On 22/01/2014 at 02:30, why you little said:

I was under the impression all of the previous board had been replaced.

But 3 survive still.

Must be the luckiest humans on the planet to survive that train wreck.

Amazing.

I have an idea.

Nathan Jones, Jack Grimes, James Frawley and Colin Garland, among others, were as much a part of the same "train wreck" as were Peter Spargo, Russell Howcroft, Peter Thurin and John Trotter (that's four by my counting).

If we're going to sate our thirst for destruction and our bloodlust then why not just boot the players out as well?

  On 23/01/2014 at 11:19, Whispering_Jack said:

I have an idea.

Nathan Jones, Jack Grimes, James Frawley and Colin Garland, among others, were as much a part of the same "train wreck" as were Peter Spargo, Russell Howcroft, Peter Thurin and John Trotter (that's four by my counting).

If we're going to sate our thirst for destruction and our bloodlust then why not just boot the players out as well?

Jack I know you are tongue in cheek but some may be confused.

The Boards responsibility is to govern the running of the Club and they are ultimately responsible for its financial and on field performance. Amongst other things they approve and oversee key appointments with perhaps the most important being the CEO and coach. Without going over old issue I think most would agree that the appointment and then reappointment of Schwab and then the appointment of Neeld were errors. Those two appointments held the key responsibilities of financial and on field performance. In contrast the players (Grimes, Jones, Frawley, Garland) were the people impacted most by the decisions of the Board and their key appointments - they were clearly not responsible for them and should not be held accountable. It is the FD that make decisions on their future and Roos and Mahoney have decided to keep them. So clearly it would be nonsense to couple the players with the responsibly of the "train wreck" you refer to.

And for those arguing for the retention of the three directors (and I only included three as they were there for the duration of the Stynes/McLardy Board, Trotter was appointed later and if my memory serves me correctly he was appointed after 186) I could agree but for two things. Firstly the Board oversaw a train wreck, not a drop in performance. Their performance was so bad as to require an AFL bailout. That in itself is probably enough to suggest all should go. But even if they did oppose all the poor decisions and even if they had the wisdom of Solomon then sadly they were ineffectual in influencing others and as such have failed in their responsibility to the members who they represent. Ineffectual directors unable to influence others away from very poor decisions and towards good ones are of no benefit to us.

Anyway they are there. I don't think they should be but with Jackson as CEO hopefully they won't be called on to make or influence major decisions. They've clearly failed in the past.

  On 23/01/2014 at 02:57, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think the Nathan Jones analogy does correctly illustrate my point but perhaps we disagree about the issue. While decisions of the Board have to be seen in public as unanimous so that it appears the Board is of one mind, that will not reflect reality. On many issues the Board is likely to have a diversity of opinions. In fact, Board's operate best when the orthodoxy is challenged in house. But once a decision is made any well-functioning body has to provide a unified front.

As I said originally, I have no idea whether the current Board members who were there previously have - as individuals - been good or poor performers. I'm just saying it is naive to assume they supported every decision the previous Board made. And even if they did, that still doesn't mean they haven't got something valuable to offer today.

Edit: typos

As Baghdad Bob has pointed out, Boards have collective responsibility and accountability for the decisions made by the Board in the running of the Club. As stated, the club 12 months ago was a train wreck and had to be salvaged by the AFL. It's more naive to think that a director did not support every decision made by the Board. The Board minutes suggest otherwise when it records the vote. And if Director does not believe a decision to be made by a Board that person has a choice decide to support it or if they feel that strongly against a motion then they should resign. There is collective accountability for the disaster that was and it's odd that some were moved on and some stayed. I am not convinced that those remaining offer any more, possibility less than those that have been removed.

I recently attended a fascinating lecture on the Titanic and the presenter went through the history of the "unsinkable" ship, setting out the cause and effect and the chain of events that led to the ship's sinking and the attendant loss of lives. The narrative had its villains and heroes (starting with the designers) who played a role in the disaster including some, like one of the major shareholders in the White Star line who was the subject of a vilification campaign by the head of Hearst Press and was hounded by that organisation for the rest of his life. Many of the accusations were false.

