I have read this thread carefully and would like to contribute the following :

" I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy "

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.

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.

Not disagreeing with the thrust of your post, but North's Board has members from a range of backgrounds. I'm not sure of the footy expertise of the QC he replaced, or of some of the other members. If you were to replace one or two of our Board members with people from a football background (ex-players or administrators, with some solid business experience), the makeup of our board would look much like North's.

Just as a general comment, as with much of the current discussion around the Dees, it seems to me that it's about getting the balance right, not necessarily about lurching from one extreme to another. Many here are criticising Neeld for the slash and burn approach he took on arrival, so perhaps we could learn from that.

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.

I don't often agree with BagBob, but he is spot on here. It applies also to most of us posting here on the solution to our current problems as well I fear.

(I'm not saying there is anything wrong in doing so - that's what the forum is for. The membership of the Board has serious consequences, fortunately the postings here don't.)

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

The most recent contested election, that is where the number of candidates exceeded the positions to be filled and where an election was required, was in 2003.

At that election, 3 incumbent directors (Paul Gardner, Gary Hardeman and Peter Dohrmann) stood for re-election and 2 vacant positions needed to be filled. Each member could vote for up to 5 candidates.

Gardner received 3565 votes, or 91 per cent of the vote, Hardeman 3370 votes, Dohrmann 3333, Michael Coglin 2964 and John Phillips 2681. The closest any of the other eight candidates got was independent Aris Imbardelli, who garnered 696 votes, or a 21 per cent share.

Bag Bob you must think you've wandered into an alternative universe with all the support and love you are receiving!

The most recent contested election, that is where the number of candidates exceeded the positions to be filled and where an election was required, was in 2003.

At that election, 3 incumbent directors (Paul Gardner, Gary Hardeman and Peter Dohrmann) stood for re-election and 2 vacant positions needed to be filled. Each member could vote for up to 5 candidates.

Gardner received 3565 votes, or 91 per cent of the vote, Hardeman 3370 votes, Dohrmann 3333, Michael Coglin 2964 and John Phillips 2681. The closest any of the other eight candidates got was independent Aris Imbardelli, who garnered 696 votes, or a 21 per cent share.

Some good candidates there but most of us punters simply didn't know much about any of the candidates. Loved Garry Hardeman as a player but the fact that he polled nearly 700 votes more than John Phillips who always appealed to me as someone who knew his stuff around a footy club tells me that democracy and football club elections weren't made for each other.

Problem is what other way is there of satisfactorily electing boards?

Bag Bob you must think you've wandered into an alternative universe with all the support and love you are receiving!

His message hasn't changed ...

Some good candidates there but most of us punters simply didn't know much about any of the candidates. Loved Garry Hardeman as a player but the fact that he polled nearly 700 votes more than John Phillips who always appealed to me as someone who knew his stuff around a footy club tells me that democracy and football club elections weren't made for each other.

Problem is what other way is there of satisfactorily electing boards?

Most of us couldn't care who is on the board, we follow the team not the politics, so when the elections come along, if we see Gary Hardeman as a candidate, we will in all probability vote for him; he was one of my favourite players so he'd at least get my vote.

How good he is most wouldn't know, and if there are no other candidates what does it matter.

I have always felt it preferable to have paid directors who are a little bit more accountable, as it is they can stuff up the club, walk away and say we did our best.

Some good candidates there but most of us punters simply didn't know much about any of the candidates. Loved Garry Hardeman as a player but the fact that he polled nearly 700 votes more than John Phillips who always appealed to me as someone who knew his stuff around a footy club tells me that democracy and football club elections weren't made for each other.

Problem is what other way is there of satisfactorily electing boards?

I'd take it out of the hands of the members and give it to the AFL. We are in their hands anyway so it's in their interest to make sure we are well run. And if they stuff up they have the power to fix it.

I think I'm right in saying that WCE don't have an elected Board, it seems to work for them.

I'd take it out of the hands of the members and give it to the AFL. We are in their hands anyway so it's in their interest to make sure we are well run. And if they stuff up they have the power to fix it.

I think I'm right in saying that WCE don't have an elected Board, it seems to work for them.

How are they selected and by who BB

We need the AFL to be involved in selecting the next Board Members

We need the AFL to be involved in selecting the next Board Members

We need the AFL to take over lock stock and barrel wyl.

Over the last three years we have clearly displayed our ability.

wyl yeah that's what the club needs the AFL putting their own people in charge and then relocating the club that's a smart move......

1. They won't do that.

2. They cannot do that

Here is a thought, wait till Jackson does his job and then proceed with his recommendations on how to set a club up properly.

wyl yeah that's what the club needs the AFL putting their own people in charge and then relocating the club that's a smart move......

