rpfc, BH's post is cheap. He has ignored hazy's argument entirely. Instead he trying to undermine hazy by implying that hazy's argument is crap because he a garnder suporter and gardner's board was not that good. It completely bypasses the points that Hazy is making.

I think Hazy is clearly agenda-driven but i think he is writing good stuff. THe two are not incompatible. The good bits about the club has nothing to do with schwab and the bad bits have a fair bit to do with him. We've had posters come on an dsay that we lost two sponsors because schwab + team were hard to deal with. The debt reduction was not a schwab plan. He has massively expanded theadmin side of the business and I'm not sure if it is a good idea (and if anyone does it would certainly help this debate). We are holding fundraisers to help the TPP. WTF?

Questioning this board and CEO should be done by everyone. Hazy has offered some interesting insights and criticisms and is being dismissed regardless of, rather than because of, the quality of his writing. That is poor.

Tim, I'm the first to admit that unlike Hazy I have very little interest in club politics. Watching, reading about, and listening to footy content is far more my go. So in that regard I readily admit that Hazy has an advantage. But when I look at some of the basics, such as the club being debt free for the first time since 1981, and listen to McLardy sing the praises of the current CEO, I find myself taking umbrage at a character that incessantly tries to pot the current administration when by virtually any measure they've succeeded where others have failed.

And how does Hazy know what credit Schwab should, or shouldn't receive for some of these successes ? How would you know if you don't work at the club ? Do you doubt that if our membership was down, or that our sponsorship was down, or that we hadn't made any inroads on our debt that Hazy would be sheeting home the blame to Schwab ? If so, shouldn't the reverse apply ?

rpfc, BH's post is cheap. He has ignored hazy's argument entirely. Instead he trying to undermine hazy by implying that hazy's argument is crap because he a garnder suporter and gardner's board was not that good. It completely bypasses the points that Hazy is making.

I think Hazy is clearly agenda-driven but i think he is writing good stuff. THe two are not incompatible. The good bits about the club has nothing to do with schwab and the bad bits have a fair bit to do with him. We've had posters come on an dsay that we lost two sponsors because schwab + team were hard to deal with. The debt reduction was not a schwab plan. He has massively expanded theadmin side of the business and I'm not sure if it is a good idea (and if anyone does it would certainly help this debate). We are holding fundraisers to help the TPP. WTF?

Questioning this board and CEO should be done by everyone. Hazy has offered some interesting insights and criticisms and is being dismissed regardless of, rather than because of, the quality of his writing. That is poor.

You're right Tim but there's a time and a place where this should be done. What I and many others object to is the hostile and divisive way in which the campaign against the Board and Cameron Schwab in particular has been conducted. Ultimately, that approach is counterproductive and causes substantial harm to the club's core objectives which are to develop a team capable of winning a premiership.

Statistics, damn lies and warped thinking Hazy.

...

And you want to talk about own goals?

Go figure?

I find it amusing that you so often accuse me of being a tricky spin merchant. I don’t have to spin because the facts speak for themselves. By contrast, your post reads like an example from a political training manual. In this thread alone you have provided examples of ad hominem attacks, straw man fallacies, ignoring the question(s), avoiding the facts, misdirection, false analogies and shifting blame to the previous administration.

Nevertheless, I will address the main points you have raised.

CEO accountability for football performance

As I have said previously, I was reluctant to raise this matter in this discussion because the CEO should not directly involve himself in on field affairs to begin with. But, since you have raised it, just because the CEO should stay out of micromanaging football, e.g. team selection, drafting, game plan etc., does not mean that he is totally unaccountable for football performance.

Alan Joyce should not be mending aircraft but when Qantas planes start dropping out of the sky, he can’t just point the finger at the aircraft engineers and avoid responsibility.

As well as this, Schwab has directly interfered in football matters which makes it even more ridiculous for you to try and distance him from these responsibilities.

The Robbie Flower example is clearly inappropriate. To say that an individual player has the same accountabilities as the club CEO is bizarre. Although Robbie carried the team for much of his career, he was never accountable for the entire team’s performance. By contrast, a club’s CEO is accountable to the Board, and thereby the members, for the performance of the entire organisation – on and off the field.

Lastly, you yourself have made the point that club politics can have a detrimental effect on football performance. I struggle to think of a clearer example of this than the events of last year.

Disunity and Intability - Is Schwab a victim or an instigator?

You say that Schwab and the Stynes board “had to deal with difficult circumstances and disruptive elements in the background”. What disruptive elements are you referring to?

I can’t think of a similar change in club administration in recent history that has proceeded so smoothly. The previous administration handled the Stynes coup with remarkable grace and put the interests of the club first. Was this true of the previous few changeovers? No. Will this be true of the next major change? I very much doubt it.

