Time to Appoint New Board

[bandicoot 1,395]

The current board has stood by for far too long and watched this great club wither away.

We don't have enough members, money, good players, facilities or respect.

We are the laughing stock of the competition and I for one am sick of it.

Its time for a change and change needs to come from the top.

I call for a petition to be raised for an extraordinary general meeting to vote for a new board.

As a 15 year paying member I have had enough.

[Diablo 1]

The current board has stood by for far too long and watched this great club wither away.

We don't have enough members, money, good players, facilities or respect.

We are the laughing stock of the competition and I for one am sick of it.

Its time for a change and change needs to come from the top.

I call for a petition to be raised for an extraordinary general meeting to vote for a new board.

As a 15 year paying member I have had enough.

Grandstanding. Don't go shouting from the rooftops unless you are prepared to do something about it.

For what it's worth, I'm coming around to this point of view though. Gardner's assertion that we may look at playing 5 games at Carrara, even if it was just off the cuff, is enough to tell me its time he took a walk. We need a leader who people will flock to, not some corporate boffin who's concept of the club's identity changes every bloody season.

Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, most supporters who fit the bill are totally apathetic.

[red&blue&true 0]

Grandstanding. Don't go shouting from the rooftops unless you are prepared to do something about it.

For what it's worth, I'm coming around to this point of view though. Gardner's assertion that we may look at playing 5 games at Carrara, even if it was just off the cuff, is enough to tell me its time he took a walk. We need a leader who people will flock to, not some corporate boffin who's concept of the club's identity changes every bloody season.

Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, most supporters who fit the bill are totally apathetic.

my heart dropped.., it has began - we are the target.

[youami 54]

This is not news to some of us who have been saying the same thing for a long time now. We are not far away from an SOS campaign of the Saints and whatever the dogs campaign was called.

Many on here defend the board hopefully this article and the actions taken by the AFL is the catalyst for a new board and some transparency about our dire financial position. Only by accepting it do we stand any chance of moving forward.

The Carrara option is not viable.

[issarab 0]

I have stated before that Ron Walker should be the President to lead us out of this Crisis he was luke warm to becoming President our problem has been not the Board we have enough expertise but no leaders but its leader we need an agressive successful dedicated and visionary person to lead us with a high profile have a plan and not accept anything less than success and make the Football Dept More Accountable our problem with Paul has been he has not made tough decisions been conned by the Daniher plan and has been a part time President with his eye not on the Ball

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

This is not news to some of us who have been saying the same thing for a long time now. We are not far away from an SOS campaign of the Saints and whatever the dogs campaign was called.

Many on here defend the board hopefully this article and the actions taken by the AFL is the catalyst for a new board and some transparency about our dire financial position. Only by accepting it do we stand any chance of moving forward.

The Carrara option is not viable.

What more do you need to know about a dire financial position that is not transparent? Who is not accepting that position?

I am all for a new Board if there are better candidates out there. Are there any for a non fee paying ceremonial role in a business that is and has been a basket case without easy solutions for some time?

[youami 54]

The first step is to accept the problem. Gardner carries on as if it's business as usual. We are at a stage where we need tin rattlers at every game. Gary Lyon suggested it in his article about a month ago. We need to accept that there is a problem.

Read that media watch posted a while ago. He cannot accept that we are in huge trouble because if he does he must take responsibility.

[bandicoot 1,395]

Melbourne's situation is different to any other clubs.

The AFL will never let the 'Melbourne' team relocate or move.

You can not have an AFL competition without a team representing the capital city where the game was founded.

[beelzebub 23,313]

You can not have an AFL competition without a team representing the capital city where the game was founded.

On the surface..I agree 100%.... but will it be US ??

Some people will see an opportunity.. Some wil lnow push the barrow for a merged "Melbourne " team..and that opens up a spot for Tassie... Dont for a moment think that some arent already mulling over this !!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The first step is to accept the problem. Gardner carries on as if it's business as usual. We are at a stage where we need tin rattlers at every game. Gary Lyon suggested it in his article about a month ago. We need to accept that there is a problem.

Read that media watch posted a while ago. He cannot accept that we are in huge trouble because if he does he must take responsibility.

