Making sure it s both "county and western".

Making sure it s both "county and western".

I think we all know which part of that relates to you.

I think we all know which part of that relates to you.

Is that the bloke from Preston?

He has overseen some very good things, as has most of the current board. And I love the way he handled things like the Jurrah and Ben Polis press conferences, spoke amazingly well. But the fact is we are in a bad place, and this tanking investigation should never have been able to grow the legs it has. It all has the potential to damage the club irreparably.

Must disclaim that by saying obviously I don't know his specific role in all of this.

The more I read this carp about Schwab the more I'm insistent that he should stay.

It's unAustralian the way he's being tried, found guilty, hung, drawn and quartered by gutless idiots who chose to remain anonymous and have yet to produce a skerrick of evidence against him.

On face value, I would voted for him to resign just to purely get some respite from the media.

There is no doubting in my mind he has many enemies and this attracts the vitriol thrown at the club.

Sure he's helped wipe the debt and done many other good things with the sponsor issues (or was he just lucky) but it's time to start fresh at the corporate level as well.

Yeah....great idea....Hang him because he is not popular with the media????despite his contribution and acually leading this club out of debt......Only one of two or three clubs that aren't in debt...These clubs are in debt.... Rich.....over $3 mil.....Coll.,,,,$10 mil....Carl....$7 mil( figers are approx only....will go to ann reports of clubs to confirm)....He also got Freo out of debt when he was there.....

Edit to add last sentence

Edited November 2, 201212 yr by Bossdog

Yeah....great idea....Hang him because he is not popular with the media????despite his contribution and acually leading this club out of debt......Only one of two or three clubs that aren't in debt...These clubs are in debt.... Rich.....over $3 mil.....Coll.,,,,$10 mil....Carl....$7 mil( figers are approx only....will go to ann reports of clubs to confirm)....He also got Freo out of debt when he was there.....

Edit to add last sentence

As I said, BD.

On face value.

I am staggered - the Board survives!

AFL is a business - they have obligations to all shareholders - paying supporters, fans, and especially sponsors!

The fact that we are fanatical shareholders, means the Board is ever so more accountable! They have F. . . about for long enough and have shown they are incompetent! It's time to submit them to the blow torch! Demons take no prisoners! In the heat of the battle, we want total commitment, we want a Board that leads from the front and sets an example not crafty rules benders!

I've got lots of complaints about Schwab and don't want him at the club. But that has nothing to do with the current investigation. The club was doing what it had to do with tanking. It's just unfortunate for us that so many rats went and dropped us in it. Schwab isn't to blame for that.

Put it this way:

I don't mind the guy but i'd rather lose Cam Schwab and perhaps Connely than lose any draft picks now or in the future.

jus' sayin'.

Maybe Bezzlebaby should have included a don't know option in this highly intelligent poll, sure Cam is monitoring the outcome, and really concerned.

I am amazed that we have a survey on this, hardly likely to get an unbiased/unskewed result What does attempting to measure supporters views achieve that couldn't be achieved with a simple question asking for comments.Are you trying to objectify what is essentially deeply held feelings Essentially this is the same as the Age's rather stupid polls along the Do you still beat your wife? lines

I am amazed that we have a survey on this, hardly likely to get an unbiased/unskewed result What does attempting to measure supporters views achieve that couldn't be achieved with a simple question asking for comments.Are you trying to objectify what is essentially deeply held feelings Essentially this is the same as the Age's rather stupid polls along the Do you still beat your wife? lines

Perhaps you could ask Caroline Wilson's husband that last question?

I am amazed that we have a survey on this, hardly likely to get an unbiased/unskewed result What does attempting to measure supporters views achieve that couldn't be achieved with a simple question asking for comments.Are you trying to objectify what is essentially deeply held feelings Essentially this is the same as the Age's rather stupid polls along the Do you still beat your wife? lines

its purely a snapshot of where and how we (demonlanders ) see this. Many are mfc members. It has relevance.

I refute your comparison and note that your referencing it casts yourself into that mire and not the tenet and question(s) of this poll.

Should have recognised old board mentality. Will NEVER EVER EVER VOTE anyone with ties to Gardner's regime.

jus' sayin'.

If you didn't put this increasingly popular and idiotic expression at the end of your post I would have 'liked' it far more.

We know you're "saying" it as we read it.

If you didn't put this increasingly popular and idiotic expression at the end of your post I would have 'liked' it far more.

We know you're "saying" it as we read it.

He was jus sayin'.

Just Sayin'.

Should have realized old board mentality.Will NEVER EVER EVER VOTE anyone with ties to Gardeners regime

that would be Gardner i guess.

Unless youre advocating pruning ,cutting or mowing.

Edited November 3, 201212 yr by belzebub59

that would be Gardner i guess.

Unless youre advocating pruning ,cutting or mowing.

Same manure

Same manure

All and sundry potting the club ,you choose this to [censored] about.Strange!

Any wonder the clubs rooted

If you didn't put this increasingly popular and idiotic expression at the end of your post I would have 'liked' it far more.

We know you're "saying" it as we read it.

Take a chill pill. (Excuse the idiotic expression).

Take a chill pill. (Excuse the idiotic expression).

Very chilled mate. It's merely an observation about an increasingly used banal remark.

Although I accept I'm fighting a losing battle.

Ive met Schwab and Ive met Don McLardy. Personally I really got a great impression from Don and he seems a warm, friendly and passionate bloke whereas Cameron came across as guarded. But both seemed like good people to me; smart, professional and passionate.

The CEOs job is to manage the business of the club, not to take part in football decisions. As such, I have to judge him by his efforts in that arena. In his time at the club we have gone from debt-ridden to profitable. We have found funds to drastically increase size of the football department and have gained access to some of the best facilities in the league. All of these things come under his umbrella. As such, I have to judge him as a huge success.

Regarding the "tanking" mess, in theory he should not have anything to do with it. As I said, the CEO shouldn't have anything to do with the football side of the club, but we know that he has always been prone to making his opinions known. I note that he has stopped appearing with the coaches and players at press conferences since the blow-up around 187, which has to be seen as a good thing. Was he part of the decision-making process that led to this investigation? He probably was, but I don't think he can be held responsible for it.

Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks that the club is trying to drop the whole mess on Chris Connelly? All the talk of penalising the individuals and not the club, along with "leaks" that CC led the meeting where they talked about not winning more than 4 games, seems to me to be an effort to turn the punishment on him rather than the club. Not the best look for the boar I would think. That being said, I wouldn't mind if they leaked that Brock McLean was at the meetings and was a prime mover behind the effort.

Regardless of whether you rate Schwab or not, the club needs to move on from the tanking episode. The best way to do so is with a change in the administration. No one who was involved at the time at either Board level or in the higher level administration should remain.

I agree with this, but only if the board is adequately replaced.

It'd be good to really banish the issue and prep our list as having just a couple of those involved with the tank left.