And I would think this is simplistic.

The journalist who reports a story can be just as vicious as the Politician, as we all witnessed earlier this year.

Simple maybe. But true.

The journalist who reports a story can be just as vicious as the Politician, as we all witnessed earlier this year.

Simple maybe. But true.

WYL, again I would suggest that it's not always a 'power game' across all aspects of AFL. Simplistic and not always true.

As the truth began to emerge in the final days, and the press releases and actions of the club became more and more disconnected with reality, I was very angry at Don and co for the mess they made of things, but I find it impossible to believe that these people wanted anything less than the best for the club. Egos may have over ruled common sense, and there was a very real rot from the core, but these things didn't happen in a vacuum. This whole ugly mess was a good decade in the making, and a reasonable amount of the chaos was because we (the lot of us) were trying to become a professional outfit, without any real idea what one looked like.

I think that there was a fair bit of spade work done in the last couple of years that will benefit us in the future, but it was probably done to quickly, too ruthlessly and too inefficiently for the effects to be anything but painful in the short term.

Maybe we just need to take a step back while the wounds are still raw, and have another look at the ugly years five or so years from now.

WYL, again I would suggest that it's not always a 'power game' across all aspects of AFL. Simplistic and not always true.

Depends at what level you look at it RTG. Inside AFL house and at Club CEO President level i would say it is very much a Power Game.

Where you and i sit it is still a game.

did his best but his best wasn't good enough, end of story

Any wonder smart decent people should stay away from football club boards?

Damn and I was going to nominate BBO, Biffen and Moon for the board next year!

You probably should have stopped there and you would have looked like less like of an [censored].

Clearly my challenge for today is to work out what word starting with a vowel is worthy of being auto-censored.

With Don, I don't feel as upset as I do at the likes of CS. Unlike CS, Don realized that his position was untenable and did the right thing for the club rather than continue the infighting and recriminations that were bound to continue if the old regime had stayed in place. CS's position became untenable before round 19 2011 and regardless of the result of that game, Cameron should have walked away. I have no idea why he wanted to come back to the club after it had basically sacked him. If it were me, I would have looked at it from two angles:
1) Professionally: clearly the vast bulk of the playing group had turned on him and their opinions couldn't be turned around. At best CS could have held on with some of his patrons at board level but the club would always have been in a constant state of civil war. This would have clearly hampered his ability to do his job.

2) Personally: When people get sacked, there is always a hint of personal resentment. This occurs if we deserve our sacking or not. Did Cameron not feel any resentment towards the board who told him that he wasn't up to scratch?
I must ask why didn't Cameron just say 'Thanks but no thanks.' after the club sacked him 2 years ago then re-offered him his job? Was it ego? Money? Revenge? Whatever it was, I'm not sure it was coming from the right place.
So as not to hijack this into a Cameron Schwab thread (and in fact a lot of these old navel gazing threads are getting a bit stale), compare this with Don. After Rd. 2, when the club was humiliated and the pea brain decision was made to broadcast MN's pre match address, Don realized what the club had become. He probably realized as well that he wasn't the man to fix it and partly that the blame for some of what had happened lay with him (and he has admitted as much at president's lunches). I really do admire that. I believe TimD once said that the gap between ego and ability at our club was unbelievable. Don put his ego to the side in this case and let people better suited to the challenges ahead take over.
While we were disappointed with the end result, Don has given back a lot to the club in terms of monetary resources and time and for that he should be commended.

With Don, I don't feel as upset as I do at the likes of CS. Unlike CS, Don realized that his position was untenable and did the right thing for the club rather than continue the infighting and recriminations that were bound to continue if the old regime had stayed in place. CS's position became untenable before round 19 2011 and regardless of the result of that game, Cameron should have walked away. I have no idea why he wanted to come back to the club after it had basically sacked him. If it were me, I would have looked at it from two angles:

1) Professionally: clearly the vast bulk of the playing group had turned on him and their opinions couldn't be turned around. At best CS could have held on with some of his patrons at board level but the club would always have been in a constant state of civil war. This would have clearly hampered his ability to do his job.

