Jim Stynes now being dragged into Tanking Issue!

[Guest José Mourinho]

Stynes was involved with a charity. Gardner was involved in a charity.

Both were committed to the cause of MFC.

That's right.

But Stynes never gave the impression he wasn't fully devoted to the club.

Gardner to me, gave the impression he was committed to the role of president as long as it didn't interfere with any of his other commitments.

He invested time & energy to the role, but it didn't have his full, undivided attention.

That's how I saw it, right or wrong.

I don't think I was alone in that perception.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Perception is one thing and its beholder defined.

I think to take on a Club Presidency you take on a big undertaking in a number of senses. I dont think you cannot be committed to the demands it places on you. MFC even more so.

[Hannibal 5,814]

There are plenty of people that have ended up on the Board of the MFC that wouldn't have half of the footy knowledge, or passion as some who post on here. And, of course, some would.

I've met a couple over a beer and their footy acumen was ordinary. Rightly, or wrongly, Gardner strikes me as one of those.

[Redleg 40,910]

Don is fighting to protect himself from his own incompetence. He has done nothing special to distinguish himself as a board member aside from aligning himself politically with Stynes. Stynes was only human.

How about the 100's meetings he attended all over Victoria, both public and private to solicit Foundation Heroes. Pretty successful I heard. Suppose that counts for nothing as you clearly despise him, maybe because he took your position on the Board.

I say maybe as I don't know who you really are, I am just making a wild guess based on your posts.

Am I now to be the next poster attacked?

PS I can't say emphatically that Don is the best Board member in the club's history but he is clearly not the worst; I had the honour of sharing a Board role with the person who owns that title. His sole contribution was to get the beer from the cupboard at the end of meetings, he did absolutely nothing and I mean nothing else. His Chairman was a drunken self obsessed fool who was prepared to destroy the club rather than lose an election. We have had some great Directors.

[Redleg 40,910]

There are plenty of people that have ended up on the Board of the MFC that wouldn't have half of the footy knowledge, or passion as some who post on here. And, of course, some would.

I've met a couple over a beer and their footy acumen was ordinary. Rightly, or wrongly, Gardner strikes me as one of those.

I would agree with most of that.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

That's right.

But Stynes never gave the impression he wasn't fully devoted to the club.

Gardner to me, gave the impression he was committed to the role of president as long as it didn't interfere with any of his other commitments.

He invested time & energy to the role, but it didn't have his full, undivided attention.

That's how I saw it, right or wrong.

I don't think I was alone in that perception.

that is how i read it.

And i consider Paul to be a good person but the MFC job needed more of his time than he was prepared to commit.

Paul was man enough to know that when Stynes made his move.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

How about the 100's meetings he attended all over Victoria, both public and private to solicit Foundation Heroes. Pretty successful I heard. Suppose that counts for nothing as you clearly despise him, maybe because he took your position on the Board.

I say maybe as I don't know who you really are, I am just making a wild guess based on your posts.

Am I now to be the next poster attacked?

PS I can't say emphatically that Don is the best Board member in the club's history but he is clearly not the worst; I had the honour of sharing a Board role with the person who owns that title. His sole contribution was to get the beer from the cupboard at the end of meetings, he did absolutely nothing and I mean nothing else. His Chairman was a drunken self obsessed fool who was prepared to destroy the club rather than lose an election. We have had some great Directors.

Don was thrust in to the position because of what happened to Jim and under the circumstances he's done a good job.

I think it's appropriate to judge him on what happens in the future not what's happened in the past as a lot of that was out of his control, I think he's grown in to the job.

I understand that you haven't said he's done a bad job and this is not directed at you it's just a general observation.

[old dee 23,788]

that is how i read it.

And i consider Paul to be a good person but the MFC job needed more of his time than he was prepared to commit.

Paul was man enough to know that when Stynes made his move.

My memory suggests he did not go willingly wyl.

I think he wanted to serve out his last year and JS said it cannot wait we will die in the interium.

He then went but with less than a gracious exit.

[beelzebub 23,367]

My memory suggests he did not go willingly wyl.

