On 02/04/2013 at 02:40, stuie said:

And Paul Roos would know the inner workings of MFC how exactly?

Here's a list: Hardwick, Hird, Scott, Neeld.... Who's the odd one out do you think?

You just don't get it...

Taking your argument, if Neeld is the odd one out who appointed him? Should those people be held responsible for the performance of the person they appointed? Or do we just keep sacking coaches and letting the same people choose another and then another?

Stuie

Hypothetical situation - if the CEO was a difficult character, and the senior players hated him, and he divided the football department with interfering micromanagement, would you then agree that he might have an effect on the performance of the club?

Agree - this hasn't been <proven> in our case - I'm just interested in your response to the possibility that a CEO (a NON PLAYER/NON COACH, Stuie) could have an effect on the on-field performance...

I think most people can envisage a situation where a NON PLAYER/NON COACH could have an effect on the on-field performance - I just want to make sure that you could too...

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:43, Dr. Gonzo said:

You just don't get it...

Taking your argument, if Neeld is the odd one out who appointed him? Should those people be held responsible for the performance of the person they appointed? Or do we just keep sacking coaches and letting the same people choose another and then another?

That is a very good question Dr.

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:43, Dr. Gonzo said:

You just don't get it...

Taking your argument, if Neeld is the odd one out who appointed him? Should those people be held responsible for the performance of the person they appointed? Or do we just keep sacking coaches and letting the same people choose another and then another?

Put the blame where it lays. It's that simple. The coach and the players are responsible for their own performances.

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:45, stuie said:

Put the blame where it lays. It's that simple. The coach and the players are responsible for their own performances.

And the CEO, President and board are responsible for the coaches and players they appoint.

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:44, frankie_d said:

Stuie

Hypothetical situation - if the CEO was a difficult character, and the senior players hated him, and he divided the football department with interfering micromanagement, would you then agree that he might have an effect on the performance of the club?

Agree - this hasn't been <proven> in our case - I'm just interested in your response to the possibility that a CEO (a NON PLAYER/NON COACH, Stuie) could have an effect on the on-field performance...

I think most people can envisage a situation where a NON PLAYER/NON COACH could have an effect on the on-field performance - I just want to make sure that you could too...

Frankie,

I would be amongst these other guys calling for Schwab's job if there were facts and proof to show he was ruining our club, but I have seen none, only hearsay and opinion, so I go by the facts that are known about our sponsors, debt, facilities etc.

I'm not saying it's impossible for a CEO to influence performance, but to me it's HIGHLY unlikely given the little contact the players SHOULD have with a CEO. As far as I know, the CEO handles the business side, the coaches and players handle the football performance side. I've never seen Schwab on the ground or in the coach's box.

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:46, Dr. Gonzo said:

And the CEO, President and board are responsible for the coaches and players they appoint.

So EVERYONE should be sacked then? The board, the coaches, the players? That's following your logic. OR to use a "real world" example, if a Coles employee doesn't stack the shelves properly then the CEO of Coles/Myer should be sacked? No logic there mate.

For little Stuie and the other children among us ... http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryc/g/ceo_title.htm

"A Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highest ranking executive manager in a corporation or organization. The CEO has responsibility for the overall success of an entire organization."

The MFC

101L - 32W

13th or lower since '06

CEO ... Cameron Schwab.

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:50, Range Rover said:

For little Stuie and the other children among us ... http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryc/g/ceo_title.htm

"A Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highest ranking executive manager in a corporation or organization. The CEO has responsibility for the overall success of an entire organization."

The MFC

101L - 32W

13th or lower since '06

CEO ... Cameron Schwab.

In case you missed it, seeing you only like to hear yourself talk, here's an example from my previous post:

If a Coles employee doesn't stack the shelves properly then should the CEO of Coles/Myer be sacked?

Thank Stuie,

That's a reasonable position - we aren't now arguing about whether or not a CEO could screw a club - we're arguing about facts - good...

We're arguing about whether or not CS has /had been micromanaging the FD, been trying to influence recruiting strategies, been trying to influence game day performance, been the "front man" for the club's football strategy on social media... I agree, all things that the CEO shouldn't do... I think some on here (including me) reckon he has (yep, we've got to come up with the proof), and therefore, if he has we would all agree that he has to go - and that's NOT to let the players and coaches off - they were crap.

cheers

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:50, Range Rover said:

For little Stuie and the other children among us ... http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryc/g/ceo_title.htm

"A Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highest ranking executive manager in a corporation or organization. The CEO has responsibility for the overall success of an entire organization."

The MFC

101L - 32W

13th or lower since '06

CEO ... Cameron Schwab.

Funny, they don't mention football once on that page RR.... Hmmmm...

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:42, stuie said:

I answered your post about Cook earlier mate. Go back and read.

I've asked you for facts and proof and you've told me to read Demonland. That's how much credibility your point has. 0.

