Oh dear gawd.

That thread was painful to read. I hadn't joined the 'Land by that stage and I'm glad I hadn't. That was hall of shame style material

It showed me that at the end of the day we, as much as we like to think otherwise, are just fans at the end of the day. Some of the wetting of pants on here that the CEO had come on was unbelievable. I will give RGRS his due. He was one of the few who asked legitimate questions.

Reading all the bunk about the sponsor (who lasted 2 weeks of the regular season and then collapsed entirely some time after that) and the FD (he just had to throw in 'loving the club; bit and he seemed to keep away the part that by that stage, Neeld had probably lost the playing group) was a blast from the past that I could have done without.

The blazers were a great idea as well apparently. Sure, Hassa and Ron probably did love them. But the problem was, we were preaching to the converted with a lot of that. How was that ever going to expand our supporter base? It would turn off a lot of people in the street as posh and w***ky. Hell, even a lot of us on here thought they looked stupid.

Amen to all the above CBF

Especially the last line, mired in early part of the twentieth century.

I have been meaning to mention this for two weeks.

When my membership renewal came a couple of weeks ago it showed a "members only" cap that was available.

Low and behold the logo was the old simple MFC in "Red" and Blue.

IMO the only one that should exist, the "new" one is way to complicated.

I immediately ordered one as my old simple emblem cap in Red and Blue is getting a bit distressed.

I have Disliked all the recent maroon and pink ones.

Hey guys, what going on?

^{Hindsight may show that perversely Schwab was the CEO we had to have. Something had to happen to drag this club kicking and screaming to play 21st Century football. Bringing the club to the brink has woken everyone up. The ingrained smugness and wallowing in past glories was never going to go away on its own accord.}

^{Hindsight may show that perversely Schwab was the CEO we had to have. Something had to happen to drag this club kicking and screaming to play 21st Century football. Bringing the club to the brink has woken everyone up. The ingrained smugness and wallowing in past glories was never going to go away on its own accord.}

What's wrong with the 1950's and 60's?

I'm guessing this thread will need to be closed soon. I was no fan of the man (though I took a little longer to come around) but these convos are navel gazing of the worst kind.

I can see the irony of me being one of the main contributors of this thread.

Proof is in the Pudding.

Sigh.

Amen to all the above CBF

Especially the last line, mired in early part of the twentieth century.

I have been meaning to mention this for two weeks.

When my membership renewal came a couple of weeks ago it showed a "members only" cap that was available.

Low and behold the logo was the old simple MFC in "Red" and Blue.

IMO the only one that should exist, the "new" one is way to complicated.

I immediately ordered one as my old simple emblem cap in Red and Blue is getting a bit distressed.

I have Disliked all the recent maroon and pink ones.

I know the club has much bigger fish to fry than redesigning the logo or working out the color scheme of the jumper but I hope that the club quietly begins to phase in a new logo over the next little bit. We don't have the money to pizz money away on cosmetic changes but I hope that the 'historical' logo is scrapped without fuss or fanfare.

There was a 'Reducto-ad-Hitlerum reference on the first page of this thread.

Internet rules say the thread has to be closed. Where's your etiquette, Demonland?

Feel free to start a new thread on the topic, though.

I know the club has much bigger fish to fry than redesigning the logo or working out the color scheme of the jumper but I hope that the club quietly begins to phase in a new logo over the next little bit. We don't have the money to pizz money away on cosmetic changes but I hope that the 'historical' logo is scrapped without fuss or fanfare.

i hope the Logo stays. I like it.

Glad the rest has happened.

Sigh.

Reason for the sigh??

I hope for your own sake you are not missing the work of our previous CEO....?

Reason for the sigh??

Because the correct saying is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

To quote Urban Dictionary:

The original saying is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", basically meaning that something has to be experienced or utilised in order to prove how good it is. This phrase got messed up by idiots who don't quite understand what they are saying."

Haha as soon as I saw the sigh, I knew it would be way over WYL's head!

Oh dear...

As for Schwab, reading that OP, and his assessment of the footy dept, it's seems clear to me he was either ignorant, in denial, or in my opinion most likely, that he myopically considered the end to justify the means.

