On 15/06/2013 at 07:19, London Calling said:

The AFL have virtually stepped in to run our club, that is the equivalent of the recievers coming into a failed business. It represents a failure of the highest order, and the responsibility for the rests with the Board and in particular the Chairman. That the oldest club in the competition, the club which virtually began the game itself, is named after our capital city and plays at the greatest venue in the land, has been reduced to this, is staggering.

I don't understand any apologists for the Board or Don McLardy, where's the anger, the fire? We are the shareholders of this business and it has been driven into the ground by those who took on the responsibility of running it. If Melbourne footy club were a business and we had all done our dough, I'm certain nobody would be excusing the Chairman's performance because he came in at a tough time or that he didn't really want the job or that he had the best of intentions. If he didn't want the job or was not up to it, he should never have taken it on.

I understand that these are voluntary positions but there is great kudos associated with a Board position on an AFL Club, and especially that of Chairman. The profile certainly wouldn't do your other interests any harm. The point is mute anyway - a individuals level of responsibility is not reduced when they don't take compensation.

I've often heard our Board called "well credentialed" and it is and has always been. Maybe we have had too many credentials and not enough time and enthusiasm? A case in point is the Stuart Grimshaw. As CEO of the Bank of Qld he is no doubt a clever guy with a great understanding of how an organisation should be run. I note that he is also President of Hockey Australia. He is now leaving because he has too much on, is that an admission that he always had too much on to give the MFC the time it deserved?

It worries me no end that now everyone is talking of Geoff Freeman becoming Chairman but he isn't sure if he wants the job or is in the right state of health to take it on. If he is not absolutely certain he wants or is physically up to the job, then we should draw the line through his name right away. I bet Collingwood wouldn't have to convince someone to take on their Presidency.

I write this because we deserve better. We deserve representation from quality people who want the job. People who have a fire in their belly and the time to give the task what it requires. At the very least we deserve and should demand a Board spill and an election. This club belongs to it supporters and we deserve a say in how it is run.

Good post, I think your point re Freeman is a valid one, but you could also view it as him appreciating the size of the task, and therefore giving it the consideration it deserves.

  On 14/06/2013 at 14:49, Bonkers said:

I'll name a few achievements:

-30 year Casey agreement

-re-alignment with the mcc

-new training facilities

-higher investment into the FD

-improving the books with a $6 million dollar asset

Those are a few off the top of my head. The real failures in hindsight were to allow Schwab to continue after 186 which has led to the current poor FD & on field performance. The club needs to be in the business of being the best at winning on field & sadly the board has made poor decisions in this regard or simply don't have the knowledge to make them.

So does anybody really know the truth behind Schwab cotinuing after 186

I wish someone around the club would just tell the truth good or bad was it nepotism? Was it something else?

  On 16/06/2013 at 00:55, Baghdad Bob said:

I just love the way people like to look for the one dimensional answer. It's the recruiters now who led to a flawed playing list. While it's clear we made some very poor decisions it's so much more than that.

I don't think that this can be considered anything other than fact; the recruiters, and the philosophy imbued from those above (ie. coach) is the reason the list is where it is.

Picks 4 (Morton), 9 (Molan), 13 (Bate), 14 (Bell), 15 (Smith), 15 (Dunn), 21 (Holland), 21 (Maric), 25 (Armstrong), 26 (Rodgers), 28 (Pickett), 29 (P.Johnson), 39 (Moorcroft), 43 (Newton), and 44 (Pickett). From 2001 to 2007 wasted.

And then I can say that Scully (Pick 1), McLean (Pick 5), and Gysberts (Pick 11) are also failed picks for the MFC with the Scully compensation clouding that to a massive degree, but as overpaid as he is he would be more value to us right now than his compensation. Hogan will alter that view next year.

Going back to 1999 and 2000 we can add Pick 5, Pick 32, 47 and the loss of Scott Thompson (Pick 16).

And I do not do it to blame a Board in the past - I have already said that blame is so shared across The Demon-verse as to make it pointless to apportion it. Which is why I object to this Board being blamed for the list we currently have.

