On 14/06/2013 at 09:34, Kento80 said:

From the outside, it seemed as though Don was trying hard, but he really was on a hiding to nowhere unfortunately. I'm absolutely wrapt that these changes are happening, and truly feel that Peter Jackson is the man to steer this ship through the reef. Hope I'm not wrong, but time will tell. As for Kennett, well, I just don't know. He's definitely a proper goose, but at the same time his record speaks for itself. The whole thing of him bleeding gold and brown truly is a non-issue though. Most of our players weren't Dees fans as kids. His past attitude towards the club scares me a bit, and also the thought that maybe the Commission has something to do with all this as well, but that's a separate issue. It is the same as politics really. One party is proud of their record of putting females in cabinet positions, the other gets criticised for not having enough women in their cabinet. But at the end of the day, it is nothing to do with who you are (ie, female, male, ex Hawks prez etc) but everything to do with whether or not you are capable, experience, qualified, willing, keen, and able to take on what is a massive task.

  On 14/06/2013 at 09:34, Kento80 said:

From the outside, it seemed as though Don was trying hard, but he really was on a hiding to nowhere unfortunately. I'm absolutely wrapt that these changes are happening, and truly feel that Peter Jackson is the man to steer this ship through the reef. Hope I'm not wrong, but time will tell. As for Kennett, well, I just don't know. He's definitely a proper goose, but at the same time his record speaks for itself. The whole thing of him bleeding gold and brown truly is a non-issue though. Most of our players weren't Dees fans as kids. His past attitude towards the club scares me a bit, and also the thought that maybe the Commission has something to do with all this as well, but that's a separate issue. It is the same as politics really. One party is proud of their record of putting females in cabinet positions, the other gets criticised for not having enough women in their cabinet. But at the end of the day, it is nothing to do with who you are (ie, female, male, ex Hawks prez etc) but everything to do with whether or not you are capable, experience, qualified, willing, keen, and able to take on what is a massive task.

Be prepared for a completely new Board if that "[censored]" Kennett gets the job.. he has already stated "the whole Board should be sacked" and the "Club Culture needs changing" I do not like his previous statements he made about "My Club".. I don't want to see the "[censored]" at The MFC... WE can and should do better... As for McLardy... He was a tryer but NOT up to the top job and I did have some respect for him... Good luck Don for your future..

I just wonder about jeff motive is, I even wonder if neeld is a dubble agent sent to destroy our list by collingwood

,

I was at an amateurs game yesterday and met a Melbourne supporter who was laying into Mark Neeld and blaming him for every ill under the sun including the "disgraceful decision he made to sack Junior McDonald". Unfortunately, that is exactly what passes for debate among many here.

I wrote previously that in the main, the history of war is written by the winners and so today, those who opposed the current board are having their field day conflating fact with fiction and wringing their hands with glee about being right and for allegedly having made fools of people. But if you truly support the club, that's reminiscent of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned.

It's still a matter of opinion as to how good or bad the board has been overall. I think it's undeniable that it inherited a financially stricken club with a decaying player list brought about by years of poor coaching, woeful development and diabolical list management (it's simplistic to claim that anyone is blaming the recruiters alone but that's the nature of this discussion). It repaired the club's disasterous financial state to an extent but it was unable to get things right on the football side and for that we are currently in the crisis which has seen Cameron Schwab, Don McLardy and others fall. No doubt there's more to come.

Those who have gone have taken responsibility and now it's time to move on, or (as I quoted previously) in the words of the philosopher Life can Soren Kierkegaard:-

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."

I'm assuming people are interested in getting Melbourne out of its current crisis which is not the first we've had and is no more dire than it was when we were broke and the AFL claimed we stood for nothing. Time to move on.

  On 16/06/2013 at 12:11, Whispering_Jack said:

Time to move on.

Yes, if there is one thing I have learned over the last few years, it is that we must never admit error or learn from our mistakes.

Connolly for Prez!

It was all Gardner's fault!

  On 16/06/2013 at 12:25, Hazyshadeofgrinter said:

Yes, if there is one thing I have learned over the last few years, it is that we must never admit error or learn from our mistakes.

Connolly for Prez!

It was all Gardner's fault!

And one thing you haven't learned is to read people's posts before responding to them.

  On 16/06/2013 at 12:11, Whispering_Jack said:

those who opposed the current board are having their field day conflating fact with fiction and wringing their hands with glee about being right and for allegedly having made fools of people. But if you truly support the club, that's reminiscent of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned.

