Excellent post and it sums it all up.

I will make a point of not supporting any previous Board member at any furure election should the current Board be dismissed as I believe they will have their grubby fingerprints all over this. If Gardiner is re elected in any capacity I will quit the club and never go to a game again; that would be my tipping point.

I am fully with you on this.

In fact if it comes to a spill I will support any of the current board members who remain.

Whatever else, I believe in the integrity of Jim Stynes and, by extension the people he gathered to do a job.

That includes Don McLardy.

The proof is in the balance sheet.

The recent history of this club is filled with white anters with dented egos.

Could America and Hayz please exit the building?

If you were ever a part of the club, we don't want you back.

If you haven't been a part of the club, then keep well away! Nobody's swallowing your BS.

If you want to let us know who you are and so we can see you coming it would be appreciated.

BB

I don't know about McLardy, But CS & CC if anyone, certainly will be singled out.

CS was obviously told last year when they did the post season review to keep his nose out of the FD business.

CC was replaced as Football Manager and put into a marketing role, again to keep his nose out of FD business.

Apparently there is a 6 month payout clause in CS 3 year engagement.

CC would not be a loss.

Of course...Cuddles, but id think whoever wants the prize wants the top one so Mclardy I feel is on the list

http://www.theage.co...1031-28kea.html

If you listen to the playback at the start of the article, she comes very close to calling Jim Stynes a liar.

She also goes on about hypertheticals and what MAY happen. Shes such a [censored] and I want to punch her in the face.

Im ready to riot.

Interesting who a host on that show is ...ne c'est pas ?? .lol

Ive lost track of how many times Gerard Healy's name floats to the top of the algae with sniping at the MFC

Edited November 1, 201212 yr by belzebub59

That is not an offence under the Rule. You can conspire all you like, it is the act of tanking that constitutes the offence.

Here is an interesting question for the viewers Can you tank a game that you can't win? In other words does it have to be proved that you could have won and that you deliberately didn't, for the charge to be found proved.

If for example you played Hawthorn and they were red hot and at full strength and we had a few bad injuries and no form and knew we had no chance. Is developing players or experimenting and not doing your best tanking when you know you have no hope? If the answer is yes, every club has tanked.

I said they should be sacked or resign. For dragging the good name of this club into the gutter along with their general incompetance.

Edited November 1, 201212 yr by america de cali

I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read this, coming from you it's more a compliment than an insult. Still waiting for an answer to my question, you and your running mate refuse to resopond to that, don't you.

Too late, its on the record. I'll bookmark your threat to wallk away from the club. Obvioulsy you are losing the plot. Better stay away from that bathtub gin or whatever poison you are currently drinking.

Edited November 1, 201212 yr by america de cali

It certainly appears they certainly discussed it too widely but it's simplistic to say they should have kept it on a standard commercial-in-confidence need to know basis. A football club is not a normal corporate environment - there's a lot more media and public scrutiny and transparency of activities. If only the Board, the CEO, the Football Manager and the Coach were in on the strategy it would have been very hard to manage in FD meetings and on gameday in the coaches box.

Coach: "Take Jones off and put Spencer in the square with Jamar". There's going to be a schism somewhere - good luck managing your relationship with your assistant coaches.

It was a difficult to manage strategy.

The peculiarities of the football industry are cause for greater discretion, not less.

It sounds like you are saying it was all simply too difficult for our Schwab and co to handle. I agree. They weren't up to it.

Edited November 1, 201212 yr by Hazyshadeofgrinter

'Openly discussed'? Do you know what 'open' means? It certainly doesn't mean a meeting behind closed doors.

It means coming out in a room full of people and and actually saying "we need to try and make sure we don't win more than four games, does everyone agree?".

It does not mean a discrete one on one with the one or two people who absolutely need to know and saying "it is the strong opinion of the Board that we must prioritise the long term future of the club - do you catch my drift?".

I am truly shocked that you are still in denial about our administration's deliberate decision to tank.

The anger shown towards Wilson is understandable but misdirected. She is a vulture picking over our carcass, but it is not her fault we are in this situation.

Members of the club's admin have openly discussed their desire to tank in meetings with 10+ people (and it wasn't just the one meeting either by the way). Wilson may not have the full story and she may or may not have solid evidence but I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that she is wrong.

I take it by your post that you were at the meeting of the FD and heard them dicuss their desire to tank and it was not just one meeting??????.....If so, can you tell us exactly what was said so we will all be informed of the truth......I believe that this meeting was a weekly meeting of the fd.....Your post suggests that that tanking was "openly discussed".....Where is your sorce.......What was the date????At what time did it start?????Who was present????Please explain????

That is not an offence under the Rule.

Yeah, but bringing the game into disrepute is.

None of this matters of course. The court of public opinion and the preservation of Demetriou's own reputation is going to have a much bigger bearing on this case than your obscure paralegal musings.

Ah Barry Prendergast... not only did he "michael tuck" our club with his recruiting and this long term legacy, he is now working to undermine the club by testifying as to tanking.......

not another Car'ton influenced outcome?

just how true blue can we get?

I think you should be looking at the reality of the situation rather than mindlessly vituperating all over the place.

Reality, Truth, Tanking and Corporate Ethics

I doubt any philosopher could adequately define them and their interactions

But a quisling like you is easy to define

Too late, its on the record. I'll bookmark your threat to wallk away from the club. Obvioulsy you are losing the plot. Better stay away from that bathtub gin or whatever poison you are currently drinking.

I don't drink.

I'm sure that if you would agree to [censored] off I could raise enough to refund your membership, that's if you ever joined.

