Board Spill

[warren dean 193]

Rhino and Maurie, if they are so fantastic why are we so poor? I assume (actually know) that the board is responsible for appointing the footy department and I'm sure that you both know this to be the case as well. Now let's get to the point of all this - football experience on a board is no bad thing if the person with experience is also an astute businessman. Now you don't need me to point out that the AFL is an extremely successful business but on it's commission has ex players in Mike Fitzpatrick and Chris Langford, a range of business people and even union representation, as well as former PM Keating's women's affairs adviser. The CEO happens to be a former player who is an astute businessman. Rather diverse isn't it? What do we have? - suits and Bev and Sue. A rather homogenous board. Now, I have no reason to believe that our current board is not capable of effective business management but I don't think it would be a bad thing to have a more diverse representation!

[Toad33 57]

Im not happy the way things are going. I think we as a club are reactive. Anyone keen on helping me get 100 signatures for a board spill or to call a AGM over this, im really not sure how it works but I know are richmond supporter did it a while ago.

Im really keen to get the ball rolling on this so if anyone wants to help me or has got any suggestions let me know. We need action, maybe we can collect sigantures before a collingwood game or something????

Does anyone know how this works???

cause I wanna do something about it

[censored] off Bazza.

Go back to that Collingwood website where you came from. :angry:

[dees64 104]

What r u smoking bazza

Current board got ruthless & sacked Daniher

Current board getting our finances in order

Current board got our club a home base & quality training facilities @ Olympic park

Right lets have a board spill & go back 5yrs & relieve Guitnick & Zomby

[Damo 3,373]

When do you say enough is enough?

What can you do?

I think we arent going to get the best coach on offer.

I think it is because the prospective coaches look at how we are run, more than who we have on field.

Im not with you Bazza, yet.

But Im mightily [censored] off.

IMHO you could read the writing on the wall after our pathetic practice matches this year when we had everyone on the park.

When that happened at North they shoved out Schimma and put in Pagan.

The media screamed but look at North Melbourne since.

OK Im going back 15 years, but thats called a hard decision.

I am disappointed at the instant dismissal of a 'reasonable in the circumstances" point of view.

Me, Im losing faith in Paul Gardner....

He needs to understand his position as chairman is not a part time job.

He strikes me as slightly relaxed and possibly indifferent to the supporters.

[george_on_the_outer 7,691]

Bazza: firstly the Richmond fanatic ( Phantom from the Punt Road End )who tried for an EGM gave up when it was pointed out to him what it would cost his club.

To others who think footballers are great Board members, I can't find any on the Sydney, West Coast or Essendon boards. And I think Brisbane and Adelaide are the same.....now when did another club outside that group last win a Premiership?

[Courtney_Fish 183]

We need to get more aggressive maybe do something, we need a supporter a real supporter on the board that doesn't see the club from a suit position

I'm so amused how some people know what we need!

Get rid of the coach. Get rid of the board. Get rid of the players. Get rid of the coaching staff and fitness advisors. That leaves the boot studder? Can he kick?

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

bazza...

Don't try to cause a board spill.

Don't use demonland to attempt to put forward your damaging politics.

Don't come on here and try to make everyone upset... we can do that all by ourselves thankyou very much.

In fact...

Don't do anything destructive to the club.

Pretty simple really.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Rhino and Maurie, if they are so fantastic why are we so poor? I assume (actually know) that the board is responsible for appointing the footy department and I'm sure that you both know this to be the case as well. Now let's get to the point of all this - football experience on a board is no bad thing if the person with experience is also an astute businessman. Now you don't need me to point out that the AFL is an extremely successful business but on it's commission has ex players in Mike Fitzpatrick and Chris Langford, a range of business people and even union representation, as well as former PM Keating's women's affairs adviser. The CEO happens to be a former player who is an astute businessman. Rather diverse isn't it? What do we have? - suits and Bev and Sue. A rather homogenous board. Now, I have no reason to believe that our current board is not capable of effective business management but I don't think it would be a bad thing to have a more diverse representation!

If you check the experience of the Board its pretty diverse with a range of talents.

http://melbournefc.com.au/TheClub/BoardMem...91/Default.aspx

Warren, I'd be happy for you to put forward a ticket that includes people who you think are available, bring to the Board good experience, will undertake an honorary position and have both football and commercial experience.

Whats your criteria and requirements for the members of a football club board? How do you rank the criteria?

Fitzpatrick, Langford are high calibre individuals that are exceptions to the rule when it comes to the football population. They are there for their business acumen not for the fact they had played 200 games of VFL/AFL

I dont understand your categorisation of "suits" as I think it demeans the experience that is brought to the Board.

