Myth busting facts about the MFC

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Myth Busting facts about the MFC

Jim Stynes is not the messiah. He is an ex-footballer with terminal cancer. I am not sure if he was ever up to leading the the MFC board but he sure isn't now. Of course our sympathies lie with his family and him.

The current board did not eradicate our debt. The club's supporter's eradicated the club's debt. The board rattled the tin. Rattling tins is not a sustainable revenue strategy. Supporters were also primarily responsible for securing our two major sponsors.

The club has not been managing well financially. Despite increased revenue in the form of compensation for MCG tenant Clubs (engineered by the AFL not the MFC), increased AFL and MCC “welfare” and decreased interest burden courtesy of the eradication of our debt (by supporters), the club is about to post it's second loss since 2003. Much of our spending is wasted on a bloated admin department courtesy of C Schwab.

The club has not been transparent. Why was Paul McNamee sacked only months into the job and replaced by "mate" Cameron Schwab? Why couldn't Bailey bring himself to acknowledge support from senior MFC staff during hisnpress conference? What action has been taken as a result of the Andrews review? Why doesn’t the openness and transparency referred to by Jim Stynes yesterday extend to the release of the Andrews Report paid for by members and until now a closely guarded secret?

The club has not been managing ethically/appropriately. Why do we have mates accountable to other mates? Why was our CEO given a $140k loan from the club? Why are boardmembers and non-football staff meddling in football operations? Why do unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable backroom operators like Garry Lyon have key roles in all major decisions including the decision to sack the coach and retain the CEO while maintaining a thoroughly implausible position of “not being interested in football politics or football administration”? What does Connolly even do? Why do the players feel let down by the club?

The club can't manage a coach. Aside from the aforementioned meddling in the football department, the Stynes Board chose to extend Bailey’s contract until the end of 2011. If Bailey is blameworthy for being an inept Coach then surely the Stynes Board are equally culpable for appointing him after a 3 year audition. Furthermore, contrast the dignified way that Daniher's exit was managed with the events of the previous 48 hours.

The club is not especially "inclusive". The demon summit was tokenistic. Our club has a recent history of in-fighting and power struggles. Prior to the stability of the Gardner years, the club went through the merger debate in 1996 and contested elections in 2001 and 2003. We are now reverting to type.

Don McLardy is a coterie member and manager of an insurance broking business who, from a critical supporter's point of view, has done nothing special to distinguish himself as a boardmember aside from aligning himself politically with Stynes. As Patrick Smith said today “McLardy was not convincing whenever he spoke about events preceding yesterday's midday news conference”.

Lyon is not the messiah either, he is an ex-footballer media type who has had ample opportunity to show his commitment to the club in a meaningful capacity but has continuously failed to do so. In any case, his is no better qualified to manage our club than Sam Newman.

Thanks for reading.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

What are the solutions?

[Sir Why You Little 34,511]

Hazy would of course prefer that the Paul Gardiner board was still in charge.

[Dockett 32 1,213]

How can we post a loss if we are only at 92.5% of salary cap and with increased membership?. CS recently said we could pay Scully a milliona year if we wanted to?

Goosd question on the Andrews report. If we are to be transparent why isn't it on the website?

[Pink Freud 325]

Myth Busting facts about the MFC

Jim Stynes is not the messiah. He is an ex-footballer with terminal cancer. I am not sure if he was ever up to leading the the MFC board but he sure isn't now. Of course our sympathies lie with his family and him. Jim Stynes never pretended to be the messiah but he has presided over a period of time when the club supporters eradicated the debt because he presented a vision and they had faith in him something the previous administration failed to do.

The current board did not eradicate our debt. The club's supporter's eradicated the club's debt. The board rattled the tin. Rattling tins is not a sustainable revenue strategy. Supporters were also primarily responsible for securing our two major sponsors. Agreed but what did the board he replaced do other than alienate the AFL?

The club has not been managing well financially. Despite increased revenue in the form of compensation for MCG tenant Clubs (engineered by the AFL not the MFC), increased AFL and MCC welfare and decreased interest burden courtesy of the eradication of our debt (by supporters), the club is about to post it's second loss since 2003. Much of our spending is wasted on a bloated admin department courtesy of C Schwab. Hardly suprising that we are going to post a loss given the soul destroying performances of themost inconsistent footbal team I have ever seen in all my years as a supporter.