All I am saying is that our list is terrible because we haven't had our 32 year old Pick 5, our 31 year old Scott Thompson, our 30 year old Pick 9, our 29 year old Picks 14 and 15, our 28 year old Pick 5 Brock McLean and Pick 21, our 27 year old Pick 13 and Pick 29 (Pick 15 being Dunn), our 24 year old Pick 4 and Pick 21, and our 22 year old Pick 1 and Pick 11. Don't make half these mistakes or have half this ill-fate and we could have:

Scott Thompson, Nick Dal Santo, Jed Adcock, Nathan Van Berlo, Patrick Dangerfield, and Cyril Rioli.

This kind of Sliding Doors scenario is inherently unfair but I only chose half of those above.

The facts do not allow one to pin the blame for our list on this albeit failure of a Board.

  On 16/06/2013 at 02:48, rpfc said:

The facts do not allow one to pin the blame for our list on this albeit failure of a Board.

Board says to Bailey > develop a list that suits your game plan.

Board sacks Bailey.

Board selects coach who has a completely different philosophy and gameplan.

Players selected under Bailey philosophy struggle.

Team performance is worst in AFL history.

I'm not "pinning" it on the Board. I'm saying they are a significant part of the reason we are where we are. Firstly they selected a coach who appears not to be able to coach. Secondly they appointed a coach who needed to trash much of what was done over 4 years to suit his man on man contested/stoppage football.

Well, perhaps I am pinning it on the Board.

I said long ago that they didn't understand the concept of governance and they wanted to get involved in operations. There were two Board members and the CEO on the coaching selection panel along with a media commentator. They had significant say about the coach because they thought they understood footy. They didn't and they got it wrong. The coach is ultimately responsible and they selected the coach.

But strangely this is not to trash the Board, they've done that themselves, I'm defending the players. IMO they are so much better than they are showing at the moment. If a new coach can harness their skills, rebuild their confidence and institutes a game plan they can implement will could improve quickly.

Welcome back Hazy, did the faceless men get you? I must say I find it astounding that you were banned but those involved in the now closed "McLardy is out of touch" thread still enlighten us with their wisdom.

Nothing happened in your absence. CEO gone, President gone, begging deposition to AFL for money to pay out contracts and help restructure dysfunctional administration and football department, club in projected debt situation, Kennet for Pres push is on, MFC Board instigate Board enquiry regarding Board non performance to be carried out by Board member (yes, it's true), on field performance at an all time low, and McLardy Board take responsibility for everything but vast majority still remain - but nothing of significance. The good news is it's all the recruiters fault so we're ok.

Are you standing for a vacant Board position?

  On 16/06/2013 at 03:21, Baghdad Bob said:

Board says to Bailey > develop a list that suits your game plan.

Board sacks Bailey.

Board selects coach who has a completely different philosophy and gameplan.

Players selected under Bailey philosophy struggle.

Team performance is worst in AFL history.

I'm not "pinning" it on the Board. I'm saying they are a significant part of the reason we are where we are. Firstly they selected a coach who appears not to be able to coach. Secondly they appointed a coach who needed to trash much of what was done over 4 years to suit his man on man contested/stoppage football.

Well, perhaps I am pinning it on the Board.

I said long ago that they didn't understand the concept of governance and they wanted to get involved in operations. There were two Board members and the CEO on the coaching selection panel along with a media commentator. They had significant say about the coach because they thought they understood footy. They didn't and they got it wrong. The coach is ultimately responsible and they selected the coach.

But strangely this is not to trash the Board, they've done that themselves, I'm defending the players. IMO they are so much better than they are showing at the moment. If a new coach can harness their skills, rebuild their confidence and institutes a game plan they can implement will could improve quickly.

If your argument is gamestyle then don't try to create a Strawman argument that doesn't wash.

The list has not been ruined by this Board and Neeld, nor by the change of agendas from whatever-style-of-player Bailey wanted to whatever-style-of-player Neeld wanted. Don't know why it would matter. The Bailey Recruits failures are noted and many have moved on.

So attack the gamestyle all you want (keep in mind that the MFC 2013 side plays on from marks the most in the comp) and don't try to sell this List rubbish.

That is on all of us, and can't be wished away onto a vanquished foe. But I will leave you and hazy to revel in our misfortune.

How can this current board remain into next week??

We are at Rock Bottom, Ground Zero. As an MFC/MCC member i want them out. Quickly.

There philosophies have been an abject failure in every way.

The results are totally visible. There are none.

RPFC of course the board are ULTIMATELY responsible for the playing list.

They oversee the entire club. That is why they exist.