This is where you are completely wrong Jack. I don't think anyone here takes any pleasure about our situation and Redleg with his honest posting and love of the club has highlighted the anguish it has caused just about everyone who is a MFC supporter. There is not the slightest hint of joy or satisfaction in being right and in fact I would loved to have been wrong.

You could learn a lot from Redleg and leave behind your faceless men and innuendo and recognize you were wrong. Your philosophers quote is wrong in this instance. Some could see this event very clearly long ago, you and many others couldn't.

There is no joy in this, just a frustration that something that was reasonably clear was dismissed by so many.

Bob, let's just say that we beg to differ on many things and in particular, just about all I've said above.

I don't know why you brought up "the faceless men" issue. I didn't mention it in my post although I understand that it bothers a lot of people. Most in that category aren't "faceless" anyway - it's something you and others have coined and is quite a separate matter from the one that's at hand.

And if you're suggesting that Redleg's posting is honest and mine is not then you really do have comprehension issues.

  On 16/06/2013 at 12:33, Whispering_Jack said:

And one thing you haven't learned is to read people's posts before responding to them.

Not sure what you are objecting to. I agree with everything you say:

• The "cheap seats" supporters are idiots
• Anonymous people who have had serious concerns about their footy club are now over the moon that we are so stuffed that it is obvious to everyone
• But actually, the Mclardy era was very successful
• The football results over the last 6 years are actually someone else's responsibility/fault so it is probably unfair that Schwab and McLardy have been forced to leave
• Anyway, we should now just totally ignore the events of the last 6 years, even though they have been so successful
• Whilst we are an absolute laughing stock on and off the field to the extent that we have had to have an AFL appointed administrator come in and try to fix the mess, a mindless and meaningless one-liner from Andrew Demetriou several years ago demonstrates that we were totally worse off before anyway so congratulations everyone
• We need to get on with improving the club further (if that's even possible). I assumed you meant we should appoint Connolly as Chairman here on the basis of our strong recent record.

While I've got you WJ, where can I buy that kool-aid that you brought to the reeducation camp?

What's this Hazy? You and Bob taking up tag team wresting or something?

I'm relieved to know that you agree with everything I say. Your next lesson in reeducation camp is to take note of what TimD has to say about snide sarcasm. It's a pithy form of humour and you don't do it very well.

Never mind. Once the reeducation thing sinks in you'll find it easy to get the occasional laugh.

  On 16/06/2013 at 13:11, Whispering_Jack said:

What's this Hazy? You and Bob taking up tag team wresting or something?

I'm relieved to know that you agree with everything I say. Your next lesson in reeducation camp is to take note of what TimD has to say about snide sarcasm. It's a pithy form of humour and you don't do it very well.

Never mind. Once the reeducation thing sinks in you'll find it easy to get the occasional laugh.

Reeducation camp debate club rule #1:

When losing an argument or starting to feel embarrassed, ignore the subject at hand and instead attack your opponent directly.

Reeducation camp debate club rule #2:

Do not allow facts to constrain you - make your own truth! Sweeping, unsupported statements and communicating through vague generalities are key.

Reeducation camp debate club rule #3:

If someone disagrees with you, it is because they are too stupid to understand the truth you have made.

Reeducation camp debate club rule #6a:

Try to police the tone of your opponent, it is a great way to distract them from the argument, and it might even help you to get them banned!

Reeducation camp debate club rule #7:

Accuse your opponents of having an "agenda". This is another great diversionary tactic and so meaningless that it is impossible to disprove. If more than one opponent is arguing with you, imply that they share an agenda. Make sure to only hint at these accusations though, it gives you a sense of mystery.

Reeducation camp debate club rule #9:

Never, ever, admit that you were wrong.

  On 16/06/2013 at 12:11, Whispering_Jack said:

I wrote previously that in the main, the history of war is written by the winners and so today, those who opposed the current board are having their field day conflating fact with fiction and wringing their hands with glee about being right and for allegedly

  On 16/06/2013 at 12:11, Whispering_Jack said:

I was at an amateurs game yesterday and met a Melbourne supporter who was laying into Mark Neeld and blaming him for every ill under the sun including the "disgraceful decision he made to sack Junior McDonald". Unfortunately, that is exactly what passes for debate among many here.

I wrote previously that in the main, the history of war is written by the winners and so today, those who opposed the current board are having their field day conflating fact with fiction and wringing their hands with glee about being right and for allegedly having made fools of people. But if you truly support the club, that's reminiscent of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned.

It's still a matter of opinion as to how good or bad the board has been overall. I think it's undeniable that it inherited a financially stricken club with a decaying player list brought about by years of poor coaching, woeful development and diabolical list management (it's simplistic to claim that anyone is blaming the recruiters alone but that's the nature of this discussion). It repaired the club's disasterous financial state to an extent but it was unable to get things right on the football side and for that we are currently in the crisis which has seen Cameron Schwab, Don McLardy and others fall. No doubt there's more to come.

