On 16/01/2013 at 14:57, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

What is he guilty of by the AFL's rules.

Not playing Watts enough?

Fumbling for 3 mins in a Richmond game?

You can try BSing yourself as much as you want, you want a guilty verdict, just for individuals. Don't act like you are carrying on for the good of the club, it's all about him embarrassing you isn't it?

Guilty of what rules by definition, please tell me?

I think my earlier posts speak for themselves and I don't appreciate you trying to put words in my mouth.

Have a nice day.

  On 16/01/2013 at 15:03, Hazyshadeofgrinter said:

A homophobe too? Why am I not surprised.

Next time you sneak off to attend one of your parties, don't worry about bringing protection - I have no doubt that you will only spend your time trying to insert yourself into people's elbows.

Looks like that went over your head so I'll excuse your homophobic remark.

Are you the Gossip Girl Hazy?

  On 16/01/2013 at 15:14, s-t-i-n-g-a said:

Looks like that went over your head so I'll excuse your homophobic remark.

Are you the Gossip Girl Hazy?

Sorry mate, it's over. I'm just not that into you.

  On 16/01/2013 at 15:20, Hazyshadeofgrinter said:

Sorry mate, it's over. I'm just not that into you.

No problem Gossip Girl, all good things come to an end...

i wonder how this thread would look if we used our real names?

...shorter i'm guessing

Could someone please define "flaming" for me?

I believe that it's supposed to be banned on this site.

  On 16/01/2013 at 14:52, Hazyshadeofgrinter said:

And who is doing this exactly?

I have utter contempt for people that will endanger our club to try and protect him out of misguided loyalty, cronyism or selfishness.

Hazy I'm not so sure you can isolate the individuals from the club in this situation. If they are found guilty of any of what they are reported to be accused then as officers of the club responsible for the running and on ground performance of the club surely the club must also be found guilty and face penalties.

I know you are concerned with the running of the club and it's future and I am too but I don't think you can cut them free at this time without doing serious damage to the club as a whole.

  On 16/01/2013 at 14:46, Hazyshadeofgrinter said:

Poor people managers - see Bailey dismissal.

So, you want to get rid of the board because Jimmy called Bailey instead of calling a taxi?

I was thinking last night about the comments made that CS and CC have trashed the brand.

I think it needs to be asked if that belief is because we "list managed" and in Baileys words " did what was best for the club" in 2009 or because of the current predicament we are in.

The 2009 actions and the 2012/13 outcome needs to be viewed separately simply because the actions taken in 2009 were something that 6 other clubs did and their brands were not trashed. The outcome has inflicted damage on us and for this I cast the blame of the trashing directly at the AFL and the media and I base this specifically on one reason - "selectiveness".

If the AFL and the attack dog media investigated and brutalised all clubs that have been party to these types of actions then I am happy for our administrators to cop a caning.

If you believe that the MFC, WCE, Hawks, Collingwood, Stkilda and Richmond administrators were wrong in the actions they took in taking advantage of a flawed system that the AFL put in the place then fair enough, lump CS and CC in with all of the above and cane them.

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 .

Reading this thread over the last couple of days has convinced me of one thing. If the people posting here really are planning to stand for the board as some allege, I wouldn't vote for them (if I knew who they were). There just has to be other candidates able to present an argument without resorting to personal abuse.

Believing that we could have a better President or CEO does not automatically lead to running for that position. Many here believe we could have a better Prime Minister but are very unlikely to be standing at the next Federal election.

It seems to me that the point Hazy is making is not that the Board and the CEO should held responsible by us for tanking - because that's what the vast majority of us wanted them to do - but that they should be held responsible by us for tanking badly - being indiscreet and not managing the people involved well. It's very hard to argue against that.

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.

  On 16/01/2013 at 22:06, Fifty-5 said:

Believing that we could have a better President or CEO does not automatically lead to running for that position. Many here believe we could have a better Prime Minister but are very unlikely to be standing at the next Federal election.

It seems to me that the point Hazy is making is not that the Board and the CEO should held responsible by us for tanking - because that's what the vast majority of us wanted them to do - but that they should be held responsible by us for tanking badly - being indiscreet and not managing the people involved well. It's very hard to argue against that.

yes it's hard to argue that when people close or within the club are disloyal and prepared to leak to all and sundry

so do we throw out the baby or continue to throw out the dirty water?

  On 16/01/2013 at 22:22, daisycutter said:

yes it's hard to argue that when people close or within the club are disloyal and prepared to leak to all and sundry

so do we throw out the baby or continue to throw out the dirty water?

This has been going on for many years & over a number of major issues at this club.

Going back as far as the merger, the Gutnick debacle & now the list management debate.

The level of detail the media are able report on this club's internal issues is alarming.

This info can only come from those within or close to the club & it has been a constant.

So where does it come from?

I tend to look for a common denominator.

  On 16/01/2013 at 22:06, Fifty-5 said:

It seems to me that the point Hazy is making is ..... that they should be held responsible by us for tanking badly - being indiscreet and not managing the people involved well. It's very hard to argue against that.

If that's what happened ....???

Every club, every organisation, every company has ex-staff with axes to grind ... regardless of how competent the management are.

  GM11 said:

........I tend to look for a common denominator.

Which is?

Which.... Or WHO ?

  On 16/01/2013 at 22:44, iv said:

Which is?

Big desks?

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.

Sounds reasonable to me Fan, but I suggest you will not assuage the conspiracy theorists. Sad really.

wow. if you r defending the Gardiner Board you are struggling.

Replaced by whom, and why ? For what ?

I.e what will they bring to the party? What will be there shining skills and ability ?

Detente is marvee, (when possible) ,, board spills aren't always blood letting events.

It could be said the most able thing Paul managed was his succession.

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