Yep charming, that wasn't at all condescending, rude and off-putting......

Seriously, just because someone disagrees with you and isn't looking to kick up an unnecessary stink, doesn't make them stupid.

I would have thought, given your attitude that dissent would be applauded, but I guess not.

And just for curiosities sake, how are you going to make a difference on who the Melbourne Football Club selects as its new coach?

Garnering information should not be the problem, it is how you use that information that matters. And that would come down to the board.

And they are asking people who they believe wil best be able to find them what they are looking for.

And unless you Alan want to have another go at me, I am seriously done having to explain myself over and over again.

I would have thought, given your attitude that dissent would be applauded, but I guess not.

Not quite. Try re-reading my previous post.

I simply advocate the common sense plan. All else is nonsesnse. If what I have said all along doesn't cut your jib, so be it.

And its the members who can make a difference.

Mr Smithee.

Please avail all of us of your priveledged insight to the process.

What are we, as the great unwashed, ignorant and incapable of intelligible discernations missing ?

What is wrong with the process teh MFC has in place ( keeping in mind none of us will be privvy to the exact proccess)

and how would you do it ?

seriously...what would you do, how would you go about it ?

look forward to the input

And its the members who can make a difference.

Well despite the attitude, I am with you on this completely, the members can make a difference, just not in this particular (coaching) instance.......

And well said bub for the post below !!!

At the risk of sounding heretic.

The member s have no real place in the selection of a coach. To go down this road is to provoke the popularist theory.

We do have input as members. We vote on who is on the board. That is our lot. From then on we have to trust that these people are indeed capable of inofrmed decisions with the most meaningful outcomes for all involved.

I would suggest that very few people here, or indeed in the populus general would have the slightest idea about what really makes those, being asked for input, tick. The MFC obviosuly with representaions at the coal face probably do.

I think its quite marvellous really that a club would even announce genrally as much as it has. It doesnt have to.

It trying to show the members, the footy public and ndeed any intersted party that is a new broom of thinking. A more profesional consultive approach. That its not going for any you beaut , my favourite son , type solution. Its looking forward sufficiently enough to know that Rome isnt built in a day. Its seeking the wisdom and input of people who despite many 's consternation must have some street cred in that industry.

It ( the MFC ) isnt seekig any sensationalist solution. Its being methodical. All good and successful BUSINESSES are !!

It seems that the MFC is damned if it does and damned if it doesnt.

The MFC is quite unashamedly saying maybe as a group of managers we dont necessarily know everything and maybe its an idea to ask others who might.

I for one have confidence in this process. Not blindly. One doesnt need any blind appreciation of this as a whole, its all there in front of us.

Im reasonably assured of a successful future. The club is going about a process of relocating to better premises and surrounds. its tying in with other similalrly minded sporting and porfessional outfits to feed off synergy. ( Team Melb ) its looking way outside the sqaure regarding future interest in the club ( the China Projest ).

And now its looking to put into place a regime of coaching and suplemtary staff to take us forward.

Just how is any of this a shambles ?

At the risk of sounding heretic.

Try rhetoric.

So will the Rhesus Revivalist's rewiring of responsibility revolutionize and catapult a reversal of fortune after 40 odd years of revulsion. Or will we all sit here in '09 and reverie the review & revoke any knowledge of what we acccepted as reverend.

Only Father time will tell. Am I right?

Try rhetoric.

Only Father time will tell. Am I right?

mate.. whats YOUR solution then ? all i hear is YOUR rhetoric !!

GET RATTEN

mate.. whats YOUR solution then ?

It doesn't require much reading between the lines to come up with the answer to your question.

It doesn't require much reading between the lines to come up with the answer to your question.

so ...you have none. Lots of critique...but nothing to really add.

so ...you have none. Lots of critique...but nothing to really add.

Absolutely spot on.

Sluggish input Rhino.

To hell with 'so called experts' offering tuppence.

If the board can't manage & deliver on critical football matters then what good are they. If they continually pass the parcel, just who exactly who has the supporter entrusted to run this club. Outsourcing is expensive & all too often non engaging and generic in output. Overrated.

More often than not, businesses empower their own to make the hard call. Why has the board positioned responsibility elsewhere.

Master Bub, its time for the board to bite the bullet and go after who they believe is right for the job.

Time to move on.

Ok Bubby. How bout this. To hell with 'so called experts' offering tuppence.

If the board can't manage & deliver on critical football matters then what good are they. If they continually pass the parcel, just who exactly who has the supporter entrusted to run this club. Outsourcing is expensive & all too often non engaging and generic in output. Overrated.

More often than not, businesses empower their own to make the hard call. Why has the board positioned responsibility elsewhere.

Master Bub, its time for the board to bite the bullet and go after who they believe is right for the job.

Time to move on.

Its the Board's final decision.

The consultants were appointed by and report to the Board.

Your spleen venting is misplaced.

And the boards flawed judgement is only preceeded by their unwillingness to take complete ownership of its decisions.

Your foresight is tunnel visioned.

And the boards flawed judgement is only preceeded by their unwillingness to take complete ownership of its decisions.