2) Personally: When people get sacked, there is always a hint of personal resentment. This occurs if we deserve our sacking or not. Did Cameron not feel any resentment towards the board who told him that he wasn't up to scratch?

I must ask why didn't Cameron just say 'Thanks but no thanks.' after the club sacked him 2 years ago then re-offered him his job? Was it ego? Money? Revenge? Whatever it was, I'm not sure it was coming from the right place.

So as not to hijack this into a Cameron Schwab thread (and in fact a lot of these old navel gazing threads are getting a bit stale), compare this with Don. After Rd. 2, when the club was humiliated and the pea brain decision was made to broadcast MN's pre match address, Don realized what the club had become. He probably realized as well that he wasn't the man to fix it and partly that the blame for some of what had happened lay with him (and he has admitted as much at president's lunches). I really do admire that. I believe TimD once said that the gap between ego and ability at our club was unbelievable. Don put his ego to the side in this case and let people better suited to the challenges ahead take over.

While we were disappointed with the end result, Don has given back a lot to the club in terms of monetary resources and time and for that he should be commended.

I understand where you are coming from but that extension was not forced upon us by Schwab - the Board gave him that, and they should have moved on. And I don't read malice into Schwab's failure; he was far too invovled in the footy side of things, and far too distracted with small things that a CEO should rarely bother with, and made the fateful decision to employ the mini-disaster Neeld as coach.

He wanted to fix the mess, that's why he stayed on - he is a Demon and loves the club - we know from the way he wouldn't shut up about past glories at the club...

People, and these Demons, failed with the best of intentions.

Clearly my challenge for today is to work out what word starting with a vowel is worthy of being auto-censored.

iconoclast

I understand where you are coming from but that extension was not forced upon us by Schwab - the Board gave him that, and they should have moved on. And I don't read malice into Schwab's failure; he was far too invovled in the footy side of things, and far too distracted with small things that a CEO should rarely bother with, and made the fateful decision to employ the mini-disaster Neeld as coach.

He wanted to fix the mess, that's why he stayed on - he is a Demon and loves the club - we know from the way he wouldn't shut up about past glories at the club...

People, and these Demons, failed with the best of intentions.

Not at all rpfc. I don't believe Schwab ever forced himself back on the club. I'm just curious as to why, when the board did offer an extension after they said they wouldn't, CS accepted it. Sure, having a job is nicer than not having one but if we look at this realistically, CS was always on a hiding to nothing from a professional point of view. Rightly or wrongly, there was a faction in the club who had decided he was a negative influence and those people could never be swayed. At best, they stay at the club and he spends the next 3 years waging internal battles against them. On the other hand, and this was largely done, he could have cleaned those people out of whom many were experienced players. Like Kevin Rudd, he could have purged his enemies but also like KRudd, he would have lost a large amount of talent who could have helped him moving forward (substitute Green, Moloney and Rivers for Swann, Combet and Garrett).

Then there is the personal sleight of being sacked. Either Cameron had an amazing sense of forgiveness or he was going back for some other reason that's unclear to me.

I wonder why he couldn't read the play and bow out as gracefully as possible in 2011 rather than drag the club through the last 2 years. It probably would have been better to look at the facts on the ground coldly and rationally and say this isn't the place for me.

Now, let's tie this back to Don. Why I admire Don more so than Schwab, Cuddles, Neeld et. al. is that he knew that this job was not for him. He could have stubbornly hung on through to the end of the year, hoping that the tide would turn. However, he recognized the reality of the situation and weighed up his strengths and weaknesses and realized that for the club to prosper, a new person had to take the reigns.

Not at all rpfc. I don't believe Schwab ever forced himself back on the club. I'm just curious as to why, when the board did offer an extension after they said they wouldn't, CS accepted it. Sure, having a job is nicer as opposed to not having one but if we look at this realistically, CS was always on a hiding to nothing from a professional point of view. Rightly or wrongly, there was a faction in the club who had decided he was a negative influence and those people could never be swayed. At best, they stay at the club and he spends the next 3 years waging internal battles against them. On the other hand, and this was largely done, he could have cleaned those people out whom many were experienced players. Like Kevin Rudd, he would have purged his enemies but also like KRudd, he would have lost a large amount of talent who could have helped him moving forward (substitute Green, Moloney and Rivers for Swann, Combet and Garrett).