I seem to recall Hawthorn with Dunstall and Brereton on their Board and coaching sub committee that made an absolute meal of their coaching selection process a couple of years.

[SJX 6]

I got no problem with the board. Think back, say just four years ago? We're moving forward. New training ground, out of debt, new coach coming up. It's hardly reactive.

[mauriesy 7,352]

Rhino and Maurie, if they are so fantastic why are we so poor? I assume (actually know) that the board is responsible for appointing the footy department and I'm sure that you both know this to be the case as well. Now let's get to the point of all this - football experience on a board is no bad thing if the person with experience is also an astute businessman. Now you don't need me to point out that the AFL is an extremely successful business but on it's commission has ex players in Mike Fitzpatrick and Chris Langford, a range of business people and even union representation, as well as former PM Keating's women's affairs adviser. The CEO happens to be a former player who is an astute businessman. Rather diverse isn't it? What do we have? - suits and Bev and Sue. A rather homogenous board. Now, I have no reason to believe that our current board is not capable of effective business management but I don't think it would be a bad thing to have a more diverse representation!

In my opinion we had far more instability when ex-footballers (e.g. Ridley, Dixon) were prominent.

But I don't think it would be bad at all if we had another experienced footballer (or two) on the board (Bickford played a handful of games). We had Flower before his health problems, another one or two would be good provided they were also good at business and not just there to be "blokes". But this could be done through evolution and the normal processes of election at an AGM, not through a damaging spill. And if you don't have direct experience in appointing a coach, you get advice from knowledgeable people ... I think that's happening in the current coach process.

I agree with Rhino that "suits" is disparaging and implies facelessness. Gardner's experience is in advertising, Nattrass and O'Connor in media, Dohrmann is a neurosurgeon with wide medical experience, Coglin is a doctor from the health administration sector, Starkins is in finance, Sitch is a lawyer, Karen Hayes is in human resources (the third token woman!), the only accountant is Phillips and I suppose you've got to have one. I think that board experience is a broad brush and good for stable football club governance. Besides, I don't think they're actually there to be "faces" ... there is a lot of important work behind the scenes that "faces" are often not interested in.

Why is the club poor? Because of wasted opportunities in the last four decades to build on the success of the 50s and 60s. There are lots of threads here on the curse of Norm Smith etc.

But I think the current board are on the right track to grasp the mettle and see the whole of football development (e.g. a new 'home' training base) as a solution. The indicators (e.g. finances, members) are pointing the right way long-term, and it certainly wouldn't help the club by having boardroom coups every few years.

[old55 23,687]

I dont understand your categorisation of "suits" as I think it demeans the experience that is brought to the Board.

Langford and Fitzpatrick wear their guernseys to Board meetings. It's what gives them credibility.

[Choko 493]

Langford and Fitzpatrick wear their guernseys to Board meetings. It's what gives them credibility.

Haha. When I change our of my workday suit into my MFC jumper, I would hardly call myself more credible!!!

I agree with everyone after Bazza. In my experience, if you have a problem with something at the club, our Board is very accessible. I have had wonderful exchanges with Bev and Michael Coglin in the past, and have found them to be open and respectful. Similarly for Steve Harris, Paul Gardner (who I have not spoken to directly but have seen him in action) and certainly the Rev when he was our coach.

My advice is, first instance write an email to them and see how you feel about their response.

[warren dean 193]

To others who think footballers are great Board members, I can't find any on the Sydney, West Coast or Essendon boards. And I think Brisbane and Adelaide are the same.....now when did another club outside that group last win a Premiership?

[deanox 9,985]

Rhino and Maurie, if they are so fantastic why are we so poor?

that is a ridiculously short sighted comment. this board were voted in to run the club. they didnt start the club, and they didnt put us in our current financial position. since the current board has been in we have done nothing but improve our financial position. we cant go out and make big investments and try and make lots of money because we have nothing to play with yet. but we are forecasting to be debt free next year, and at that point we can invest in assets and try and become a financial power once again. until then the board are doing a great job.

[sutti 0]

Bazza I agree with everyone else on here that a EGM is not the way to go, but seriously if you have any problems/issues that you want to talk about with Gardner chuck him an email, grap it of the Grey Global Website. I did and I got a reply and had a decent *email chat* with him.

Cheers.

[TonyMelb 7]

Im not happy the way things are going. I think we as a club are reactive. Anyone keen on helping me get 100 signatures for a board spill or to call a AGM over this, im really not sure how it works but I know are richmond supporter did it a while ago.

Im really keen to get the ball rolling on this so if anyone wants to help me or has got any suggestions let me know. We need action, maybe we can collect sigantures before a collingwood game or something????

