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.

Understand your position in some respects 'rpfc', but it still sounds a lot like a guy by the name of Neville Chamberlain prior to WWII.

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

Though it's not a fact. It's an opinion.

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.

No he wasn't, Robson has been the CEO since 2009. Hird and Thompson came on board at the end of the 2010 season.

Though it's not a fact. It's an opinion.

Which part is not factual?

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.

I don't know what others are expecting, but as someone firmly in the camp of wanting the AFL to save us from ourselves, I can say that I'd expect some of the board to remain intact. I've said it before that on paper the talent is there on the board, it just seems to lack the necessary leadership to harness it. Given the recent history of board handovers, I can't see how this is going to happen without AFL intervention. I certainly don't trust the membership to get it right.

I don't know what others are expecting, but as someone firmly in the camp of wanting the AFL to save us from ourselves, I can say that I'd expect some of the board to remain intact. I've said it before that on paper the talent is there on the board, it just seems to lack the necessary leadership to harness it. Given the recent history of board handovers, I can't see how this is going to happen without AFL intervention. I certainly don't trust the membership to get it right.

The only way that any current board members stay is if they are there to to advise on their areas of expertise and keep away from things they know nothing about. Even then I think their judgement has been so poor in the past it is hardly an endorsement for any of them going forward.

If we look back at the coaching panel that selected Neeld you would wonder what McLardy and Jalland brought to the table, they should not have been involved at selection stage. Schwab as CEO you may make a case for but given his previous record with the FD then it would have been better if he wasn't involved. That left Lyon as the only football person and he was an ex player with no experience as a coach except for maybe some Mickey Mouse stuff, any wonder we are in the mess we are in.

No argument from me there rjay regarding directors knowing their place. As I understand it, crossed boundaries is amongst the biggest failings of the present board. I don't reckon it takes wholesale change to repair it though, just a strong leader and a handful of quality, experienced directors added to the mix and the dynamic of the group will change completely.

Which part is not factual?

If Melbourne don't get a PP, no other club ever will. That's an opinion.

I am encouraged by Peter Jackson describing the MFC as "not a hard fix, but one that will take time".

Wouldn't it be so typical of this club that all our problems were easily fixed with some effort and some time, but nobody (ie. Cameron Schwab) gave a stuff enough to bother to analyze what it was that was causing our ills until PJ came along and did it for us.

If Melbourne don't get a PP, no other club ever will. That's an opinion.

And a pretty sound one based on the facts he presented.

Do you take everything so literally?

What's your point again??

And a pretty sound one based on the facts he presented.

Do you take everything so literally?

What's your point again??

Lol. You're argumentative, aren't you? My point was that it wasn't an enlightening article whatsoever.

Lol. You're argumentative, aren't you? My point was that it wasn't an enlightening article whatsoever.

No I'm not

No I'm not

Is this the right room for an argument?

I told you once....

There are three points I would like to make. They are a bit unrelated to each other but I think they are valid.

1)If there is one thing this club should have learnt by now is that you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

While it makes us feel better to throw out all this 'sack them all' rhetoric, in reality, scorched earth is not the way to go. Sure, there needs to be some people who need to go (Mark Neeld may be one among others in the FD and board) bur our wholesale sacking of players from 2008 on wards shows us that sometimes adjustments need be made rather than complete overhauls. Peter Jackson (I will get onto him in a bit) was right in that the current staff we have need to work in clean air while he rejigs the lines of communication in the football department. Once this is done (I hope this takes weeks not months), then we will be able to analyze the performance of some of the blokes during the time the rejigging was taking place.

2) Cameron Schwab was one who needed to go and he has gone. There is no point ranting about him now. This may be surprising considering my post 'The board should go over Schwab alone' but the point of that post wasn't to make old bones about the impact CS had on the club. It was about how the board saw what he was doing, gave him a tsk tsking and then let him continue on as before with the proviso that 'Whiteboard Wednesday' ended and that he kept his nose off the TV, radio and newspapers. They are still there. This has now just come to light so therefore should be consequences for their inaction. Bleating about CS won't put that genie back into the bottle. The club can't rehire and then sack him again. However, they should be held to account as to how they let him run his own little Graeme Richmond style empire.

3) I'm also concerned about the cult of personality subscribed to by some on this board who see PJ as the cure to all our ills. I have heard the same thing about Dean Bailey, Mark Neeld etc. and have witnessed the vicious backlash on here when they didn't come up to scratch. When will people on here realize that ONE figure can't come into our club and save it? It will take the combined work over many years to turn this train wreck around. AND IT IS A TRAIN WRECK! This is coming from a man who has been involved in a real life train derailment as well!

I like the brief PJ has been given but whether or not he can carry out that brief remains to be seen. He has runs on the board but does he have the ability to turn this thing around on his own? The task might be too great if that is how the job is defined. It will take the support of other parties as well to get this job done.

Edit: When I say the board should be held to account, not everyone on the board. Those who are competent should stay and it's tough to say who is and who isn't. It's even tougher to say who were the leading voices in keeping CS on and allowing him to run amok.

There are three points I would like to make. They are a bit unrelated to each other but I think they are valid.