Dividing opinion on an internet forum isn't the same as being divisive to a football club. FFS.

Ok so you believe he did nothing to effect the on ground performance of the Geelong FC and their premiership success was in no part due to him being the CEO. I'm happy for you to stake your credibility to that 'stuie'.

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:54, frankie_d said:

Thank Stuie,

That's a reasonable position - we aren't now arguing about whether or not a CEO could screw a club - we're arguing about facts - good...

We're arguing about whether or not CS has /had been micromanaging the FD, been trying to influence recruiting strategies, been trying to influence game day performance, been the "front man" for the club's football strategy on social media... I agree, all things that the CEO shouldn't do... I think some on here (including me) reckon he has (yep, we've got to come up with the proof), and therefore, if he has we would all agree that he has to go - and that's NOT to let the players and coaches off - they were crap.

cheers

It's tricky though, good old RR is in a huff and puff tripping over himself saying "The CEO is responsible for EVERYTHING" but then also complaining that he's "too involved".... Can't have it both ways.

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:46, Dr. Gonzo said:

And the CEO, President and board are responsible for the coaches and players they appoint.

Dr. G. I tried to explain this to little Stuie yesterday. It just doesn't go in. But please keep hammering..you never know....

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:55, rjay said:

Ok so you believe he did nothing to effect the on ground performance of the Geelong FC and their premiership success was in no part due to him being the CEO. I'm happy for you to stake your credibility to that 'stuie'.

I'll say it for you again:

Yes the performance of THE CLUB, not the performance of THE PLAYERS.

Do you think they would have won premierships without Thompson? Or Scarlett? Pretty sure Cook didn't pull off a toe poke to Ablett....

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:56, why you little said:

Dr. G. I tried to explain this to little Stuie yesterday. It just doesn't go in. But please keep hammering..you never know... .

Answer me this WYL:

If a Coles employee doesn't stack the shelves properly then should the CEO of Coles/Myer be sacked?

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:58, stuie said:

I'll say it for you again:

Yes the performance of THE CLUB, not the performance of THE PLAYERS.

Do you think they would have won premierships without Thompson? Or Scarlett? Pretty sure Cook didn't pull off a toe poke to Ablett....

Weasel words 'stuie' or is it really Cam.

He played no part in premiership success according to you or are you now backing away from that.

  On 02/04/2013 at 03:02, rjay said:

Weasel words 'stuie' or is it really Cam.

He played no part in premiership success according to you or are you now backing away from that.

Haha nice try. I never said he played no part and you know it.

All I've done is ask for facts about Schwab, but you have none, and now you're trying to make things up.

Sorry buddy, you lose.

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:42, stuie said:

FMD.

no thanks.

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:58, stuie said:

I'll say it for you again:

Yes the performance of THE CLUB, not the performance of THE PLAYERS.

Do you think they would have won premierships without Thompson? Or Scarlett? Pretty sure Cook didn't pull off a toe poke to Ablett....

The players are part of (the most important part of) the club. All you are doing in this thread is proving you have NFI whatsoever about the operations of a modern day professional footy club. You've still failed to answer how Schwab has been successful considering the facilities were set up by the previous admin, the business model is unsustainable, our membership base has shrunk and will shrink again this year and the performance of the club/team has gone backwards at worst and failed to improve at best in the last couple of years. Why do you think he was on the verge of being sacked in 2011 before Bailey got the chop? Or do you think that is just more conspiracies to unseat the great man?

  On 02/04/2013 at 03:05, stuie said:

Haha nice try. I never said he played no part and you know it.

All I've done is ask for facts about Schwab, but you have none, and now you're trying to make things up.

Sorry buddy, you lose.

So now you are saying he did play a part, I'm happy you have finally acknowledged that.

Next...is the football club really only the sum of it's members and are the board appointed by the members to act in their interests?

  On 02/04/2013 at 02:45, stuie said:

Put the blame where it lays. It's that simple. The coach and the players are responsible for their own performances.

Absolutely true. CS has done an amazing job keeping the club up and about commercially. Hard to imagine too many tougher gigs in footy - getting sponsors on the back of our performances.

  On 02/04/2013 at 03:07, rjay said:

So now you are saying he did play a part, I'm happy you have finally acknowledged that.

Next...is the football club really only the sum of it's members and are the board appointed by the members to act in their interests?

I never said he didn't play a part. That's called a fact, try using one sometime.

  On 02/04/2013 at 03:10, stuie said:

I never said he didn't play a part. That's called a fact, try using one sometime.

answer the next question 'stuie', you're deflecting again.

I think Mark Thompson was just about to be sacked in the earlier part of his coaching tenure......He then went on to win two flags and coach in numerous final series....Imagine if he was sacked....Would the cats still have done as well......Cooke was in charge at the time......Just saying.....