Here we go again.....

From Stretcher to Breakthrough Season

Is Harris to blame?

He bares the ultimate responsibility for the outcome.

I hope they get someone more capable for the role than Harris.

Here we go again.....

From Stretcher to Breakthrough Season

Is Harris to blame?

The entire story that appeared in The Australian is based on the SEN interview (i.e. Greg Denham is engaging in lazy journalism by simply transcribing what he heard on another form of media). I reckon Denham added that last bit based purely on supposition on his part and that it has no basis in fact. Harris has led the club well, and got the finances and administration under control. The poor performance financially last season is because of events on the field that were largely out of Harris' control. It's a beat-up by The Australian - why else would it be the very last sentence in the story? If the idea was credible Denham would have led his story with it.

Ivor

He bares the ultimate responsibility for the outcome.

I hope they get someone more capable for the role than Harris.

Yeah, I was a bit suprised when they appointed him after performing a caretaker role. Whilst I have never had a problem with they way he has conducted himself, I suppose the bottom line does the talking.

Do you think it is a matter of who we could afford at the time? Was Harris a "value for for money" type appointment?

The entire story that appeared in The Australian is based on the SEN interview (i.e. Greg Denham is engaging in lazy journalism by simply transcribing what he heard on another form of media). I reckon Denham added that last bit based purely on supposition on his part and that it has no basis in fact. Harris has led the club well, and got the finances and administration under control. The poor performance financially last season is because of events on the field that were largely out of Harris' control. It's a beat-up by The Australian - why else would it be the very last sentence in the story? If the idea was credible Denham would have led his story with it.

Ivor

You might be right... time will tell.

I did wonder why the guys who listened to yesterday's SEN interview didn't mention it?

You might be right... time will tell.

I did wonder why the guys who listened to yesterday's SEN interview didn't mention it?

I heard the entire interview with DB; there was narry a mention of Steve Harris.

Dean Bailey wants to move Bell to the midfield!! WOO HOO, I have been advocating this move for years and finally we have a coach who agrees :D

Oh hang on, there was other stuff written in the article?... oh right, well if the club feels that there is a better person for the CEO position than Harris, and if they think that last year's financial results were largely his fault, than of course they have to make some positional changes.

There have been a lot of movements at the club over the last 6 months, what's one more?

Yeah, I was a bit suprised when they appointed him after performing a caretaker role. Whilst I have never had a problem with they way he has conducted himself, I suppose the bottom line does the talking.

Do you think it is a matter of who we could afford at the time? Was Harris a "value for for money" type appointment?

Its a matter of whos available and willing and being prepared to pay the market rates to get that person. I dont buy the value for money proposition. From my experience, if you pay peanuts etc etc. If you save a couple of bucks appointing a monkey you pay them out in multiples as consequence of their poor performance. Its a false economy for such an important position.

I dont believe Harris was a "value for money" appointment but there were areas of concern that impacted the bottom line that were definitely his responsibility. I am glad he is going.

Jaded, there were a number of issues that impacted the results some which Harris could not control some which were definitely his issues. Bottom line profit is but one key performance measure of a CEO. There are other measures besides financial and Harris appeared to struggle with those.

I hope the Club gets the CEO appointment right. Its a very important role than does not get the profile of other roles.

That's right. Of course it was Steve Harris' fault (sarcasm). Had nothing to do with the fact that we couldn't win a game and subsequently had poor crowds (and probably less members than we would have had if we were winning - don't be fooled by the 'record' numbers. It was the 1st time MCC affiliate members were counted).

Its a matter of whos available and willing and being prepared to pay the market rates to get that person. I dont buy the value for money proposition. From my experience, if you pay peanuts etc etc. If you save a couple of bucks appointing a monkey you pay them out in multiples as consequence of their poor performance. Its a false economy for such an important position.

I dont believe Harris was a "value for money" appointment but there were areas of concern that impacted the bottom line that were definitely his responsibility. I am glad he is going.

Jaded, there were a number of issues that impacted the results some which Harris could not control some which were definitely his issues. Bottom line profit is but one key performance measure of a CEO. There are other measures besides financial and Harris appeared to struggle with those.

I hope the Club gets the CEO appointment right. Its a very important role than does not get the profile of other roles.

I agree with you Rhino, you don't save any money with monkeys in the long run, like anything in life...short cuts don't pay.

The question was whether money was a consideration when making the appointment. From memory, they had plenty of time to headhunt the very best if they wanted to, whilst Harris was caretaking.

Does anyone have answers to these questions?

1. How much money does the AFL actually hand over to us each year?

2. Does the AFL giving us money, give them any sort of control over or say into our appointments, budgets and other club matters etc?

I agree with you Rhino, you don't save any money with monkeys in the long run, like anything in life...short cuts don't pay.

The question was whether money was a consideration when making the appointment. From memory, they had plenty of time to headhunt the very best if they wanted to, whilst Harris was caretaking.

Does anyone have answers to these questions?

1. How much money does the AFL actually hand over to us each year?

2. Does the AFL giving us money, give them any sort of control over or say into our appointments, budgets and other club matters etc?

Money is always a consideration. Its not just what you offer but what a potential candidate wants. There are some jobs no money would get me near if I was appropriately qualified. I guess the question is "How attractive is an unfinancial high profile Club with a limited supporter base?"

The answer to question 1 was posted by Nasher some time ago which dispelled a few myths that haunt the AFL's financial support to MFC.