1)If there is one thing this club should have learnt by now is that you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

While it makes us feel better to throw out all this 'sack them all' rhetoric, in reality, scorched earth is not the way to go. Sure, there needs to be some people who need to go (Mark Neeld may be one among others in the FD and board) bur our wholesale sacking of players from 2008 on wards shows us that sometimes adjustments need be made rather than complete overhauls. Peter Jackson (I will get onto him in a bit) was right in that the current staff we have need to work in clean air while he rejigs the lines of communication in the football department. Once this is done (I hope this takes weeks not months), then we will be able to analyze the performance of some of the blokes during the time the rejigging was taking place.

2) Cameron Schwab was one who needed to go and he has gone. There is no point ranting about him now. This may be surprising considering my post 'The board should go over Schwab alone' but the point of that post wasn't to make old bones about the impact CS had on the club. It was about how the board saw what he was doing, gave him a tsk tsking and then let him continue on as before with the proviso that 'Whiteboard Wednesday' ended and that he kept his nose off the TV, radio and newspapers. They are still there. This has now just come to light so therefore should be consequences for their inaction. Bleating about CS won't put that genie back into the bottle. The club can't rehire and then sack him again. However, they should be held to account as to how they let him run his own little Graeme Richmond style empire.

3) I'm also concerned about the cult of personality subscribed to by some on this board who see PJ as the cure to all our ills. I have heard the same thing about Dean Bailey, Mark Neeld etc. and have witnessed the vicious backlash on here when they didn't come up to scratch. When will people on here realize that ONE figure can't come into our club and save it? It will take the combined work over many years to turn this train wreck around. AND IT IS A TRAIN WRECK! This is coming from a man who has been involved in a real life train derailment as well!

I like the brief PJ has been given but whether or not he can carry out that brief remains to be seen. He has runs on the board but does he have the ability to turn this thing around on his own? The task might be too great if that is how the job is defined. It will take the support of other parties as well to get this job done.

Edit: When I say the board should be held to account, not everyone on the board. Those who are competent should stay and it's tough to say who is and who isn't. It's even tougher to say who were the leading voices in keeping CS on and allowing him to run amok.

Pretty well on the mark 'Colin', Jackson also agrees and said he will need help. That's why he is looking for the best person to take the role as head of the FD. This will be a crucial role going forward and as he realigns the FD he will bring more experience into the club.

A team effort with everyone doing their jobs well and things will turn around.

I don't know what others are expecting, but as someone firmly in the camp of wanting the AFL to save us from ourselves, I can say that I'd expect some of the board to remain intact. I've said it before that on paper the talent is there on the board, it just seems to lack the necessary leadership to harness it. Given the recent history of board handovers, I can't see how this is going to happen without AFL intervention. I certainly don't trust the membership to get it right.

I'd have to agree with that and there's no point in replacing one set of Directors with another set that have pretty much the same view. As we've found with the players if they don't have experienced, knowledgeable players to lead them they finish up directionless and we risk the same if we just replace the Directors and leave them without anyone to guide them.

We are in a mess but if we can beef up the board with some football people, and not necessarily Melbourne People, we may be able to work our way out of it.

I'd have to agree with that and there's no point in replacing one set of Directors with another set that have pretty much the same view. As we've found with the players if they don't have experienced, knowledgeable players to lead them they finish up directionless and we risk the same if we just replace the Directors and leave them without anyone to guide them.

We are in a mess but if we can beef up the board with some football people, and not necessarily Melbourne People, we may be able to work our way out of it.

Robbie I think it is vital they are not Melbourne people.

We need some people on the board who have not had any part in half a century of mediocrity.

Robbie I think it is vital they are not Melbourne people.

We need some people on the board who have not had any part in half a century of mediocrity.

They are going to be Melbourne people.

As if any well run club is going to have Directors who don't have a personal interest in the club. They do not get paid BTW. Loyalty and discretion is not advised - it is mandatory when it comes to a board.

Suspect the Board could have performed a bit better if they hadn't had to spend the last 2 years putting out fires, more than a few of which were not of our own making. It's just been one crisis after another. Understandable perhaps (though not necessarily excusable) that they took their eyes off the (foot)ball.

I also get the feeling that so much of the emphasis in the Stynes period was in clearing the debt and getting us onto some kind of decent financial footing. To the detriment of other areas within their remit?

And just to add to that, a really competent CEO, overseeing a well-run and well-performing club, is going to make any Board look good.

3) I'm also concerned about the cult of personality subscribed to by some on this board who see PJ as the cure to all our ills. I have heard the same thing about Dean Bailey, Mark Neeld etc. and have witnessed the vicious backlash on here when they didn't come up to scratch. When will people on here

Nobody ever said PJ was the savior.

But he will identify the flaws and instill the processes to get us up and running.

Nobody ever said PJ was the savior.

But he will identify the flaws and instill the processes to get us up and running.

Maybe you didn't. But there seems to be a lot of people who are [censored] a hoop about him while not considering the possibility that he MIGHT just fail. There are other people who need to be bought in.

I'm not sure if this is a new thing or not, but does Josh Mahoney usually sit next to Neeld in the coaches box on game day. It's the first time I've noticed this and maybe it's part of getting the FD in order and upgrading that role.

Then again I might be writing much more into this than is actually there.

I'm not sure if this is a new thing or not, but does Josh Mahoney usually sit next to Neeld in the coaches box on game day. It's the first time I've noticed this and maybe it's part of getting the FD in order and upgrading that role.

Then again I might be writing much more into this than is actually there.

He sits on the bench most of the time, so that is interesting.

He sits on the bench most of the time, so that is interesting.

That's what I thought, Craig was on the bench on Sunday and I'm pretty sure he's usually at the back of the coaches box.