The club has not been transparent. Why was Paul McNamee sacked only months into the job and replaced by "mate" Cameron Schwab? Why couldn't Bailey bring himself to acknowledge support from senior MFC staff during hisnpress conference? What action has been taken as a result of the Andrews review? Why doesnt the openness and transparency referred to by Jim Stynes yesterday extend to the release of the Andrews Report paid for by members and until now a closely guarded secret? Why was McNamee appointed in the first place and what was he doing when he assumed the role?

The club has not been managing ethically/appropriately. Why do we have mates accountable to other mates? Why was our CEO given a $140k loan from the club? Was this done in a non transparent way? Why are boardmembers and non-football staff meddling in football operations? What constitutes meddling and try telling me that other CEOs dont involve themselves in football matters. Hello Greg Swan? As for your man McNamee, the only thing I recall that he did during his tenure other than go to Wimbledon in his first weeks was to try to recruit Jonathan Brown when we couldn't afford him, he didn't want to come and it was at odds with our recruiting policies of the time. Notabhly however, it was a case of the CEO meddling in football matters. Why do unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable backroom operators like Garry Lyon have key roles in all major decisions including the decision to sack the coach and retain the CEO while maintaining a thoroughly implausible position of not being interested in football politics or football administration? Youre kidding, arent you? What does Connolly even do? Why do the players feel let down by the club? Which player has said this? Why do the supporters feel the players let the club down?

The club can't manage a coach. Aside from the aforementioned meddling in the football department, the Stynes Board chose to extend Baileys contract until the end of 2011. If Bailey is blameworthy for being an inept Coach then surely the Stynes Board are equally culpable for appointing him after a 3 year audition. Furthermore, contrast the dignified way that Daniher's exit was managed with the events of the previous 48 hours. Danihers exit was no more or less dignified as Baileys. The caretaker even stuffed up the tank in Round 22 which ended up costing us Nic Naitanui.

The club is not especially "inclusive". The demon summit was tokenistic. Our club has a recent history of in-fighting and power struggles. Prior to the stability of the Gardner years, the club went through the merger debate in 1996 and contested elections in 2001 and 2003. We are now reverting to type. Give us a break.

Don McLardy is a coterie member and manager of an insurance broking business who, from a critical supporter's point of view, has done nothing special to distinguish himself as a boardmember aside from aligning himself politically with Stynes. As Patrick Smith said today McLardy was not convincing whenever he spoke about events preceding yesterday's midday news conference. Obviously not to you but he came across as sincere to me.

Lyon is not the messiah either, he is an ex-footballer media type who has had ample opportunity to show his commitment to the club in a meaningful capacity but has continuously failed to do so. In any case, his is no better qualified to manage our club than Sam Newman. So what? Hes a football person who is about to have a dip and he was respected as a player and captain of the club.

Thanks for reading. You're welcome.

[e25 5]

HSOG does raise some interesting points, but I think most are just as well refuted by Pink Freud.

I could also add a few points that refute further some of the question marks, but I don't think it's necessary.

The most salient point worth noting is that neither Stynes nor Lyon are a messiah.

It will take a concerted effort by all corners of the club.

It will take time, it will take money and it will take a lot of swallowing of egos.

I hope this whole ugly mess has taught the remaining factions within the club a valuable lesson, and that they move forward with purpose.

[Sir Why You Little 34,511]

HSOG does raise some interesting points, but I think most are just as well refuted by Pink Freud.

I could also add a few points that refute further some of the question marks, but I don't think it's necessary.

The most salient point worth noting is that neither Stynes nor Lyon are a messiah.

It will take a concerted effort by all corners of the club.

It will take time, it will take money and it will take a lot of swallowing of egos.

I hope this whole ugly mess has taught the remaining factions within the club a valuable lesson, and that they move forward with purpose.

Yes, the Andrews Report is one area that concerns me.

The rest is just hard work with careful plannings.

[e25 5]

Yes, the Andrews Report is one area that concerns me.

The rest is just hard work with careful plannings.

The Andrews report can't possibly be revealed to members.

It's absurd to even suggest that this could or should happen.

It's important that the findings be taken on board, but beyond that the club has no obligation to release the findings and it certainly would be against the best interests of the club to do so.

