company. You sound like you are happy to broad brush everyone that had a dealing with Energywatch and blame them for doing business with them as being irresponsible and negligent?

Have they? I must have missed that bit sorry, I recall an article where Don was hopeful that they could extend him, but haven't seen / heard confirmation.

Hmmm.... that was done pretty quietly huh?

I said allegedly as I believe so. I will stand corrected if not the case. I would be surprised if they did not and the book should be neither here nor there in that decision. The decision makers should not be unaware of any Stynes's views.

My understanding was Schwab was shouting from the rooftops to get rid of Bailey, all board members couldn't see that and Schwab wouldn't back down thus the board saw him unteneable.

After 186, it opened the boards' eyes that he may not be the man for the job- and furthermore Cam had been correct. Thus the reversal, once Dean had gone there was no requirement for Cam to leave- he was proven correct.

Theres a certain ring to all that. I have no personal knowledge as to whether thats 100% the case but it gels.

I get the impresion much of the angst towards Schwabby was his tendency to want to impose his views on areas of the club he possibly wasnt ordained to. i.e the FD.

Though blind Freddy and much of the sporting world could see we needed to change tac there was determined resistance to do so. God help us now had we not.

A classic case of being right in the end but not right to be instrumental.

Im not sure just how much Cam gets right or wrong but the club IS a much better place since his coming on board. He does genuinely care for this club. I think the problem for some is he cares too much ...lol...Some toes are sore

The things is ... Schwab was right about Bailey. Whatever his own faults, we should really be thanking him that he agitated for his dismissal.

Bailey was doing serious damage to the MFC every week he was at the helm. Coddling the players. Not developing them anywhere near properly.

doesn't the coach tell players that?

Why was CS so disliked at other clubs?

Playing hardball on contracts maybe?

I am happy to have my view confirmed - we simply could not afford to lose both at once. I'm with Lyon on that.

The things is ... Schwab was right about Bailey. Whatever his own faults, we should really be thanking him that he agitated for his dismissal.

Bailey was doing serious damage to the MFC every week he was at the helm. Coddling the players. Not developing them anywhere near properly.

Lets not re write history here by saying what a astute judge he is by him seeing what even a blind man could see. Schwab was not only towing the party line with the media but giving Bailey a ringing endorsement saying he was the man to take us to our next flag.

If there was a problem with the coach maybe it should have been seen at least a year earlier, maybe a couple and if someone can tell me that Cam Schwab went to the board in 2010 and told them Bailey wasn't the man then I would give him some credit but instead he re appointed him.

My understanding was Schwab was shouting from the rooftops to get rid of Bailey, all board members couldn't see that and Schwab wouldn't back down thus the board saw him unteneable.

After 186, it opened the boards' eyes that he may not be the man for the job- and furthermore Cam had been correct. Thus the reversal, once Dean had gone there was no requirement for Cam to leave- he was proven correct.

The comments on Schwab relate to his meddling in the footy dept. This was complicated by Connolly (who has also been remarkably and uncharacteristically silent in the past 12 months). Schwab wasn't doing his job properly AND was rubbing people up the wrong way, particularly sponsors who were aggrieved that the CEO didnt pay them much attention.

I personally saw CS at games sitting by himself, taking notes on players and the game plan rather than sitting with and schmoozing sponsors. The former isn't part of his job the latter clearly is so IMO he was failing on several levels. My assumption is he used those notes to try and change what the footy dept were doing and they didn't like it.

I'm glad Jimmy came out with this. Hopefully now full scrutiny will be applied to those who deserve it. Bailey and players were scapegoats. We still have a divided club with low morale and no fighting spirit. Things won't change for the better until changes are made at the top.

One thing that is overlooked in this - after Leoncelli left we had no football director until Jim tried to take it on.

He conceded later that he struggled to cope, which was why he (or Sam) asked Lyon to step in.

Schwab may have felt the need to get involved in the FD because of the board was not well informed.

I'm glad Jimmy came out with this.

If you missed it read this.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/date-with-disaster-20120504-1y4ky.html?skin=text-only

"On Friday, Schwab was told his position was no longer secure and that Stynes and some board members were looking at ending his tenure at the end of the season."

I don't know what's in Styne's book but the mismanagement of last year is well documented in the article and the main players are still the same.

Cam Schwab is employed to run a business, and the business of the MFC off field has been profitable and on face value looking like it is heading in the right direction. The only part of the MFC that has under performed has been on field and to take the business forward this is a very important component. If I was the CEO of the MFC you would have been applying heat to your football department to perform. A better on field performance would have pushed our membership above 40K, increased our attendances, better attracted more revenue from sponsers, get more prime time games. Our club off field has performed exeptional well to maintain memberships in fact increase until this year, we have the worst home draw possible with 6 home games against interstate clubs, plus the bulldogs and credit to those who turn up as per the average attendance we have only dropped slightly.

To make the finals would add over 1 million dollars to our revenue, from the increased memberships and gate receipts alone.

Cam Schwab is employed to run a business,

The business of the MFC is to win games of football and Premierships. I know people don't want to hear this but at the moment we are a laughing stock. And we are a laughing stock because after 5 years of rebuild we look like winning one game of footy this season against non development clubs.

And MFC is profitable because of the generosity of its members, not through the recurring revenue the club generates from its business.

We owe a lot to those that contributed last night.