This is so wrong for so many reasons. How can the interest bill have been crippling when the club went from making average losses of $1.42 million/annum from 1999-2003 to four consecutive years of profits during Gardner's watch? You say that Gardner's Board could not fathom how club debt could be removed but our club debt was actually halved from around $5.5m in 2004 to around $2.7m by the start of 2008. All this was achieved without resorting to begging and without benefiting from the much more lucrative TV and stadium deals that Schwab currently enjoys (that were none of his doing).

As the record shows, much of this good work was undone by the loss that was forecast for 2008, a loss which largely came on the back of major increases to football operations spending in 2007 and 2008 ($500k and then $500k again). Nevertheless, Gardner left the club in much better shape than he found it and far from the crippled condition that you would have us believe it was left in.

The “reunification” with the MCC is mostly spin. Having said that, I will acknowledge that this is one area where current administration deserves some credit. Of course good relations between the MFC and the MCC, including financial support of the former by the latter, already existed before Schwab. But, credit where it is deserved, he has built on this and managed not to stuff it up yet.

I am not sure what stadium deal you are referring to. Both the Etihad and AAMI deals had nothing to do with Schwab.

Connolly certainly had a lot to do with the Casey move but it was actually Harris' idea and it was put into action under the Gardner Board that you unfairly malign - before Stynes took control and appointed Schwab. I could go on at greater length about Connolly's shortcomings but for the purposes of this thread I am content to point out that the Casey initiative owes nothing to Schwab.

The membership levels is down this year but on the whole he has maintained the upward trend that was existed for the five years before he started. Schwab gets a pass on membership from me but how can you use this metric as justification of Schwab's new contract when membership has actually fallen since Schwab was almost sacked last year?

Nothing to do with Cam

Cam's performance on sponsorship has been woeful, I don't think anyone serious would dispute this. Can you even tell me what our current major sponsorship deals are worth?

Thanks to supporters. I hope we don't find ourselves in trouble any time soon given the charity fatigue that now exists amongst the club’s support base.

As mentioned previously, this is mostly due to Bentleigh Club, supporter charity and new stadium/TV rights deals. Again, nothing to do with Schwab.

Aside from pointing out some of the false assumptions about the Gardner Board that you use to prop up what you might term an “agenda”, I have no wish to get into yet another argument about the Gardner Board. This thread is supposed to be about Cameron Schwab. The vast majority of your points about Cameron's performance are highly disingenuous and are based on assumptions that you know to be untrue (because I have pointed this out to you before). After scouring such rubbish away, the few valid points left behind in your post are freely admitted to by me, but they are dwarfed by Cameron's serious deficiencies as a CEO and provide no basis his re-appointment, let alone his three year contract.

I didn't say the Gardner Board left the club "crippled". But there's no doubt the $5mil debt was crippling. Certainly not all the Gardner Board's fault.

I said that the Gardner Board couldn't fathom how $5mil could be eradicated because Mick Coghlin discussed the challenge of removing the debt year's ago in a post on Demonland. He was clear in how difficult he thought it would be. I had no reason to doubt him.

Your reference to "tin rattles" does you no favours when I suspect Coghlin marvels in the effort to remove the debt. And who cares about "begging" if it results in such a debt being removed ? You sound disappointed they achieved so much. Almost as though it put Gardner to shame. Don't protesteth so much Haze.

You say I "unfairly malign" Gardner's Board ? Where ? I've previously been personally emailed by Mick (which I've lost due to a computer crash), who I've met and like, and he succinctly pointed out that the Gardner Board's fiscal efforts were entirely reasonable and certainly better than when they came to office.

And when you say "nothing to do with Cam". Why not ?

If you had followed the posts, you would have seen that I have never attacked the players and I will not, until I believe they have been given a fair chance by good coaching.

As for supporters, why would anyone attack people who sincerely believe in MFC and yet still have to put up with the obvious rubbish in front of them - I admire the grass roots suppporters and from my experience they will stick true to the club.

I see, so when you reckon the coach is up to your standard you'll stop criticizing him, is that how it works?

And you know the board are doing a bad job, how?

I see, so when you reckon the coach is up to your standard you'll stop criticizing him, is that how it works?

And you know the board are doing a bad job, how?