[Sir Why You Little 34,511]

The Andrews report can't possibly be revealed to members.

It's absurd to even suggest that this could or should happen.

It's important that the findings be taken on board, but beyond that the club has no obligation to release the findings and it certainly would be against the best interests of the club to do so.

That may be so, but at present it seems it is being with held from even many from within the club.

Hopefully this weeks events will flush all that dirge away....Factions kill organizations...They Gotta go.

[Little Goffy 12,583]

What I find fasciating is that in all this; it keeps occuring to me that we are almost certainly going to make the finals in 2012.

It troubles me that there has been a deliberate effort to make this as much of a crisis as possible by some within the club.

That effort to generate heat and hope 'enemies' getburned is the greatest threat to this club that there is.

[e25 5]

We're almost certainly going to make finals in 2011.

Go on, check out the teams we're competing with for 8th, their remaining fixture, and ours.

It will take a few serious upsets for us to not slip in (assuming we beat GC, Richmond & Port).

[Whispering_Jack 27,992]

We're almost certainly going to make finals in 2011.

Go on, check out the teams we're competing with for 8th, their remaining fixture, and ours.

It will take a few serious upsets for us to not slip in (assuming we beat GC, Richmond & Port).

We need to win those three and at least one of the next two.

It all depends on how the playing group reacts to the appointment of the new coach. I'm hopeful but who knows?

[e25 5]

We need to win those three and at least one of the next two.

It all depends on how the playing group reacts to the appointment of the new coach. I'm hopeful but who knows?

No, we actually should slip into 8th by only winning 3 more games.

I was surprised when I looked at how it breaks down.

North and Freo are the serious competition, but the odds are against them.

[45HG 1,539]

From memory, if the Bombers win one of the next two (Swans, Dogs) we'll need to win one of the next two.

Mind you, wouldn't put losing one of the last 3 out of the question.

I feel we're in a weird situation. If we win on Sat (though it's a decent if) I could see us getting on a bit of an almighty roll.

[e25 5]

If we win 3 more games, we'll finish off on 10.5 wins.

For the purposes of this, I'll assume we will.

FREMANTLE 8th (9-8)

Need 2 wins to pull ahead of us (likely 0-2 wins).

R20 St Kilda (ES) - L

R21 Carlton (PS) - L

R22 North Melbourne (ES) - ?

R23 Collingwood (PS) - L

R24 Western Bulldogs (ES) - ?

ESSENDON 9th (8-1-9)

Need 2 wins to pull level with us (likely 0-1 win).

R20 Sydney (ES) - ?

R21 Western Bulldogs (ES) - ?

R22 West Coast (PS) - L

R23 Port Adelaide (ES) - W

R24 Bye

NORTH MELBOURNE 10th (8-10)

Need 3 wins to pull ahead of us (likely 2 wins).

R20 Hawthorn (AU) - L

R21 Bye

R22 Fremantle (ES) - W

R23 St Kilda (ES) - L

R24 Richmond (ES) - W

MELBOURNE 11th (7-1-9)

Assuming we win the last 3 games.

R20 Carlton (MCG) - L

R21 West Coast (ES) - L

R22 Richmond (MCG) - W

R23 Gold Coast (MCG) - W

R24 Port Adelaide (AS) - W

WESTERN BULLDOGS 12th (7-11)

Need 4 wins to pull ahead of us (likely 1-3 wins).

R20 Bye

R21 Essendon (ES) - W

R22 Port Adelaide (AS) - W

R23 Hawthorn (MCG) - L

R24 Fremantle (ES) - ?

[praha 10,281]

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. I know I'll be part of the minority.

I've been critical of the club pretty much ever since I entered adulthood. Having grown up in the North with plenty of passionate Carlton and Collingwood supporters to heckle me, I could compare my club to others, as I had commentary being spewed out all around me.

The club has always just felt, well, for lack of a better word, "minnow" (I know that will offend some members). I say that word not so much just in terms of financial stability, supporter base and success (or lack thereof) but taking special consideration of the club's obvious business management issues.

I believe these issues stem even further down into the bellows of the MCG, a stadium which, ironically, has always made the club look bigger than it is.