  On 16/06/2013 at 03:21, Baghdad Bob said:

Nothing happened in your absence. CEO gone, President gone, begging deposition to AFL for money to pay out contracts and help restructure dysfunctional administration and football department, club in projected debt situation, Kennet for Pres push is on, MFC Board instigate Board enquiry regarding Board non performance to be carried out by Board member (yes, it's true), on field performance at an all time low, and McLardy Board take responsibility for everything but vast majority still remain - but nothing of significance. The good news is it's all the recruiters fault so we're ok.

Nah, it can't just be the recruiter. Only a conspiracy between Prendergast, Caro, Gardner and Demonland posters with "agendas" could explain our current state of affairs.

At least we still have Connolly.

  On 16/06/2013 at 00:55, Baghdad Bob said:

I just love the way people like to look for the one dimensional answer. It's the recruiters now who led to a flawed playing list. While it's clear we made some very poor decisions it's so much more than that.

This footy club employed Bailey (initially by Gardner and extended by Stynes/McLardy) who had a football philosophy of playing fast, open, Geelong like footy. He was told to back youth, build from the ground up. develop and plan a side based around his football philosophy. With one of the youngest lists in the AFL he was sacked whilst having won 7.5 games in 17 games and having a chance at a crack at the 8 with some very winnable games in the remaining 5. He did this whilst the Board and CEO oversaw drench warfare within the club and within the football department. He showed that the core group of young players had talent.

However on the back of the Geelong loss we ditched 4 years of coaching philosophy and drafting in favour of Garry's conversation with Mick and Mick's choice of our new coach. Surprise Surprise it's one of Mick's assistants who has a football philosophy of man on man, slow ball movement, around the boundary stoppage footy. The philosophy is completely different to the direction the club had, under it's Board, CEO and Coach, been developing for 4 years. It's no surprise that we've gone backwards but what is a surprise is that we've gone backwards so far.

Neeld is explaining our situation along the lines of experience and age but really it's because this club blinked and then whilst changing coach didn't do its homework without one person on the coaching selection sub committee who had coached a game of AFL footy. Not one. It just beggars belief.

My point. I don't think it's possible to judge the players under this coach. He's clearly asking them to play a gameplan they are ill equipped to play and he has drained the confidence and spirit from them. The list needs to be evaluated by the incoming coach before any judgements are made. For all the players are copping it at the moment there are many players there who would have been taken early by other clubs and would, in all likelihood, be much more successful in a different environment. We need to give them that chance.

Oh, and Redleg, Prendergast was initially employed by Harris and then had his contract extended by Schwab (as was Bailey and Connolly).

Unfortunately you are pretty much on the money here...the club jumped at all the criticism in the football media about not having a defensive game plan when Collingwood were flavour of the month. A lot of this was led by GL from his position on Footy Classified and of course when they got rid of Bailey he was the man to look for the new coach. Well of course they turned down highly qualified coaches like Eade because he didn't play defensive footy...well how dumb a decision was that, Eade is a coach that coaches to a teams strengths.

I was so angry at the time the sub committee was named to select the new coach, not only was there no one with coaching experience but there was no one with premiership experience and a discredited CEO was also sitting in judgement. It was a recipe for disaster.

I think our list is much better than it is displaying at the moment and look forward to a time they can get out and play footy.

  On 15/06/2013 at 05:01, Redleg said:

Looks like I used a little too much sarcasm.

Responding to sarcasm with sarcasm is snide at best.

I'll not debate this further. I disagree with you - your figures and logic. But what does it matter? This whole topic makes me miserable. My two older boys (6 and 3) run around singing the Dee's club song and I feel sorry for them.

I've learnt the hard way that it matters who runs the joint. For my part, I'll be asking a hell of a lot more questions about our board, ceo etc from now on.

I'll not be duped by populist politics again.

  On 16/06/2013 at 04:55, rjay said:

I think our list is much better than it is displaying at the moment ...

Therein lies the Demonland problem. We're about the same as GWS, without the upside.

  On 16/06/2013 at 00:55, Baghdad Bob said:

I just love the way people like to look for the one dimensional answer. It's the recruiters now who led to a flawed playing list. While it's clear we made some very poor decisions it's so much more than that.

