Classic WYL logic. There is only one man on this forum who could arrive at the paradoxical conclusion that we're too crap for a priority pick.

Why is it so hard to see when our player development and player retention has been so poor during the last 7 years?

If i was evaluating a PP i would be most wary.

I'll be totally amazed if we get a first round PP. We've wasted previous drafting opportunities and we need to show we've got our house in order.

If we continue on like we are and don't get one, no one ever will again, under the current system.

I assume by the lack of reply that BB was the only attendee at this address, so we have no other views to confirm/counter what was said, normal Demonland then, on with another 10 or so pages of back and forth over nothing

I was there too BB and you have summed up the atmosphere very well.

Exactly what he said and was clearly an indictment on CS.

I assume by the lack of reply that BB was the only attendee at this address, so we have no other views to confirm/counter what was said, normal Demonland then, on with another 10 or so pages of back and forth over nothing

Is that sufficient for you?

I assume by the lack of reply that BB was the only attendee at this address, so we have no other views to confirm/counter what was said, normal Demonland then, on with another 10 or so pages of back and forth over nothing

And given the fact that you originally asked the question 40 minutes ago, you haven't really given anyone a chance to respond.

Not everyone sits on Demonland all day like you do chap, a lot of us have a life. It does make sense though, for someone to receive the DSP they can do volunteer work to meet their minimum requirements.

I assume by the lack of reply that BB was the only attendee at this address, so we have no other views to confirm/counter what was said, normal Demonland then, on with another 10 or so pages of back and forth over nothing

I was there - BB's report is accurate and confirmed by Tricky.

Jackson was very impressive - connected well with a simmeringly hostile audience and I really felt like he was already one of us.

Howcroft was completely the reverse, aloof and extremely disappointing - for someone who is in the communication business, well all I can say is his performance mirrored our on-field performance.

Why is it so hard to see when our player development and player retention has been so poor during the last 7 years?

If i was evaluating a PP i would be most wary.

Given the current state of affairs, on top of the "tanking" saga, the last thing the AFL will want to do is give us a PP. The foundation needs to sured up, no more window dressing. WYL is right again.

Given the current state of affairs, on top of the "tanking" saga, the last thing the AFL will want to do is give us a PP. The foundation needs to sured up, no more window dressing. WYL is right again.

i really hope the club is put in a position where it has to prove itself. By that get stronger & wiser.

Waiting at the backdoor for handouts each year has done us no good at all.

If we are given 2 PP's at years end & high draft picks i will be amazed...but first we must negotiate 15 more weeks of the season 2013.

Howcroft was completely the reverse, aloof and extremely disappointing - for someone who is in the communication business, well all I can say is his performance mirrored our on-field performance.

It's funny you should say that. I went to the AGM and thought was smarmy bastard he was. I wonder whether his aloofness is symptomatic of a more broad disconnect between the board and the clubs supporters.

Perhaps that's unfair but McClardy's comments about the cheap seats were, even taken out of context, unfortunate. i also think the board misread the mood of the supporters when giving Neeld carte blanche to take his scorched earth approach - an approach that not only seems to have divided the players but also the fans, if DL is anything to go by.

I assume by the lack of reply that BB was the only attendee at this address, so we have no other views to confirm/counter what was said, normal Demonland then, on with another 10 or so pages of back and forth over nothing

C'mon Sats ol' chap, you've had 30 minutes since I posted #129 to respond to the fact that an "other" had already posted about attending the function, yet you haven't replied.

I assume by the lack of your reply that you realised how silly you made yourself look?

I assume by the lack of reply that BB was the only attendee at this address, so we have no other views to confirm/counter what was said, normal Demonland then, on with another 10 or so pages of back and forth over nothing

I was there - BB's report is accurate and confirmed by Tricky.

Jackson was very impressive - connected well with a simmeringly hostile audience and I really felt like he was already one of us.

Howcroft was completely the reverse, aloof and extremely disappointing - for someone who is in the communication business, well all I can say is his performance mirrored our on-field performance.

Sat, if i could paint you a picture, it would look like this:

I'll be totally amazed if we get a first round PP. We've wasted previous drafting opportunities and we need to show we've got our house in order.

