AFL investigation

[nutbean 8,838]

The word "agenda" is thrown around here regularly when wanting to discredit someone's position. I've been accused of wanting the club to fail, bring it to it's knees and sacrifice it for the purpose of ridding it of individuals.

That's rot. I have argued that various people in the administration and on the Board in the club should be replaced. But what is completely misunderstood, leading to assertions of "standing for the Board" is the manner in which I think it should be done. Many of those who are passionate supporters of the administration also denigrate the performance of the past Board and like all these situations there is good and bad to be found in all administrations. One of the exceptional things the Gardner Board did was hand over control of the Club to the Stynes administration in the most dignified and positive of manners. There was no fight, there was no name calling and there was no ugly media coverage. There was sensible discussion between two parties over what was best for the club, points of difference were dealt with and they got on with the job.

It was the right thing to do and it was done very very well. It actually showed the professionalism of the Gardner Board who could, if they wished, forced us to a general election.

When I, and I imagine the majority, of people here suggest that people from the club should be replaced I'm not talking about a coup, I'm not talking about public humiliation for those i think should step down. I want to see them treated with respect and dignity, I want a well managed process where one person is replaced by another.

In a way it's no different to debating whether Jamar or Spencer should be our first ruckman, it's a simple difference of opinion as to who would be better.

So you are comfortable with the mighty big swipe that Gardner took at the club late last year ? In my mind it was neither dignified nor professional and reeked of sour grapes. The brownie points that Gardner scored for the manner of his departure ( and yes it was dignified and without rancour) was more than undone but his unneccessary shots taken at the club regarding tanking. A professional and dignified approach by Gardner would have been to shut up and say nothing.

[rpfc 28,542]

The word "agenda" is thrown around here regularly when wanting to discredit someone's position. I've been accused of wanting the club to fail, bring it to it's knees and sacrifice it for the purpose of ridding it of individuals.

When I, and I imagine the majority, of people here suggest that people from the club should be replaced I'm not talking about a coup, I'm not talking about public humiliation for those i think should step down. I want to see them treated with respect and dignity, I want a well managed process where one person is replaced by another.

In a way it's no different to debating whether Jamar or Spencer should be our first ruckman, it's a simple difference of opinion as to who would be better.

The word 'agenda' is brought up when a Demon Fan applauds the stilted and erroneous work of Caroline Wilson with a self-righteous "Keep up the good work, Caro."

The word 'agenda' is brought up when Hazy mentions The Vault meeting without noting, as all Demon fans should know by now, that the building that housed this 'controversial' MATCH COMMITTEE meeting was NICKNAME 'The Vault.'

These are reasons why you are so overwhelmingly dismissed by a community that you 'imagine' thinks the same way you do.

This is no witch hunt and there are some offensive statements and ridiculous things said (welcome to the internet) but don't think it is your right to say on here what you will without being challenged.

You are not being persecuted.

[Grapeviney 9,731]

then there are things like ...having a media strategy to deal with crises. The current board/admin have shown themselves to be inept in these respects also.

The club's media strategy in the current crisis has been - it would seem - to lay low. Alternatively, you could argue that they have now started drip-feeding the more absurd elements of the investigation (Watts / fumbling etc) to discredit it.

What would you suggest they should have done / could be doing?

[GM11 781]

Which is?

I have some thoughts on that.

But I don't know, so I am not going to inflame things by posting guesses.

I only mention it to support DC's point about leakage

The level of leakage from this club has been consistent over too many years.

[andrewlamprill37 24]

Geez I wonder why Gardner didn't call an election...

[nutbean 8,838]

The club's media strategy in the current crisis has been - it would seem - to lay low. Alternatively, you could argue that they have now started drip-feeding the more absurd elements of the investigation (Watts / fumbling etc) to discredit it.

What would you suggest they should have done / could be doing?

I can do some finger pointing at things the club could be doing better but their handling of this crisis has to date been excellent.

1/ They hadnt seen the evidence from the investigators so they "laid low" - good strategy - dont get into a shitfight with the AFL until you know what cards they are holding. Contrast that to Adelaide - indignant with the AFL that simply had done nothing wrong in the Tippett case right until the AFL laid he evidence on the tableand then they changed their tune in a hurry.

2/ Make it clear with a broad statement " we will fight you and take you to court if necessary" - the club did not actually say what they would fight or who or why - they just sent a clear message that the club would not roll over

3/ Hire the Fink - if you are going to get into a dick waving contest with the AFL - we just showed the AFL that we have John Holmes

4/ Leak the absurdities and negatives of the investigation - if this was the club well done.