This footy club employed Bailey (initially by Gardner and extended by Stynes/McLardy) who had a football philosophy of playing fast, open, Geelong like footy. He was told to back youth, build from the ground up. develop and plan a side based around his football philosophy. With one of the youngest lists in the AFL he was sacked whilst having won 7.5 games in 17 games and having a chance at a crack at the 8 with some very winnable games in the remaining 5. He did this whilst the Board and CEO oversaw drench warfare within the club and within the football department. He showed that the core group of young players had talent.

However on the back of the Geelong loss we ditched 4 years of coaching philosophy and drafting in favour of Garry's conversation with Mick and Mick's choice of our new coach. Surprise Surprise it's one of Mick's assistants who has a football philosophy of man on man, slow ball movement, around the boundary stoppage footy. The philosophy is completely different to the direction the club had, under it's Board, CEO and Coach, been developing for 4 years. It's no surprise that we've gone backwards but what is a surprise is that we've gone backwards so far.

Neeld is explaining our situation along the lines of experience and age but really it's because this club blinked and then whilst changing coach didn't do its homework without one person on the coaching selection sub committee who had coached a game of AFL footy. Not one. It just beggars belief.

My point. I don't think it's possible to judge the players under this coach. He's clearly asking them to play a gameplan they are ill equipped to play and he has drained the confidence and spirit from them. The list needs to be evaluated by the incoming coach before any judgements are made. For all the players are copping it at the moment there are many players there who would have been taken early by other clubs and would, in all likelihood, be much more successful in a different environment. We need to give them that chance.

Oh, and Redleg, Prendergast was initially employed by Harris and then had his contract extended by Schwab (as was Bailey and Connolly).

In one post you criticise some for looking for a 'one dimensional answer', but then proceed to blame our plight almost entirely on the Board.

Our disastrous situation is a combination of many things, the Board being one. Bailey, Neeld, Schwab, the players, development, fitness, tanking and some things out of our control (e.g. Stynes, Jurrah) are all a part of the problem.

There is no simple answer, there is no 'here's the problem'. It's not the Board's fault, it's the Board et al.'s fault.

  On 16/06/2013 at 04:17, Hazyshadeofgrinter said:

At least we still have Connolly.

NO!

He has a contract instigated by Schwab but rumour has it he's gone as well. Although I think that was Caro and we all know how far off the mark she's been.

As I say, nothings happened.

  On 16/06/2013 at 06:48, titan_uranus said:

In one post you criticise some for looking for a 'one dimensional answer', but then proceed to blame our plight almost entirely on the Board.

Our disastrous situation is a combination of many things, the Board being one. Bailey, Neeld, Schwab, the players, development, fitness, tanking and some things out of our control (e.g. Stynes, Jurrah) are all a part of the problem.

There is no simple answer, there is no 'here's the problem'. It's not the Board's fault, it's the Board et al.'s fault.

Titan the complexity is in the Boards inability to follow through with a consistent plan, understand the ramifications of changing it and then just blaming the players.

It's starts with the Board and flows all the way through the coach to the players. It's not just the recruiters and some simple thinkers think.

  On 16/06/2013 at 03:34, why you little said:

RPFC of course the board are ULTIMATELY responsible for the playing list.

They oversee the entire club. That is why they exist.

The list they inherited had major holes in it:

Buckley, Batram, Holland, Bate, Miller, Neitz, Morton, P.Johnson, Yze, Petterd, C.Johnson, Green, Maric, Bell, Robertson, Rivers, Weetra, Newton, Newton, Wheatley, Bruce, Martin, White, Warnock, Carroll, Bode, and Whelan were on the list inherited by this Board.

That is 27 players that were at or near the end or not good enough.

27!

The rot in our list was well and truly set by then, as I explain above.

  On 16/06/2013 at 05:13, timD said:

Responding to sarcasm with sarcasm is snide at best.

I'll not debate this further. I disagree with you - your figures and logic. But what does it matter? This whole topic makes me miserable. My two older boys (6 and 3) run around singing the Dee's club song and I feel sorry for them.

I've learnt the hard way that it matters who runs the joint. For my part, I'll be asking a hell of a lot more questions about our board, ceo etc from now on.

I'll not be duped by populist politics again.

I apologise for my" sarcastic" comment if it upset you. It was meant to be a joke.

  On 16/06/2013 at 05:13, timD said:

Responding to sarcasm with sarcasm is snide at best.

.

Went back to reread my post. Actually the response was not sarcastic, was not intended to be sarcastic, but was as said in my apology a joke. You have wrongly inferred that and then called me snide.