Nothing's black or white in this and I don't believe in adopting a scorched earth policy. It was appropriate for Don McLardy and many of the other leading members of the board to resign over what happened but it was equally important in the transition to retain people who had experience and believed they had a contribution to make to the club. Like the Titanic, not all on the board were responsible for the "disaster", just as when a government falls, you don't expect the members of the losing party to resign en masse. In any event, if their staying spared us from having a Kennett or a Stockdale on the board, then all I can say is "praise The Lord".

Yes, I was being tongue in cheek about the players but my example stands. We got rid of some who might have once been good servants of the club but a number were part of the problem. That is, if you describe the main problem as being a dysfunctional, poorly performing football club, the primary responsibility for which was the incumbent board but which was also the result of a build up of poor decision making and incompetence for a long period of time.

Some might be happy with our current board and I'm comfortable for the time being but I also believe that at some time we will need to declare our independence from the AFL and that's probably one of the main challenges facing Glenn Bartlett in the future.

  On 23/01/2014 at 19:14, Rhino Richards said:

There is collective accountability for the disaster that was and it's odd that some were moved on and some stayed. I am not convinced that those remaining offer any more, possibility less than those that have been removed.

Why does a 'collective accountability' require everyone to be removed/fired?

Geelong held Mark Thompson to account in 2006 and the rest is history.

As for that last line, you are being a tad specious don't you think?

'Don't know if they are better, they could be worse?'

'They could be agents of the devil? I don't know, but there is that possibility...'

Perhaps Jackson believes they can contribute? Maybe Bartlett thinks they can help?

Does anyone here think that the previous board hasn't been held to account?

  On 23/01/2014 at 21:25, rpfc said:

Why does a 'collective accountability' require everyone to be removed/fired?

You quoted the answer to your own question. Collective responsibility for a disaster. I would have thought all responsible should have moved on. It was curious why some stayed and some departed.

And its hoped that Jackson, Bartlett and the AFL now have this under control.

  On 23/01/2014 at 19:14, Rhino Richards said:

As Baghdad Bob has pointed out, Boards have collective responsibility and accountability for the decisions made by the Board in the running of the Club. As stated, the club 12 months ago was a train wreck and had to be salvaged by the AFL. It's more naive to think that a director did not support every decision made by the Board. The Board minutes suggest otherwise when it records the vote. And if Director does not believe a decision to be made by a Board that person has a choice decide to support it or if they feel that strongly against a motion then they should resign. There is collective accountability for the disaster that was and it's odd that some were moved on and some stayed. I am not convinced that those remaining offer any more, possibility less than those that have been removed.

Are MFC Board minutes made public? If so, where can they be found? If not, how would we know who voted for what?

And just to add one extra point, even if the "old" Board members were involved and supported some very poor decisions, a complete clean out means a loss of corporate memory at the Board level. There will be a lot of mundane but nevertheless important non-football decisions made by the Board and having someone around who knows the history behind why a particular decision was made would continue to be valuable.

  On 23/01/2014 at 20:59, Whispering_Jack said:

I recently attended a fascinating lecture on the Titanic and the presenter went through the history of the "unsinkable" ship, setting out the cause and effect and the chain of events that led to the ship's sinking and the attendant loss of lives. The narrative had its villains and heroes (starting with the designers) who played a role in the disaster including some, like one of the major shareholders in the White Star line who was the subject of a vilification campaign by the head of Hearst Press and was hounded by that organisation for the rest of his life. Many of the accusations were false.

Nothing's black or white in this and I don't believe in adopting a scorched earth policy. It was appropriate for Don McLardy and many of the other leading members of the board to resign over what happened but it was equally important in the transition to retain people who had experience and believed they had a contribution to make to the club. Like the Titanic, not all on the board were responsible for the "disaster", just as when a government falls, you don't expect the members of the losing party to resign en masse. In any event, if their staying spared us from having a Kennett or a Stockdale on the board, then all I can say is "praise The Lord".