Sure we need to show we've got or getting our house in order through Jackson. But wasted previous drafting opportunities is irrelevant to the AFL, it would want a competitive outfit at Melbournefc.

Sure we need to show we've got or getting our house in order through Jackson. But wasted previous drafting opportunities is irrelevant to the AFL, it would want a competitive outfit at Melbournefc.

Correct and that is the purpose of the PP.

I assume by the lack of reply that BB was the only attendee at this address, so we have no other views to confirm/counter what was said, normal Demonland then, on with another 10 or so pages of back and forth over nothing

In case Billy, Tricky et al haven't made you look silly enough, there's also the transcript BB posted that is from another person present that doesn't contain any editorialism at all, just the words that were said, verbatim.

I m not going to hang Howcroft for being smug and arrogant. Anyone who can stand Will Anderson would have known what Howcroft is like...

Having said that, I don't like the entitled way this board can wash its hand of the issues it has been so heavily involved in - if involved is the right word...

As for the priority pick - if we continue like this we should get one. I don't care what other teams think or whether we have screwed up previous picks - that is a BS reason.

Luck is what it is and while we get McLean and Sylvia, Hawthorn a year later get Franklin and Roughhead, and a year later Coll get Pendlebury and Thomas.

Out inability to turn kids into great players is irrelevant to the question of whether we should get a PP.

There will be bad teams and we are one now and we should receive the help that any perennially bad team should receive.

Does anyone actually know wtf this means?

I see no high performances. I barely see performances.

I'll be totally amazed if we get a first round PP. We've wasted previous drafting opportunities and we need to show we've got our house in order.

Should it really matter that we have wasted previous early picks in regard to the AFL giving us a PP at the end of the year. Surely if anyone is at the bottom for a sustained period it means they have wasted a few early picks up. How will anyone get one?

Should it really matter that we have wasted previous early picks in regard to the AFL giving us a PP at the end of the year. Surely if anyone is at the bottom for a sustained period it means they have wasted a few early picks up. How will anyone get one?

No it doesn't.

Jon Ralph article puts this kind of comment into perspective (Not a fan, but he is right on this):

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/the-buzz-its-enough-to-make-every-heart-beat-true/story-e6frecjc-1226642434738

Melbourne could yet finish bottom and, if it does, its record since 2007 would read: 14th, 16th, 16th, 12th, 13th, 16th and 18th.

When the AFL brought in its priority pick system, the league made it clear only a club with levels of failure akin to Fitzroy's would receive a pre-draft pick.

Fitzroy finished sixth, 10th and 11th in three of its final eight seasons, figures Melbourne can't boast.

And as Dees great David Schwarz said on Monday: "Melbourne is a bee's whisker from being in the Fitzroy position."

The league's formula for priority pick allocation is based on premiership points won, finals appearances and premierships, as well as injury rates - not the level of incompetence of previous administrators or the volume of the objections from rival clubs."

I assume by the lack of reply that BB was the only attendee at this address, so we have no other views to confirm/counter what was said, normal Demonland then, on with another 10 or so pages of back and forth over nothing

I was there as well, and the only thing I would add to the BB summation, (which I think was missed by most people )was that the MFC doesn't look like and have the feeling of a Football club. He compared the environment at Hawthorn, Essendon and in particular Geelong.

To me this is absolutely damning as we have lost the raison d'etre for the clubs very existence. It only confirms exactly the story that was relayed to me when one of the current coaching staff arrived at the club.

I am not a fan of the traditional Board based structure being applied to a membership organisation, particularly when it's constitution specifies that it exists to play, compete and foster football. You can have the principles of best practice governance without the structure. Why are appointments made by the Board to the Board? Where are the football credentials of the present and previous boards? Interesting to note that Ben Buckley former AFL deputy has joined the North Melbourne Board recently. These are the types of people needed, because their knowledge is football based, not in un-related public or private ventures.

