Don McLardy resigns

To be honest, that may have tied into what I wrote earlier. He probably shouldn't have stepped forward at that press conference, no matter how much he wanted to. Stress has a bad effect on the body. Imagine how bad it must have been when you are in the advanced stages of cancer. It was sad whatever way you look at it.

I agree on the passion part but I think he worked out too late that having your mates in high places, even though you think you know them pretty well, can work out disastrously. Schwab only came back on his recommendation. That should also be mentioned when talking about Jimmy wanting Schwab sacked.

On the whole, I think his positives well outweighed his negatives but some of the misfires of that era are still haunting us today.

His memory has still been dishonoured just the same. Like I said, if Jimmy's passion was only partly replicated, we would not be in this current mess. I include the players in that.

Jimmy will always be an icon. I have no doubt. Those who outvoted him to reinstate Schwab in 2011 are the ones i want off the board. ...

WYL, do you know who on the board voted which way? It is interesting because if there indeed are two distinct factions on our current board it probably explains the leaking that is constantly occurring.

The failure of this Board to do its job is not for me to point out - it is there for all to see with its leaders gone and the Boards renewal happening as we speak.

But are the decisions of this Board wholly the reason we are in this mire?

I don't want to defend or shift blame but merely point out that 'blame' can be widely apportioned to Demons in our recent history as to make it irrelevant.

The points of reference of blame for our:

List

The picks lost in 1999 and 2000 for salary cap cheating.

Daniher trading away picks for experienced players like Pickett, Holland, and Johnson.

Terrible drafting in 2007-2009.

Finances

Upping the FD spending that has put us in our current predicament, and The Fine, and the future 'paying out' is on their shoulders. However, they were able to help the supporters come together and get rid of debt and purchase an asset in Brighton worth quite a bit of money. But this Board did wipe out the failure of previous Boards to rid the club of that debt.

Coaching Failures

Bailey in 07 and Neeld in 11 have been failures but they have also had to work with a list that has got steadily worse (and they may well have contributed to that). Daniher will have to take some for the list management decisions above.

Culture

I suspect you are talking about this more than anything to do with performance: the hiring of perceived friends at CEO (CC's hiring was the previous Board), the involvement of the Consultant Lyon who wilfully refuses to take responsibility, the lax process involved in the hiring of Neeld, and the handling of The Tanking Saga.

You can think that this is The Worst Board in History if you want to, but that does not mean that they are the reason for why we are as bad as we are. Their time has been marred but these Demons do not leave the club in a worse state than they found it.

I say this, again, not to defend them - but to point out that this Board leaving will not solve our issues. We are a drain on the the AFL right now because of our performances and that comes down to the state of our list, a list shredded and abused and not replenished properly since Daniher.

I think that is why Jackson says that managing the list is the most important job at an AFL club.

Miles to go before we sleep.

The Board leaves this club is a far worse state than when they found it.

The finances are better but the debt will be very similar. The admin is needing reorganisation; the FD needs reorganisation, we have a shattered list, a shattered coach, a dearth of genuine talent and are a laughing stock. Our reputation is worse and this is affecting our finances and ability to retain and attract players.

Most of these things were better under the previous board. Now we are in our position for lots of reasons. This board has solved one problem and created several all while burning our reputation and scrambling the club internally. Be honest. they stink and they stink more that any board I can remember and have damaged the club more than any board I can remember. We need to be brutally honest about the many reasons we are where we are and at least one big one is this board. What is more, they have had many chances and burnt almost all of them.

You want to know who is the best President? The one who never makes mistakes. Every decision is the correct one.

I don't mind mistakes - hell I have made enough! What I mind is how you fix them - what responsibility you take. The OX is a great example of a bloke who made every mistake a man can make. He owns that and tried to move on. He earns a lot of respect for that. I don't mind a board or CEO who err, as long as they spot it and fix it. I don't think this board does it - own errors or fix them.

Jimmy will always be an icon. I have no doubt. Those who outvoted him to reinstate Schwab in 2011 are the ones i want off the board.

People have had a go at me many times for continually bringing up 186. Well now you know why. CS was given another 18 months to run a muck.

Cameron you are a charming man to speak to but do not ever be involved at this club again.

It is known that Jimmy was one of the people who wanted to keep CS after the 186 event - mainly because they believed loosing both coach at once would have been to unstable for the club.