Does anyone know how this works???

cause I wanna do something about it

Bazza, As others have noted there is no value for MFC in diverting the Board and Administration from the task at hand. Critical that all effort is concerntrated now on getting the right decision on new MFC coach!

Need to get that in place and RIGHT!.

Any move for a Board spill at MFC or anywhere else must only be where a fully developed and viable alternative ticket including experienced people with a well developed and co-ordinated plan is put to the members against the incumbant Board.

Absolutely no value for MFC or us members by going thru the basis purely because of our frustration (which we all share) at the state of things right now. The current board have a lot to do in next 12 months and will need to demonstrate their effectiveness. So I suggest you wait until we see the outcome of the current issues before the MFC and then if you still feel strongly join with others in seeking to put your concerns to the MFC during 2008. Then any alternative candidates can stand for the Board and some orderly chnages can take place.

[diesel 420]

Me, Im losing faith in Paul Gardner....

He needs to understand his position as chairman is not a part time job.

He strikes me as slightly relaxed and possibly indifferent to the supporters.

Wrong!! It is a part time job and a voluntary one at that but with full time hours.

He would definitely be indifferent to carping supporters who suggest spills of the board for no other reason than their "not happy". If anyone proposing a spill does not have all the neccesary skills or people to do a better job then they would serve the club better volunteering their time to help in other ways. I suspect bazza is one of these people?

[warren dean 193]

that is a ridiculously short sighted comment. this board were voted in to run the club. they didnt start the club, and they didnt put us in our current financial position. since the current board has been in we have done nothing but improve our financial position. we cant go out and make big investments and try and make lots of money because we have nothing to play with yet. but we are forecasting to be debt free next year, and at that point we can invest in assets and try and become a financial power once again. until then the board are doing a great job.

I appreciate your opinion, Deanox! I meant poor in an on-field sense. I get back to a point that I have already made that nobody seems to want to address- it was this board who extended the contracts of most of the footy dept - Fagan, Cameron etc in the last couple of years. If it is the Footy Dept's fault, then by extension the board has a case to answer as the Footy Dept is ultimately employed by them. For the third time, I do not propose a spill, but I am also not an advocate of blind faith! There is nothing wrong with asking questions and having opinions which might be different to the mainstream. Somebody (can't remember who) suggested I come up with an alternative board - not sure why given I have not advocated a spill, but I think G Lyon has already offered to assist the club in any capacity, Stynes runs a very successful business, Alves, even Ingo is a successful businessman. By the way, the recently departed Deputy Premier (Thwaites) is a keen Demons fan and could be a good board member. My use of the term suits may have been ill-considered but there is a sameness about the board. I am a fan of the involvement of Bev, Sue and Karen and I am very proud of the stand the club has taken on issues like breast cancer awareness. However, we can all improve and we are all entitled to an opinion. Some posters on this board do sometimes appear to accept far to willingly the view of the Board. That's Ok - we are all different. Cheers!

[deanox 9,985]

I appreciate your opinion, Deanox! I meant poor in an on-field sense. I get back to a point that I have already made that nobody seems to want to address- it was this board who extended the contracts of most of the footy dept - Fagan, Cameron etc in the last couple of years. If it is the Footy Dept's fault, then by extension the board has a case to answer as the Footy Dept is ultimately employed by them. For the third time, I do not propose a spill, but I am also not an advocate of blind faith! There is nothing wrong with asking questions and having opinions which might be different to the mainstream. Somebody (can't remember who) suggested I come up with an alternative board - not sure why given I have not advocated a spill, but I think G Lyon has already offered to assist the club in any capacity, Stynes runs a very successful business, Alves, even Ingo is a successful businessman. By the way, the recently departed Deputy Premier (Thwaites) is a keen Demons fan and could be a good board member. My use of the term suits may have been ill-considered but there is a sameness about the board. I am a fan of the involvement of Bev, Sue and Karen and I am very proud of the stand the club has taken on issues like breast cancer awareness. However, we can all improve and we are all entitled to an opinion. Some posters on this board do sometimes appear to accept far to willingly the view of the Board. That's Ok - we are all different. Cheers!

i understand what you are saying, but if you think these people would serve better than the current board members they should be approached and asked to stand. if they choose to stand they can stand at the next election against current board members. i am not sure exactly how long the board terms are but i thought they were either 1 or 2 year elections. putting up names like ingo, stynes and lyon is fantastic. but do these people want to do it? lyon wont because of his media commitments. too much conflict i believe, he will help in any unofficial capacity. stynes spends a lot of his time doing social work. does he have 30 spare hours a week to help run the footy club? gardner and co would be currently doing 60-70 hour weeks with their own jobs and the footy club, not everyone wants to do this just because it is suggested they would do a good job.

i agree the board did extend certain contracts within the footy dept. but i ask when they were extended did you think something should be done otherwise? CAC has done a fantastic job with recruiting. i dont think fagans job as footy manager has been performed poorly. ND's tenure could have been questioned but we have made the finals 3 years running for the first time in decades. this year injuries and other circumstances stuffed the club around. should we have sacked ND in one of the previous 3 years when we made the finals???

if we had been in the bottom 4 like carlton for 5 years i could understand you 'blaming the board for our footy dept'. but as it stands i think we have been performing very well both on and off the field over the past 3 years (of course there have been exceptions and questions raised at times) but we havnt even had a complete season that is poor and we have already reacted by sacking the coach and moving on.

are the board not doing the right thing?