Meaning, he didn't mind telling bald faced lies to the supporter group to temporarily quell the restless natives, without consideration for the longterm effects of such a stance.

I guess "high performance with high integrity" was just for the players...

Because the correct saying is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

To quote Urban Dictionary:

The original saying is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", basically meaning that something has to be experienced or utilised in order to prove how good it is. This phrase got messed up by idiots who don't quite understand what they are saying."

Thanks for quoting Urban Dictionary. One does not need to eat a pudding if it smells bad. That is just plain stupid.

Thanks for quoting Urban Dictionary. One does not need to eat a pudding if it smells bad. That is just plain stupid.

When in Rome...

One does not need to eat a pudding if it smells bad. That is just plain stupid.

If you don't wish to be educated on what is correct, you are within your rights to remain ignorant.

"The proof is in the pudding" makes about as much sense as "the proof is in the brick".

Back on topic.

Having heard Franklins hollow Press Conference this morning it is all about instant success.

Considering Schwab was the CEO when both the Franchaise teams were admitted & the advent of FA, it just stuns me that he led us down the Red & Blueprint road. We are now so much further behind the top bracket in so many areas.

Could the strategy be any worse than it turned out??

It didn't work out. It was horrible. We stuffed up big time and Schwab was a big part of that. He wasn't good at what he was doing and has caused problems.

BUT the bloke didn't do it on purpose. He wanted the best for the club, did what he thought was best and was supported and sanctioned by the member elected board. He did not gain personally from these stuff ups. He didn't line his pockets with bonus while our share price plummeted (his pay out clause was only 3 months).

He deserves criticism for being an average CEO who has cost this club dearly, but he doesn't deserve personal attacks or derision, such as attacks on his character. Attack his work, not the man, because the man wanted to, and thought he was doing the best job he could.

We regularly say of our players "I don't care if they are crap, and long as they throw themselves in and don't shirk the contest and bleed for the club." But when it comes to Schwab and even McLardy to an extent, we seen to think that this doesn't apply, and that unless they are the Gary Ablett jnr of administrators they deserve to be attacked.

^{Hindsight may show that perversely Schwab was the CEO we had to have. Something had to happen to drag this club kicking and screaming to play 21st Century football. Bringing the club to the brink has woken everyone up. The ingrained smugness and wallowing in past glories was never going to go away on its own accord.}

Is that you Paul Keating? Please come back, all is forgiven

It didn't work out. It was horrible. We stuffed up big time and Schwab was a big part of that. He wasn't good at what he was doing and has caused problems.

BUT the bloke didn't do it on purpose. He wanted the best for the club, did what he thought was best and was supported and sanctioned by the member elected board. He did not gain personally from these stuff ups. He didn't line his pockets with bonus while our share price plummeted (his pay out clause was only 3 months).

He deserves criticism for being an average CEO who has cost this club dearly, but he doesn't deserve personal attacks or derision, such as attacks on his character. Attack his work, not the man, because the man wanted to, and thought he was doing the best job he could.

We regularly say of our players "I don't care if they are crap, and long as they throw themselves in and don't shirk the contest and bleed for the club." But when it comes to Schwab and even McLardy to an extent, we seen to think that this doesn't apply, and that unless they are the Gary Ablett jnr of administrators they deserve to be attacked.

But Deanox he knows the game. He wasn't a newbie CEO. This is what truly amazes me. His strategy was dodgy from the first moment of thought. You or i would have thrown it in the bin at draft one stage.

But Deanox he knows the game. He wasn't a newbie CEO. This is what truly amazes me. His strategy was dodgy from the first moment of thought. You or i would have thrown it in the bin at draft one stage.

We could have but we didn't. Hardly anyone did. A small percentage didn't like the "tanking" but nothing like the percentage of people who act like they want to spit on the bloke now.

His strategy was ultimately flawed, and certainly poorly executed, and the rationale behind what he did made sense in many ways:

-We have been accused of standing for nothing, of being a rubbish club with no identity. He tried to address that by embracing our history and establishing or identity in our past, the branding, emblem, blazers, bugle, the MCC and historic figures. Reinstating our position in the history of the game, that was his idea to answer the "stand for nothing". Did it work? No. But if we started winning it may have.