By way of thanks, the new Board spurned the assistance of outgoing Board members, tried to take credit for the positive aspects of their inheritance, exaggerated the negative aspects of their inheritance and trashed aspects of the club’s history for their self-aggrandizement.

Stynes himself repeatedly laid claim to presiding over the most unified period in the Club’s history. Even in our most fractured periods e.g. 1996 (merger) and 2001 (Gutnick and opponents), the Football Department and the players were largely spared. Schwab and Connolly have the unique distinction of introducing disunity within the Football Department and between the FD and the Administration. Cameron is a pioneering champion of club disunity and you are yet to deny this.

Jack, you are the one who raised football performance and stability as being the most important performance indicators for a CEO, I merely responded to these points. I assume you did this because I had already proposed several other performance criteria against which Schwab has performed poorly (e.g. financial management, corporate relations/sponsorship, corporate structure and accountability, club culture, management of employees, media relations/PR). Irrespective of what Robbie Flower, Ellis, Harris and MacNamee may have done or not done, Schwab is a failure based on your own criteria.

Do you deny that all clubs under Schwab have had dismal on field results?

Do you deny that Schwab is directly responsible for significant instability at the Melbourne Football Club?

And again:

Given that the Board were about to sack Schwab last year, what has Schwab done since then that could possibly justify giving him a three year contract now?

Given his patchy record, how does it benefit the club to give Schwab a three year contract instead of a standard ongoing employment contract with a notice period?

Come on now, this is really clutching at straws.

It's an indictment that you can't tell from the outside who is making decisions?

It's only an indictment on your bent to find things wrong with Schwab's tenure.

I see, accountability and corporate governance are clearly not big issues for you. I suppose you had no problem with the way the Bailey sacking was handled then.

So Hazy what are you thoughts on Don McLardy?

I will refer you you my comments on Tuesday:

Don McLardy doesn't know his arse from his elbow

More than happy to expand on this, but this and other responses will have to wait until later.

I will refer you you my comments on Tuesday:

More than happy to expand on this, but this and other responses will have to wait until later.

Expand away. You made a big statement there. Have you spoken to Don personally?

I see, accountability and corporate governance are clearly not big issues for you. I suppose you had no problem with the way the Bailey sacking was handled then.

186 took care of Bailey's sacking.

Can you name any instances of a public company or organisation making a loan to a CEO in addition to his salary package? It should be easy since it is "common practice".

The truth is it certainly isnt common practice in the corporate world and has not been so for at least a dozen years. In fact, under ASX Governance rules its verbotim. And with the consequence of FBT, there are no tax benefits whatsoever.

The company I work for is not publicly listed and provides all sorts of interesting packaging that even with the FBT, offers benefits to the those in the highest tax bracket especially if the employee is not 100% PAYE. FBT has been nothing but another interesting challenge.

I will concede I have little knowledge of the public sector or pucblic organisations and as such am not aware of how difficult or easy it is to creatively salary package.

186 took care of Bailey's sacking.

HSoG will tell you that 186 was down to Schwab. HSoG = acronym/anagram for Herder of Scape Goats.

And yet despite Hazy's hyperbole about the ramifications of the inept Cameron Schwab and equally moronic McLardy the club hasn't been stronger off the field.

I have zero doubt that Hazy was a member of Gardner's Board. Whether it's Phillips, or Coghlan (doubtful) I don't know, but there's no doubt he's one of those that was overthrown.

HSoG will tell you that 186 was down to Schwab. HSoG = acronym/anagram for Herder of Scape Goats.

More interested in his feelings on Don McLardy right now. We already know the Schwab scenario....

Poor Schwabbie. He meddles too much in the FD earlier in his tenure and cops heap of flak. Gets the hell out of there, and cops an equal amount of flak for this year's on-field results. He can't win either way. The way we've gone this year, get Schwabbie back in there!

The previous administration handled the Stynes coup with remarkable grace and put the interests of the club first. Was this true of the previous few changeovers? No. Will this be true of the next major change? I very much doubt it.

From my understanding the reason there was a Stynes coup was the perilous state of the club at the time ie the massive debt, the concerns from AFL house on our viability, most believing we were on our last legs... I'm unsure as to why the previous board would have been so gracious given the state we were in.

Hazy I want all Melb people to be working towards our ultimate goal... long term stability and winning an Fing flag not playing agenda's and politics or causing more drama and factions within the club known for factions. Focus on the end goal, work together to achieve it. If there are issues, ideas, opportunities then raise them with the club without taking the clubs eye off the end goal.

I know that a few are still having trouble getting over this mental hurdle over the $750k from the Foundation Heroes night being used on the TPP.

We have a legislated requirement to pay 95% of the $9.14m salary cap. That money is always going to be paid. The money that we have raised form generous fans will help the club grow whether it goes into the TPP or any other area of the club.