I know it was a long time ago, but Jim Cardwell knew exactly what he had to do, why he was doing it and how to do it. The first principle espoused by the Australian Institute of Company Directors is " know your business". It seems Peter Jackson has in only 6 days worked out that the MFC doesn't " know it's business" any more.

Putting ALL that aside ( and we can have endless arguments about who should be replaced and why) the ONFIELD performance is the real concern. That is the Club's business. It is why it exists. I have NEVER seen a more gutless and heartless performance than against GC. The statistics around tackling are damning, but it is even worse because there is no statistic around tackles NOT laid. We all saw a GC player waltz through a pack of MFC players into an open goal and not a single one put a hand on him. No-one took responsibility, no-one even tried.......

I help coach an U14's side and honestly they show more intensity in the game, probably because they WANT to play footy. I can't say that about the current group of players at the MFC. Footscray have an equally dismal performance record as we do:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/perceptions-punish-demons-but-dogs-are-none-too-rosy-20130514-2jklt.html

but as Michael Gleeson notes in the article :

"the biggest discrepancy between the sides has not been win-loss but effort and competitiveness"

I hope for and wish Mr Jackson well. But I'm not rushing to get to the game this week because I know the U14's will be putting in more than most Melbourne players, so they deserve the encouragement and support.

Caller to Ox on SEN just gave the same story at the meeting yesterday and noted that many long serving club benefactors were angry and at the point of withdrawing their support even saying they would not offer financial support while Neeld is there. Damian Barret on the AFL website has stated that process is already in place to replace the coach in 2014.

Let me say Board stuff is complex! I chair the board of an amateur club and it is very difficult to not get caught in the operational side of things.

The board is their for governance, risk assessment, legal issues, financial planning, strategic planning in other words the role is to govern not manage. Management is the CEO's job and clearly Jackson has identified issues with reporting to the CEO. He has yet to say how matters are bought to the board and it would appear there are deficiencies there.

Having said that I still expect the footy department to prepare the players to the best of their ability and send out a competitive unit each week to quote John Northey the team must 'Have a red hot go" I am not convinced that they are having a red hot go and we are the most uncompetitive I have ever seen.

That is downright scary.....these long term benefactors contribute significantly to the club.

I was there as well, and the only thing I would add to the BB summation, (which I think was missed by most people )was that the MFC doesn't look like and have the feeling of a Football club. He compared the environment at Hawthorn, Essendon and in particular Geelong.

To me this is absolutely damning as we have lost the raison d'etre for the clubs very existence. It only confirms exactly the story that was relayed to me when one of the current coaching staff arrived at the club.

I am not a fan of the traditional Board based structure being applied to a membership organisation, particularly when it's constitution specifies that it exists to play, compete and foster football. You can have the principles of best practice governance without the structure. Why are appointments made by the Board to the Board? Where are the football credentials of the present and previous boards? Interesting to note that Ben Buckley former AFL deputy has joined the North Melbourne Board recently. These are the types of people needed, because their knowledge is football based, not in un-related public or private ventures.

I know it was a long time ago, but Jim Cardwell knew exactly what he had to do, why he was doing it and how to do it. The first principle espoused by the Australian Institute of Company Directors is " know your business". It seems Peter Jackson has in only 6 days worked out that the MFC doesn't " know it's business" any more.

Putting ALL that aside ( and we can have endless arguments about who should be replaced and why) the ONFIELD performance is the real concern. That is the Club's business. It is why it exists. I have NEVER seen a more gutless and heartless performance than against GC. The statistics around tackling are damning, but it is even worse because there is no statistic around tackles NOT laid. We all saw a GC player waltz through a pack of MFC players into an open goal and not a single one put a hand on him. No-one took responsibility, no-one even tried.......

I help coach an U14's side and honestly they show more intensity in the game, probably because they WANT to play footy. I can't say that about the current group of players at the MFC. Footscray have an equally dismal performance record as we do:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/perceptions-punish-demons-but-dogs-are-none-too-rosy-20130514-2jklt.html

but as Michael Gleeson notes in the article :

"the biggest discrepancy between the sides has not been win-loss but effort and competitiveness"

I hope for and wish Mr Jackson well. But I'm not rushing to get to the game this week because I know the U14's will be putting in more than most Melbourne players, so they deserve the encouragement and support.