Unfortunately you don't see.

I didn't say the Gardner Board left the club "crippled". But there's no doubt the $5mil debt was crippling. Certainly not all the Gardner Board's fault.

I said that the Gardner Board couldn't fathom how $5mil could be eradicated because Mick Coghlin discussed the challenge of removing the debt year's ago in a post on Demonland. He was clear in how difficult he thought it would be. I had no reason to doubt him.

Your reference to "tin rattles" does you no favours when I suspect Coghlin marvels in the effort to remove the debt. And who cares about "begging" if it results in such a debt being removed ? You sound disappointed they achieved so much. Almost as though it put Gardner to shame. Don't protesteth so much Haze.

You say I "unfairly malign" Gardner's Board ? Where ? I've previously been personally emailed by Mick (which I've lost due to a computer crash), who I've met and like, and he succinctly pointed out that the Gardner Board's fiscal efforts were entirely reasonable and certainly better than when they came to office.

And when you say "nothing to do with Cam". Why not ?

Coglin (I thought you were supposed to be big on spelling) can speak for himself.

Your comments about the Gardner Board also speak for themselves when they are read in the light of the facts that I have provided (again). Funny how when I make a criticism of Schwab based on facts, you accuse me of being a wrecker with an "agenda" (whatever that means) but when you and others have a go at Gardner based on misinformation you are supposedly defending the club. In any case, I'm not going to be complicit in derailing the topic of this thread to be about the Gardner Board when it is supposed to be about Schwab's appointment.

It's time you answered some of my questions.

Saw Schwabby today at a furniture shop.

I've never seen such nice quality.

Practical ,Sophisticated ,Efficient ,Resillient and Productive looking desks.

The old desk with the $140 grand in the draw had to go in an auction .

There was a sale on whiteboards also but he didn't seem interested in them.

Coglin (I thought you were supposed to be big on spelling) can speak for himself.

Your comments about the Gardner Board also speak for themselves when they are read in the light of the facts that I have provided (again). Funny how when I make a criticism of Schwab based on facts, you accuse me of being a wrecker with an "agenda" (whatever that means) but when you and others have a go at Gardner based on misinformation you are supposedly defending the club. In any case, I'm not going to be complicit in derailing the topic of this thread to be about the Gardner Board when it is supposed to be about Schwab's appointment.

It's time you answered some of my questions.

Coglin (I thought you were supposed to be big on spelling) can speak for himself.

Your comments about the Gardner Board also speak for themselves when they are read in the light of the facts that I have provided (again). Funny how when I make a criticism of Schwab based on facts, you accuse me of being a wrecker with an "agenda" (whatever that means) but when you and others have a go at Gardner based on misinformation you are supposedly defending the club. In any case, I'm not going to be complicit in derailing the topic of this thread to be about the Gardner Board when it is supposed to be about Schwab's appointment.

It's time you answered some of my questions.

I told you I lost Mick's email. Little wonder you know the correct spelling. LOL

If you tell me your surname trust me I won't forget it.

The rest of your post is gibberish. You're losing your mojo Haze.

stats

Ain't it great how posting stats can help you to completely ignore the context and discussion surrounding an issue. Do you think anyone will notice?

I think a report card would strike a better balance in terms of feedback. Here's mine:

Comments:

We had high hopes for Cameron when he arrived at the Melbourne Football

School but 2012 was another disappointing year. It was especially concerning

to see Cameron go backward in membership this year after the solid progress

we saw from him in this subject previously.

On a brighter note, Cameron has shown some enthusiasm, if not aptitude, for

Art and Fashion. Many students were impressed by the new school logo and

school blazers that Cameron designed. Unfortunately, these subjects were not

part of Cameron's curriculum so they won't be included on his official academic

record.

Cameron was also part of a group recruitment project this year which has had

some good results, although it must be said that most of the work was done

by a new student, Mark, and another boy from outside of the school, Garry.

Despite this, Cameron would have got a much higher mark for this subject if he

had not cut corners and performed so badly on the General Manager – Player

Development and Strategy component of the project.

I continue to harbour serious concerns about Cameron's social development

and he is reported to have been bullying some of the other children outside

of his friendship group. As you know, this is a serious matter. Cameron was

almost expelled for his inappropriate behaviour last year. Thank goodness he

is related to the principle.