Then there is the personal sleight of being sacked. Either Cameron had an amazing sense of forgiveness or he was going back for some other reason that's unclear to me.

I wonder why he couldn't read the play and bow out as gracefully as possible in 2011 rather than drag the club through the last 2 years. It probably would have been better to look at the facts on the ground coldly and rationally and say this isn't the place for me.

Now, let's tie this back to Don. Why I admire Don more so than Schwab, Cuddles, Neeld et. al. is that he knew that this job was not for him. He could have stubbornly hung on through to the end of the year, hoping that the tide would turn. However, he recognized the reality of the situation and weighed up his strengths and weaknesses and realized that for the club to prosper, a new person had to take the reigns.

It's the Board's mistake for offering that extension, not Schwab's ego for taking even while he was not offered it the day before. But remember, that was a contractual 'option' for one year. The worse extension though was the three year extension he was given in 2012 after that year.

And he wanted to fix our mess, when do we ever think rationally when we are involved in something that is a passion?

It's the Board's mistake for offering that extension, not Schwab's ego for taking even while he was not offered it the day before. But remember, that was a contractual 'option' for one year. The worse extension though was the three year extension he was given in 2012 after that year.

And he wanted to fix our mess, when do we ever think rationally when we are involved in something that is a passion?

Nope. It's both the board and Cameron's mistake. This is not an either/or thing. CS wasn't a 17 year old girl trying to buy her first used car. He is someone who has roughly 30 odd years in the game and should have recognized what could potentially happen if he went back. I won't downplay the board's silliness in resigning him but he, and the board, needed to realize that he was putting himself in an untenable position.

He may have wanted to fix the mess but he needed to ask himself with all the chaos that had preceded his contract extension, was he the man for the job? If the atmosphere around the club wasn't as polluted as it was and CS's personality not what it was, maybe he could have been.

I will say that yes, it is hard to make decisions like that in such emotionally charged environments. I can remember I was seething at Dean Bailey and wanted him frogmarched from the club. The truth was that both Bailey and Schwab needed to go. Schwab for his meddling and Bailey for not standing up to the rot sooner. In another note, it probably would have been better to say to Dean, as a man, that he had 5 weeks left in his contract and that at this stage it was not going to be renewed. A target of 10 wins had been set by the club for him to get his extension but the loss to Geelong had changed the dynamic of where the club was at. He was welcome to coach out the year if he wanted to but something big had to happen for the board to change their mind. (But I guess that's why I'm not a CEO, I'm probably not as delicate as I should be).

Nope. It's both the board and Cameron's mistake. This is not an either/or thing. CS wasn't a 17 year old girl trying to buy her first used car. He is someone who has roughly 30 odd years in the game and should have recognized what could potentially happen if he went back. I won't downplay the board's silliness in resigning him but he, and the board, needed to realize that he was putting himself in an untenable position.

He may have wanted to fix the mess but he needed to ask himself with all the chaos that had preceded his contract extension, was he the man for the job? If the atmosphere around the club wasn't as polluted as it was and CS's personality not what it was, maybe he could have been.

I will say that yes, it is hard to make decisions like that in such emotionally charged environments. I can remember I was seething at Dean Bailey and wanted him frogmarched from the club. The truth was that both Bailey and Schwab needed to go. Schwab for his meddling and Bailey for not standing up to the rot sooner. In another note, it probably would have been better to say to Dean, as a man, that he had 5 weeks left in his contract and that at this stage it was not going to be renewed. A target of 10 wins had been set by the club for him to get his extension but the loss to Geelong had changed the dynamic of where the club was at. He was welcome to coach out the year if he wanted to but something big had to happen for the board to change their mind. (But I guess that's why I'm not a CEO, I'm probably not as delicate as I should be).

The failure of Schwab is his record. The failure of the Board was to continue to employ him.

A failed hiring or re-hiring is on the employer, not the employee.

That's my very small point.

And, as Stynes said in his book, the Board should have removed both in 2011. But they had an option for one more year of Schwab and they chose to trigger the option.

That is an understandable mistake, the less understandable one was the three year contract given in 2012 when it would have been prudent to move on then and there.