Yes, I was being tongue in cheek about the players but my example stands. We got rid of some who might have once been good servants of the club but a number were part of the problem. That is, if you describe the main problem as being a dysfunctional, poorly performing football club, the primary responsibility for which was the incumbent board but which was also the result of a build up of poor decision making and incompetence for a long period of time.

Some might be happy with our current board and I'm comfortable for the time being but I also believe that at some time we will need to declare our independence from the AFL and that's probably one of the main challenges facing Glenn Bartlett in the future.

That's a worrying analogy to the Titanic and that coupled with your description of the club being a "train wreck" in an earlier post doesn't fill me with confidence!

You seem confident of your position regarding the remaining directors and so I assume you've got some basis for knowing they were in fact the "black hats" around the Board table but just outvoted on the important issues. I certainly don't have that knowledge and hence my position.

Your point re the independence from the AFL is an interesting one. I think that independence will come once they are confident we can manage ourselves - something we've failed to do for a long time. I can't see the AFL really have an interest in managing us or bailing us out but they had little choice last year but to step in. As you say - "titanic" and "train wreck".

Having said that I believe it is imperative we maintain very good relations with them. Weaker clubs can't take on City Hall and we shouldn't think we can take on the AFL.

  On 23/01/2014 at 05:47, Redleg said:

Well what if the 3 left, voted against every bad decision and argued against them as well?

Compares with the footballer analogy then, doesn't it?

They should have resigned then. The only sensible thing to do in this case, you can't have your reputation put at risk for a number of bad decisions you don't agree with. Seems obvious that this wasn't the case.

  On 24/01/2014 at 00:02, Baghdad Bob said:

That's a worrying analogy to the Titanic and that coupled with your description of the club being a "train wreck" in an earlier post doesn't fill me with confidence!

The "train wreck" was based on someone else's description but if you think the Titanic analogy is worrying, let me just add that the lecture was delivered during a cruise ... and we all survived!

  On 23/01/2014 at 22:51, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Are MFC Board minutes made public? If so, where can they be found? If not, how would we know who voted for what?

And just to add one extra point, even if the "old" Board members were involved and supported some very poor decisions, a complete clean out means a loss of corporate memory at the Board level. There will be a lot of mundane but nevertheless important non-football decisions made by the Board and having someone around who knows the history behind why a particular decision was made would continue to be valuable.

No Board minutes are not public and nor need they be. If done properly the Minutes should state what the Board approved and/or resolved. They should not document who individually voted for what but reflect the collective decisions.

Normally Boards have a Board Secretary to handle any mundane or administrative matters. And any anecdotal information on a previous Board decision can be easily sought ex-officio without maintaining a legacy position.

  On 23/01/2014 at 05:47, Redleg said:

Well what if the 3 left, voted against every bad decision and argued against them as well?

Compares with the footballer analogy then, doesn't it?

No. The Boards determination is collective and their responsibility and accountability for major disaster falls broadly. If they voted against it and argued against it and motion passed then there is a real issue as to why they remain on the Board. And from a Chairman's point of view you would have to consider whether the perpetual dissenters share the broader vision of that administration.

From my understanding, this was not the case at MFC under previous administration.

  On 23/01/2014 at 11:19, Whispering_Jack said:

I have an idea.

Nathan Jones, Jack Grimes, James Frawley and Colin Garland, among others, were as much a part of the same "train wreck" as were Peter Spargo, Russell Howcroft, Peter Thurin and John Trotter (that's four by my counting).

If we're going to sate our thirst for destruction and our bloodlust then why not just boot the players out as well?

Players and the board are on 2 very different levels WJ. You know this as well as i.