Nevertheless my apology stands.

  On 16/06/2013 at 06:57, rpfc said:

The list they inherited had major holes in it:

Buckley, Batram, Holland, Bate, Miller, Neitz, Morton, P.Johnson, Yze, Petterd, C.Johnson, Green, Maric, Bell, Robertson, Rivers, Weetra, Newton, Newton, Wheatley, Bruce, Martin, White, Warnock, Carroll, Bode, and Whelan were on the list inherited by this Board.

That is 27 players that were at or near the end or not good enough.

27!

The rot in our list was well and truly set by then, as I explain above.

At the moment your headed down Robbie F path, please continue.

  On 16/06/2013 at 06:50, Baghdad Bob said:

Titan the complexity is in the Boards inability to follow through with a consistent plan, understand the ramifications of changing it and then just blaming the players.

It's starts with the Board and flows all the way through the coach to the players. It's not just the recruiters and some simple thinkers think.

It's not their ability to continue with a plan or strategy which is the issue, its the people they backed and chose.

Also please show me when the board has blamed the players... seriously please show me.

How we got here is due to:

• Poor recruiting and an inability to capitalise on extra draft pick concessions
• Adverse culture
• Unfit/VFL standard players
• Poor list management resulting in a very weak midfield
• Poor appointments made by the board
• Failure of key staff from their end to perform such as DB, CS, and as some people will include MN.

We got here because of all these issues and the only way we will get out is through fixing each one - which is clearly underway.

  On 16/06/2013 at 07:58, PJ_12345 said:

It's not their ability to continue with a plan or strategy which is the issue, its the people they backed and chose.

Also please show me when the board has blamed the players... seriously please show me.

How we got here is due to:

• Poor recruiting and an inability to capitalise on extra draft pick concessions
• Adverse culture
• Unfit/VFL standard players
• Poor list management resulting in a very weak midfield
• Poor appointments made by the board
• Failure of key staff from their end to perform such as DB, CS, and as some people will include MN.

We got here because of all these issues and the only way we will get out is through fixing each one - which is clearly underway.

Clearly these arel the issues that BB has discussed in the last 8months, everyone shouted down hazy and BB, but clearly they made fools out of everyone, that includes Whispering Jack.

  On 16/06/2013 at 06:50, Baghdad Bob said:

Titan the complexity is in the Boards inability to follow through with a consistent plan, understand the ramifications of changing it and then just blaming the players.

It's starts with the Board and flows all the way through the coach to the players. It's not just the recruiters and some simple thinkers think.

When did the Board blame the players?

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding our Board being a contributing factor to our demise. They haven't done a good job, and their poor decisions have hurt us. And I'm certainly not disagreeing with you about recruiting.

  On 16/06/2013 at 07:37, mjt said:

At the moment your headed down Robbie F path, please continue.

I have no idea to what you are referring but I will take it as progress considering you usually rudely tell me, as you so eloquently put it, to FO...

  On 16/06/2013 at 06:57, rpfc said:

The list they inherited had major holes in it:

Buckley, Batram, Holland, Bate, Miller, Neitz, Morton, P.Johnson, Yze, Petterd, C.Johnson, Green, Maric, Bell, Robertson, Rivers, Weetra, Newton, Newton, Wheatley, Bruce, Martin, White, Warnock, Carroll, Bode, and Whelan were on the list inherited by this Board.

That is 27 players that were at or near the end or not good enough.

27!

The rot in our list was well and truly set by then, as I explain above.

I just cannot get over how poor our list was, on reflection, in 2008.

Poor decisions and recruiting and the desire to chase a flag that is not 'around the corner' can do terrible things to a list.

  On 16/06/2013 at 08:43, rpfc said:

I just cannot get over how poor our list was, on reflection, in 2008.

Poor decisions and recruiting and the desire to chase a flag that is not 'around the corner' can do terrible things to a list.

which is ultimately the fault of the board of the day.

  On 16/06/2013 at 08:43, rpfc said:

I just cannot get over how poor our list was, on reflection, in 2008.

Poor decisions and recruiting and the desire to chase a flag that is not 'around the corner' can do terrible things to a list.

Once again your headed down Robbie F path, at least he had the mettle to admit he backed the wrong horse, keep posting your dribble, it's a pleasure to watch you make a Donkey of yourself .