Those who have gone have taken responsibility and now it's time to move on, or (as I quoted previously) in the words of the philosopher Life can Soren Kierkegaard:-

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."

I'm assuming people are interested in getting Melbourne out of its current crisis which is not the first we've had and is no more dire than it was when we were broke and the AFL claimed we stood for nothing. Time to move on.

Pity Romans did not have flddles so its was not possible for Nero to play one. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The job of fixing the MFC is not over with Don's resignation so there nothing to celebrate at this time. However when the Club is in a position to be competative at AFL level then the recovery has really started..

People are justified to get upset with those who hold positions of authority/influence and have not been capable of performing their duties to the standard that had been expected.

However there is a time to move on from where the Club is now, But noone should forget what has been done to this once great Club as this will only lead to a repeat of this terrible tragedy.

Was this what the camp was like?

http://youtu.be/csas5rAa0J0

  On 16/06/2013 at 13:27, Hazyshadeofgrinter said:

Reeducation camp debate club rule #1:

When losing an argument or starting to feel embarrassed, ignore the subject at hand and instead attack your opponent directly.

Reeducation camp debate club rule #2:

Do not allow facts to constrain you - make your own truth! Sweeping, unsupported statements and communicating through vague generalities are key.

Reeducation camp debate club rule #3:

If someone disagrees with you, it is because they are too stupid to understand the truth you have made.

Reeducation camp debate club rule #6a:

Try to police the tone of your opponent, it is a great way to distract them from the argument, and it might even help you to get them banned!

Reeducation camp debate club rule #7:

Accuse your opponents of having an "agenda". This is another great diversionary tactic and so meaningless that it is impossible to disprove. If more than one opponent is arguing with you, imply that they share an agenda. Make sure to only hint at these accusations though, it gives you a sense of mystery.

Reeducation camp debate club rule #9:

Never, ever, admit that you were wrong.

Absolutely sums up your debating style and in the words of TimD, "I'll not debate this further. I disagree with you." and in the words of Bob "water under the bridge."

But you blokes are never wrong, the divisive culture that pervades our club appeared suddenly out of the blue when the Gardner board left office and we were premiership contenders when Neeld was appointed coach. Your kool aid appears to be stronger than mine.

  On 16/06/2013 at 13:35, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Was this what the camp was like?

Spot on.

  On 16/06/2013 at 12:11, Whispering_Jack said:

I was at an amateurs game yesterday and met a Melbourne supporter who was laying into Mark Neeld and blaming him for every ill under the sun including the "disgraceful decision he made to sack Junior McDonald". Unfortunately, that is exactly what passes for debate among many here.

I wrote previously that in the main, the history of war is written by the winners and so today, those who opposed the current board are having their field day conflating fact with fiction and wringing their hands with glee about being right and for allegedly having made fools of people. But if you truly support the club, that's reminiscent of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned.

It's still a matter of opinion as to how good or bad the board has been overall. I think it's undeniable that it inherited a financially stricken club with a decaying player list brought about by years of poor coaching, woeful development and diabolical list management (it's simplistic to claim that anyone is blaming the recruiters alone but that's the nature of this discussion). It repaired the club's disasterous financial state to an extent but it was unable to get things right on the football side and for that we are currently in the crisis which has seen Cameron Schwab, Don McLardy and others fall. No doubt there's more to come.

Those who have gone have taken responsibility and now it's time to move on, or (as I quoted previously) in the words of the philosopher Life can Soren Kierkegaard:-

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."

I'm assuming people are interested in getting Melbourne out of its current crisis which is not the first we've had and is no more dire than it was when we were broke and the AFL claimed we stood for nothing. Time to move on.

(I struggle with the quoting here so take this by para)

1/ Link for how that exactly passes as debate around here please. One fool does not make a debate, and this place should take pride in the standard of the knowledge of the average poster, rather than run them down for not always agreeing, and not always agreeing in good humour.

2/ I told you so's is a pretty common human trait. I would fully expect the other side of the debate to have done the same thing had events taken a different turn. I myself am just a poor, ignorant schmuck that had no inside knowledge, and therefore no 'I told you sos' but I'm bloody happy that CS and DM no longer steer the SS Titanic. No apologies for that.

3/ agree. This mess has been 15 years in the making. That doesn't mean the current crew should be able to pass the buck.