Gardiner treads a difficult and fine line promoting the Club and rebuffing the media hysteria about the Club. Surely as he and other Board Members sign off on the Audited Annual Accounts they know and accept the state of affairs. The challenge is to identify and implement meaningful and commercial ventures to turn it around. And there is no low lying fruit to get quick wins on the Board.

The other problem if you are going to play the last chance crisis card you can only play it once and you need to play it correctly. You keep doing and the message goes stale very quickly.

Its does not change the macro issues but creates a whole of misinformation and media hoopla that hides the real problem.

North have done this and got 30,000 members but get 23,000 to a home game when they are a successful club and expected to win. North have a real fear that none of the membership growth is sustainable nor reliable next year. That's approx. 10,000 members who are in doubt for next year.

Nothing has been solved by North. They have just ignored a voluntarily offered financial proposition which they may have had an opporutunity to have further negotiate to their benefit. In future it will be a series of outcomes with less flexibility and on the agenda and terms of the AFL.

[bandicoot 1,395]

Collingwood have realised that they need to diversify their income stream and went about buying up pubs, clubs and hotels.

We also need to think outside the square and not rely solely on football related income.

Get a business minded board who can secure us financially.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,778]

[quote ='bandicoot'

"You can not have an AFL competition without a team representing the capital city where the game was founded."

That's not written in stone. I wish I could be confident thinking that.

The current Tasmanian push worries me,since there'll be 18 teams with the new NSW and Qld teams. The Tas. govt. is making a concerted push.

Someone would have to go out of us, Footscray, North, StK, Rich or Hawthorn. There's no sentimentality at AFL HQ. It's all about the filthy lucre.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Collingwood have realised that they need to diversify their income stream and went about buying up pubs, clubs and hotels.

We also need to think outside the square and not rely solely on football related income.

Get a business minded board who can secure us financially.

We are different disposition to Collingwood.

Collingwood have the membership clout, large supporter base, the sponsorship and the brand that brings them the revenue to create funds to acquire other assets.

We dont have those and from our legacy base there are not easy solutions. Hence exploring China options etc.

Which of the Board do you think is not business minded?

[Choko 493]

We are different disposition to Collingwood.

Collingwood have the membership clout, large supporter base, the sponsorship and the brand that brings them the revenue to create funds to acquire other assets.

We dont have those and from our legacy base there are not easy solutions. Hence exploring China options etc.

Which of the Board do you think is not business minded?

I agree that we have different challenges to Collingwood, but the reality is, we do have a board that is not supporter focused. It is headline focused and in part totally weak and subservient to the President, who sells himself on marketing and vision.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

...but the reality is, we do have a board that is not supporter focused. It is headline focused and in part totally weak and subservient to the President, who sells himself on marketing and vision.

How do you measure that we are not supporter focussed? How do you know about the relationship of the President and the Board?

[Demonster 37]

The Melbourne Board is individually, (wo)man for (wo)man, as capable as any in the comp.

Changing them will do nothing. I would have thought any 15 yr member would be wise and experienced enough to see this given the number of board turnovers we have had over that time.

Apart from magic, the only answer is on-field success. If we wallow on the field, everything else follows - membership, merchandise, gate, sponsorship etc etc. Whereas the opposite is true.

Having said that, out greatest albatross remains our home base. This Board, unlike its predecessors has done something about it with the new stadium facility. This should have been better addressed years ago, and was Joe's no. 1 priority (11 yrs ago!!) - he put $3m of his own towards it. The Board must be congratulated on this.

If we can hang in there without a knee-jerk reaction from the creator of this thread, and the AFL, climb the ladder and with our own home, we will be OK. This administration will be in a position then to consolidate our finances, similar to how Geelong has harnessed their succes.

BTW, we are in this position because we were forced to vacate the MCG for the greater good of the venue servicing all Melburnians. We have never been appropriately compensated, by the MCC or AFL. For Demetriou to come out the other day looking for a solution to Richmond's playing surface by advocating they get to train on the MCG without addressing our circumstance was quite simply outrageous, and indicative of the AFL's apalling attitude to the Dees - suspect he might have copped one in the goolies from a Demon in his playing days - let's hope it hurt.