1. They won't do that.

2. They cannot do that

Here is a thought, wait till Jackson does his job and then proceed with his recommendations on how to set a club up properly.

I don't share your negativety with AFL intervention.

We cannot get any worse imo.

you don't think so, they did it with fitzroy!! don't you remember that?

wyl yeah that's what the club needs the AFL putting their own people in charge and then relocating the club that's a smart move......

1. They won't do that.

2. They cannot do that

Here is a thought, wait till Jackson does his job and then proceed with his recommendations on how to set a club up properly.

What if Jackson blows it?

We need the AFL to be involved in selecting the next Board Members

Be careful what you wish for.

What if Jackson blows it?

that won't happen he knows his stuff.

that won't happen he knows his stuff.

So we were told did the last guy.

I do however share your confidence in Jackson.

We need the AFL to take over lock stock and barrel wyl.

Over the last three years we have clearly displayed our ability.

If they take over it will be the end of our club as we know it. We'll be come the GWS Demons within 5 years

you don't think so, they did it with fitzroy!! don't you remember that?

I remember Fitzroy very well.

I am disgusted things have got this bad. But they have.

The MFC needs more than its members right now.

That was shown by last sundays game.

Even after CS has gone the players cannot be motivated.

It is that bad.

This is my first post since the debacle against GC. I believed it was a time to let the Board meet, discuss and review, as a matter of urgency, given the appalling situation the club is in. My understanding is that the Board has not met and everything is proceeding as usual - if anyone can tell me otherwise, please do so.

It is inconceiveable that any club would fail to at least have an urgent Board meeting after a disaster such as the GC defeat, even if the Board only decided to make a media statement. The apparent lack of action by the MFC hierarchy is disgusting - it has reinforced my view that the situation at MFC is a 'top down' problem.

This is difficult to write because I do not know what more can be said to get a message of disgust through to the MFC hierarchy. I have seen a few posters on various threads trying to defend the current hierarchy and the football department, including the coach - they are kidding themselves. My views are well known and I am not going to regurgitate all the arguments from the last two years - the record speaks for itself.

In my mind, just one significant question remains - does anyone in the hierarchy really care about MFC?

PS AFL 360 has just shown David King's comments on MFC and MN from 12 months ago - there are many others who saw the problems coming!

This is my first post since the debacle against GC. I believed it was a time to let the Board meet, discuss and review, as a matter of urgency, given the appalling situation the club is in. My understanding is that the Board has not met and everything is proceeding as usual - if anyone can tell me otherwise, please do so.

It is inconceiveable that any club would fail to at least have an urgent Board meeting after a disaster such as the GC defeat, even if the Board only decided to make a media statement. The apparent lack of action by the MFC hierarchy is disgusting - it has reinforced my view that the situation at MFC is a 'top down' problem.

This is difficult to write because I do not know what more can be said to get a message of disgust through to the MFC hierarchy. I have seen a few posters on various threads trying to defend the current hierarchy and the football department, including the coach - they are kidding themselves. My views are well known and I am not going to regurgitate all the arguments from the last two years - the record speaks for itself.

In my mind, just one significant question remains - does anyone in the hierarchy really care about MFC?

PS AFL 360 has just shown David King's comments on MFC and MN from 12 months ago - there are many others who saw the problems coming!

David King is a failed assistant coach and another one who drinks his own bathwater, as for the board not saying something they might have been advised to keep their heads down for now because whatever they say people are going to bag them anyway.

David King is a failed assistant coach and another one who drinks his own bathwater, as for the board not saying something they might have been advised to keep their heads down for now because whatever they say people are going to bag them anyway.

King's accurate prediction is on tape from 12 months ago, almost to the day.

If 'someone' is really advising the Board to keep their heads down, then be grateful at least 'someone' is taking positive steps.

I'd take it out of the hands of the members and give it to the AFL. We are in their hands anyway so it's in their interest to make sure we are well run. And if they stuff up they have the power to fix it.

I think I'm right in saying that WCE don't have an elected Board, it seems to work for them.

I would like to know more about that, sounds interesting.

I've been in favour of AFL intervention for over a year (because it was obvious to me that we being mismanaged) and I think in effect that is what we have now. For those concerned with us being shipped off or shut down we have a period of time to get things back on track that's in line with the current broadcasting rights. If we can't get ourselves on track by then well we deserve to be shipped off or shut down.

So we were told did the last guy.

I do however share your confidence in Jackson.

Not a story I ever believed, unfortunately our board and a lot of members were sucked into that one.