Your foresight is tunnel visioned.

Once again....its the Board's final decision.

Your posts seem like a lot of hot air in dire need of some factual basis.

Good luck.

Once again....its the Board's final decision.

Your posts seem like a lot of hot air in dire need of some factual basis.

Good luck.

Here are a few facts re the "consultative" panel. Frawley and Schwab = failed coaches; Walls = one premiership as a coach 20 years ago which was heavily bankrolled; Lyon = too comfortable in the media and hasn't the stomach for the job (as pointed out by Sheedy); Burke = very little team success; Ingo = a good tryer who is apparently quite a successful builder (super qualified to assit in the appointment of a coach); Mark Maclure = some very insightful comments on the ABC over the past 5 years and that's about it for a recent contribution. What exactly is it that these blokes will be contributing to the process? The Board will make the final decision but it must be fully informed. As a member I help elect a board to run the footy club, not waste money consulting people whose opinions are not necessarily any more informed than some of the posters on this site. These guys watch a lot of footy and talk about it a lot. I just question their success rate and therefore their ability to contribute to constructively to the "process".

Anyway, enough time wasted on this!

For someone who cowtows the Mfc line regardless, your loyalty in the process and the board is unsurprisingly blinkered.

A board who is pepared to relinquish all decision making accountability in favor of a consultative process of which legitimate question have been raised of its credibility and suitability.

A board who has boldly positioned itself within the process to simply adjudge feedback and intern the incumbent.

A board who doesn't have the backbone to back their own sole judgement. A Claytons board. The kind of board you'd love to have with you when in the trenches.

This process is a farce at best. Phoney.

And so far you have shown neither a knowledge of the process nor a capacity to provide a plausible alternative. A performance rich in hyperbole but absent in substance

And Warren Dean how does your assessments of the consultative committee diminish their knowledge and experience in football and their ability to provide insight?

What suggestions do you have for alternative members for the Committee?

And so far you have shown neither a knowledge of the process nor a capacity to provide a plausible alternative. A performance rich in hyperbole but absent in substance

And Warren Dean how does your assessments of the consultative committee diminish their knowledge and experience in football and their ability to provide insight?

What suggestions do you have for alternative members for the Committee?

Early start, Rhino! It doesn't diminish it all - I just don't rate it that highly. I would suggest we might be better served by having a smaller group of people with recent success - names that come to mind include Alistair Lynch; Jason Ball (recent premiership players) and perhaps someone of more experience like Stan Alves. Just not sure that the blokes consulted thus far are the best we could get and there are certainly too many of them.

I know Smithee, real men just pluck it outta their arse ...

They're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. If they weren't consulting people with football experience we'd have 100 posts on here asking what do Gardner, Philips, Bickford and Harris know about footy. Yeah Walls is an idiot and Alves makes more sense, but Maclure (sp?) has a clue and I really like him as a choice. The sub-committee has got the testing (criticised elsewhere - big surprise), the advice and they are going weigh it up and make a decision. I'm fine with that. Posters here and at Demonology carry on as if we are consulting Steve Irwin via Doris Stokes and inspecting the applicants poo for a sign from the Lord.

regardless on who is involved in the selection of the next coach, the same applicants will apply for the job. I think that despite certain misgivings about some elements of this selection committee between them they know a fair bit about footy and football clubs and coaches. They will recommend but the board surely is ultimately responsible for who ever is chosen.

and to Chris Connolly just say no.

I know Smithee, real men just pluck it outta their arse ...

Rhino, your complete faith in the system justifies explanation. You know I don't rate it. So what does it for you?

And given this club has infinite resources, enlighten me as to how many people you think this club needs to change a lightbulb?

And close but no cigar Old.... they push them out.

Rhino, your complete faith in the system justifies explanation. You know I don't rate it. So what does it for you?

And given this club has infinite resources, enlighten me as to how many people you think this club needs to change a lightbulb?

And close but no cigar Old.... they push them out.

It simple Alan. I will back a sound process and Old has nailed it perfectly.

I am amused you dont rate a process you dont seem to understand.

And I sure your advice to Old comes from a sound process.

Early start, Rhino! It doesn't diminish it all - I just don't rate it that highly. I would suggest we might be better served by having a smaller group of people with recent success - names that come to mind include Alistair Lynch; Jason Ball (recent premiership players) and perhaps someone of more experience like Stan Alves. Just not sure that the blokes consulted thus far are the best we could get and there are certainly too many of them.

Great choice. Two players with no coaching experience and I dont know what a premiership medal gives us in that process. A further one more that has not coached for 10 years. Alves got sacked as a perennial loser from St Kilda. Not alot of perspective.

I would not be so prominent in the criticism of the appointed group given the calibre of the alternative.

Alan, I've read most of the posts, and I can understand your frustraion. What I cannot understand is why, given your frustration, you won't put forward an alternative method to get a coach. Surely, after the amount of vitriol poured at you to 'put up or shut up', you'd at least do one or the other? Given that others seem satisfied and you don't, isn't it incumbent on you to provide to alternative? Don't let me down!