It is a very touchy subject. Jim Stynes had leadership written all over him - he could inspire, motivate and bring people into his vision to make it happen. But he surrounded himself with red and blue devotees rather than capable managers and do-ers. Cam Schwab is a classic example.

It is a very touchy subject. Jim Stynes had leadership written all over him - he could inspire, motivate and bring people into his vision to make it happen. But he surrounded himself with red and blue devotees rather than capable managers and do-ers. Cam Schwab is a classic example.

was a bit like circling the wagons and digging in.. The indians still whipped out butts though.

Possibly a problem at the time was who else was there to join the frey ?

At the time everyone was happy red and blue people were being brought into the fold. It was the big "getting the club back together" party that we thought would move us forward.

whatever we do this time needs to be done right. But we said that lady time and the time before and both times we were happy with the first 12 months of the new way of doing things until we realised it was falling apart just the same.

I have no idea how we make sure we don't make the same mistakes again bit we need to.

It is a very touchy subject. Jim Stynes had leadership written all over him - he could inspire, motivate and bring people into his vision to make it happen. But he surrounded himself with red and blue devotees rather than capable managers and do-ers. Cam Schwab is a classic example.

As far as I know, there were very capable people asked to join the board, but they shied away from the role, partly because they didn't feel like they could trust some of those already in place.

From the horses mouth.

It is a very touchy subject. Jim Stynes had leadership written all over him - he could inspire, motivate and bring people into his vision to make it happen. But he surrounded himself with red and blue devotees rather than capable managers and do-ers. Cam Schwab is a classic example.

It was clear to me that by the time 2011 came around Jimmy should not have been involved.

I remember going to the AGM in February 2011 and thinking Jimmy should no longer be involved.

IMO a large part of our problems stem from his involvement when he was ill in later part of 2010 and 2011.

He had too much on his plate and left it to a number of people who we now know where not up to the job.

A new President should have been installed then and I don't mean DM.

Unfortunately I think his will over rode the suggestions of some in the MFC.

It is hard to tell God he should walk away.

Would things now be different? who Knows but I have this over powering feeling that the decision to reappoint CS after the 186 day

led directly to our current situation.

It was clear to me that by the time 2011 came around Jimmy should not have been involved.

I remember going to the AGM in February 2011 and thinking Jimmy should no longer be involved.

IMO a large part of our problems stem from his involvement when he was ill in later part of 2010 and 2011.

He had too much on his plate and left it to a number of people who we now know where not up to the job.

A new President should have been installed then and I don't mean DM.

Unfortunately I think his will over rode the suggestions of some in the MFC.

It is hard to tell God he should walk away.

Would things now be different? who Knows but I have this over powering feeling that the decision to reappoint CS after the 186 day

led directly to our current situation.

yes i think this was the board's major mistake and just showed up their weakness

looks like no-one wanted to step up which is disappointing

jimmy could still have stayed on the board, just not prez

It was clear to me that by the time 2011 came around Jimmy should not have been involved.

I remember going to the AGM in February 2011 and thinking Jimmy should no longer be involved.

IMO a large part of our problems stem from his involvement when he was ill in later part of 2010 and 2011.

He had too much on his plate and left it to a number of people who we now know where not up to the job.

A new President should have been installed then and I don't mean DM.

Unfortunately I think his will over rode the suggestions of some in the MFC.

It is hard to tell God he should walk away.

Would things now be different? who Knows but I have this over powering feeling that the decision to reappoint CS after the 186 day

led directly to our current situation.

I think the decision to appoint him from the start was the problem 'old dee', 186 only proved in my mind that my thinking was correct.

There is no doubt Jimmy should have stood down when diagnosed with his illness, his decision to ask Lyon into the club to help out really was not his to make. There was a board in place and that board needed to take the action needed and if they didn't have the expertise and if the head of the board (Jimmy) was in no shape then they needed to appoint the right person. This is a professional (supposed to be) organisation, what other professional organisations does anyone know of who bring in an unqualified mate to help out.

What?

You don't care about the independence of a report into a board that oversaw a shocking decline in performance, a series of debacles and leading the mfc to being a laughing stock of the competition.

Seriously?

Jim's board has had far too much of the 'soft touch'. This forum is happy to sink the boots into the Gardner board and when given far more reasons and evidence cannot bring themselves to apply the same vitriol to our dear incumbents.

I give up.

Did you read everything up to that last line?

FMD.

The Stynes Board is gone. As is the Gardner Board, something I say often.

The report is just dressing for what the AFL is going to tell us to do.

Unless of course you would like Clothier, Haddard and Deloitte to do real independent review and throw more blood into the water?

Do we want a unified club or do we want to continue burning everyone who has ever been involved in the club?

Did you read everything up to that last line?

FMD.

The Stynes Board is gone. As is the Gardner Board, something I say often.

The report is just dressing for what the AFL is going to tell us to do.

Unless of course you would like Clothier, Haddard and Deloitte to do real independent review and throw more blood into the water?

Do we want a unified club or do we want to continue burning everyone who has ever been involved in the club?

If I get a vote rpfc then the former.

It's ridiculous to have a board report on itself but from what I read in that summary they were after a time dysfunctional micro managers who were not aware if where their role ended and the admins started.

Added to the fact that the report is a vehicle for the AFL to install the best group of Demons in their eyes and I don't really care about the independent-ness of the report.

i agree its ridiculous to have the Board review itself especially given the serious deficiency in the Board performance and understanding of its role during the past 5 years. I find it further conflicted by the potential conflicts Trotter has in this given his involvement with the topic of the review and the party doing the review..

GIven the AFL are keen to install a functional board then I would it thought it more appropriate than Jackson (or another AFL nominee) oversee the review and the AFL to appoint the accountants without fear or favour and without any actual or perceived conflict of interest.

I would have thought independence would have been an important attribute to ensure we get an accurate, transparent and clear outcome.

The report is just dressing for what the AFL is going to tell us to do.

Unless of course you would like Clothier, Haddard and Deloitte to do real independent review and throw more blood into the water?

Do we want a unified club or do we want to continue burning everyone who has ever been involved in the club?

Nice melodrama.

The whole process could have been done more discretely than that and it need not have anything to do with the parties you mentioned if done properly.

Its an opportunity lost.

If we had a competent and intelligent board that understood its role and obligations going forward it would nullify those that wish to play off the previous Boards for their own ends..