So from your non response it looks like I've got you pegged, you are an ex employee, Director or official of the club. Now everyone can see where you and your mate are coming from.

Dont know if anyone has read this but whoever suggested that if all the presidents came out and stuck up for the MFC as a whole we could get off easier can think again.

Kennet wants the AFL to come down hard

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/kennett-slams-disgusting-melbourne-tanking-20121101-28lw5.html

Yeah, but bringing the game into disrepute is.

None of this matters of course. The court of public opinion and the preservation of Demetriou's own reputation is going to have a much bigger bearing on this case than your obscure paralegal musings.

Although if the AFL is reduced to a finding under its catch-all 'bringing the game into disrepute' provision how p%*s-weak are its anti-tanking procedures going to look? I suspect Demetriwho's reputation will need some thinking about before heading in that direction.

There are numerous clubs that have been linked to tanking, but only one that is now fully under the blow torch, so I think it's reasonable to suggest we haven't been really good at this. It may be difficult to manipulate results in games of footy, but if evidence comes out that officials were told this was specifically the plan then they've been incompetent at worst and clumsy at best.

And, of course, those that hate the club, such as Hazy, start acting like flies with a Jam Boy in their midst.

Dont know if anyone has read this but whoever suggested that if all the presidents came out and stuck up for the MFC as a whole we could get off easier can think again.

Kennet wants the AFL to come down hard

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/kennett-slams-disgusting-melbourne-tanking-20121101-28lw5.html

not suprised at this. Kennett has wanted this to happen for years, but held back whilst Jimma was sick out of "respect".

Dont know if anyone has read this but whoever suggested that if all the presidents came out and stuck up for the MFC as a whole we could get off easier can think again.

Kennet wants the AFL to come down hard

http://www.theage.co...1101-28lw5.html

Kennett would know all about it....losing the unlosable election.

10 years in the doldrums says kennett?

Wonder if he realizes that would mean 10 years of number #1 draft picks and a pile of priority picks mixed in with them for the MFC

Now everyone can see where you and your mate are coming from.

Ok, let's pretend I am an ex-board member for a moment. What difference would that make? None. If anything, it would make things worse because you would have to assume that I know something of what I am talking about. I know everyone here thinks I am horribly biased - this is not exactly news. But it doesn't change the facts and it doesn't make me wrong.

Mods, you are supposed to keep conversations relevant to the thread. We have been through this tedious, irrelevant rubbish over and over again. I should not have to keep pointing this out to you just because my views are unpopular.

And thanks for the crocodile tears for Melbourne supporters, Jeff.

Plonker.

Although if the AFL is reduced to a finding under its catch-all 'bringing the game into disrepute' provision how p%*s-weak are its anti-tanking procedures going to look? I suspect Demetriwho's reputation will need some thinking about before heading in that direction.

Pretty small biscuits in context though.

Dont know if anyone has read this but whoever suggested that if all the presidents came out and stuck up for the MFC as a whole we could get off easier can think again.

Kennet wants the AFL to come down hard

http://www.theage.co...1101-28lw5.html

Mr dial a quote, when will Acker have his say?

Mods, you are supposed to keep conversations relevant to the thread. We have been through this tedious, irrelevant rubbish over and over again. I should not have to keep pointing this out to you just because my views are unpopular.

Because posters on here have the memory of a goldfish and they should be reminded how biased you have been, are, and will be toward the current administration of the MFC.

The Stynes/McLardy board has had some unfortunate lapses of judgement. Clearly there is also some very noisy opposition toward it.

Criticism is fine but not much of it has been constructive. At best it has been negative disingenuous spin & at worst it has been a disloyal white-anting campaign of political bastardry aimed at eliminating one so called "boys club" for the jollies of another. Ultimately loyal supporters & members of the club will be the real losers out of this.

Really if you feel you have something positive to contribute to the club you could offer your insight to the current board. If you feel said advice is being ignored or they are/have treated you badly; form a viable alternative ticket or back one (apparently the local Girl Guides chapter has outstanding corporate governance).

But let's also not whitewash history & have a look at some of the factors which lead to the ascension of the perceived boys club. In 2007 the then Gardner board involved Jim Stynes (in the initial stages) & Garry Lyon in the selection process to appoint a new coach. Chris Connolly was also interviewed for the position (funny how they're "revered club legends" when they're useful but a bunch of out of line "liniment sniffers" when they have the cheek to usurp others into a position of power).

After failing to land the head coaching gig Chris Connolly is parachuted into the position of Football Operations Manager (presumably as a consolation prize) - ignoring a separate panel's recommendation that former Hawthorn coach Peter Schwab assume the position.

On rolls 2008 & the Gardner board appoints Paul McNamee as CEO to replace Steve Harris. This strategic direction leads to alarm bells ringing at the AFL & sets in place a chain of events that leads to the ascension of the Stynes board, the sacking of McNamee & the AFL's backed hiring of Cameron Schwab as CEO.

So if the Stynes/McLardy board is the route of all of the club's evils what does that say about some of previous board's actions & decisions in 07/08 which lead to the AFL backed putsch?

Most of this criticism of the current board is overly negative bordering on destructive. Is clearly personal & AGENDA driven. It's all dirty political point scoring.

Describing a man whose board presided over the eradication of $5m worth of debt, increased sponsorship & revenue streams as well as vastly improved strategic relationships with the MCC & AFL as merely "a dying cult hero & his mates" is clearly political mudslinging. As is the baseless accusation that he knowingly accepted illegal payments as a player as is the other agenda driven bile, bias & [censored] slung on this thread.