Good post George.

I am not a fan of the traditional Board based structure being applied to a membership organisation, particularly when it's constitution specifies that it exists to play, compete and foster football. You can have the principles of best practice governance without the structure. Why are appointments made by the Board to the Board? Where are the football credentials of the present and previous boards? Interesting to note that Ben Buckley former AFL deputy has joined the North Melbourne Board recently. These are the types of people needed, because their knowledge is football based, not in un-related public or private ventures.

An outstanding post George and whilst I'd take issue with the players "not trying" I love the comments about the structure of the Board.

I read with despair the threads about Mitchell and Schwarz joining the Board as I think it's why membership elected Boards are such failures. The members by and large have not the slightest idea whether Schwarta or Neil Mitchell would make good Board members and know their role. Some will like Mitchell and his outspoken views and think he's the man. Others will remember Schwarta and think he's the man. We've seen the damage such populist appointments have done with Garry Lyon being on the coaching selection panel and also carrying out a review of the footy department post Bailey. Lyon is an impressive TV personality but he's not got the slightest idea about running a complex membership based organization and judging by where we find ourselves doesn't have the slightest idea about Football Departments and coaches.

He didn't set out to cause the damage he has, he just didn't know what he didn't know. And yet the majority view when he intervened in August 2011 was "thank heavens for Garry".

Personally I'd support a restructure of the Club so someone like the AFL appointed the Board where they could ensure competent governance. Make no mistake this is where our failure starts. The Board select the CEO, the CEO the FD and the FD the team. It's taken a while for people on here to see the cause and effect but McLardy/Stynes selected Schwab, Schwab the coach and the coach the team.

The reality is the members have failed time and again in trying to elect a good Board because we've got no f'ing idea. It's not our fault, we just don't know.

Really, can it get any worse? It's time for a change in the way we are run.

The reality is the members have failed time and again in trying to elect a good Board because we've got no f'ing idea. It's not our fault, we just don't know.

Good post. A lot to discuss in it but I've settled on this line above

Out of interest, would anyone know what % of members generally vote for the board ? It would be those at the AGM plus proxies I'd imagine but I'm interested in the approximate percentage of total members

I'm wondering how those people decide who to vote for. My mum for example wouldn't know Russell Howcroft or Guy Jalland from a bar of soap. But if Laurie Mithen stuck his hand up, she would be front & centre voting for him faster than Ricky Jackson on a loose ball in the forward line.

I suspect a lot would vote along similar lines to my mum so I wonder how we go about educating the membership as to what's needed to drive the club and come election time, why e.g. Geoff Freeman would be a better fit than Spud Dullard

Good post. A lot to discuss in it but I've settled on this line above

Out of interest, would anyone know what % of members generally vote for the board ? It would be those at the AGM plus proxies I'd imagine but I'm interested in the approximate percentage of total members

I'm wondering how those people decide who to vote for. My mum for example wouldn't know Russell Howcroft or Guy Jalland from a bar of soap. But if Laurie Mithen stuck his hand up, she would be front & centre voting for him faster than Ricky Jackson on a loose ball in the forward line.

I suspect a lot would vote along similar lines to my mum so I wonder how we go about educating the membership as to what's needed to drive the club and come election time, why e.g. Geoff Freeman would be a better fit than Spud Dullard

I cannot remember the last time there was an election.

Reason as members come up for election no one challenges them.

The last two people to join the board have not been challenged.

If my memory is correct right now we have one vacancy.

If nothing changed between now and the next AGM ( fat chance) if someone nominated they would be elected un apposed .

So if you want the job nominate before the next AGM and you are a shoe in!

Well said, Fan.

I can give a personal experience of this, being elected to a board of a local community organisation.

Not afraid to admit, I was an absolute failure, mainly because I was naive as to what the board's actual job is.

I'd be better now, given that knowledge, however my previous posting will work against me, and I know this.

However, I think this displays the naivete displayed in allowing boards to be voted on by 'one and all', without some kind of vetting process by more experienced people, trained in these areas.