Edited August 30, 201213 yr by Hazyshadeofgrinter

I told you I lost Mick's email. Little wonder you know the correct spelling. LOL

If you tell me your surname trust me I won't forget it.

The rest of your post is gibberish. You're losing your mojo Haze.

Weak as [censored].

HSOG:

........... don't [censored] up Demonland like you did to demonology.

It's about time for the carpark to sort this thread out i think.

Edited August 30, 201213 yr by why you little

HSOG.. Im not sure ( nor care really ) who you actually are. I dont know what CS has done either personally or otherwise to p!ss you off, but your personal agenda to seemingly rewrite history in your own vision as well as fanatical attempts to repaint what can oly be described in the main as a very successful tenure by or CEO has I think run its course here.

Maybe you should run for the board as you seem quite passionate in your views. Care to test them in the real world

If there is genuine reason to challenge the current regime you are free to do so. You have here. I think its reasonable to say you have not swayed the majority here. But we are merely a forum. The ultimate one is public opinion, and the epitome of that in the context of this club is its membership.

So far they seem in agreement with McLardy. You are welcome to change that.

Taking your scenario, I think its inappropriate for a CEO to ask for a loan from his employer, particularly in public companies or member based organisations. It would even more inappropriate for the Board/ Chairman to have approved such a move. While the amount was not large, the principle is a serious one and these principles have been recently flouted to an extreme by the HSU in NSW. It was a corporate governance lapse that I trust the Board will learn from and not repeat.

Agreed- because it is "our" money and "our" club no matter how kosher it is "we" (meaning lots of members) will ask - is this the best use of "our" money - the meat might be alright but it has a bad odour to it

Ain't it great how posting stats can help you to completely ignore the context and discussion surrounding an issue. Do you think anyone will notice?

I think a report card would strike a better balance in terms of feedback. Here's mine:

Comments:

We had high hopes for Cameron when he arrived at the Melbourne Football

School but 2012 was another disappointing year. It was especially concerning

to see Cameron go backward in membership this year after the solid progress

we saw from him in this subject previously.

On a brighter note, Cameron has shown some enthusiasm, if not aptitude, for

Art and Fashion. Many students were impressed by the new school logo and

school blazers that Cameron designed. Unfortunately, these subjects were not

part of Cameron's curriculum so they won't be included on his official academic

record.

Cameron was also part of a group recruitment project this year which has had

some good results, although it must be said that most of the work was done

by a new student, Mark, and another boy from outside of the school, Garry.

Despite this, Cameron would have got a much higher mark for this subject if he

had not cut corners and performed so badly on the General Manager – Player

Development and Strategy component of the project.

I continue to harbour serious concerns about Cameron's social development

and he is reported to have been bullying some of the other children outside

of his friendship group. As you know, this is a serious matter. Cameron was

almost expelled for his inappropriate behaviour last year. Thank goodness he

is related to the principle.

Hey Hazy why don't you respond to a factual comparison with other football clubs, instead of your infantile school report card?

Again ...

Whats say you good sir?

Not only is this agenda boring, it is so effing moot.

Scwab has got three years.

Why hasn't Gardner and his pals stopped this evil?

You can have your 'facts' and your 'righteous indignation' and you can continue to howl at the moon.

What good has it done?

Gardner is poison to MFC supporters after his 'assertions over tanking' a few months ago.

Who will lead your charge, hazy?

Who will lead the revolution?

I like the blazers, the emblem and the "club secretary" - it differentiates us in the market.

Schwab did a good job of managing the Scully compensation.

We're out of debt and making a profit with "the worst CEO in history", imagine what we could be doing with a good one - hmmm that sounds familiar.

Dont start me on the man who does Gardens.

Not only is this agenda boring, it is so effing moot.

Scwab has got three years.

Why hasn't Gardner and his pals stopped this evil?

You can have your 'facts' and your 'righteous indignation' and you can continue to howl at the moon.

What good has it done?

Gardner is poison to MFC supporters after his 'assertions over tanking' a few months ago.

Who will lead your charge, hazy?

Who will lead the revolution?

