I really have no opinion on how good or bad the current Board is, but the above is a typical example of what I am on about when I say we often don't know all the facts so it is difficult to make a judgement. What if the AFL tanking investigation uncovered absolutely damming evidence, maybe even against Jim? In that case rolling over for a fine which perhaps the AFL will pay itself may have been a good decision leaving aside the difficulties and expense of court cases. I didn't get to see the AFL evidence. Did anyone posting here see it?

the club refuses to speak any further on it. Which usually means one thing.

The strategy of Tanking was an utter failure, and it was ticked off by the current board.

They must wrar it.

I can't believe what I'm reading on this thread.

The term 'cheap seats' is a standard reference used to mean any person who is not actually in a position accountable for the decisions someone else has to make. It's regularly used when people want to explain why it's harder to play or umpire any game and it's also used when companies explain to shareholders and politicians explain to voters that the decisions that they (the company directors and politicians) have to make are more difficult than they may appear to be to outsiders (those in the cheap seats) who don't have all the facts.

Don is 100% correct that the greater the scrutiny the harder it will be to get people prepared to give up their time to volunteer to be on the Board of any AFL club.

Where he was wrong was in his timing. He needed to have read 'Team of Rivals' first and learned from Abraham Lincoln that the time to make this sort of move (in Lincoln's case his Emancipation Proclamation) was after a win, not beforehand, so it doesn't look like whinging.

Of course we have bloody problems, some of them self inflcted wounds, others unfounded rubbish, but we are working our way through them, it just needs us to hold our nerve against the never ending media blitz....you want to front the next media conference WYL......I'd do it and stand up for my Club, would you?....ha

Recruiting under present regime....let's think Howe, Evans, Gawn, Bail, Jetta....of course they were all crap yesterday weren't they

Again proof the AFL picked the CEO, good friends with Vlad are you

Come on WYL dig deep, gonna go back to the Barassi era again........I don't mind boxing with you but you could try throwing a punch now and again....

Edited April 22, 201312 yr by Satyriconhome

Of course we have bloody problems, some of them self inflcted wounds, others unfounded rubbish, but we are working our way through them, it just needs us to hold our nerve against the never ending media blitz....you want to front the next media conference WYL......I'd do it and stand up for my Club, would you?....ha

Recruiting under present regime....let's think Howe, Evans, Gawn, Bail, Jetta....of course they were all crap yesterday weren't they

Again proof the AFL picked the CEO, good friends with Vlad are you

Come on WYL dig deep, gonna go back to the Barassi era again........I don't mind boxing with you but you could try throwing a punch now and again....

You don't think Peter Jackson was installed by the AFL?

If not you really are a fool.

Recruiting. Let's talk Watts $cully Gysberts Cook.

Value for Tanking????

Edited April 22, 201312 yr by why you little

I really have no opinion on how good or bad the current Board is, but the above is a typical example of what I am on about when I say we often don't know all the facts so it is difficult to make a judgement. What if the AFL tanking investigation uncovered absolutely damming evidence, maybe even against Jim? In that case rolling over for a fine which perhaps the AFL will pay itself may have been a good decision leaving aside the difficulties and expense of court cases. I didn't get to see the AFL evidence. Did anyone posting here see it?

Sue, we disagree on a number of issues but I admire your passion.

I would not use WYL as any representative of other posters perspective in regard to "facts".

Aside from Stuie, I can't think of another poster who so frequently draws ridiculous conclusion in the absence of facts and the basic understanding of any issues. What you quoted is the latest example of the such dross.

I think you have hit an important point that the Board were prepared to negotiate a $500k fine and suspension of an senior employee rather than the alternative. The labelling of the MFC as cheats and the Board as culpable for breaking the rules would damaged the AFL and the Club immeasurably. In addition it would have brought to light Stynes involvement in the program which would have stained his legacy and put further reputation all damage to MFC and the AFL.

While we were deemed "not guilty" not for a moment can we be logically be viewed in that light.

It is unfathomable that the then coach and the FD head behaved as mavericks in such a blatant way without any awareness of the Board. It's no surprising that McLardy took the first opportunity to jettison the CEO for rather spurious reasons at the time (after they renegotiated his contract for a further term while an AFL investigation in November 2012).

Sue, we disagree on a number of issues but I admire your passion.

I would not use WYL as any representative of other posters perspective in regard to "facts".

Aside from Stuie, I can't think of another poster who so frequently draws ridiculous conclusion in the absence of facts and the basic understanding of any issues. What you quoted is the latest example of the such dross.