[Choko 493]

How do you measure that we are not supporter focussed? How do you know about the relationship of the President and the Board?

Well measurement is of course impossible from the outside, but it's through anecdote and observation. It's the lack of communication to members (just look at the shambolic state of our website re training times, membership numbers, etc...), the lack of consistency in service delivery to different coterie and other peripheral groups, and some personal experiences I have had with the Board that I care not to share on this forum. Of course we do some things well, but we lack badly against other clubs in the way we treat our members, and I doubt many people who have observed and compared it would disagree.

On the President and the Board, I don't profess to know a lot about it, but I am more than prepared to stand by my comments because I do know them to be true.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,778]

[quote 'Demonster' date='Apr 17

Really well put, Dee-monster.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

On the President and the Board, I don't profess to know a lot about it, but I am more than prepared to stand by my comments because I do know them to be true.

Meaning you dont have a clue about it. Right.

....

Great sentiments dm.

[Choko 493]

Meaning you dont have a clue about it. Right.

Great sentiments dm.

You know you really are a nasty piece of work.

If I come out and name names, which would be unprofessional, I would rightly be slammed by you and others for using a forum such as this to air my dirty laundry. Get over yourself mate.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

You know you really are a nasty piece of work.

If I come out and name names, which would be unprofessional, I would rightly be slammed by you and others for using a forum such as this to air my dirty laundry. Get over yourself mate.

I am not the one making hyperbolic and hysterical attacks on players and officials reflecting a disregard of any notion of factual basis or reason.

Its your choice how you present yourself on this site and you will be rightly judged by others.

So far its big on the vitriol and low on the substance.

[Choko 493]

I am not the one making hyperbolic and hysterical attacks on players and officials reflecting a disregard of any notion of factual basis or reason.

Its your choice how you present yourself on this site and you will be rightly judged by others.

So far its big on the vitriol and low on the substance.

I apologise oh king. Everyone is doing a magnificent job.

[Nasher 33,607]

I apologise oh king. Everyone is doing a magnificent job.

That's not at all what Rhino was getting at.

[red&blue&true 0]

BTW, we are in this position because we were forced to vacate the MCG for the greater good of the venue servicing all Melburnians. We have never been appropriately compensated, by the MCC or AFL.

Who has annoited the MCC as all time trustees of the MCG anyway?!?!!??!!??!?!

Football has built and sustained that ground just as much as cricket has.

Melbourne football club is 150 years old, an iconic brand that was there at the creation of Australian rules Football, the lifeblood of Victoria, and has played at the MCG for 150 years..

Is it the state government that is above the MCC??? could we get anywhere with a submission for the MFC to be a co-trustee of the ground, and in fact for 6 months of the year between say Mar-Sep be in charge of the ground??

We could write our own stadium deals, make money from sponserships, train and administer out of the ground - HOLD THE AFL OVER THE BARREL HAHAHA

At the very least we could make a submission as a marketing exercise - imagine the headline

MFC DEMANDS ITS HOME BACK.

ITS OUR CLUBS BIRTHRIGHT.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Who has annoited the MCC as all time trustees of the MCG anyway?!?!!??!!??!?!

Football has built and sustained that ground just as much as cricket has.

Melbourne football club is 150 years old, an iconic brand that was there at the creation of Australian rules Football, the lifeblood of Victoria, and has played at the MCG for 150 years..

Is it the state government that is above the MCC??? could we get anywhere with a submission for the MFC to be a co-trustee of the ground, and in fact for 6 months of the year between say Mar-Sep be in charge of the ground??

ITS OUR CLUBS BIRTHRIGHT.

The MCG is the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The management of the ground was deemed by Act of State Parliament to MCC as the trustee of the MCG.

Football was created as a winter pursuit for cricketers. Cricket pre dates football there. For 120 years MFC was a part of the MCC until MFC chose to cut the ties with MCC in the 1980s. MFC is a licensed entity of the AFL. MFC does not have any rights over any ground nor is it in a position to deliver without the AFL.

In answer to your question....No.