-We were a divided club with a recent merger story and internal fighting. With Jim he looked to get the club back together, get everyone around to stop the disruption. Did it work? Yes. Until it became apparent that we were failing on field and until Jim, the person we all got behind, passed away.

-We struggled for supporter numbers. So he tried to engage our people with personal contact with players and officials. Did it work? Somewhat. Whiteboard Wednesday is horrible in hindsight, but I think we set standards for content and engagement.

-We were crap on field and teams around us got leg ups. We saw low picks as a means to the top, and did many other clubs. Did it work? No. Because we probably took it too far.

And because we scrooged on development without raising the repercussions.

And because the AFL significantly diluted the pool while we were at the bottom, reducing the quality of the picks we got when we were down.

And because we had zero senior on field leaders apart from Junior.

And because as a club we got it wrong with drafting; they looked for skinny skilful athletes, not mongrel footballers. We took the formula too far and over corrected.

And other reasons, the CEO was to involved in footy, and all agree with that. He was shocking at other things to. I will not defend his methods because ultimately they failed to deliver what we needed and were unsuccessful, but I think he did try and I think most of the actions had reasons.

Bit he still doesn't deserve to be insulted or treated like he is on here. He is a Melbourne supporter who tried but failed, not a Malcolm Blight who took the cash and ran.

Noticed CS has written a few pieces for The Age recently. I wonder what CW thinks all this? And what do all the Demonlander ex CS supporters who engaged in a struggle sessions to expunge The Age from humanity think of this? I have been a big critic of him whilst he was running our club but he writes well. Good luck to him in his new career I say. Who would have thought of this 12 months ago let alone that Paul Roos will now be our next coach. Next bizarre out of this world happening, ...could it us be genuine premiership contender soon. Any takers?

And wont they be in for one helluva shock when the invoice hits the front desk on the cost of his new desk.

We could have but we didn't. Hardly anyone did. A small percentage didn't like the "tanking" but nothing like the percentage of people who act like they want to spit on the bloke now.

His strategy was ultimately flawed, and certainly poorly executed, and the rationale behind what he did made sense in many ways:

-We have been accused of standing for nothing, of being a rubbish club with no identity. He tried to address that by embracing our history and establishing or identity in our past, the branding, emblem, blazers, bugle, the MCC and historic figures. Reinstating our position in the history of the game, that was his idea to answer the "stand for nothing". Did it work? No. But if we started winning it may have.

-We were a divided club with a recent merger story and internal fighting. With Jim he looked to get the club back together, get everyone around to stop the disruption. Did it work? Yes. Until it became apparent that we were failing on field and until Jim, the person we all got behind, passed away.

-We struggled for supporter numbers. So he tried to engage our people with personal contact with players and officials. Did it work? Somewhat. Whiteboard Wednesday is horrible in hindsight, but I think we set standards for content and engagement.

-We were crap on field and teams around us got leg ups. We saw low picks as a means to the top, and did many other clubs. Did it work? No. Because we probably took it too far.

And because we scrooged on development without raising the repercussions.

And because the AFL significantly diluted the pool while we were at the bottom, reducing the quality of the picks we got when we were down.

And because we had zero senior on field leaders apart from Junior.

And because as a club we got it wrong with drafting; they looked for skinny skilful athletes, not mongrel footballers. We took the formula too far and over corrected.

And other reasons, the CEO was to involved in footy, and all agree with that. He was shocking at other things to. I will not defend his methods because ultimately they failed to deliver what we needed and were unsuccessful, but I think he did try and I think most of the actions had reasons.

Bit he still doesn't deserve to be insulted or treated like he is on here. He is a Melbourne supporter who tried but failed, not a Malcolm Blight who took the cash and ran.

Hi Deanox

Good post. I like the fact that you've tried to put things in a broader perspective (eg the fact that one of the reasons we've been down so long coincided with the arrival of the expansion clubs)

cheers

Hi Deanox

Good post. I like the fact that you've tried to put things in a broader perspective (eg the fact that one of the reasons we've been down so long coincided with the arrival of the expansion clubs)

cheers

No, we were placed with the first rebuild to be ahead of the expansion clubs. The management of the club was so poor that it dumped us right in the middle of the problems caused by their introduction.