Personally I think that was the right decision. Having both president, coach and CEO turnover in the same year wouldn't have been an ideal situation for the club to be in, would have been hard to control, possible adverse effect on sponsorship, effect on players, would be hard to manage and control, issue of who would be intrim CEO, care taker coach all at once and possible negative stigma on new possible replacements.

Why CS was kept onwards after MN was chosen beats me, possibly to see if it could work with him and a new coach/FD including Craig. Clearly just prolonged the inevitable.

Edited June 15, 2013 by PJ_12345

It is known that Jimmy was one of the people who wanted to keep CS after the 186 event - mainly because they believed loosing both coach at once would have been to unstable for the club.

Personally I think that was the right decision. Having both president, coach and CEO turnover in the same year wouldn't have been an ideal situation for the club to be in, would have been hard to control, possible adverse effect on sponsorship, effect on players, would be hard to manage and control, issue of who would be intrim CEO, care taker coach all at once and possible negative stigma on new possible replacements.

Why CS was kept onwards after MN was chosen beats me, possibly to see if it could work with him and a new coach/FD including Craig. Clearly just prolonged the inevitable.

Keeping Schwab, sorry reinstating Schwab after 186 was a MONUMENTAL FAILURE on the Board's behalf. I don't care what Garry Lyon's excuses were. 18 months later the club is that much worse.

Stop believing all the club spin PJ. They failed.

Keeping Schwab, sorry reinstating Schwab after 186 was a MONUMENTAL FAILURE on the Board's behalf. I don't care what Garry Lyon's excuses were. 18 months later the club is that much worse.

Stop believing all the club spin PJ. They failed.

You missed my point WYL:

1. Jim's decision was to not axe DB and CS at the same time, wasn't over ruled by the board like you were saying
2. Losing CEO, coach and president within a few months would have made the club to unstable (Jim would have known he was going to have to step down soon)
3. The decision was therefore right not to axe coach and CEO at the same time BUT the the decision to keep CS past MN's appointment was wrong

Edited June 15, 2013 by PJ_12345

The Board leaves this club is a far worse state than when they found it.

The finances are better but the debt will be very similar. The admin is needing reorganisation; the FD needs reorganisation, we have a shattered list, a shattered coach, a dearth of genuine talent and are a laughing stock. Our reputation is worse and this is affecting our finances and ability to retain and attract players.

Most of these things were better under the previous board. Now we are in our position for lots of reasons. This board has solved one problem and created several all while burning our reputation and scrambling the club internally. Be honest. they stink and they stink more that any board I can remember and have damaged the club more than any board I can remember. We need to be brutally honest about the many reasons we are where we are and at least one big one is this board. What is more, they have had many chances and burnt almost all of them.

Why is there this need to continue bashing this Board? They admit errors. Many will depart. What is being gained by this constant blame game? Do you find it productive?

Since you have made some allegations I will give my viewpoint.

The debt will not be similar. It was $5m peviously which has been extinguished. There is a projected $1.5 m trading loss expected. We have an assett surplus of about $8-$9m. Through the AFL with a one off payment, to be achieved by the Board's appointed CEO and its outgoing President, the trading loss will be extinguished and there will be funds to carry forward and pay out the fine, termination payments etc. This Board, no matter how it achieved it, will leave this club with not one year of trading loss and with a new $10m assett. How can you say then that they leave it worse off financially or in a similar debt position, there is no debt, we are in surplus.

I agree the admin needs reorganization, but some of it is leftover from before they took over and some of it is their work. So what. We need to improve our admin. It will be done under this Board.

I agree we have a shattered coach. He will be replaced. He is not the first coach to be replaced.

We are a laughing stock. Agree. Hopefully after we get things right and improve we won't be. It won't be forever.

As to the dearth of genuine talent. I blame the last two recruiting managers, who incidentally were not appointed by this Board.

As to our playing list, aside from a distinct lack of midfielders, which may be changed by concessions this year, organized again by the CEO and outgoing President, we may remedy that problem.

Can I suggest a rough side :

Terlich, Frawley, Garland,

Grimes, Mc.Donald, Taggart/whoever

Blease, Jones N, Toumpas,

Howe, Dawes, Watts,

Hogan, Clark, Sylvia,

Gawn, Trengove, Viney,

Tim, is that the worst side you have ever seen.