5/ Do not come out and say "what about the other clubs" - that is a guilty plea - they did so so did we. There is time enough to bring up accepted precendents if this goes to court ( which I highly doubt)

I am more than happy on how the club have handled this matter to date

[diesel 420]

The word "agenda" is thrown around here regularly when wanting to discredit someone's position. I've been accused of wanting the club to fail, bring it to it's knees and sacrifice it for the purpose of ridding it of individuals.

That's rot. I have argued that various people in the administration and on the Board in the club should be replaced. But what is completely misunderstood, leading to assertions of "standing for the Board" is the manner in which I think it should be done. Many of those who are passionate supporters of the administration also denigrate the performance of the past Board and like all these situations there is good and bad to be found in all administrations. One of the exceptional things the Gardner Board did was hand over control of the Club to the Stynes administration in the most dignified and positive of manners. There was no fight, there was no name calling and there was no ugly media coverage. There was sensible discussion between two parties over what was best for the club, points of difference were dealt with and they got on with the job.

It was the right thing to do and it was done very very well. It actually showed the professionalism of the Gardner Board who could, if they wished, forced us to a general election.

When I, and I imagine the majority, of people here suggest that people from the club should be replaced I'm not talking about a coup, I'm not talking about public humiliation for those i think should step down. I want to see them treated with respect and dignity, I want a well managed process where one person is replaced by another.

In a way it's no different to debating whether Jamar or Spencer should be our first ruckman, it's a simple difference of opinion as to who would be better.

Nah, crap. The Gardner board would have got a hiding in an election. that's why they stepped aside, lets be honest.

In hindsight I wish the Stynes ticket had refused to negotiate a handover. They probably did it with the right intentions along the lines of your beliefs of 'demonstrating' unity, saving the club a few $. What in fact happens in such negotiated positions is grievances are allowed to continue to bubble underneath, former board members will feel they have retained some legitimacy and that usurps the authority of the new administration.

If there are people who believe they could do a better job than those who are up for re-election they simply need to put their hands up individually for the AGM or put together a ticket.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

The Gardner Board had no choice but to leave quietly. The interest payments had beaten them.

Of course they had a choice. They simply made the right choice, and went quietly without any blood letting. Anybody that has even the remotest connection with PG, would understand that he is a very decent and capable bloke. That said, we very much needed a change in Administration at that time, in my view.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

Of course they had a choice. They simply made the right choice, and went quietly without any blood letting. Anybody that has even the remotest connection with PG, would understand that he is a very decent and capable bloke. That said, we very much needed a change in Administration at that time, in my view.

oh yes they had a choice, but a landslide loss never looks good on a CV. so really as i said there was no choice.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

oh yes they had a choice, but a landslide loss never looks good on a CV. so really as i said there was no choice.

So says the drover's dog.

[nutbean 8,838]

Of course they had a choice. They simply made the right choice, and went quietly without any blood letting. Anybody that has even the remotest connection with PG, would understand that he is a very decent and capable bloke. That said, we very much needed a change in Administration at that time, in my view.

I take your word for it that he is a capable and decent bloke but he absolutely lost me when he potted the club .

Brock McLean is a dill and know no better but an ex-president should know better. When Paul Gardner came out in the press late last year he was thinking only of Paul Gardner not the Melbourne Football Club

[daisycutter 29,622]

I take your word for it that he is a capable and decent bloke but he absolutely lost me when he potted the club .

Brock McLean is a dill and know no better but an ex-president should know better. When Paul Gardner came out in the press late last year he was thinking only of Paul Gardner not the Melbourne Football Club

and not just once. i heard/saw at least 4 times

its irrelevant whether he thought he was just being 'honest' it was a case of disloyalty for a former office bearer and current member to comment (adversely) in the middle of an inquiry

what was he thinking? How was he helping?

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

......... he was thinking only of Paul Gardner not the Melbourne Football Club

So you do know him then?

[nutbean 8,838]

So you do know him then?

Firstly please quote my whole post - I said that I'll take your word for it that he is a good bloke and capable - I would have thought that would be a bit of hint that I dont know him save his public appearances during his tenure

As DC said in the post above and I'll ask you the question - do you think his statements to the press last year were helpful. If you were the sitting board would you be enamoured with the comments that this immediate past president made. And lastly, when he came out and stated ( and i paraphrase) that there was no tanking under my watch but if the club is found guilty of tanking punish the individuals not the club - tell me what you think his motivation for the statements was ? Do you believe he had the clubs best interest at heart when he made the comments ?

I stand by my opinion Paul Gardner was only interested in making sure that Paul Gardner was distanced from any smell of wrongdoing.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

So says the drover's dog.

Yep. Bill Hayden making way for R J Hawke is a pretty good analogy...

[DemonWA 3,936]

by the way if you mentioned those 2 names in a Fremantle pub you would be leaving in an Ambulance.