I think he wanted to serve out his last year and JS said it cannot wait we will die in the interium.

He then went but with less than a gracious exit.

And without doubt theyll be some along soon enough to howl dispute at such a notion. He after all only had the football club at his heart. Maybe he thought he did..lol

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

My memory suggests he did not go willingly wyl.

I think he wanted to serve out his last year and JS said it cannot wait we will die in the interium.

He then went but with less than a gracious exit.

what happened behind the office door i cannot comment O.D but on the outside it was fast & clean.

Stynes was right btw it couldn't wait. The interest payment was mounting.

PG's biggest problem was that he distanced the average supporter...Jim bought them back. Got the blood pumping...

Victories are needed now. Strength comes from winning

[Slartibartfast 17,268]

I've met a couple over a beer and their footy acumen was ordinary. Rightly, or wrongly, Gardner strikes me as one of those.

Their job isn't to have a strikingly good football knowledge, their job is to ensure good governance. It's what many don't understand. Good footy knowledge coupled with a misunderstanding of what the role of the Board is can be a fatal mix.

[Demon Stalwart 255]

I started this Topic to try and garnish how all of us here Felt about Big Jim being Implicated even though it was done in defence of him

The thought of Jim Stynes invokes many feelings in me . I was there that day at VFL park when Jim crossed over the mark , It was shattering for me on so many levels

I had gone to every game through that finals series and I had watched Jim play . I saw Melbourne win games we shouldnt have won and I saw Jim give his heart and soul to the MFC and proberbly for but one Mistake on the Day he would have been even a Bigger hero to all of us .

I went to the team meeting the next day after the match and I have never seen such a depressed group of players as what I did that day it was like a funeral but the pride remained in their club.They where the ones who felt they had let us all down.

I watched Jims fight with Cancer and his ability to turn sadness into hope . He tried to do the same with the MFC .

I am not saying Jim was without faults even he would be first to admit he was . Whatever Jim did he did for the MFC and it is my belief that it would always have been within the spirit of the game and with the best interests of the MFC at heart as well as the players and well within the rules. This is the point I feel many are missing .

The rules for obtaining Draft consessions where at best a reward for coming last . Now there is no way I believe that anyone within the Melbourne football club would say

"YOU ARE TO GO OUT THERE AND DELIBERATELY LOOSE!"

Playing new players and switching players around may make it harder to win, but only those players on the field that day can say if they tanked if they actually threw a game by not playing to the best of their abilities.

I believe that the players themselves would find that hard to reconcile with, but if they did do that themselves then surely they are the ones responsible, not the inference given by others ? It would have been their decision to take and even if there was only one player who played his heart out that day, the team cannot be accused of tanking it would have to have been by every player in agreeance that the team would roll over . I dont think this is possible .

As for the Coaching panel or administration to say "you must loose this match " If proven then I would have no issues with that person being held responsible for those actions as long the comments where totally unambiguous and were not meant or could be interpreted in any other way . Not ment as some throw away line or some kind of joke !

None of us know for sure what took place but this issue has to be put to bed , not only for the credibility of the AFL but also for the MFC and the Memory of a man who gave so much of himself to our Club . The one thing I do not believe in is tarnishing Jims name and if anyone accuses Jim of being involved in Tanking and deliberately throwing a game, all I can say is they better have some very very strong evidence to back it up. This is our Club and regardless of what some people think in the media it is not there god given right to run a campaign to try and discredit our Jim in the process .

It is up to the Adjudicators to make that call and they can and only should make that call if they have solid and irrefutible proof . Any other result will be viewed by the public in general as a sham

The AFL themselves are too blame for this state of affairs , but they have always denied tanking and claimed it did not exist . This witch hunt to satisfy a few reporters and a few disgruntled ex players is just that and the AFL needs to grow a set of balls and clear the air once and for all .

I for one cant wait to see the Dees take to the ground again , however this needs to be finalised before the season proper we do not need it hanging over our head we all need to see it done and dusted one way or the other.