Maybe with a new coach it will perform better. Maybe with the new trades and draft picks of this year and improvement in the likes of Jones M, Kent, Taggart, Fitzy, Tynan etc it will get better.

Maybe we all need to stop blaming everyone, eating our own and just get on with the business of fixing the club. It really is non productive.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Redleg

I don't mind mistakes - hell I have made enough! What I mind is how you fix them - what responsibility you take. The OX is a great example of a bloke who made every mistake a man can make. He owns that and tried to move on. He earns a lot of respect for that. I don't mind a board or CEO who err, as long as they spot it and fix it. I don't think this board does it - own errors or fix them.

Looks like I used a little too much sarcasm.

You missed my point WYL:

• Jim's decision was to not axe DB and CS at the same time, wasn't over ruled by the board like you were saying
• Losing CEO, coach and president within a few months would have made the club to unstable (Jim would have known he was going to have to step down soon)
• The decision was therefore right not to axe coach and CEO at the same time BUT the the decision to keep CS past MN's appointment was wrong

No mate. The decision was wrong, we should have got rid of both coach and CEO on the same day. The situation was that bad. 186 was PROOF.

The club would have survived. Garry just didn't want to lose a mate.

You will not sway my opinions on this.

The club would've been a lot better off now if Schwab had been terminated in 2011.

Hazy and Baghdad Bob tried to tell us ....

The AFL have virtually stepped in to run our club, that is the equivalent of the recievers coming into a failed business. It represents a failure of the highest order, and the responsibility for the rests with the Board and in particular the Chairman. That the oldest club in the competition, the club which virtually began the game itself, is named after our capital city and plays at the greatest venue in the land, has been reduced to this, is staggering.

I don't understand any apologists for the Board or Don McLardy, where's the anger, the fire? We are the shareholders of this business and it has been driven into the ground by those who took on the responsibility of running it. If Melbourne footy club were a business and we had all done our dough, I'm certain nobody would be excusing the Chairman's performance because he came in at a tough time or that he didn't really want the job or that he had the best of intentions. If he didn't want the job or was not up to it, he should never have taken it on.

I understand that these are voluntary positions but there is great kudos associated with a Board position on an AFL Club, and especially that of Chairman. The profile certainly wouldn't do your other interests any harm. The point is mute anyway - a individuals level of responsibility is not reduced when they don't take compensation.

I've often heard our Board called "well credentialed" and it is and has always been. Maybe we have had too many credentials and not enough time and enthusiasm? A case in point is the Stuart Grimshaw. As CEO of the Bank of Qld he is no doubt a clever guy with a great understanding of how an organisation should be run. I note that he is also President of Hockey Australia. He is now leaving because he has too much on, is that an admission that he always had too much on to give the MFC the time it deserved?

It worries me no end that now everyone is talking of Geoff Freeman becoming Chairman but he isn't sure if he wants the job or is in the right state of health to take it on. If he is not absolutely certain he wants or is physically up to the job, then we should draw the line through his name right away. I bet Collingwood wouldn't have to convince someone to take on their Presidency.

I write this because we deserve better. We deserve representation from quality people who want the job. People who have a fire in their belly and the time to give the task what it requires. At the very least we deserve and should demand a Board spill and an election. This club belongs to it supporters and we deserve a say in how it is run.

It is known that Jimmy was one of the people who wanted to keep CS after the 186 event - mainly because they believed loosing both coach at once would have been to unstable for the club.

Personally I think that was the right decision. Having both president, coach and CEO turnover in the same year wouldn't have been an ideal situation for the club to be in, would have been hard to control, possible adverse effect on sponsorship, effect on players, would be hard to manage and control, issue of who would be intrim CEO, care taker coach all at once and possible negative stigma on new possible replacements.

Why CS was kept onwards after MN was chosen beats me, possibly to see if it could work with him and a new coach/FD including Craig. Clearly just prolonged the inevitable.

Not true. Jimmy wanted CS gone and was outvoted

The Board leaves this club is a far worse state than when they found it.

The finances are better but the debt will be very similar. The admin is needing reorganisation; the FD needs reorganisation, we have a shattered list, a shattered coach, a dearth of genuine talent and are a laughing stock. Our reputation is worse and this is affecting our finances and ability to retain and attract players.

Most of these things were better under the previous board. Now we are in our position for lots of reasons. This board has solved one problem and created several all while burning our reputation and scrambling the club internally. Be honest. they stink and they stink more that any board I can remember and have damaged the club more than any board I can remember. We need to be brutally honest about the many reasons we are where we are and at least one big one is this board. What is more, they have had many chances and burnt almost all of them.