Your staunch defence of these peoples places on the current board can only mean one thing

You know at least one of them. That is ok but do not talk down to those of us who expected a clean start after the least productive and darkest part of the clubs history please...

Jack mentioned about the Titanic but I have another comparison to use when looking at the board clean out: the Iraq War.

When Baghdad fell in 2003, despite advice to the contrary, the Coalition of the Willing decided to purge the government of all Baath party elements. This turned out to be a calamity as a lot of those people had intimate knowledge of the issues surrounding the country and they were replaced by charlatans like Ahmed Chalabi whose main aim was consolidating his own power and getting rid of his own enemies. Those experienced administrators might have helped the country avoid the civil war it descended into.
I would feel that the last 7 years and the Neeld rebuild should have taught us that you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Keep what's good and purge what's ineffectual.

  On 24/01/2014 at 01:58, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Jack mentioned about the Titanic but I have another analogy to use when looking at the board clean out: the Iraq War.

When Baghdad fell in 2003, despite advice to the contrary, the Coalition of the Willing decided to purge the government of all Baath party elements. This turned out to be a calamity as a lot of those people had intimate knowledge of the issues surrounding the country and they were replaced by charlatans like Ahmed Chalabi whose main aim was consolidating his own power and getting rid of his own enemies. Those experienced administrators might have helped the country avoid the civil war it descended into.

I would feel that the last 7 years and the Neeld rebuild should have taught us that you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Keep what's good and purge what's ineffectual.

Colin that is a shocking analogy. Do not go there.

Colin, The purging of the Baath Party undertaken by the US would be the equivalent of sacking MFC Board, all Coaches, officials, employees and players. And the US purging was done for broader (albeit poorly conceived) reasons for than just accountability. I would have thought an orderly move on all Board positions of the previous administration given what happened was appropriate. At this point I will back Bartlett and Jackson to comptently steer the ship.

  On 24/01/2014 at 02:23, Rhino Richards said:

Colin, The purging of the Baath Party undertaken by the US would be the equivalent of sacking MFC Board, all Coaches, officials, employees and players. And the US purging was done for broader (albeit poorly conceived) reasons for than just accountability. I would have thought an orderly move on all Board positions of the previous administration given what happened was appropriate. At this point I will back Bartlett and Jackson to comptently steer the ship.

Perhaps my scope of my comparison was too broad. Fair point.

The reasons for the purge as you said as well was not for accountability but mostly for the US to put their yes men in charge.

However, I feel that we do need some people with some inside knowledge of how the place work. I feel this would be done for pragmatic reasons. Lots of the board had to go but we did need some link back to admins past. Those who were kept on should not be kept on due to their connections or their mates (as has been in the past).

  On 24/01/2014 at 02:43, Colin B. Flaubert said:

However, I feel that we do need some people with some inside knowledge of how the place works.

What sort of situations do you think they could help? Why do we need 4 of them?

Genuine questions. Boards are there for governance and direction, not day to day operation.

I think the CEO positions is the most important to achieve your objective and Jackson is all over the AFL and how clubs work.

Let's just bring in Stormin Norman and nuke everybody.

  On 24/01/2014 at 03:53, Elwood 3184 said:

Let's just bring in Stormin Norman and nuke everybody.

I suspect like cockroaches, footy journos would still survive.

  On 24/01/2014 at 02:49, Baghdad Bob said:

What sort of situations do you think they could help? Why do we need 4 of them?

Genuine questions. Boards are there for governance and direction, not day to day operation.

I think the CEO positions is the most important to achieve your objective and Jackson is all over the AFL and how clubs work.

They surely would have had some background knowledge of how the issues that came about at the club came to fester. I would also say that keeping them on may be required as a goodwill gesture so the club doesn't splinter again. If they chose to serve the new administration in good faith then I don't believe they should not be allowed to.

As for numbers, I won't say we have to have four of them. I just think we need to have some of the old board carry over. A majority of the old board should not have stayed on. Nor even a significant percentage. I believe that some however have a place still.