Got to agree Colin. How Schwab stayed on after 186 is both bewildering and just bad business.

Like it or not the players warned us during that game.

In hindsight it is a shame Bailey wasn't given the rest of the year to coach "his" team whilst CS was given the press conference.

Whether DB would have survived past that who knows but he deserved far more respect than he got.

The failure of Schwab is his record. The failure of the Board was to continue to employ him.

A failed hiring or re-hiring is on the employer, not the employee.

That's my very small point.

And, as Stynes said in his book, the Board should have removed both in 2011. But they had an option for one more year of Schwab and they chose to trigger the option.

That is an understandable mistake, the less understandable one was the three year contract given in 2012 when it would have been prudent to move on then and there.

I don't want to go on about this forever but his record ultimately became what it was because of him accepting that one year extension. No one can predict the future but I think his record wouldn't have been as bad as it became had he not accepted the extension in 2011. The damage that was done to the club had it's foundations in the years 2009-2011. The logical conclusion to this cancerous culture came about from 2012-2013. It may still have happened if CS was there but it was pretty much guaranteed to happen when he decided to stay on.

And yes, I agree the 3 year option was mind boggling. One year would not have been as unusual but three years? I would be asking 'Wasn't this the bloke you wanted to sack one year ago?"

It is not an understandable mistake to give CS the extra trigger year in 2011.

It was a case of gross mismanagement.

The players had been betrayed.

That is the crux of my anger. Schwab got looked after...twice

Mclardy was part of that decision and i will never understand why it was stamped

I am not condoning a player mutiny either, but things must have been that bad.

Weren't we talking about Don McLardy at some point?

It is not an understandable mistake to give CS the extra trigger year in 2011.

It was a case of gross mismanagement.

The players had been betrayed.

That is the crux of my anger. Schwab got looked after...twice

Mclardy was part of that decision and i will never understand why it was stamped

I am not condoning a player mutiny either, but things must have been that bad.

There were players and administrators that needed to go and they now have. Whatever the circumstances we are now a better club for it; the playing group had to be purged of the bad seeds that were there and the administrators who were trying to run it their way have gone too.

Continually rehashing this will do absolutely no good.

There were players and administrators that needed to go and they now have. Whatever the circumstances we are now a better club for it; the playing group had to be purged of the bad seeds that were there and the administrators who were trying to run it their way have gone too.

Continually rehashing this will do absolutely no good.

sure but when it is posted that giving Schwab the extention in 2011 is an "understandable" mistake, it is reasnoable to expect some debate.

I thought Don's ineffectiveness in the role was best exemplified at the Schwab dismissal. It showed that he was too nice a bloke to be in the role he was (though the job in theory should have been second nature as he had worked successfully in business in years).

It still seemed that Schwab had his balls in a purse as Don was so hesitant to just tell it as it was. I guess Don would have looked like a bit of a goose saying so since he had just resigned CS to a 3 year deal (based on what I'm not sure). All I needed to hear was similar to what was said at Neeld's presser: This isn't laying the blame at the feet of any one individual. All will be held accountable but frankly we are an impediment to the industry and as CEO, Cameron has to share in some of the blame for that state of affairs occurring.

While PJ isn't a president, he told the cold hard truth at Neeld's press conference without being antagonistic or disrespectful to Neeld. When there was an attempt (consciously or subconsciously) by Neeld to turn the presser into a CS style whitewash (it's not really my fault and I don't know why I'm being sacked), PJ was firm and reiterated that we were a liability to the industry and things had to change.[/quote

Colin, my understanding of the Schwab dismissal and reinstatement is as follows. It goes back to the departure of Andrew Leoncelli as football manager. Despite his illness Jimmy put his hand up and the Board (which should not have agreed) allowed him to take it on. But in fact the role wasn't being performed and Schwab realised this and had ti involve himself more with playing matters than was appropriate . A former Board member told me of this shortly after the

Geelong disaster, told me that the Board realised that CS had been put in an awkward position and it was unfair to sack him. For myself,the decision to sack DB was an error and I will always believe that had Jimmy been in good health they would have ridden out the situation until year's end

NGO disaster

I thought Don's ineffectiveness in the role was best exemplified at the Schwab dismissal. It showed that he was too nice a bloke to be in the role he was (though the job in theory should have been second nature as he had worked successfully in business in years).