Well, Redleg stole my thunder a tad with the finances and assets but I have a thing or two to say about the list: bad list management is not felt at the time of the mistake, it is felt much later.

The 1999-2000 loss of picks means we felt that from 2005 until around now - those two drafts happened to be when Geelong got all those stars we now look at with awe. We lost Pick 5 in '99 and Picks 32 and 47 in '00 (Scott Thompson was taken in the '00 draft).

2001 saw Molan, Armstrong, and Rodgers taken with Picks 9, 25, and 26.

2002 saw Bell and Smith taken with Picks 14 an 15. After Rivers was taken, Pick 39 was spent on Gary Moorcroft.

In 2003 we had McLean and Sylvia with Picks 3 and 5 and I would consider them successful. Our dearth of senior players is also affected by the decision by Bailey to trade McLean at the end of 2009.

2004 saw Bate, Dunn, and Newton taken with 13, 15, and 43.

To juxtapose disaster with deliverance - Nathan Jones in 2005 was taken at Pick 12. Frawley and Garland came the following year at 12 and 46 respectively.

2007 saw Morton and Maric taken with Picks 4 and 21. Grimes a shining light amongst the din at Pick 14.

2008 saw Watts, Blease, Strauss and Bennell taken with Picks 1, 17, 19, and 35. The futures on the three that are left are far from certain. McKenzie arrived in the Rookie Draft this year.

I will leave it there, as the futures of Trengove, Tapscott, and Gawn in 2009 are far from certain. Sadly, Pick 1 and Pick 11 have moved on.

The decision to get Ben Holland with Pick 21 (2003), Paul Johnson with Pick 29 (2004), Pickett with Pick 28 and 44 (2005), and Meesen with Pick 38 (2007) further diminished our ability to get talented players.

This is why our list is where it is. This is why we don't have any decent senior players and few talented players in the prime ages for a player 23-30.

We wasted, our traded out, the following picks from 2001 to 2007 which would be the make-up of our players 23-30: 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 15, 21, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 39, 43, and 44.

That is 15 players 23 to 30 years of age we should have if not for our awful recruitment and poor trading.

That is why we have an awful list.

Oddly enough, before this Board...

Edited June 15, 2013 by rpfc

Jimmy will always be an icon. I have no doubt. Those who outvoted him to reinstate Schwab in 2011 are the ones i want off the board.

People have had a go at me many times for continually bringing up 186. Well now you know why. CS was given another 18 months to run a muck.

Cameron you are a charming man to speak to but do not ever be involved at this club again.

It was Garry Lyon who deperately didnt want his mate Cam Schwab sacked. So Cam got another chance and bailey got the arse. Jim was doing the right thing until Garry begged him.

Source: jims book.

It was Garry Lyon who deperately didnt want his mate Cam Schwab sacked. So Cam got another chance and bailey got the arse. Jim was doing the right thing until Garry begged him.

Source: jims book.

i know. And then he got Neeld without interviewing others.

Garry helped out a mate but sure didn't help the club.

And some people still want G Lyon to become more involved.

His memory has still been dishonoured just the same. Like I said, if Jimmy's passion was only partly replicated, we would not be in this current mess. I include the players in that.

Yeah, fully agree. Some things were stuffed up during his time but all the good work he did has been undone since his passing. It's a disgrace and those involved should hang their heads in shame.

No mate. The decision was wrong, we should have got rid of both coach and CEO on the same day. The situation was that bad. 186 was PROOF.

The club would have survived. Garry just didn't want to lose a mate.

You will not sway my opinions on this.

The club would've been a lot better off now if Schwab had been terminated in 2011.

Financially, it would have been much better. There would have been no payout involved. The deadline for the one year extension just needed to lapse. The more ridiculous thing was that CS got a three year extension, one year after he was about to be sacked!

I know a lot of people defend Cameron for his passion and commitment to the club but sometimes I wonder about his judgement and self assesment skills. How was he able to rationalize to himself that what he was doing was right? Surely he could have seen that he was way too involved in the FD and that he wasn't qualified to be making decisions re: recruiting policy. It's amazing the mental gymnastics some people can do in order to justify to themselves that they are right...