[demon3165 2,798]

I take it that most posters want Sheedy as coach and if he does not coach us then the board failed? for gods sake he has just been told that he will not be coaching the bombers and his side is still in line for the finals, what if he says to wait until they are out of it, is that the clubs fault then? if you think it is, you are not in the real world !!

As for wanting a spill of the board, what crap, we are moving out of debt getting a new home, 27,000 odd members all time high, moving into the modern era as a club, having a stable board is the reason top clubs become succesful over a long period of time.

[warren dean 193]

i understand what you are saying, but if you think these people would serve better than the current board members they should be approached and asked to stand. if they choose to stand they can stand at the next election against current board members. i am not sure exactly how long the board terms are but i thought they were either 1 or 2 year elections. putting up names like ingo, stynes and lyon is fantastic. but do these people want to do it? lyon wont because of his media commitments. too much conflict i believe, he will help in any unofficial capacity. stynes spends a lot of his time doing social work. does he have 30 spare hours a week to help run the footy club? gardner and co would be currently doing 60-70 hour weeks with their own jobs and the footy club, not everyone wants to do this just because it is suggested they would do a good job.

i agree the board did extend certain contracts within the footy dept. but i ask when they were extended did you think something should be done otherwise? CAC has done a fantastic job with recruiting. i dont think fagans job as footy manager has been performed poorly. ND's tenure could have been questioned but we have made the finals 3 years running for the first time in decades. this year injuries and other circumstances stuffed the club around. should we have sacked ND in one of the previous 3 years when we made the finals???

if we had been in the bottom 4 like carlton for 5 years i could understand you 'blaming the board for our footy dept'. but as it stands i think we have been performing very well both on and off the field over the past 3 years (of course there have been exceptions and questions raised at times) but we havnt even had a complete season that is poor and we have already reacted by sacking the coach and moving on.

are the board not doing the right thing?

Just pointing out that there are ex players who would potentially make good board members in response to some posters who felt that we didn't need these types of people. Not saying that any of them would be better or worse but would be different to the current make up and perhaps add something different. Re - CAC, I am on the record on this site as questioning a few of his decisions - I don't rate him as highly as some others but then again he is not the worst either. I agree that Fagan seems to have a done a good job. So - if it's not the Boards fault, and not the Footy Dept's who is responsible for the poor performances? ND was sacked but he was part of the Footy Dept - he is he solely responsible? Is it the lack of passion and support from the fans? Is it bad luck? Is it the culture? Or could it be the players? Or a combination of all? Off the field things are moving in the right direction. Unfortunately a club like ours must be competitive on the field if wants to remain a meaningful member of this comp. I'm afraid the only thing we have to trade off at the moment is our name - and now I am agreeing with Mike Shehan, which worries the hell out of me!

[grazman 7,451]

Langford and Fitzpatrick wear their guernseys to Board meetings. It's what gives them credibility.

Please let's not mention Langford... I was pretty young at the time, but I still remember we were on the verge of trading Roger Ellingworth to the Hawks for Langford, then they got cold feet.... I nearly cried.... then to make matters worse we decided to trade Elshaugh.. then I did cry.... oh the early eighties were bad.

[bjgc 0]

The only thing they should have is a coach, recruiting, and fitness advisor spill. Daniher is gone, Riley will follow him and Curran should go to. Cameron should go he has had long enough to build a good list and has failed we have too many holes to cover for him not to lose his job. Bohden and Paulo have been disgraceful. They looked too far forward in to the season. They all said that they tapered off before our preseason games thinking all about hitting their peak at the end of the season because our form has been poor for many years at the end of the season virtually forgeting all about the start of the season and what happens we have a 0-9 start season over. Geelong and the Kangaroos publicly stated that their fitness was poor last season so what do they do ? They train their arses off through the whole summer and now they are first and second. I'm happy with the way Gardiner is going ATM but if they don't do the things that I mentioned above then you will have my support next year.

[9. David Neitz 0]

CAC has done a fantastic job with recruiting.

Disagree.

[deanox 9,985]

Disagree.

elaborate.