[Guest José Mourinho]

Perception is one thing and its beholder defined.

I think to take on a Club Presidency you take on a big undertaking in a number of senses. I dont think you cannot be committed to the demands it places on you. MFC even more so.

Yes, well thanks for giving us your best judgmental reply RR.

It wouldn't be demonland without it.

Yes, you do "take on a big undertaking" and you do need to be committed... If you wish to be effective in the role.

But I guess if you want to appear to have taken on the role to secure an added footnote for your CV and your own self-aggrandisement, you do it the way PG did it.

Not sure he got as many pats on the back as he was hoping for.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Well said Stalwart. Let us never forget the words of Wilson who wrote as if we were absolutely guilty in her first 2 articles....

As yet No Charges have been laid.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

But I guess if you want to appear to have taken on the role to secure an added footnote for your CV and your own self-aggrandisement, you do it the way PG did it.

Not sure he got as many pats on the back as he was hoping for.

He had been Chairman of Grey Advertising Australia for 9 years and has recently retired from Greys after 20 years service. In 2008 he was awarded an AM for services to the community and charity. They dont give those out for idle fun runs. I would have thought he has been recognised for his long involvement in charitable undertakings over many years. No self aggrandisement but putting back into the community. Shame on him.

[jnrmac 20,060]

Gardner was there for his marketing and advertising skills. Didn't see any of that when he was pres. Revenue was ordinary and we were $5m in the hole which if my memory serves me well was a shock as we kept being told how well we were doing...

[Muvver Jones 64]

Sadly no matter how much I loved Jim's inspirational impact (and no doubt the majority of fans feel the same way ) on supporters and the wider community I am deeply troubled how this has not been reflected within the club. A dis-functional club as there ever was during his stay. A very bitter taste in my mouth after the disgrace of Round 1, 2012 and worse than 186.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Sadly no matter how much I loved Jim's inspirational impact (and no doubt the majority of fans feel the same way ) on supporters and the wider community I am deeply troubled how this has not been reflected within the club. A dis-functional club as there ever was during his stay. A very bitter taste in my mouth after the disgrace of Round 1, 2012 and worse than 186.

Yes we are a dysfunctional club and have been for many years, I don't think Jim's illness helped at all and maybe he should have passed the reins to someone else a bit earlier. All it did was allow the vultures to circle and put pressure on the rest of the board.

Who knows how many bent egos there are behind the scenes and who knows if they will ever just accept the elected board and allow them to get on with the job?

[Whispering_Jack 30,062]

Some are being a bit tough here on Paul Gardner and his board. Despite the fact that many of them were part of the old Szondy board, they still had to pick up the pieces of the train wreck they inherited from an incompetently run administration (the CEO "lost" the club's tax bill in the drawers of his desk, for heaven's sake) and I think they did that well for most of Gardner's tenure working hard against the odds for some years to steadily get the club back on an even keel until they were overwhelmed by tightening economic circumstances that, in the end, forced them to stand down.

I certainly had no issue with Paul's walk for Oxfam (it indicated to me that he was the type who wouldn't allow anything to prevent him from following through with a commitment which I felt was a good thing).

If anything, the main weakness of the Gardner years was that the eye was taken off the ball in respect to the core business of the club. By the end of 2006 the team was about to go into rapid decline with the impending retirements of many of the better players, our failure to promote a proper succession plan in on field leadership* and to recruit and develop younger players coming in to fill the void (see the recently revived "young guns" thread).

In hindsight, I think we probably kept Neale Daniher on as coach for a couple of years too long and for the wrong reasons. From 2005 on, he was often the spruiker for the club when others should have been fulfilling that role. We really needed someone in the middle of the last decade to come into the club and to look at it from an independent viewpoint. Such a person might have seen the storm brewing that many of us couldn't (and I include myself in that lot).

In the end, I think the Gardner Board simply lost momentum and became tired battling the odds. The McNamee appointment proved to be a poor one and, given its importance and the existing financial situation, I felt the 150 year celebration should have turned more than a modest profit. I think the tragedy was that one or two more of the board could have stayed on in the transition and that might even have saved us some of the pain we're still suffering to this day.