It still seemed that Schwab had his balls in a purse as Don was so hesitant to just tell it as it was. I guess Don would have looked like a bit of a goose saying so since he had just resigned CS to a 3 year deal (based on what I'm not sure). All I needed to hear was similar to what was said at Neeld's presser: This isn't laying the blame at the feet of any one individual. All will be held accountable but frankly we are an impediment to the industry and as CEO, Cameron has to share in some of the blame for that state of affairs occurring.

While PJ isn't a president, he told the cold hard truth at Neeld's press conference without being antagonistic or disrespectful to Neeld. When there was an attempt (consciously or subconsciously) by Neeld to turn the presser into a CS style whitewash (it's not really my fault and I don't know why I'm being sacked), PJ was firm and reiterated that we were a liability to the industry and things had to change.[/quote

Colin, my understanding of the Schwab dismissal and reinstatement is as follows. It goes back to the departure of Andrew Leoncelli as football manager. Despite his illness Jimmy put his hand up and the Board (which should not have agreed) allowed him to take it on. But in fact the role wasn't being performed and Schwab realised this and had ti involve himself more with playing matters than was appropriate . A former Board member told me of this shortly after the

Geelong disaster, told me that the Board realised that CS had been put in an awkward position and it was unfair to sack him. For myself,the decision to sack DB was an error and I will always believe that had Jimmy been in good health they would have ridden out the situation until year's end

NGO disaster

Interesting. Had never heard that before.

The failure of Schwab is his record. The failure of the Board was to continue to employ him.

A failed hiring or re-hiring is on the employer, not the employee.

That's my very small point.

And, as Stynes said in his book, the Board should have removed both in 2011. But they had an option for one more year of Schwab and they chose to trigger the option.

That is an understandable mistake, the less understandable one was the three year contract given in 2012 when it would have been prudent to move on then and there.

I think it was a huge mistake not understandable but agree with most of what you are saying. The board were at fault here.

Colin, my understanding of the Schwab dismissal and reinstatement is as follows. It goes back to the departure of Andrew Leoncelli as football manager. Despite his illness Jimmy put his hand up and the Board (which should not have agreed) allowed him to take it on. But in fact the role wasn't being performed and Schwab realised this and had ti involve himself more with playing matters than was appropriate . A former Board member told me of this shortly after the

Geelong disaster, told me that the Board realised that CS had been put in an awkward position and it was unfair to sack him. For myself,the decision to sack DB was an error and I will always believe that had Jimmy been in good health they would have ridden out the situation until year's end

NGO disaster

Sounds like a board member trying to justify his decision, unfair to sack him. What a load of rubbish, if it was unfair to sack CS what about the position Bailey was in surely it was unfair to sack him as well. No it wasn't and both of them should have gone along with the board by years end.

All good posts but all I want to know is when is the public flogging happening ?

I am no longer into forgiveness and only interested in blood.

Unfortunately there is no one left to punish!

Oh well time to move on and take my revenge on other AFL teams.

MessyDrugs will now be know as Don, Dawks are Cam Schwab, Collingwood is now Mark Neeld etc...

I think it was a huge mistake not understandable but agree with most of what you are saying. The board were at fault here.

Sounds like a board member trying to justify his decision, unfair to sack him. What a load of rubbish, if it was unfair to sack CS what about the position Bailey was in surely it was unfair to sack him as well. No it wasn't and both of them should have gone along with the board by years end.

Well as I said, I disagreed with the Bailey sacking. I do think that quite understandably the board felt it hard to disagree with Jimmy, as to a number of issues. Bear in mind that CS had a huge role in discharging the debt. Jimmy was the front man without whom it would not have happened, but CS did a hell of a lot of the work,I

I'm sure Schwab regrets his role in the Neeld appointment, but he wasn't th only person who was wrong. Plainly Malthouse had a lot of respect for him and I believe the sub-committee was influenced by his (and Gary Lyons') views. I'm not into recriminations, people of good faith got it wrong. Now lets get on with it!