Edited June 15, 2013 by Guest

Why is there this need to continue bashing this Board? They admit errors. Many will depart. What is being gained by this constant blame game? Do you find it productive?

Since you have made some allegations I will give my viewpoint.

The debt will not be similar. It was $5m peviously which has been extinguished. There is a projected $1.5 m trading loss expected. We have an assett surplus of about $8-$9m. Through the AFL with a one off payment, to be achieved by the Board's appointed CEO and its outgoing President, the trading loss will be extinguished and there will be funds to carry forward and pay out the fine, termination payments etc. This Board, no matter how it achieved it, will leave this club with not one year of trading loss and with a new $10m assett. How can you say then that they leave it worse off financially or in a similar debt position, there is no debt, we are in surplus.

I agree the admin needs reorganization, but some of it is leftover from before they took over and some of it is their work. So what. We need to improve our admin. It will be done under this Board.

I agree we have a shattered coach. He will be replaced. He is not the first coach to be replaced.

We are a laughing stock. Agree. Hopefully after we get things right and improve we won't be. It won't be forever.

As to the dearth of genuine talent. I blame the last two recruiting managers, who incidentally were not appointed by this Board.

As to our playing list, aside from a distinct lack of midfielders, which may be changed by concessions this year, organized again by the CEO and outgoing President, we may remedy that problem.

Can I suggest a rough side :

Terlich, Frawley, Garland,

Grimes, Mc.Donald, Taggart/whoever

Blease, Jones N, Toumpas,

Howe, Dawes, Watts,

Hogan, Clark, Sylvia,

Gawn, Trengove, Viney,

Tim, is that the worst side you have ever seen.

Maybe with a new coach it will perform better. Maybe with the new trades and draft picks of this year and improvement in the likes of Jones M, Kent, Taggart, Fitzy, Tynan etc it will get better.

Maybe we all need to stop blaming everyone, eating our own and just get on with the business of fixing the club. It really is non productive.

Don is thay you?

Well, Redleg stole my thunder a tad with the finances and assets but I have a thing or two to say about the list: bad list management is not felt at the time of the mistake, it is felt much later.

The 1999-2000 loss of picks means we felt that from 2005 until around now - those two drafts happened to be when Geelong got all those stars we now look at with awe. We lost Pick 5 in '99 and Picks 32 and 47 in '00 (Scott Thompson was taken in the '00 draft).

2001 saw Molan, Armstrong, and Rodgers taken with Picks 9, 25, and 26.

2002 saw Bell and Smith taken with Picks 14 an 15. After Rivers was taken, Pick 39 was spent on Gary Moorcroft.

In 2003 we had McLean and Sylvia with Picks 3 and 5 and I would consider them successful. Our dearth of senior players is also affected by the decision by Bailey to trade McLean at the end of 2009.

2004 saw Bate, Dunn, and Newton taken with 13, 15, and 43.

To juxtapose disaster with deliverance - Nathan Jones in 2005 was taken at Pick 12. Frawley and Garland came the following year at 12 and 46 respectively.

2007 saw Morton and Maric taken with Picks 4 and 21. Grimes a shining light amongst the din at Pick 14.

2008 saw Watts, Blease, Strauss and Bennell taken with Picks 1, 17, 19, and 35. The futures on the three that are left are far from certain. McKenzie arrived in the Rookie Draft this year.

I will leave it there, as the futures of Trengove, Tapscott, and Gawn in 2009 are far from certain. Sadly, Pick 1 and Pick 11 have moved on.

The decision to get Ben Holland with Pick 21 (2003), Paul Johnson with Pick 29 (2004), Pickett with Pick 28 and 44 (2005), and Meesen with Pick 38 (2007) further diminished our ability to get talented players.

This is why our list is where it is. This is why we don't have any decent senior players and few talented players in the prime ages for a player 23-30.

We wasted, our traded out, the following picks from 2001 to 2007 which would be the make-up of our players 23-30: 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 15, 21, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 39, 43, and 44.

That is 15 players 23 to 30 years of age we should have if not for our awful recruitment and poor trading.

That is why we have an awful list.

Oddly enough, before this Board...

Thank you for the indepth detail. God that is horrible reading on how poorly funded/managed our recruiting, drafting teams have been and lack of player development during the years has been. Edited June 15, 2013 by Cards13

Don is thay you?

No it's me. Always has been too.