All these anonymus pot shots by Crazy Hazy; if he was any sort of man he'd fess up to who he is behind the web name and maybe let the club test this in court. If he is confident he has his facts right he'd have nothing to hide, if he's not prepared to say who he is then it can only be assumed he's mothing but a troll or a disgruntled former official or employee.

Either way, as you say, Schwab has got the three years and Crazy can either accept it and move on or become the second rate version of TGR on Demonland.

Either way, as you say, Schwab has got the three years and Crazy can either accept it and move on or become the second rate version of TGR on Demonland.

Sigh....I yearn for a return to the days of TGR

(pure nutbean)

I'm not going to be complicit in derailing the topic of this thread to be about the Gardner Board when it is supposed to be about Schwab's appointment.

I think Paul Gardner and his board did a lot of hard work in a difficult period for the club but I disagree that it must be ignored in the context of this discussion.

If we are going to look critically at the current Board and Schwab's performance, then the circumstances of the club they inherited and its condition both on and off the field at the time needs to be taken into account. It's fair comment to say that our finances were in a parlous state, that we were on the nose with the AFL and the MCC and that the new Board has been instrumental in turning all of those things around and doing so dramatically and effectively to the club's advantage.

This thread has been partly about unity and given suggestions by some that unknown former board members and/or employees have been feeding information to their friends in the media for the purpose of denigrating the Board and Schwab then we can't shirk from such discussion. Perhaps it might merit its own separate thread if anything further arises.

My issue is that this thread has degenerated to a point where meaningful discussion has become impossible. Although I'm a moderator on this site, I'm reluctant to make a decision as to its future because I've been involved in the discussion myself but I will raise it with the other moderators.

My issue is that this thread has degenerated to a point where meaningful discussion has become impossible. Although I'm a moderator on this site, I'm reluctant to make a decision as to its future because I've been involved in the discussion myself but I will raise it with the other moderators.

I would suggest ending it... there is no reasoning with the unreasonable.

I would suggest ending it... there is no reasoning with the unreasonable.

I just dont see it progressing anywhere- but then again 856444644646 Scully posts went pretty much the same way (for what its worth I still think he'll stay)

I think Paul Gardner and his board did a lot of hard work in a difficult period for the club but I disagree that it must be ignored in the context of this discussion.

If we are going to look critically at the current Board and Schwab's performance, then the circumstances of the club they inherited and its condition both on and off the field at the time needs to be taken into account. It's fair comment to say that our finances were in a parlous state, that we were on the nose with the AFL and the MCC and that the new Board has been instrumental in turning all of those things around and doing so dramatically and effectively to the club's advantage.

This thread has been partly about unity and given suggestions by some that unknown former board members and/or employees have been feeding information to their friends in the media for the purpose of denigrating the Board and Schwab then we can't shirk from such discussion. Perhaps it might merit its own separate thread if anything further arises.

My issue is that this thread has degenerated to a point where meaningful discussion has become impossible. Although I'm a moderator on this site, I'm reluctant to make a decision as to its future because I've been involved in the discussion myself but I will raise it with the other moderators.

I would be disappointed if this thread were closed today. You are complicit in the "degeneration" of the thread as you continue to avoid the issues, ignore the facts and try to change the subject. It is difficult to have a "meaningful discussion" in such a climate, particularly with someone who makes accusations that they continually refuse to support and who refuses to directly address the arguments of their opponent.

I am about ready to call it a day to be honest, but I have a few people to respond to and a few closing remarks to make before I do (and I don't have time to do this at the moment). It would be a shame for you to deny me this opportunity particularly when I have been so careful to avoid getting caught up in the abuse and irrelevance that has been directed at me from the moment I first posted in this thread. I note that your responsibilities as a moderator did not move you to comment on or to take action in any of these instances.

I think if you are honest will admit to yourself that your true reason for wanting to close the thread is that you find it uncomfortable to be confronted by the facts and arguments that I am rasining. This is not responsible moderation, it is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and having a tantrum.

No ones ignoring facts HSOG. Facts are facts. Interpretations however are a different animal. These interpretations lead to opinions.

Somehow that seems to work in reverse for some.

Demonland is not the public square.

It is a privately owned forum frequented and moderated by MFC supporters - if they want to close this thread down and smote its ruin upon the mountainside - they are free to do that.

1300 22 4636 Don't leave it too long