  On 24/01/2014 at 04:11, Colin B. Flaubert said:

They surely would have had some background knowledge of how the issues that came about at the club came to fester. I would also say that keeping them on may be required as a goodwill gesture so the club doesn't splinter again. If they chose to serve the new administration in good faith then I don't believe they should not be allowed to.

As for numbers, I won't say we have to have four of them. I just think we need to have some of the old board carry over. A majority of the old board should not have stayed on. Nor even a significant percentage. I believe that some however have a place still.

All that Background info could be sorted within a couple of weeks of a changeover Colin...I am just genuinely suprised that 3 members of the previous board are still there.

The club could not be run worse bar folding over the last 7 years...we now know this.

What could be learnt from these board members? They were ultimately responsible.

  On 24/01/2014 at 05:09, why you little said:

All that Background info could be sorted within a couple of weeks of a changeover Colin...I am just genuinely suprised that 3 members of the previous board are still there.

The club could not be run worse bar folding over the last 7 years...we now know this.

What could be learnt from these board members? They were ultimately responsible.

Anyone would know who has seen my posts on here would know that I am no apologist for the last seven years.

However, I am not interested in promoting some idea that the club get involved in a circular firing squad to make ourselves feel better about said last seven years. In that I mean, the process in which we give previous boards a good old fashioned wag of the finger and then proceed to forget to keep the current board honest. I saw that during the Stynes/McLardy era in which everything that went wrong, from multi million dollar debts to the dead possums in the air conditioner at the Junction oval was Paul Gardner's fault or Gabriel Szondy's. Or whoever we feel like blaming.

At the end of the day, we will never know who fought, who retreated and who was a good soldier and followed orders. Painting a broad brush over everyone may rob of us of people of talent and will no doubt divide the club... again.

It wasn't so long ago that Demetriou was saying our board was one of the best in the league. Based on results, it looks a bit foolish to propagate that belief today but surely, SURELY, that belief must have been based on something. They all couldn't have been deadheads.

  On 24/01/2014 at 06:33, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Anyone would know who has seen my posts on here would know that I am no apologist for the last seven years.

However, I am not interested in promoting some idea that the club get involved in a circular firing squad to make ourselves feel better about said last seven years. In that I mean, the process in which we give previous boards a good old fashioned wag of the finger and then proceed to forget to keep the current board honest. I saw that during the Stynes/McLardy era in which everything that went wrong, from multi million dollar debts to the dead possums in the air conditioner at the Junction oval was Paul Gardner's fault or Gabriel Szondy's. Or whoever we feel like blaming.

At the end of the day, we will never know who fought, who retreated and who was a good soldier and followed orders. Painting a broad brush over everyone may rob of us of people of talent and will no doubt divide the club... again.

It wasn't so long ago that Demetriou was saying our board was one of the best in the league. Based on results, it looks a bit foolish to propagate that belief today but surely, SURELY, that belief must have been based on something. They all couldn't have been deadheads.

The problem is we haven't been at the pointy end of the ladder for 5 decades...If a top club had a board that put in a performance anywhere near what our last 7 years have been like, they would all be gone.

I understand where you are coming from...but i also believe a board survives or goes "One in all in" so i am suprised that 3 have survived.

1 would have been more than enough i would have thought.

But 3 it is...PJ is in charge now....so i am looking forward to some good footy being played. It's been a while.

Here are our current Board members.

Fairly sure that Peter Spargo and John Trotter were on the previous Board. Was Spargo part of the Gardner Board? Who's the 3rd current member who hasn't previously served on the Board?

Edit: Actually there are 4 people on our current Board who have served on previous Boards. Russel Howcroft and David Thurin were both elected as part of the 2009 Board and still remain. Peter Spargo was part of the original Gardner Board and John Trotter was elected in 2011 by the looks of it. Demonwiki has the full listings of our Directors ... here

The 1965 Board of Directors sure caused a bit of a stir "back in the day"