Well, Redleg stole my thunder a tad with the finances and assets but I have a thing or two to say about the list: bad list management is not felt at the time of the mistake, it is felt much later.

The 1999-2000 loss of picks means we felt that from 2005 until around now - those two drafts happened to be when Geelong got all those stars we now look at with awe. We lost Pick 5 in '99 and Picks 32 and 47 in '00 (Scott Thompson was taken in the '00 draft).

2001 saw Molan, Armstrong, and Rodgers taken with Picks 9, 25, and 26.

2002 saw Bell and Smith taken with Picks 14 an 15. After Rivers was taken, Pick 39 was spent on Gary Moorcroft.

In 2003 we had McLean and Sylvia with Picks 3 and 5 and I would consider them successful. Our dearth of senior players is also affected by the decision by Bailey to trade McLean at the end of 2009.

2004 saw Bate, Dunn, and Newton taken with 13, 15, and 43.

To juxtapose disaster with deliverance - Nathan Jones in 2005 was taken at Pick 12. Frawley and Garland came the following year at 12 and 46 respectively.

2007 saw Morton and Maric taken with Picks 4 and 21. Grimes a shining light amongst the din at Pick 14.

2008 saw Watts, Blease, Strauss and Bennell taken with Picks 1, 17, 19, and 35. The futures on the three that are left are far from certain. McKenzie arrived in the Rookie Draft this year.

I will leave it there, as the futures of Trengove, Tapscott, and Gawn in 2009 are far from certain. Sadly, Pick 1 and Pick 11 have moved on.

The decision to get Ben Holland with Pick 21 (2003), Paul Johnson with Pick 29 (2004), Pickett with Pick 28 and 44 (2005), and Meesen with Pick 38 (2007) further diminished our ability to get talented players.

This is why our list is where it is. This is why we don't have any decent senior players and few talented players in the prime ages for a player 23-30.

We wasted, our traded out, the following picks from 2001 to 2007 which would be the make-up of our players 23-30: 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 15, 21, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 39, 43, and 44.

That is 15 players 23 to 30 years of age we should have if not for our awful recruitment and poor trading.

That is why we have an awful list.

Oddly enough, before this Board...

That is not a really pretty picture.

I just love the way people like to look for the one dimensional answer. It's the recruiters now who led to a flawed playing list. While it's clear we made some very poor decisions it's so much more than that.

This footy club employed Bailey (initially by Gardner and extended by Stynes/McLardy) who had a football philosophy of playing fast, open, Geelong like footy. He was told to back youth, build from the ground up. develop and plan a side based around his football philosophy. With one of the youngest lists in the AFL he was sacked whilst having won 7.5 games in 17 games and having a chance at a crack at the 8 with some very winnable games in the remaining 5. He did this whilst the Board and CEO oversaw drench warfare within the club and within the football department. He showed that the core group of young players had talent.

However on the back of the Geelong loss we ditched 4 years of coaching philosophy and drafting in favour of Garry's conversation with Mick and Mick's choice of our new coach. Surprise Surprise it's one of Mick's assistants who has a football philosophy of man on man, slow ball movement, around the boundary stoppage footy. The philosophy is completely different to the direction the club had, under it's Board, CEO and Coach, been developing for 4 years. It's no surprise that we've gone backwards but what is a surprise is that we've gone backwards so far.

Neeld is explaining our situation along the lines of experience and age but really it's because this club blinked and then whilst changing coach didn't do its homework without one person on the coaching selection sub committee who had coached a game of AFL footy. Not one. It just beggars belief.

My point. I don't think it's possible to judge the players under this coach. He's clearly asking them to play a gameplan they are ill equipped to play and he has drained the confidence and spirit from them. The list needs to be evaluated by the incoming coach before any judgements are made. For all the players are copping it at the moment there are many players there who would have been taken early by other clubs and would, in all likelihood, be much more successful in a different environment. We need to give them that chance.

Oh, and Redleg, Prendergast was initially employed by Harris and then had his contract extended by Schwab (as was Bailey and Connolly).

Edited June 16, 2013 by Baghdad Bob

Can we just agree that there have been that many stuff ups in practically ever facet of running a football club, it makes it difficult to isolate which ones are the chief contributors.

Hazy and Baghdad Bob tried to tell us ....

Hi all, just back from the Whispering_Jack/Demonland reeducation camp. I can finally see how wrong I have been all these years.

So, anything happen while I was gone?