[* not having a go at Junior here but rather commenting on the lack of leadership depth at the club when Dean Bailey took over]

[Hannibal 5,814]

I certainly had no issue with Paul's walk for Oxfam

Nor did I. It was his comments that there are more important things in life than footy that grated. Especially on the eve of round 1.

If he'd said, "There's virtually nothing more important than seeing the red and blue run out on to the G, but I've long had this commitment, so I'll regrettably have to wait a week", then I doubt that many would have had an issue.

But it's fair to say I wasn't a fan of Gardner nearly every time he opened his mouth.

[Whispering_Jack 30,062]

Nor did I. It was his comments that there are more important things in life than footy that grated. Especially on the eve of round 1.

If he'd said, "There's virtually nothing more important than seeing the red and blue run out on to the G, but I've long had this commitment, so I'll regrettably have to wait a week", then I doubt that many would have had an issue.

But it's fair to say I wasn't a fan of Gardner nearly every time he opened his mouth.

I can see you weren't a fan but if he didn't express himself well on the Oxfam walk issue, I would cut him some slack because it was his first real exposure to our footy media in the early days of his chairmanship. Some of us can forgive these things and write them off as a good learning experience just as I wasn't concerned at Mark Neeld's performance in the media when we got flogged in round 1 last year. Others aren't always as forgiving.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,631]

Some are being a bit tough here on Paul Gardner and his board. Despite the fact that many of them were part of the old Szondy board, they still had to pick up the pieces of the train wreck they inherited from an incompetently run administration (the CEO "lost" the club's tax bill in the drawers of his desk, for heaven's sake) and I think they did that well for most of Gardner's tenure working hard against the odds for some years to steadily get the club back on an even keel until they were overwhelmed by tightening economic circumstances that, in the end, forced them to stand down.

I certainly had no issue with Paul's walk for Oxfam (it indicated to me that he was the type who wouldn't allow anything to prevent him from following through with a commitment which I felt was a good thing).

If anything, the main weakness of the Gardner years was that the eye was taken off the ball in respect to the core business of the club. By the end of 2006 the team was about to go into rapid decline with the impending retirements of many of the better players, our failure to promote a proper succession plan in on field leadership* and to recruit and develop younger players coming in to fill the void (see the recently revived "young guns" thread).

In hindsight, I think we probably kept Neale Daniher on as coach for a couple of years too long and for the wrong reasons. From 2005 on, he was often the spruiker for the club when others should have been fulfilling that role. We really needed someone in the middle of the last decade to come into the club and to look at it from an independent viewpoint. Such a person might have seen the storm brewing that many of us couldn't (and I include myself in that lot).

In the end, I think the Gardner Board simply lost momentum and became tired battling the odds. The McNamee appointment proved to be a poor one and, given its importance and the existing financial situation, I felt the 150 year celebration should have turned more than a modest profit. I think the tragedy was that one or two more of the board could have stayed on in the transition and that might even have saved us some of the pain we're still suffering to this day.

[* not having a go at Junior here but rather commenting on the lack of leadership depth at the club when Dean Bailey took over]

WJ I beg to differ but there were three Board personnel who made the transition - Peter Spargo, Karen Hayes and Andrew Leoncelli.

Some believe that PG or Steve Harris soured MFC's relationship; with the MCC and the AFL. There were also some on the PG Board who were disappointed that CC had spoken to someone at AFL with regard to the financial situation that the Club was in at the time. I think the Board had been up to this point been told that the financials were fine but others believed that the Club was insolvent. I think the CEO at the time was Ray Ellis who was relaced by John Phillips.. It was reported that CC felt that it was too important an issue not to be bought to the AFL's attention (cant remember actual quote) but there seemed at the time some conjecture whether the Club should have gone to the AFL for a handout. I think they did get an early release of funds from the sale of Waverley. (CC's actions could be seen as either medlying or his genuine fear that the Club was going the same way as Fitzroy). The MCC at the time refused to prop up the Club and they also believed that the Club was insolvent or close to it.