Rubbish. I'll try it on the weekend

[old55 23,625]

55

The whole point of much of this goes to he notion hat it's the very ones who have/had the noses , collectively or otherwise, out of joint that have themselves extenuated the debacle and sought to use it to their own gain. That being the displacing of the board.

You can't put stuff on the tracks and then blame the train drivers. It seems to some of us that throes a group who are only interested in 'their' ideal of a Melbourne and how wonderful they'd sit in it.

Many of us aren't buying that rubbish, not one iota.

The tanking issue is a blind, it's simply being used to camouflage other aims.

I've never bought that the tanking investigation was brought on by a conspiracy against individual club office holders. As RPFC pointed out early in the piece - if it was a conspiracy it was the dumbest conspiracy ever because if successful it was likely to kill the club to remove the officers (which is still a possibility) and would only result in those officers drawing closer together (which has happened). I just think Brock is dumb and Sheahan and Healy are just hungry for any story no matter what the fall-out.

I do think it's likely that once AA fired up the investigation in AD's absence, Haddad wanted to make his reputation and flex his muscle and that disgruntled former employees as witnesses saw an opportunity to get back at the club and fueled the fire.

Yes - one possible outcome is that officers of the club go down while the club gets off relatively unscathed, officers who mis-managed the tanking and it's aftermath, and yes some posters will not be sorry to see those officers get replaced - but I completely and utterly reject any notion that there's a conspiracy to make this happen and that's what this is all about.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Firstly please quote my whole post - I said that I'll take your word for it that he is a good bloke and capable - I would have thought that would be a bit of hint that I dont know him save his public appearances during his tenure

As DC said in the post above and I'll ask you the question - do you think his statements to the press last year were helpful. If you were the sitting board would you be enamoured with the comments that this immediate past president made. And lastly, when he came out and stated ( and i paraphrase) that there was no tanking under my watch but if the club is found guilty of tanking punish the individuals not the club - tell me what you think his motivation for the statements was ? Do you believe he had the clubs best interest at heart when he made the comments ?

I stand by my opinion Paul Gardner was only interested in making sure that Paul Gardner was distanced from any smell of wrongdoing.

Entire post now quoted. All I will say I am very tired of the apparent character assassinations on here.

[monoccular 17,438]

It's somewhat amusing to read the suggestion that if we were to have the temerity to defend ourselves then this must somehow result in bankruptcy.

This view explains to me why anyone who would advocate such should never be let near the boardroom let alone the reins.

It's naive, amateurish and ultimately detrimental to the club to allow such Lilly livered scaredy cat doctrines to exist. Don't ever enter the schoolyard let alone politics if you haven't the stomach or backbone for it.

It's a straw argument to purport we go to court and go broke. This will never go to court nor was it going to. What needed to be understood by the inquisitors was our preparedness to do so, push come to shove. I.e we were/are willing to blow a mighty hole in the ivory tower lest you back off and F off !! It's. ploy, a gambit. But it's a reasonable and real one.

It would seem others prefer the course of non confrontation. You might as well urn around bend over and after the raping hand everything over to the League as you must have no enthusiasm for anything that require risk or daring. These people want to plod along at the hem of SS Mediocrity.

There is responsible governance and we trust and expect that from a fiscal standpoint but there's the ideal of Leadership. Governance might keep the engines in nick but its Leadership that steers. Sometimes you actually have to swing your boat around directly into the waves in order to stay afloat. It can get rough but any other course may simply capsize you, you're gone.

I have spoken to very few people who believe we've taken he wrong path. Funnily enough no one really cares about tanking. It's almost a non issue. ( this from people of many clubs) what is important is how you play the game, the other game, the how you deal with he AFL game.. I had it put to me it's just like Bullies in the Schoolyard. Cowtow and you're theirs. Stand up and the dynamic changes. Yes sometimes you might get whacked, more often you won't. Bullies are cowards. The AFL is just the same. Stand up and show them you aren't mucking around , and more importantly remind them you know where the skeletons are and they'll 'negotiate' armistice. Collingwood do it, Carlton do it, Sydney do it.

But some would have he MFC just roll. Have them seek terms even before a judgement. Honestly just how pathetically p!ssweek can some get. It's week and stupid. You're admitting a guilt that needn't be. You're guaranteeing a punishment.

That's not Leadership, thats surrender, no that's abdication really. It would not only be a travesty it would be a derilection of position. Sometimes the only way through a minefield is THROUGH the minefield. You simply have to clear away what you can and brace for the rest.

I'm not au fait as to who would /could have done a better job, or indeed if any exist. What I am happy enough with is the current board have one way or another got us up and going. We're actually in the black. We're prepared to push back against the oppressors who would have us as sacrificial offering to the deities .

