On 14/06/2013 at 00:34, rpfc said:

I keep on telling you why there is nothing and you don't want to hear it.

Our Demons you want to hear from do not want to give any ammunition to the papers and in a rare, if small, mercy for theis club - it's influential supporters are going to the club RATHER THAN THE PAPERS with their help.

Paul Gardner was at training a few weeks ago, Schwab instituted a series of mornings before training when former Directors and former coterie members were invited down to the club, Geoff Freeman has come forward and onto the Board and onto the task of reviewing his fellow Board members, and, now, former Director Alan Stockdale has been approached about a return.

All this is occuring but not in the papers, so you don't know about it. But just because you can't see it, does not mean it isn't happening.

The Board will get renewal and it will do it without the need for the burning of former Board members and the airing of our dirty laundry in public.

I like this, & prefer we do it in-house,,, than have a negative & rabid press printing nonsense & derogatory comment, as the Ex AFL Players are mostly doing atmo, & most of them do not work as assistant coaches & just shoot from the hip from their cheap leather seats.

I find it interesting that you say Stockdale has been approached by us.. whilst I don't want stockdale as president, If or when Don steps down, I welcome experienced people if they are the right fit to work 'in the team & for the Club', without being proxies for any Factions.

... but we need someone, other than stockdale as our Head.

  On 14/06/2013 at 00:49, belzebub59 said:

well done RPFC...completely missed the point havent you.

There is the WHAT...and there is the HOW

you seem most concerned with the HOW. I.e the migration of one board to another.

Just about everyone else is more concerned with the WHAT i.e WHAT The...does anyone stand for and WHAT will they do. The silence is deafening.

Its got nothing to do with ammo for the papers , they find out or invent what they will anyway. Its about Potential candidates for votes telling us voters what they are about and how they see the club , and what they intend to do about it.

Theres more than one bloody election this year. Ones a foregone conclusion... the other, well no one at Red and Blue land should get so smug as to think ANYTHING is fait acompli !!

I agree here with this as well BB59... I want to know what the policies are..

what do they intend to do with the assets, Bentleigh club? will they build a social facility at our training centre, how do they intend to reinvigorate our base grassroots support, & I do not mean the Casey venture... I'm talking inner city grassroots?

how long do they see we'll stay at the Bubbledome?

... & what is our policy Now, re the muted training @ thew docklands precinct, I'd like to know rather than the politicking behind closed doors, on our so called behalf.

I want to hear from the board in September, about what they want to do & undertake in the next 2 years?

.

if it all goes according to RPFC formula then in many ways we have accomplished nothing.

membership will mean nothing also.

Too much happens behind closed doors with no transpency or membership orientated accountability.

its like a secret bloody society.

  On 14/06/2013 at 01:11, rpfc said:

Here is something I have posted before and you have missed apparently - there are no wholesale Board elections at the end of the year.

The renewal we will get will be a nod and a handshake - the way that Stynes took over from Gardner. Do you see how this impacts the 'WHAT'?

There will be no wholesale Board elections, a member petition is required. I don't know how many, I don't hav the consititution in front of me.

I am assuming by 'WHAT' you mean the direction of the club.

I care about direction I want it to be industry standard and AFL-endorsed.

Jackson is attempting to do that today. He is the one with the mandate to change below (restructure of FD, personnel, new coach) and above (him and Freeman review of how the Board is made-up).

He has the mandate and he will force his AFL-endorsed will upon the club.

There is your 'WHAT.'

For good or bad, our lot will soon be aligned with what the AFL expect of us.

Whilst much of what you say RP is no doubt the "preferred" course of events and I u'stand the Club, PJ and the AFL would be eager for change but in a considered manner, the mandate that you say PJ has is not one granted to him by a vote from the members. Granted that members have very little direct say/input into what happens at an AFL club under normal circumstances, but this is far from a normal circumstance. Yes it might be continuation of a series of blunders, but as AD has already alluded, one more major blunder and it could be our last.