But Deanox he knows the game. He wasn't a newbie CEO. This is what truly amazes me. His strategy was dodgy from the first moment of thought. You or i would have thrown it in the bin at draft one stage.

He doesn't know the game 'wyl', he talks a good game and that's all.

We could have but we didn't. Hardly anyone did. A small percentage didn't like the "tanking" but nothing like the percentage of people who act like they want to spit on the bloke now.

His strategy was ultimately flawed, and certainly poorly executed, and the rationale behind what he did made sense in many ways:

-We have been accused of standing for nothing, of being a rubbish club with no identity. He tried to address that by embracing our history and establishing or identity in our past, the branding, emblem, blazers, bugle, the MCC and historic figures. Reinstating our position in the history of the game, that was his idea to answer the "stand for nothing". Did it work? No. But if we started winning it may have.

-We were a divided club with a recent merger story and internal fighting. With Jim he looked to get the club back together, get everyone around to stop the disruption. Did it work? Yes. Until it became apparent that we were failing on field and until Jim, the person we all got behind, passed away.

-We struggled for supporter numbers. So he tried to engage our people with personal contact with players and officials. Did it work? Somewhat. Whiteboard Wednesday is horrible in hindsight, but I think we set standards for content and engagement.

-We were crap on field and teams around us got leg ups. We saw low picks as a means to the top, and did many other clubs. Did it work? No. Because we probably took it too far.

And because we scrooged on development without raising the repercussions.

And because the AFL significantly diluted the pool while we were at the bottom, reducing the quality of the picks we got when we were down.

And because we had zero senior on field leaders apart from Junior.

And because as a club we got it wrong with drafting; they looked for skinny skilful athletes, not mongrel footballers. We took the formula too far and over corrected.

And other reasons, the CEO was to involved in footy, and all agree with that. He was shocking at other things to. I will not defend his methods because ultimately they failed to deliver what we needed and were unsuccessful, but I think he did try and I think most of the actions had reasons.

Bit he still doesn't deserve to be insulted or treated like he is on here. He is a Melbourne supporter who tried but failed, not a Malcolm Blight who took the cash and ran.

Deanox, I have been as clear as anyone on here that CS isn't some kind of cartoon character like Boris Badenov or Skeletor. However, I think it would be just as foolish to do a 180 degree turn and make him out to be some kind of clean skin. Cameron knew the game (politics, not football) and how it was played.

The bloke came from the Richmond school of football club administration and, boy oh boy, it sticks out like a sore thumb. The bloke has been involved in numerous coach sackings. In some of these sackings, he was a major player: Kevin Bartlett who threw CS out of his house after he was broken the news and Dean Bailey who had to give a separate press conference so he wouldn't cross paths with CS and CC. In others, he was more of a bystander and carrying out the wishes of others: Neil Balme, Chris Conolly. I won't go into how ruthlessly the blokes from the playing group who stood against him were handled.

He has been known to give mates jobs: he didn't give Cuddles his job but he went and hired Todd Viney behind Dean Bailey's back to get first dibs on Jack Viney. While I don't disagree with us getting Jack or Todd for that matter, surely Bailey needed to be consulted before blokes who would be on his coaching team were to be hired. And while he didn't hire Cuddles, he did form a nice little tag team with him in which they could both team up on Bailey to carry out their crackpot schemes and then blame it all on him when it went awry.

Also like Graham Richmond, he was more interested in trying to find some way around the established system in order to succeed. In GR's case, he just went everywhere and anywhere recruiting players and taking advantage of rules to get others (see Richard (I can say the name he is usually referred to) Clay). We all know what Cameron's masterplan was to jip the system was. I will elaborate no further.

Lastly, I will contest that Cameron's fetish with MFC history was something that started exclusively in 2009. Read the 1997 Club Yearbook and he is rattling on about it there as well (after quoting Machiavelli, how appropriate). The next year, when the club looked like it was going somewhere, all the historical BS was dropped in the CEO's report. I generally view that stuff, whether it was conscious or subconscious, as a smoke screen to make the supporter group feel better and to decrease scrutiny on admin.

Look, Cameron may have meant well but George W. Bush probably did as well. It doesn't lessen his culpability in the disasters that followed nor did it excuse him from the mistakes caused by his terrible judgement.