The answer to question 2 is most definitely if the Club is not able to competently operate as a football club within agreed financial budgets. The worse a Club is operationally and/or financially the more involved the AFL is. FWIW, MFC got a please explain when it first advised that it would not meet its budgets. Also the AFL can work mystically behind the scenes where a Club does not fulfil its overall plan.

Money is always a consideration. Its not just what you offer but what a potential candidate wants. There are some jobs no money would get me near if I was appropriately qualified. I guess the question is "How attractive is an unfinancial high profile Club with a limited supporter base?"

The answer to question 1 was posted by Nasher some time ago which dispelled a few myths that haunt the AFL's financial support to MFC.

The answer to question 2 is most definitely if the Club is not able to competently operate as a football club within agreed financial budgets. The worse a Club is operationally and/or financially the more involved the AFL is. FWIW, MFC got a please explain when it first advised that it would not meet its budgets. Also the AFL can work mystically behind the scenes where a Club does not fulfil its overall plan.

Greg Swann, Brian Cook and Eugene Arrocca all left financially stable clubs for the challenge of changing the fortunes of a basket case. I'm sure there's well qualified people out there looking for a challenge.

IMO, any move to replace Steve Harris has the blessing of the AFL.

1. How much money does the AFL actually hand over to us each year?

2. Does the AFL giving us money, give them any sort of control over or say into our appointments, budgets and other club matters etc?

1. In 2006 the magic number was $6,551,687, which is well within the vicinity of everyone else. No figures on hand for 2007 -- yet.

2. No. The AFL do have ways of bullying us when they so choose, just as they do all the 16 clubs, but not via money distribution.

Greg Swann, Brian Cook and Eugene Arrocca all left financially stable clubs for the challenge of changing the fortunes of a basket case. I'm sure there's well qualified people out there looking for a challenge.

Unfortunately not chasing the opportunity at MFC.

Steve Harris has close ties to the age and that is a good way of advertising.....but apart from that i cant see any other reason why we should keep him...now does anyone know roughly or have a ball park figure of how much steve harris is getting paid?? time to keep the dice rolling and say goodbye to harris...now i dont want gardner to go but i cant think that he will be staying around for much longer...i can safetly say that we are almost a brand new club, now all we need to do is trade carroll and let some of our players "holland, white, yze" retire to let in lots of fresh new blood...or atleast try to trade these players...

I remember reading somewhere that the staff turnover rate at MFC during S.H. time was extraordinarily high - suggestion that he was not the best operator when it came to staff harmony.

This is a big deal.

Changing CEO's is a huge step in the administration of an organisation. Steve was a great improvement on that Ellis impostor,but he hasn't had an enormous impact. It's easy to glibly write him off (as we did with John Anderson) on the back of our disappointing financial results, but I have the feeling that the high staff turnover is a more significant factor.

I presume it's a fairly highly paid position(from a footy club's perspective),but footy clubs probably find it hard to compete financially in the corporate scene when looking for effective business administrators.

Let's hope the board can come up with someone with a good track record in business, who wants the job as a challenge(perhaps a lifelong Demon supporter retired from big business???).

Thanks for your efforts, Steve. Good luck in your next challenge.....will you go back to barracking for the Saints? (that's a challenge!)

Steve Harris has close ties to the age and that is a good way of advertising

How much advertising were MFC doing with The Age over the past 5 years? There is no evidence that Harris has any pull with his old emplyer or that there was any benefit to MFC.

FWIW, I think rednblue is onto something...

Are we jumping the gun here? All we have is a throwaway line at the end of a newpaper article; I would like to see something more reliable before we get too het up.

How much advertising were MFC doing with The Age over the past 5 years? There is no evidence that Harris has any pull with his old emplyer or that there was any benefit to MFC.

FWIW, I think rednblue is onto something...

i think there is something little behind the scenes...im probably wrong, it was more of a "thats the only thing i can think of that is worth keeping him there for" kind of thing...FWIW, there has actually been three age ads this year

i think there is something little behind the scenes...im probably wrong, it was more of a "thats the only thing i can think of that is worth keeping him there for" kind of thing...FWIW, there has actually been three age ads this year

Often newspapers, radio stations and Tv channels do contras with the footy clubs - they run Club ads, if the Club advertises the media company in it's ( the Clubs) publications and events.

I don't know what arrangement MFC and The Age had tho.

Are we jumping the gun here? All we have is a throwaway line at the end of a newpaper article; I would like to see something more reliable before we get too het up.

I doubt it undees. There is more to it than the press article.

How much advertising were MFC doing with The Age over the past 5 years? There is no evidence that Harris has any pull with his old emplyer or that there was any benefit to MFC.

FWIW, I think rednblue is onto something...

Arn't we sponsored by The Age? Was that the result of Harris?

I understand there was a high turnover rate of staff but did that have anything to do with Harris attracting more capable and suitable people to the club to replace others less capable or suitable? I'm just asking, I don't know. But there seems to be an assumption Harris is a bad manager of people.

I thought Harris and Gardner were a good team and seemed to have a good vision for our club. I'm disappointed that partnership is about to end (if the report in the Australian is accurate). However it is typical of the MFC, when things look good on field the off field side of things goes pear shaped.

Surely Harris is better than the "Snake-Skin Salesman". Remember that disaster

I understand there was a high turnover rate of staff but did that have anything to do with Harris attracting more capable and suitable people to the club to replace others less capable or suitable? I'm just asking, I don't know. But there seems to be an assumption Harris is a bad manager of people.

The high turnover of staff was at a significant $cost to the club, and a concern to the AFL. The fact that Harris is being replaced suggests that something was amiss with his management.