It's often said what happens off the field can reflect/effect what happens on he field. I hope so.

We're now a team with spirit, prepared to take on all comers, and most poignantly , dare to win.

I much prefer that to what we were .

Maybe these folk would prefer a Neville Chamberlain type as Chairman or President to just appease Herr Dimitriou.

[beelzebub 23,380]

So you do know him then?

seem to remember some bloke off trekking . Suffice to say it never appeared to some his priorities matched his position.

Don't have to know someone often, actions and words my friend !

[sue 9,107]

- but I completely and utterly reject any notion that there's a conspiracy to make this happen and that's what this is all about.

I'm not saying there was a conspiracy. I think there is no concrete evidence of one, and even if there was evidence may be hard to find.

It sounds like there are a few people with axes to grind who may have conspired, so it is not totally unreasonable to speculate there was a conspiracy. Though I'm not sure it does the club much good to speculate on that.

But how can you be so very absolutely sure there was not a conspiracy?

[nutbean 8,838]

Entire post now quoted. All I will say I am very tired of the apparent character assassinations on here.

I need to take you to task on this. Paul Gardner came out and had his say last year in a very public manner - very unneccessarily in my opinion and with little regard for the club. I have not launched a broadside at him for all the wrongs of the world. I have limited my comments to criticising him for the comments he made at one particular time and I stand by my comments. If you really want to call my criticism "character assassination" then all i can do is retort by suggesting to you that you have not offered an alternative motivation for his comments and short of substance you have gone with character assassination.

I ask again - would you care to venture an opinion as to Paul Gardners motivation for his comments ?

[dee-luded 2,959]

Let's say you are a major shareholder in a company. The company's CEO and Board have been caught out engaging in dodgy corporate practices. Other companies have been involved in the same dodgy practices but they have not been implicated and are not being pursued by the regulator. This regulator has special powers by the way, even if your company is found to not have a case to answer, they can make the company insolvent anyway.

So the CEO and the Board say to the shareholders, "look, we all know we've been caught out here but instead of taking our medicine we will use all of the resources of the company to defend our professional reputations. I know you all have a lot invested in this company and this may ultimately drive the company to bankruptcy but I'm sure you'll all agree that it is the right thing to do".

Does it make you a disloyal shareholder to put the interests of the company ahead of the dodgy Board and CEO?

Schwab grew up a Richmond supporter. I have been supporting the Demons from well before he arrived on the scene. Why are people prepared to put Schwab's interests before those of the club? Would they be prepared to do this for Harris or McNamee?

Hazy, I'd say we should do similar as the Crows have handled Trigg over the Tippett affair.

Scwabby has done a lot of good, & I for ONE will not stand by & destroy him.

If you & your ilk want to handle this in unison with the current AFL Commissions inquisition, I think thats soft & opportunistic & I won't give my vote to this sort of way of doing business.

If you have a gripe,,, wait till we sort the AFL Commissions inquisition, & maybe after that you can then address your Scwab/McLardy issues.....

[beelzebub 23,380]

55 , please don't infer that I give much credence or acknowledgement of intelligence to those that seek unrest and eventual turnover at the club. The whole thing smacks of fools in suits thinking they can control gelignite.

My thoughts to some of this fiasco is it was an idea that got out of hand. That occurred because more than a few sought to profit from the fallout. Only, there hasn't been any. Then it just went from a ridiculous miscalculation to a circus.

None of this as happened by chance. THere has been intent and collusion. But I guess even the originators of this action couldn't have foreseen the gusto of the Inquisitors henchmen, nor the feral frenzy amongst one of he 4th estate.

Nor I suspect did they allow for the guile and resilience of the present board.

Whomever is responsible , they must be seriously irascible. The poor petulant sods !!

Edited January 17, 2013 by belzebub59

[old55 23,625]

55 , please don't infer that I give much credence or acknowledgement of intelligence to those that seek unrest and eventual turnover at the club. The whole thing smacks of fools in suits thinking they can control gelignite.

My thoughts to some of this fiasco is it was an idea that got out of hand. That occurred because more than a few sought to profit from the fallout. Only, there hasn't been any. Then it just went from a ridiculous miscalculation to a circus.

None of this as happened by chance. THere has been intent and collusion. But I guess even the originators of this action couldn't have foreseen the gusto of the Inquisitors henchmen, nor the feral frenzy amongst one of he 4th estate.

Nor I suspect did they allow for the guile and resilience of the present board.

Whomever is responsible , they must be seriously irascible. The poor petulant sods !!

Occam's razor says no - Brock is dumb and Sheahan and Healy are uncrupulous opportunists.