Regardless of the apparant seamless changeover that you infer is already underway, I'm not sure the masses (members/ex members and potential sponsors) will buy it unless the ultimate direction and new heading are extremely well conveyed and transparent for all to make their own judgement, good, bad or indifferent. The members/sponsors may not be able to effect the Board's overall makeup in one vote but they have a significant input/influence over the long term success of the club's financial results via a vote through their hip pocket.

  On 14/06/2013 at 01:44, rpfc said:

Greg Baum certainly thinks it is 100, but I don't believe it is so low.

And, again, I heard that the reason Szondy changed the Constitution after Gutnick left was because of the cost.

My cloudy memory seems to recall the figure being changed from 100 to 1000.

  On 14/06/2013 at 02:51, Rusty Nails said:

Whilst much of what you say RP is no doubt the "preferred" course of events and I u'stand the Club, PJ and the AFL would be eager for change but in a considered manner, the mandate that you say PJ has is not one granted to him by a vote from the members. Granted that members have very little direct say/input into what happens at an AFL club under normal circumstances, but this is far from a normal circumstance. Yes it might be continuation of a series of blunders, but as AD has already alluded, on more major blunder and it could be our last. Regardless of a seamless changeover that you infer is already underway, I'm not sure the masses (members/ex members and potential sponsors) will buy it unless the ultimate direction and new heading are extremely well conveyed and transparent for all to make their own judgement, good, bad or indifferent. The members/sponsors may not be able to effect the Board's overall makeup in one vote but they sure decides the long term success of the club's financial results via a vote through their hip pocket.

My cloudy memory seems to recall the figure being changed from 100 to 1000.

I don't think we can have both membership buy-in through elections and AFL-mandated change.

Many posters on here wanted the AFL to step in and take over and we have the closest thing to that now - with a CEO parachited into a role the head of the AFL requested he take on.

For those posters who wanted that - you can't then argue for a Board elected by members - either you want to decide direction or you allow the AFL-mandated change we are seeing now.

To many, as you say, all that is wanted is a transparent and well-conveyed direction on how we get to where we want to get to. I hope that comes soon.

  On 13/06/2013 at 11:59, Carrot Top said:

We don't need Buddy (at least not at the price it would cost) we need mids. A graders. A pair of them.

I'm noncommittal on Jumping Jeff, but that comment isn't unreasonable. It's also selectively quoted.

I wasn't arguing we needed Buddy. Agree we need midfielders. And you are right, my quoting was a bit selective, must be becoming a journalist.

But I still say I'd have been more impressed with Kennett if he used the opportunity to say that if Buddy was what the MFC needed, then he'd leave no stone unturned to get him to the Demons.

I doubt we will get a vote on this, but I would sure feel a lot more comfortable if he came out and said: "No merger, No relocation. I will do what t takes to make them survive and prosper." Then perhaps we could start to consider him on equal terms with other candidates.

Get him we are not being swamped by alternatives

and IMO he is the best available by some way.

There all just lining up or running off.

Freeman isnt in best of health so i personally would someone who is actually fighting fit.

Whomever gets it will need to be resilient and energised.

  On 06/06/2013 at 06:37, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Does Jeff personally get on the phone and counsel people does he?

didn't mean to buy into this, but yes i can assure you that he does personally get involved with members of the public with depression issues and does follow up

he's not just a figure-head/mouth-piece as far as beyond blue goes

  On 15/06/2013 at 02:58, daisycutter said:

didn't mean to buy into this, but yes i can assure you that he does personally get involved with members of the public with depression issues and does follow up

he's not just a figure-head/mouth-piece as far as beyond blue goes

Does he still treat others without depression with arrogant contempt like he used to, don't want a President like that, and yes I do, so I can recognise it

  On 14/06/2013 at 02:30, belzebub59 said:

if it all goes according to RPFC formula then in many ways we have accomplished nothing.

membership will mean nothing also.

Too much happens behind closed doors with no transpency or membership orientated accountability.

its like a secret bloody society.