It is sexier to say that the money is designed to recruit and retain players than pay for the altitude room or any other crucial yet outwardly dry expense.

Of course we are going to pay the TPP - the AFL mandates us to pay 95% of it.

Its just not that hard to understand this - its called marketing - pick the one thing that is going to drive the most donations and it isnt an altitude room. World visions' $1 a day feeds 3 children for a week resonates more than $1 a day helps World vision pay for staff to keep the charity operational and help defray the cost of advertising.

And yet despite Hazy's hyperbole about the ramifications of the inept Cameron Schwab and equally moronic McLardy the club hasn't been stronger off the field.

I have zero doubt that Hazy was a member of Gardner's Board. Whether it's Phillips, or Coghlan (doubtful) I don't know, but there's no doubt he's one of those that was overthrown.

Could even be G himself BH? C'mon Hazy answer the question. Are you a previous board member? A simple yes/no will suffice

Could even be G himself BH? C'mon Hazy answer the question. Are you a previous board member? A simple yes/no will suffice

Hazyshadesoftheguywhotendstothegarden?

McLardy-Schwab-Neeld are welded together - whether they're the 3 musketeers, the 3 wise monkeys or the 3 stooges only time will tell.

If we were leaking at the seams as we once did, if we were perilously situated financially as we uded to be, if we couldnt gaze out the window and see a future for the MFC id sort of at least understand the motive for all this angst.

But other than ladder position and the rebuilding of a competitive list I see nothing but optimism to be had.

We're debt free ,we have resources and we're about to start getting somewhere.

There are some seriously angry and pessimistic bastards around. Life must be very tortuous for them.

Glad im not one of them

Tim, I'm the first to admit that unlike Hazy I have very little interest in club politics. Watching, reading about, and listening to footy content is far more my go. So in that regard I readily admit that Hazy has an advantage. But when I look at some of the basics, such as the club being debt free for the first time since 1981, and listen to McLardy sing the praises of the current CEO, I find myself taking umbrage at a character that incessantly tries to pot the current administration when by virtually any measure they've succeeded where others have failed.

And how does Hazy know what credit Schwab should, or shouldn't receive for some of these successes ? How would you know if you don't work at the club ? Do you doubt that if our membership was down, or that our sponsorship was down, or that we hadn't made any inroads on our debt that Hazy would be sheeting home the blame to Schwab ? If so, shouldn't the reverse apply ?

BH, no-one can question the effectiveness of the fundraising and for the remaining time alloted to the MFC, we all will carry a debt of gratitude to the late Jim Stynes that can never be paid.

I don't want to foment trouble or pick at any one person's performance to score smart-alec points. It gives me the the sh12's when I see it in others and I'd hate to find myself doing that. So how can we be positive about the club and hold various decisionmakers accountable? I presume that is our job as members.

I thought I would have a look at North Melb, Port Adelaide and Geelong to see how Cam has performed...

The company I work for is not publicly listed and provides all sorts of interesting packaging that even with the FBT, offers benefits to the those in the highest tax bracket especially if the employee is not 100% PAYE. FBT has been nothing but another interesting challenge.

I will concede I have little knowledge of the public sector or pucblic organisations and as such am not aware of how difficult or easy it is to creatively salary package.

FBT has killed salary packaging. Any so called "larks" are very restricted and limited. Loans to CEO have no tax benefits for the Club or the employee

Its just not that hard to understand this - its called marketing - pick the one thing that is going to drive the most donations and it isnt an altitude room. World visions' $1 a day feeds 3 children for a week resonates more than $1 a day helps World vision pay for staff to keep the charity operational and help defray the cost of advertising.

I agree. It is dead easy to sell - just say so. When the baord say it is for TPP, I belive that they are not lying to me. When Don says that he didn't know why the club was playing poorly earlier in the year, should I assume it is because he genuinely didn't know? Did he really know and just decide to not say?

RPFC is sugesting that nudge-nudge wink wink deception is all good if it is for a good cause. Why is it needed at all?

I agree. It is dead easy to sell - just say so. When the baord say it is for TPP, I belive that they are not lying to me. When Don says that he didn't know why the club was playing poorly earlier in the year, should I assume it is because he genuinely didn't know? Did he really know and just decide to not say?

RPFC is sugesting that nudge-nudge wink wink deception is all good if it is for a good cause. Why is it needed at all?

seriously this is making a mountain out of a molehill

if you understand psychology tim you should understand this

there surely are many more important issues for the mfc than this

gazing at one's belly too often achieves little

One way to assess Cam would be to look at the results relative to North Melb, Geelong, and Port...

RPFC is sugesting that nudge-nudge wink wink deception is all good if it is for a good cause. Why is it needed at all?

I am not saying it is 'deception' at all.

It's just a framing issue - it's PR.

And it is such a non-issue.