Should the board be challenged at the end of the year?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

RR I am a little confused.

You liked my comment but said it would NOT get your vote

Can you explain please?

I did it in response to someone else's proposition for the Board. No problem with your statement. Would like us to exist a little longer than 2015.

[Dee Dee 1,108]

The AFL can push them to resign..You're dreaming if you think Jackson is not calling the shots.

Can it? No it cannot!

Dreaming? No! But I would argue that Jackson certainly can recommend with some authority.

[The heart beats true 18,128]

While I do think that fresh blood would be constructive for the board of the footy club I also think that's it's important that we all understand the difference between the Board and it's role in corporate governance versus the CEO and his role in management.

While I've not supported the tone from the board in regards to communication to members I do think that 80% of our clubs issue are management issues as opposed to governance issues. It's fairly obvious that the board brought too heavily into our previous CEO and as a result must share the blame for his failures. In that regard they should be held accountable.

But moving forward I also think we should keep in mind that it's the CEO that is making daily decisions regarding the club. I think thats where my hope for the footy club will come from. A strong President is important but a visible, authoritative CEO can make a huge difference on a day to day basis and thats more likely what the players and footy department will buy into.

To put it more bluntly - I doubt Daisy Thomas gives a [censored] about Russell Howcroft, but I reckon he'd like to sit in a meeting with Jackson and talk about his future.

[nutbean 8,838]

As for the tanking, we are already in debt this year, you wanted another couple of million down the gurgler fighting the investigation in court, real clever, it was a fait accompli

You do realise we were not found guilty of tanking..we were found guilty of ummm..what was it again - I am not sure anyone knows ? Do you think the AFL wants to go to court and look like bunnies by losing ? We can only go on what we read and heard ( not 100% reliable I know) but the concensus was that had this headed to court we would have been found guilty of nothing as the laws were so ill defined and non specific. So again if it was a Collingwood in the same situation it still would have not gone to court as the AFL knows it would have lost so it would have gone nowhere.

The reason we caved is because the AFL knew we would cave. Same old same old. It was a fait accompli of our own making.

What we were fined for god knows what because we agreed to be fined.

The is merit in the argument that you dont bite the hand that feeds you...but this nonsense about spending millions in court is a nonsense. Had we showed some balls it still would not have gone to court. Don said we were prepared to go to court if necessary - solid as a blancmange.

Edited May 14, 2013 by nutbean

[Satyriconhome 10,879]

You do realise we were not found guilty of tanking..we were found guilty of ummm..what was it again - I am not sure anyone knows ? Do you think the AFL wants to go to court and look like bunnies by losing ? We can only go on what we read and heard ( not 100% reliable I know) but the concensus was that had this headed to court we would have been found guilty of nothing as the laws were so ill defined and non specific. So again if it was a Collingwood in the same situation it still would have not gone to court as the AFL knows it would have lost so it would have gone nowhere.

The reason we caved is because the AFL knew we would cave. Same old same old. It was a fait accompli of our own making.

What we were fined for god knows what because we agreed to be fined.

The is merit in the argument that you dont bite the hand that feeds you...but this nonsense about spending millions in court is a nonsense. Had we showed some balls it still would not have gone to court. Don said we were prepared to go to court if necessary - solid as a blanmange.

Whatever, I get a bit bored talking to walls, you're totally right, you attended each and every discussion between the Club and the AFL and read every email, I should have known better

[Sir Why You Little 37,049]

You do realise we were not found guilty of tanking..we were found guilty of ummm..what was it again - I am not sure anyone knows ? Do you think the AFL wants to go to court and look like bunnies by losing ? We can only go on what we read and heard ( not 100% reliable I know) but the concensus was that had this headed to court we would have been found guilty of nothing as the laws were so ill defined and non specific. So again if it was a Collingwood in the same situation it still would have not gone to court as the AFL knows it would have lost so it would have gone nowhere.

The reason we caved is because the AFL knew we would cave. Same old same old. It was a fait accompli of our own making.

What we were fined for god knows what because we agreed to be fined.

The is merit in the argument that you dont bite the hand that feeds you...but this nonsense about spending millions in court is a nonsense. Had we showed some balls it still would not have gone to court. Don said we were prepared to go to court if necessary - solid as a blanmange.

Spot On Nut. Mclardy had my support until that day, & totally lost it with that cave in.

Look at Essendon right now. Probably guilty of an assortment of things, But Standing Firm, united ready to fight on & off the ground.

Everything we are not.

[Sir Why You Little 37,049]

Whatever, I get a bit bored talking to walls, you're totally right, you attended each and every discussion between the Club and the AFL and read every email, I should have known better

"Whatever" is your answer.

Which means in translation "You reluctantly agree with the statement, even though it kills you to admit it...."

Whatever.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Can it? No it cannot!

Dreaming? No! But I would argue that Jackson certainly can recommend with some authority.

Delusional?....Yes!

And the AFL will act with some authority. It's not in their interest for the Club to be operated like a basket case.

[nutbean 8,838]

Whatever, I get a bit bored talking to walls, you're totally right, you attended each and every discussion between the Club and the AFL and read every email, I should have known better

"We have and will continue to defend the integrity of the Melbourne Football Club in the strongest possible fashion,'' the Demons president said.

"We will continue to defend the rights of all our past and present club employees where we believe it is necessary to do so.

McLardy said they would fiercely defend the club and the individuals involved against the allegations and also do what they could to protect the current side from any fall-out.

Demons president Don McLardy declared earlier this month his club would fight to clear its name.

''I can assure you we will use every resource available to defend the integrity of Melbourne Football Club in the strongest possible way,'' he said.

You are right - I have no idea about "every discussion between the Club and the AFL and read every email".

But you cant have it both ways - most of the comments above by Don were made AFTER the MFC had seen what evidence the AFL had so Don is guilty of either showing no backbone and or completely misreading what the AFL would do and setting expectations too high by declaring he would fight for our integrity.

Which one is it ?

Edit - the only part of the debate I have some sympathy for is the AFL certainly decide how much $$ assistance to give us so standing up to them certainly could have repercussions but just dont try and sell me that our integrity of club was defended.

Double Edit - his mistake in my eyes was not in accepting the penalty but previously making noises about vigorously defending our integrity - surely he had considered that we may get a penalty - then what ?We defend our integrity in the strongest possible way ..unless of course up to the point where the AFL actually do something to us and then we just roll over - but we rolled over in the strongest possible way"

You are defending the indefensible. I repeat is Don guilty of being weak or miscalculating - its one or the other.

Edited May 14, 2013 by nutbean