No it's not you are a member, you can ask any question you like, if you felt the need you could ask for the Board minutes

  On 15/06/2013 at 03:28, Satyriconhome said:

Does he still treat others without depression with arrogant contempt like he used to, don't want a President like that, and yes I do, so I can recognise it

didn't you read the first 6 words of my post?

It is blatantly obvious that many posters are opposed to Kennett because of his politics and are not prepared to open their eyes to what he might be able to achieve in a completely different role (such as 'Beyond Blue')! From personal experience, I worked for the Victorian Tourism Commission when Don Dunstan (ex Labor Premier of SA) was Chairman. Despite his being from another state and a blatant political appointment by the then Labor Government he was an inspired choice and showed massive vision in turning around a moribund organisation and lifting the profile of the State and its tourism potential. I can see what men of vision can do if they have the drive and the ability to achieve even when they are representing a perceived 'opposition' entity (Victoria vs South Australia) than that they represented so visually before!

Give Kennet a go I say, and if Greg Wells and/Alan Stockdale have anything to add to the Board recruit them too (but discuss it first with Kennett, Freeman and Jackson)!

  On 15/06/2013 at 05:26, CBDees said:

It is blatantly obvious that many posters are opposed to Kennett because of his politics and are not prepared to open their eyes to what he might be able to achieve in a completely different role (such as 'Beyond Blue')! From personal experience, I worked for the Victorian Tourism Commission when Don Dunstan (ex Labor Premier of SA) was Chairman. Despite his being from another state and a blatant political appointment by the then Labor Government he was an inspired choice and showed massive vision in turning around a moribund organisation and lifting the profile of the State and its tourism potential. I can see what men of vision can do if they have the drive and the ability to achieve even when they are representing a perceived 'opposition' entity (Victoria vs South Australia) than that they represented so visually before!

Give Kennet a go I say, and if Greg Wells and/Alan Stockdale have anything to add to the Board recruit them too (but discuss it first with Kennett, Freeman and Jackson)!

It is also pretty obvious that there are a number of people who support him because they support his politics.

As I've said, I don't give a damn about his politics if he is the right man for the MFC (it's footy, not the future of the society).

But I sure do worry about what will happen if he decides he can't fix Melbourne after a couple of years. His personality suggests he will conclude that the problem is unsolvable, not that he just didn't do things right. He would then revert to his earlier merge/relocate position. If we find someone who is not quite as good as some claim he will be, but who is a Demon through and through, this danger is averted.

To me the enthusiasm for Kennett sounds like the usual MFC supporter problem that many on this forum have complained of - seeking a short-term fix and faith in a Messiah.

Does anyone recall when GLyon was assembling his new footy department , Craig , Neeld , Mission ect, Jeff was the only one saying you can't walk in and think you can fix that in 3months, it takes time and it will never work, Gary thought he could get it right in the blink of an eye, after all Gary's about Gary, seems Jeff was on the money.

  On 15/06/2013 at 05:40, sue said:

It is also pretty obvious that there are a number of people who support him because they support his politics.

As I've said, I don't give a damn about his politics if he is the right man for the MFC (it's footy, not the future of the society).

But I sure do worry about what will happen if he decides he can't fix Melbourne after a couple of years. His personality suggests he will conclude that the problem is unsolvable, not that he just didn't do things right. He would then revert to his earlier merge/relocate position. If we find someone who is not quite as good as some claim he will be, but who is a Demon through and through, this danger is averted.

To me the enthusiasm for Kennett sounds like the usual MFC supporter problem that many on this forum have complained of - seeking a short-term fix and faith in a Messiah.

This is coming from someone that backed those fools all the way through the Tanking Investigation, gimme a break, Robbie F seems to have vanished these days to.

This has to be one of the best threads/debates on Demonland in my time of being a reader/poster.

I stand by my opinion that he Hawks would not have won a flag without Kennett as President, in the same I way Costa has been essential at Geelong. I am not against Jeff becoming President for a short period because of many things already mentioned, but as the days wear on, and especially after his comments today that seem to translate as "everyone get out of my I way - I WANT to be MFC President at any cost", it is becoming clearer and clearer that he divides the support base. Apart from his bullish style, and success mentality I think his divisiveness is exactly what we don't need. We can't take any more division, disunity, leaking to the media, Schwab v Connolly stuff, and we supporters need a unifying figure.

