What if Jackson blows it?

This is one of the things I'm worried about.

Wasn't he at Essendon when their recent administration was in evolution? Hasn't the governance of Essendon's administration been recently described by Afl executives as having failed dreadfully in its duty of care to its players.(the Essendon Board had no idea what substances it's players had been exposed to). Was Mr Jackson at fault at all? How long ago did he leave Essendon? Was it far enough back that he's absolved from blame? Is he in a position to help us? I certainly hope so, because I don't know who else is.

I believe he wasn't keen to do the job, but has been promised rewards from the AFL for taking it on.

I'm becoming so inured to disappointment from people in power whom I trust at the MFC, I can't help but feel pessimistic about Jackson. I fervently hope my pessimism is ill-founded.

I understand your concerns, BB/Fan but we cannot just let the club's directors be AFL appointed.

By all means get the AFL involved in who you are thinking of tapping but that is the extent of it.

They are all Demons and they all want what is best for the club. They may have been in over their head but they will do what is best for the club.

We will have a new President and we will have some new Directors but our current plight does not require a scorched Earth.

We are such a small community and we have had too much bloodletting and pain.

I'm sorry to those that want a scapegoat but much like the fact that we will move forward with our current list of players for the next few years - we will work with the bulk of our current board.

I understand your concerns, BB/Fan but we cannot just let the club's directors be AFL appointed.

By all means get the AFL involved in who you are thinking of tapping but that is the extent of it.

They are all Demons and they all want what is best for the club. They may have been in over their head but they will do what is best for the club.

We will have a new President and we will have some new Directors but our current plight does not require a scorched Earth.

We are such a small community and we have had too much bloodletting and pain.

I'm sorry to those that want a scapegoat but much like the fact that we will move forward with our current list of players for the next few years - we will work with the bulk of our current board.

I have concerns that they haven't done what's best for the club and have looked after individuals to the detriment of the club. They have never spoken about what happened after the Geelong debacle and stomped all over any thought of questions at the AGM same again this year with tanking.

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."

He's a horrible writer and probably just had a read over Demonland yesterday. Anyway, it is just a regurgitation of what many have been saying - if we don't get a PP, no club ever will again. I think it was Redleg that was quoted. But ultimately, I concur. And yes, I believe we will qualify for a PP.

the thing i like most about Peter Jackson is he is not a footy man, he is a business man. He comes from a varied successful background in manufacturing, mining and of course his successful period at Essendon which included the flag in 2000, but more importantly building them back up after they were in a precarious financial position in 1996 when he joined the club.

He is exactly what we need from our CEO. A well respected professional with a proven track record in different industries, including footy, who can run the MFC like a well oiled machine.

I pray he stays on a permanent basis.

i would be willing to talk to people.

I have no experience at Board Level but i love this club so i am prepared to get involved Jack.

Discuss whatever over a long lunch...sure.

It is the supporters and members who will save this mess right now.

I do not know the answers, but am prepared to listen & learn.

No disrespect to you WYL but we need more than passionate people. The current Board are passionate. Its the ability to drive outcomes and governance that is the issue and need.

He's a horrible writer and probably just had a read over Demonland yesterday. Anyway, it is just a regurgitation of what many of been saying - if we don't get a PP, no club ever will again. I think it was Redleg that was quoted. But ultimately, I concur. And yes, I believe we will qualify for a PP.

Oh the irony...

No disrespect to you WYL but we need more than passionate people. The current Board are passionate. Its the ability to drive outcomes and governance that is the issue and need.

i agree, but i was asked if i would put my hand up.

And i am well aware of my limitations.

Given the situation that we find ourselves in I believe that the Board is now duty bound to finally release the Andrews Report. This disclosure may indeed be unpalatable but essential.

Given the situation that we find ourselves in I believe that the Board is now duty bound to finally release the Phillips Report. This disclosure may indeed be unpalatable but essential.

Andrews Report

I understand your concerns, BB/Fan but we cannot just let the club's directors be AFL appointed.

By all means get the AFL involved in who you are thinking of tapping but that is the extent of it.

They are all Demons and they all want what is best for the club. They may have been in over their head but they will do what is best for the club.

We will have a new President and we will have some new Directors but our current plight does not require a scorched Earth.

We are such a small community and we have had too much bloodletting and pain.

I'm sorry to those that want a scapegoat but much like the fact that we will move forward with our current list of players for the next few years - we will work with the bulk of our current board.

I agree with this

The MFC can't keep burning all it's bridges - afterall fallouts with old employees and staff have arguably got us to where we are today. (Brock/Bailey - Gardner etc)

This club needs Unity and everyone pulling in the same direction - not blame and scape goating.

I want a leader I can follow, the club can follow. I reckon right now more then ever this club needs a leader. If we keep ripping this club to shreads there could be nothing left

PS: Yes I am very angry with the state of the club

Andrews Report

Thanks bonkers.