4 (and the rest) / I don't think we've understood it backwards at all. I also don't think that where we were in 2007 is anything like it is now. Then we were broke and needing a couple of years to get back on out feet. It's why it was so easy for the Jimmy board to sell us hope. Now... now... I really don't know. I've had that much faith kicked out of me that all I hope for now is for the nightmare to end, and for the laughter to stop. I don't care about flags because that'd be like caring about unicorns. I care about not being ashamed of my club. We're in a much, much worse position than we were 2007/008/009.

  On 16/06/2013 at 13:43, Whispering_Jack said:

Absolutely sums you up and in the words of TimD, "I'll not debate this further. I disagree with you." and in the words of Bob "water under the bridge."

But you blokes are never wrong, the divisive culture that pervades our club appeared suddenly out of the blue when the Gardner board left office and we were premiership contenders when Neeld was appointed coach. Your kool aid appears to be stronger than mine.

Actually Jack, I am frequently wrong - but I wasn't wrong about McLardy, was I?

Oh, wait, yes I was, McLardy is the leader, It was Gardner's fault, everything was worse under Gardner, who cares how long ago it was, the club is united, united under the leader, McLardy is the leader, one of us, one of us....

  On 16/06/2013 at 13:11, Whispering_Jack said:

What's this Hazy? You and Bob taking up tag team wresting or something?

I rarely post here but this takes the cake. Feeling ganged up on are you Jack?

I've followed the posts of these blokes and one or two others like America de Cali for 5 years now as they have calmly, rationally and civilly pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. They have been proven right.

Along the way literally hundreds of cheerleaders including you have derided them, accused them of being negative wreckers with agendas etc etc.

Their views are now the prevailing orthodoxy and it's you that's feeling hard done by! Puuurrrlease!

  On 16/06/2013 at 14:02, Alotta said:

I rarely post here but this takes the cake. Feeling ganged up on are you Jack?

I've followed the posts of these blokes and one or two others like America de Cali for 5 years now as they have calmly, rationally and civilly pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. They have been proven right.

Along the way literally hundreds of cheerleaders including you have derided them, accused them of being negative wreckers with agendas etc etc.

Their views are now the prevailing orthodoxy and it's you that's feeling hard done by! Puuurrrlease!

Alotta,you and others have had agendas. Yours and their views are not "prevailing orthodoxy" as you so conveniently label. So puuurrrlease.

Good on ya Hazy, get it all out of your system.

  On 16/06/2013 at 15:07, longsuffering said:

Alotta,you and others have had agendas. Yours and their views are not "prevailing orthodoxy" as you so conveniently label. So puuurrrlease.

The 'prevailing orthodoxy' seems to shift with the sands.

We all have agendas - it's just that some won't admit to having them.

Opinions and agendas are like [censored].

  On 16/06/2013 at 14:02, Alotta said:

I rarely post here but this takes the cake. Feeling ganged up on are you Jack?

I've followed the posts of these blokes and one or two others like America de Cali for 5 years now as they have calmly, rationally and civilly pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. They have been proven right.

Along the way literally hundreds of cheerleaders including you have derided them, accused them of being negative wreckers with agendas etc etc.

Their views are now the prevailing orthodoxy and it's you that's feeling hard done by! Puuurrrlease!

You've missed my point entirely.

For some, it was all about petty, partisan football club politics from day one. One group gets marched out of office, some with their friends choose to oppose the incumbents with every breath and five years down the track when the new lot falter, "we waz right"; "we told you so", never mind that they were no more than half right at best.

The trouble is that this has been going on for decades at the MFC and we really need to rise above that sort of thing.

And no, I'm not "feeling hard done by" over the politics and I never said so. If you actually read what I said, its that it's counterproductive to the club's cause to waste time engaging in that debate at this point in time.

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."

There will be a much better time to judge what went on from a historical point of view and that's in the future when the emotion's been spent.

Peter Jackson has the reins now. He recently made it clear that, while he found areas where the club was not functioning properly, contrary to those who hold to your brand of "prevailing orthodoxy", the club is not a basket case.

Whilst I'm not putting blind faith into this one person, it's him and not the doomsayers and those who want to engage in witch hunts, who's charged with running the place and getting it to move forward.

We should be thankful for that.

  On 16/06/2013 at 21:02, Whispering_Jack said:

You've missed my point entirely.

For some, it was all about petty, partisan football club politics from day one. One group gets marched out of office, some with their friends choose to oppose the incumbents with every breath and five years down the track when the new lot falter, "we waz right"; "we told you so", never mind that they were no more than half right at best.

The trouble is that this has been going on for decades at the MFC and we really need to rise above that sort of thing.