I think you have hit an important point that the Board were prepared to negotiate a $500k fine and suspension of an senior employee rather than the alternative. The labelling of the MFC as cheats and the Board as culpable for breaking the rules would damaged the AFL and the Club immeasurably. In addition it would have brought to light Stynes involvement in the program which would have stained his legacy and put further reputation all damage to MFC and the AFL.

While we were deemed "not guilty" not for a moment can we be logically be viewed in that light.

It is unfathomable that the then coach and the FD head behaved as mavericks in such a blatant way without any awareness of the Board. It's no surprising that McLardy took the first opportunity to jettison the CEO for rather spurious reasons at the time (after they renegotiated his contract for a further term while an AFL investigation in November 2012).

Thanks RR..you can quote what you like.

The Club still rolled over on its own strategy which considering it involved losing made perfect sense really.

Tough Talk until the heat was applied.

Edited April 22, 201312 yr by why you little

Thanks RR..you can quote what you like.

The Club still rolled over on its own strategy which considering it involved losing made perfect sense really.

Tough Talk until the heat was applied.

Thanks. Just as I explained it to Sue. I should have told her to put you on ignore. It improves the discussion on the site immeasurably

Thanks. Just as I explained it to Sue. I should have told her to put you on ignore. It improves the discussion on the site immeasurably

let Sue decide that for herself, i am certain she is capable.

It was marvellous when you disappeared for a couple of months, but all joy comes to an end.

Life's like that.

the club refuses to speak any further on it. Which usually means one thing.

The strategy of Tanking was an utter failure, and it was ticked off by the current board.

They must wrar it.

On your first sentence: Could mean anything. Most likely being quiet was part of the deal with the AFL.

On the rest: Perhaps. But you have changed the subject. Your original statement was to complain that the Board rolled over to the AFL. I said they may have had good reasons to do so, not that the tanking policy was correct.

RR: I agree with you quite often. Being a belligerent bugger, I usually only post when I disagree with people.

Rhino, I encourage all posters NOT to ignore WYL, he is much more fun than Rangey or Ben Hur, for one he still hasn't resorted to real personal insults, although he did call me a fool, but that's just copying Rangey.

WYL old chap, sitting in your corner getting your breath back after yet another round of "floating like a lead weight, and stinging like a lettuce leaf"

Your neck must get really sore looking over your shoulder all the time at the past

Er recruiting.....Watts, worked his way into game, slowly getting his confidence back, was part of a winning side

Scully - took shitloads of money

Gysberts - we traded him, so not a lost cause

Cook - he was an under 18 AA expected to go in the top 20 in the draft, [censored] happens

......so Peter Jackson was installed by AFL....proof?......text message on the 7.30 report. surely that must be right.....you could be the fool for thinking he was an AFL appointee....I thought he was inspired choice by the Board, who was available.immediately.....although I am sure given time you will no doubt find faull with him.....can't wait

You would certainly be one who knows about tough talk.......as I said all sizzle and no sausage...

Hi Satyriconhome glad we won? I sure am

Did you sleep well Friday night?

Good to see mate you are still defending the camp from the Barbarians.

Rhino, I encourage all posters NOT to ignore WYL, he is much more fun than Rangey or Ben Hur, for one he still hasn't resorted to real personal insults, although he did call me a fool, but that's just copying Rangey.

WYL old chap, sitting in your corner getting your breath back after yet another round of "floating like a lead weight, and stinging like a lettuce leaf"

Your neck must get really sore looking over your shoulder all the time at the past

Er recruiting.....Watts, worked his way into game, slowly getting his confidence back, was part of a winning side

Scully - took shitloads of money

Gysberts - we traded him, so not a lost cause

Cook - he was an under 18 AA expected to go in the top 20 in the draft, [censored] happens

......so Peter Jackson was installed by AFL....proof?......text message on the 7.30 report. surely that must be right.....you could be the fool for thinking he was an AFL appointee....I thought he was inspired choice by the Board, who was available.immediately.....although I am sure given time you will no doubt find faull with him.....can't wait

You would certainly be one who knows about tough talk.......as I said all sizzle and no sausage...

Peter Jackson installed by the AFL, well probably too strong a word 'installed' but I think there wouldn't be too many who don't think the AFL had an influence 1. on convincing him to take the job and 2. convincing the board it would be a good idea.

No proof, I don't have anything in writing or a text from Andrew to Don but that's how I see it.