He's a horrible writer and probably just had a read over Demonland yesterday. Anyway, it is just a regurgitation of what many have been saying - if we don't get a PP, no club ever will again. I think it was Redleg that was quoted. But ultimately, I concur. And yes, I believe we will qualify for a PP.

Yep, I suppose when people actually state facts, the message will sound similar...

We will have a new President and we will have some new Directors but our current plight does not require a scorched Earth.

Letting the AFL appoint the board, and keeping some or even most of the board aren't mutually exclusive.

Jackson is only there for six months. Didn't Gary Lyon do a similar thing and then abandon us? Who will succeed Jackson?

Given the situation that we find ourselves in I believe that the Board is now duty bound to finally release the Andrews Report. This disclosure may indeed be unpalatable but essential.

It's at least 3 years old and is referenced back to a CEO who is no longer around and a FD set up and personnel that is significantly different.

You would be better off focusing on Jacksons assessments.

Jackson is only there for six months. Didn't Gary Lyon do a similar thing and then abandon us? Who will succeed Jackson?

He has said he will stay longer if needed. I think he will stay a year at a minimum.

Jackson is only there for six months. Didn't Gary Lyon do a similar thing and then abandon us? Who will succeed Jackson?

I can really see how you could draw a parallel between Garry Lyon and Peter Jackson.

This is one of the things I'm worried about.

Wasn't he at Essendon when their recent administration was in evolution? Hasn't the governance of Essendon's administration been recently described by Afl executives as having failed dreadfully in its duty of care to its players.(the Essendon Board had no idea what substances it's players had been exposed to). Was Mr Jackson at fault at all? How long ago did he leave Essendon? Was it far enough back that he's absolved from blame? Is he in a position to help us? I certainly hope so, because I don't know who else is.

I believe he wasn't keen to do the job, but has been promised rewards from the AFL for taking it on.

I'm becoming so inured to disappointment from people in power whom I trust at the MFC, I can't help but feel pessimistic about Jackson. I fervently hope my pessimism is ill-founded.

It"s great that theAFL (and,seemingly MFC members) have such unquestioning faith in a man who oversaw, or at least was involved in the development of, the Essendon administration ,when it was shown to be grossly at fault in governance. Though this governance failure was referring to the possible use of illegal substance, it in fact applies to poor governance at the club in general....i.e. the same criticism as MFC is facing.

Can someone please reassure me that Jackson left long before Essendon's governance failure.

It"s great that theAFL (and,seemingly MFC members) have such unquestioning faith in a man who oversaw, or at least was involved in the development of, the Essendon administration ,when it was shown to be grossly at fault in governance.

JJC administrations are not involved in governance, Boards are. Administration implement the strategies and objectives of Boards who measure the administrations performance.

Jackson has not been at Essendon for a number of years (I think he left in 2008 or thereabouts) and at no time was he involved in governance.

Letting the AFL appoint the board, and keeping some or even most of the board aren't mutually exclusive.

But that is not the inference on here. Those that want the AFL to save us from ourselves would not expect that to involve a majority of the curent board.

But I am here to tell people that that is what is expected from the few I have spoken to 'in the know'. A few additions, a few subtractions, an we move into 2014.

But that is not the inference on here. Those that want the AFL to save us from ourselves would not expect that to involve a majority of the curent board.

But I am here to tell people that that is what is expected from the few I have spoken to 'in the know'. A few additions, a few subtractions, an we move into 2014.

So those 'in the know' have already decided for us what changes will be made to the board already??

Thanks,Bob.

This makes me realise that I'm unclear of the distinction between administration and governance.

Peter Jackson was CEO at Essendon, wasn't he? So he had no part in Essendon's governance, just their admin.

Though he's acting CEO at MFC , I presume his powers extend beyong admin. into governance.Is that right?

I guess it would be right to say that while Essendon's governance was reprehensible, their administration was good.

Both have been no good at the MFC.

Is governance articulated by the Club's constitution? If so,how often is the constitution reviewed?

The CEO executes the directives of the board....correct? If the CEO is doing a bad job, is that because he's not doing what the Board directs, or is it because the Board's directives were ill-advised.?

Are the lines of communication between the Football dept and the CEO/Board part of administration or governance?

I'd be grateful if you could explain these aspects of the running of our club to me, if you have the time. Thanks.

The current method for board election doesn't seem to be very effective.

In theory the members elect but what would they know

In practise the members rarely get to vote for one reason or another

I have concerns over how the AFL would appoint a complete board and if it would be totally in our best interests

Maybe a compromise that say three board members are appointed by the AFL and the rest by the normal process with the AFL having to give a final sign-off

This might satisfy both camps?..............Just a thought

Thanks bonkers.

No probs