And no, I'm not "feeling hard done by" over the politics and I never said so. If you actually read what I said, its that it's counterproductive to the club's cause to waste time engaging in that debate at this point in time.

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."

There will be a much better time to judge what went on from a historical point of view and that's in the future when the emotion's been spent.

Peter Jackson has the reins now. He recently made it clear that, while he found areas where the club was not functioning properly, contrary to those who hold to your brand of "prevailing orthodoxy", the club is not a basket case.

Whilst I'm not putting blind faith into this one person, it's him and not the doomsayers and those who want to engage in witch hunts, who's charged with running the place and getting it to move forward.

We should be thankful for that.

Totally agree with you WJ, the truth is unfair and anyone who speaks it has an agenda.

Although the Board has had the reins for several years and the Chairman has been removed, it is still way too early to make negative judgements about their performance. However, positive judgments are welcome and should be encouraged to continue.

The club has never been stronger, which is why Jackson and the AFL have obviously decided that we don't need McLardy anymore and rewarded him with a holiday.

It is despicable how people come on here and criticise administrations past and present - and anyway, everything is Gardner's fault.

  On 16/06/2013 at 21:21, Hazyshadeofgrinter said:

Totally agree with you WJ, the truth is unfair and anyone who speaks it has an agenda.

The club has never been stronger, which is why Jackson and the AFL have obviously decided that we don't need McLardy anymore and rewarded him with a holiday.

It is despicable how people come on here and criticise administrations past and present - and anyway, everything is Gardner's fault.

Reading your posts suggests you have an obsession with Gardner.

Are you able to point to one post on the site where anyone (other than yourself) has claimed that everything is Gardner's fault?

You sound familiar too. Ever been to an Atheneum Club Melbourne supporters lunch?

  On 16/06/2013 at 21:44, Whispering_Jack said:

Reading your posts suggests you have an obsession with Gardner.

Are you able to point to one post on the site where anyone (other than yourself) has claimed that everything is Gardner's fault?

You sound familiar too. Ever been to an Atheneum Club Melbourne supporters lunch?

But Jack, if everything isn't Gardner's fault then whose fault is it? Seems I might have to go back to canp for reprogramming.

By the way, is it true that you are working on the ALP's 2013 election campaign?

"You voters are all idiots. We haven't been in power long enough for you to judge us. The government has never been more united. Anyway, it's all John Howard's fault."

I reckon that's a winner mate.

  On 15/06/2013 at 10:14, rpfc said:

Well, Redleg stole my thunder a tad with the finances and assets but I have a thing or two to say about the list: bad list management is not felt at the time of the mistake, it is felt much later.

The 1999-2000 loss of picks means we felt that from 2005 until around now - those two drafts happened to be when Geelong got all those stars we now look at with awe. We lost Pick 5 in '99 and Picks 32 and 47 in '00 (Scott Thompson was taken in the '00 draft).

2001 saw Molan, Armstrong, and Rodgers taken with Picks 9, 25, and 26.

2002 saw Bell and Smith taken with Picks 14 an 15. After Rivers was taken, Pick 39 was spent on Gary Moorcroft.

In 2003 we had McLean and Sylvia with Picks 3 and 5 and I would consider them successful. Our dearth of senior players is also affected by the decision by Bailey to trade McLean at the end of 2009.

2004 saw Bate, Dunn, and Newton taken with 13, 15, and 43.

To juxtapose disaster with deliverance - Nathan Jones in 2005 was taken at Pick 12. Frawley and Garland came the following year at 12 and 46 respectively.

2007 saw Morton and Maric taken with Picks 4 and 21. Grimes a shining light amongst the din at Pick 14.

2008 saw Watts, Blease, Strauss and Bennell taken with Picks 1, 17, 19, and 35. The futures on the three that are left are far from certain. McKenzie arrived in the Rookie Draft this year.

I will leave it there, as the futures of Trengove, Tapscott, and Gawn in 2009 are far from certain. Sadly, Pick 1 and Pick 11 have moved on.

The decision to get Ben Holland with Pick 21 (2003), Paul Johnson with Pick 29 (2004), Pickett with Pick 28 and 44 (2005), and Meesen with Pick 38 (2007) further diminished our ability to get talented players.

This is why our list is where it is. This is why we don't have any decent senior players and few talented players in the prime ages for a player 23-30.

We wasted, our traded out, the following picks from 2001 to 2007 which would be the make-up of our players 23-30: 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 15, 21, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 39, 43, and 44.

That is 15 players 23 to 30 years of age we should have if not for our awful recruitment and poor trading.

That is why we have an awful list.

Oddly enough, before this Board...

Bloody hell. It's enough to make you want to neck yourself.

Top post, by the way.