Peter Jackson installed by the AFL, well probably too strong a word 'installed' but I think there wouldn't be too many who don't think the AFL had an influence 1. on convincing him to take the job and 2. convincing the board it would be a good idea.

No proof, I don't have anything in writing or a text from Andrew to Don but that's how I see it.

Why not rjay everyone,s sms seem to appear in the Hun these days

Why not rjay everyone,s sms seem to appear in the Hun these days

I'm just not in the loop 'old dee'.

The sack Mark Neeld thread is pretty lonely this week it seems....

Just enjoy a win boys and girls after Sunday arvo this weekend I am sure we will have plenty to complain about

Edited April 22, 201312 yr by Unleash Hell

Hi Satyriconhome glad we won? I sure am

Did you sleep well Friday night?

Good to see mate you are still defending the camp from the Barbarians.

Slept really well Old Dee after watching a couple of good bands at the Cherry Bar....

trekked to Windy Hill and watched Casey smash Essendon's VFL side, saw glimpses of what the Club is trying to achieve with the game style, went all soggy just watching Jesse Hogan throw opponents around, clapped them off, and listened to a really good Rohan Welsh talk.......

went to G on Sunday and went through a thousand emotions until the final siren.......and sang the song with gusto

.went home, had a nana nap...and then watched Epica blow the roof off the Billboard.....

.put me in good frame of mind this morning to stand on the battlements and watch the Orcs from Demonland come riding over the hilliside.......I waited until they got near enough and poured boiling scorn over them......

looking forward to getting to the G tonight to help the Membership team who have been working their arses off for the last month or two to try and convince more people to get aboard this wild ride that is Melbourne Footy Club at the moment

Eddie everywhere and Costa at Geelong are ones that immediately spring to mind as to Presidents who have been given a great deal of credit for success at their clubs. They have their critics, as it comes with job, but they also have their share of back slappers as well.

I'm not sure who has applauded Eddie for Collingwood's on-field success; most of that appraisal goes to Buckley/Malthouse and the players and other coaches. Eddie deservedly gets a lot of credit for how successful Collingwood is off the field, but that's not what I was talking about.

Costa's name was definitely talked about when discussing Geelong's rise to their flag in 2007, but again, the on-field success was attributed to Thompson and the players, mainly.

My point essentially is this: if we had opened the year with a big win against Port Adelaide, who would have said 'well done McLardy'? No one. Yet as we've fallen apart on the field, the first person to cop it has been Don. I understand his point, it's a valid one. The President is simply not the first person you think of when you see on-field success.

He just needs to learn to deal with it, because it's reality and that's how the job and league work.

It is exactly this blue collar demographic that has turned Richmond, collingwood, essendon and hawthorn into a powerhouse.

Rubbish. Collingwood and Richmond have been 'turned' by their massive amounts of supporters, most of whom are anything but white collar.

On your first sentence: Could mean anything. Most likely being quiet was part of the deal with the AFL.

On the rest: Perhaps. But you have changed the subject. Your original statement was to complain that the Board rolled over to the AFL. I said they may have had good reasons to do so, not that the tanking policy was correct.

RR: I agree with you quite often. Being a belligerent bugger, I usually only post when I disagree with people.

Sue apart from being very competent fund raisers what would you list as this Boards major achievements?

It's a serious question btw.

Sue apart from being very competent fund raisers what would you list as this Boards major achievements?

It's a serious question btw.

The good:

• Wiped out $5,000,000 of debt over 2 years (during GFC)
• Made us profitable
• Increase membership from 28,000 (2007) to 35,000 (2012)
• Recruited Neil Craig, Dave Misson, Mark Neeld
• Strengthened Casey ties/co-buit new facilities there for off season
• Got us in on the Aami park facilities (newest in the AFL)
• Sponsors including Opel ect.
• Averted draft penalities and club not being charged for 'tanking'

The bad:

• EnergyWatch (payments/bad media)
• Cameron Schwab (sorry CS, considering your axe I had to put you here)
• Connelly and Bailey being charged with disrepute
• 186 point loss/Dean Bailey
• Administered over 'tanking' comments

The maybe:

• Transperancy issue with AFL over Dank connection (board did not know of Bates' actions)
• Medical treatment plan (sources such as the ABC confirm nothing was illegal but waiting ASADA results)

I understand the 'tanking' issue (settle or not settle), recruitment including getting rid of morton and getting Dawes/Clarke, and other coaching matters (Neeld) is too speculative for me to allocate if its good or bad so ill leave that up to your own lists.