Someone posted earlier that we need an Eddie Maguire type: high profile, doesn't take any rubbish, is one-eyed and fights every fight until he is literally purple in the face. But I just can't see that candidate anywhere!! We see people suggesting Wells who seems reluctant, Freeman who is unwell, and Stockdale who is focused on politics at least until September. I don't get a sense of ego, passion, leadership from any of them but that might be a deliberate choice about not playing this out in front of the media. Surely we have someone who WANTS to be the President?????

But seriously, is there a Melbourne person who fits every criteria we currently need? As far as I can tell the answer so far is a resounding NO.

  On 15/06/2013 at 05:47, mjt said:

This is coming from someone that backed those fools all the way through the Tanking Investigation, gimme a break, Robbie F seems to have vanished these days to.

I'm not going to argue with you as to what position I took during the tanking, whether it was right, wrong or in between or varying. But to dismiss an argument just because the proponent in your view got something wrong in the past is pretty weak. You'd never apply it to yourself I presume.

Ian Dicker saved Hawthorn. Not Kennett. He is a self-aggrandising loud mouth who has no love for the MFC. He would be an incredibly divisive figure at Melbourne. We need that like a hole in the head.

Lets say he did become president on the backing of you members (I say you because I wouldn't vote for him) and advocated moving to Tassie or merging with GC. Both, positions he has advocated. Would you be happy with that? Hmm didn't think so.

He needs to f off and leave the MFC alone. We need someone with drive, proper credentials and who is passionate about he MFC.

  On 15/06/2013 at 02:43, belzebub59 said:

There all just lining up or running off.

Freeman isnt in best of health so i personally would someone who is actually fighting fit.

Whomever gets it will need to be resilient and energised.

I wouldn't believe everything you read about Freeman...

If I was about to take on a Big Job after overcoming a health issue, & the Organisation was in the midst of tidying up some dirty issues, & the removal of a heavy desk was still yet to take place, I would take my holidays in readiness for the long haul.

buying time would be important right Now, to allow the I's to be Dotted, & T's to be Crossed.

.... as long as Mr Freeman is right to go by the Semi Finals, I'll be Happy.

  On 15/06/2013 at 06:20, dee-luded said:

I wouldn't believe everything you read about Freeman...

If I was about to take on a Big Job after overcoming a health issue, & the Organisation was in the midst of tidying up some dirty issues, & the removal of a heavy desk was still yet to take place, I would take my holidays in readiness for the long haul.

buying time would be important right Now, to allow the I's to be Dotted, & T's to be Crossed.

.... as long as Mr Freeman is right to go by the Semi Finals, I'll be Happy.

how can you say all that dee-luded when you don't know Freeman from a bar a soap? sheesh

Article in the Age where Kennett says that" the AFL are our liquidators and they own the MFC".

He also says if he doesn't get in now as president he is not interested in getting in later.

He has also called on the AFL to throw out the elected Board and put him and his unnamed mates in now.

Whomever takes this on is going to have to do so for 4-5 years for mine. They need to see it from inception to the point of where its running well with visible results.

If they arent...dont do it.

Their constitution wants to be better than so-so for this job will sap much from them by the time those years are done

while I don't like kennet that much , im not totally against it

wtf ? , line thru is not meant to be there

  On 15/06/2013 at 06:24, daisycutter said:

how can you say all that dee-luded when you don't know Freeman from a bar a soap? sheesh

because if he was going to just join the board, he wouldn't need a break,,, or he wouldn't join at all...

just as if we went to the AFL to present our case, but I'm totally sure our Case would have already been discussed with some commissioners, prior to the formalities...

just as we would have already sounded out some prospective coaches & assistants, prior to now... you just don't jump first, then plan as you fall... prepare first.

PJ would have known how things would play out, well before he went thru the formalities... as would have DM.

& PJ was parachuted in DC.

sheepsh,,, 'n' rams...