The Board since 2009 has remained stable other than Andrew Leoncelli departing (for business and family reasons) and Peter Szental passed away in July 2010. DMc joined the Board in 2011 with John Trotter.

The PG Board Members that were replaced/not re-elected in 2009 were Bev O'Connor, John Phillips, Steven Bickford, Michael Coglin, Peter Dohrmann, Sue Nattrass, Charles Sitch and Anthony Starkins. The PG Boards from 2004 to 2008 were fairly static with very little change. Anthony Starkins had been part of a faction I think against the merge. Someone else might remember this part of our history better than me.

From my reading Greg Sword (Union Official) was instrumental in backing PG for President of the Club in 2004.

An interesting quote I found in my historical delving was from CC who was discussing the issue of sports psychology being an accepted part of the landscape of AFL Clubs. CC sent a message to his Club (Fremantle) supporters suggesting "that some of the members need phychiatric or marital help if their entire family wasn't committed to the the cause". Another example of CC taking the "mickey".

From my memory when Jim took over the Presidency it seemed from an outsider point of view it was done without bloodshed and PG and his Board bowed out gracefully however as someone else said who knows what went on behind closed doors and who was left with a very heavy axe to grind.

Edited January 22, 2013 by longsuffering

[Deeman 1,497]

An interesting quote I found in my historical delving was from CC who was discussing the issue of sports psychology being an accepted part of the landscape of AFL Clubs. CC sent a message to his Club (Fremantle) supporters suggesting "that some of the members need phychiatric or marital help if their entire family wasn't committed to the the cause". Another example of CC taking the "mickey".

I think you'll find that CC was in Freo when Ray Ellis and John Phillips were running the show.

The suggestion about members needing psychiatric or marital help came straight out of the same CC joke book as the line about Jimmy falling out of his hospital bed, the Zulus and the threat to sack everybody if we missed out on the priority pick. It should be Exhibit A in our defence to the investigation on tanking.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,631]

I think you'll find that CC was in Freo when Ray Ellis and John Phillips were running the show. The suggestion about members needing psychiatric or marital help came straight out of the same CC joke book as the line about Jimmy falling out of his hospital bed, the Zulus and the threat to sack everybody if we missed out on the priority pick. It should be Exhibit A in our defence to the investigation on tanking.

Sorry Dee but it was just prior to Gardner "stepping down" and Dean Bailey was coach and CC I think Football Operations Manager (not sure if that was his title) and some of the Board were not happy with CC.

Absolutely agree with you re CC jokes - shows history.

I also found this from an article by the infamous CW from 2003 re the MFC :

" Gardner remains the best, most proven option which isn't saying much. And a victory or his group smacks of compromise, which is what Melbourne has been doing for decades".

I wonder if DMc is considered a compromise. To my eyes he may have been at the outset when Jim was so ill however I think he has proven that he and the Board have handled the most awful of years with aplomb. One of Don's main aims even as VC, has always been to widen the Clubs interaction with the business world where he has wide contacts. There is no me in Don's ambitions for the Club. He is selfless in the time he spends on Club business away from his own business and family as with the other Board members.

[nutbean 8,838]

He had been Chairman of Grey Advertising Australia for 9 years and has recently retired from Greys after 20 years service. In 2008 he was awarded an AM for services to the community and charity. They dont give those out for idle fun runs. I would have thought he has been recognised for his long involvement in charitable undertakings over many years. No self aggrandisement but putting back into the community. Shame on him.

All good points but irrelevant - we are not judging him on what he did outside the MFC - we are shining the spotlight at what he did during his time as President and his recent comments as Ex President regarding the club. I dont think it is unfair to acknowledge that someone succeeded in most areas of his life but in another area he was found wanting.

Edit: I just read BH's post and tend to agree that whilst I am not privvy to all his work as President each time he opened his mouth ... ughh ... culminating in his spirited defense of his presidency in the papers late last year and distancing himself from any wrongdoing - these comments were apparently done according to some with the best interests of the club at heart.