For me this is where the line is. Other incidents such as the leadership overhaul which caused a rift between senior players and some staff is a matter for the CEO and coach. Some might say that the board appointed them so they are responsible but I think thats a bit of a long bow/if youre going to look at it broadly then remember to think about the positives as well then and try and stay objective.

Edited April 22, 201312 yr by PJ_12345

The bad:

• Was not transperant with AFL over Dank connection

We're still waiting on that one, so perhaps we need a "maybe" category.

Apparently Karen Hayes spoke to a gathering of members on Sunday, and denied that the club had misled the AFL, but said that Bates had not revealed his association(s) with Dank.

Otherwise, good post.

To be brutally honest with you Sue my business likes to be associated with winning and success, so I'll not be sponsoring out current club.

But I love that at the first sign of someone putting their hand up you've sniped at them. Go ahead. I'm not going to accuse you of taking a cheap shot from the 'cheap seats'. I'm smart enough not to do that.

What is the company? I could come on here claiming to run a successful multi-million dollar company (anyone could), but I would expect people to question the veracity of such a claim without hard evidence.

We're still waiting on that one, so perhaps we need a "maybe" category.

Apparently Karen Hayes spoke to a gathering of members on Sunday, and denied that the club had misled the AFL, but said that Bates had not revealed his association(s) with Dank.

Otherwise, good post.

In other words for 5 months Bates bosses (Craig and Misson) had no idea who Bates consulting with despite the AFL getting into AFL clubs about processes in place and validations over the use of banned substances.

So the AFL cant rely on statements made by MFC on serious issues. It really is not a good look is it?

Now the AFL nor MFC at this point can knowingly state that all is clear on the Demons medical program.

Hence the inclusion of MFC in an AFL and ASADA investigation.

The first issue is for the board to recognise that the failure of reporting protocols lead to the MFC misleading the AFL.

Seriously, the man may have made a lot of mistakes and deserved to go for all sorts of reasons, but if you really think a successful business man like him would mean something so stupid as putting down 'poor' members, then I think your opposition is clouding your judgement.

(His earlier comment about not wanting fair-weather supporters may have been a mistake and maybe not, but it is not on the scale of the insulting interpretation of the 'cheap seats' remark.

I don't now exactly what DM meant by 'cheap seats', but if he meant people who will always look for the worst interpretation, then a few posters here may have identified themselves as occupants of those seats.

I don't think he was putting down poor members either, but what did you think would happen after the combative nature of your first post and then the one a few posts later. You set the tone and predictably that is where it went. Downhill.

Good to see you have toned down a lot of Demonlanders to just a few in this post. So you don't exactly know what Don was actually saying, but you then used the phrase for your own point scoring, just as others have done on this thread, but in a different way.

Did you post about how happy you were we got or win, or how you liked the last quarter, or did you just come on to pick a fight?

On a night when for the most part Demonlanders were being positive you picked a fight, but now aren't happy some didn't play fair?

I just want better people running my club.

Not agreeeing or disagreeing, but after re-reading the CVs of the current board the question I have is who, or at least what different skills and experience, do we want or need?

I don't think he was putting down poor members either, but what did you think would happen after the combative nature of your first post and then the one a few posts later. You set the tone and predictably that is where it went. Downhill.

Good to see you have toned down a lot of Demonlanders to just a few in this post. So you don't exactly know what Don was actually saying, but you then used the phrase for your own point scoring, just as others have done on this thread, but in a different way.

Did you post about how happy you were we got or win, or how you liked the last quarter, or did you just come on to pick a fight?

On a night when for the most part Demonlanders were being positive you picked a fight, but now aren't happy some didn't play fair?

I drew the attention of the forum to DM's speech because no one seemed to have noticed it, it was interesting and, yes, I did so partly to 'pick a fight' because I'm sick of the negativity of many posters. I expected his comments wouldn't go down with some and I was interested to see how he might be defended. I guess it was a mistake because goading the negative brigade to more was counter-productive given I am sick of the negativity. For that I apologise.

I don't see much point in posting 'whoopee' when we win, nor do I post grumbles or calls for mass sackings/delistings when we lose. I don't post much about the actual footy because I'm stuck interstate and only see matches on TV where the overuse of close-ups makes it very difficult to know what is really happening.

But of course I was very happy on Sunday. (Though I saw a couple of our negative posters who regretted the win because that lost the chance to sack the coach.) Interestingly (to me at least) I think I was more excited during the first half against WCE than thumping GWS, though that was desperately needed.