Fact remains that the club hasn't won a flag in so long that most young supporters don't even consider Melbourne relatively successful considering we have literally done N.O.T.H.I.N.G. in 50 years. I don't blame fans really. Even St. Kilda has a few memorable streaks and runs that people will remember. But Melbourne really has NOTHING.

You can't really blame the players. People just seem to be completely sidestepping the fact that we are NOT 31 goals behind Geelong. No one is. On any day. At any ground. Ever. There is something quite obviously concerning the players. I believe that in the current media climate, it's essentially impossible for players to not get wind of what it's like at other clubs, and there's more information being throwing around, and that causes queries, which can lead to tension, which leads to revolt.

The revolt doesn't need to be intentional. Saturday was quite clearly a fundamental break down of the entire club. Every single bit of it. The players just reached a point where they didn't know who they were playing for and why. The players are the very last line. They are the ones that cop EVERYTHING. Once the entire club is INFECTED with complete and utter business incompetence, you're got professional athletes starting to have concerns about the livelihood of their own club. Players are so dependent on the functionality of the club, and the club has failed them for too long.

Hopefully Saturday will wake some people up to how completely inept this club is in management, why a club based at the MCG in Melbourne with 12 flags and 150 years has only 35,000 members (it's not good enough. 50 years of failing to acknowledge the club's small supporter base that was actually dwindling, with the lowest number of young members in the league), why a team bound for finals and in a fight for the top 8 would lose by 186 points, why Adam Yze is commenting on the club's draft pick agenda -- clearly he left on bad terms -- I could really go on and on.

I feel like I'm speaking to a brick wall when I share these thoughts. I'm really not surprised by what has transpired. Lyon's comments about the weak out of the club says to me that he knows who's there and what areas need improvement. It's quite obvious that there are people in positions that shouldn't be.

OK that's all I've got to say. Have mercy on me.

All of this said, we'll probably make the finals. This team is a school boys all-star team. It needs some god damn structure and grunt.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Cudi_420

[rpfc 27,476]

Good points as always HSOG.

It is somewhat (read greatly) diminished by the fact that you are rarely on here and seem to be only posting when there are board issues or a poster has taken exception to the Gardner board.

All board members, past and present, have the best interests of the club at heart.

Your inability to see any positives in the current board, nor admit any negatives in the Gardner board, don't do your arguments justice.

There is no black and white with well-meaning people.

And PS - Neale Daniher was asked to re-apply for his position. If their was any dignity in his dismissal it was all Neale's.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Myth Busting facts about the MFC

Jim Stynes is not the messiah. He is an ex-footballer with terminal cancer. I am not sure if he was ever up to leading the the MFC board but he sure isn't now. Of course our sympathies lie with his family and him. Jim Stynes never pretended to be the messiah but he has presided over a period of time when the club supporters eradicated the debt because he presented a vision and they had faith in him – something the previous administration failed to do. As you agree below, the debt was eradicated because the supporters of the club reached into their pockets. I do not consider it an indictment upon the previous board that they never imposed upon the supporters in this unsustainable way. None of this changes the fact that Jim should step down as he is clearly incapable of leading the club in his ill state.

The current board did not eradicate our debt. The club's supporter's eradicated the club's debt. The board rattled the tin. Rattling tins is not a sustainable revenue strategy. Supporters were also primarily responsible for securing our two major sponsors. Agreed but what did the board he replaced do other than alienate the AFL? You have agreed that the current board did not eradicate our debt. Your unsubstantiated assertion about the previous board is not relevant.

The club has not been managing well financially. Despite increased revenue in the form of compensation for MCG tenant Clubs (engineered by the AFL not the MFC), increased AFL and MCC “welfare” and decreased interest burden courtesy of the eradication of our debt (by supporters), the club is about to post it's second loss since 2003. Much of our spending is wasted on a bloated admin department courtesy of C Schwab. Hardly suprising that we are going to post a loss given the soul destroying performances of themost inconsistent footbal team I have ever seen in all my years as a supporter. This could potentially be used as an excuse for next year's finances (if membership dropped), although even then it would be debatable as this season has been our most successful since 2006. As it stands your argument does nothing to address the points I have made.

The club has not been transparent. Why was Paul McNamee sacked only months into the job and replaced by "mate" Cameron Schwab? Why couldn't Bailey bring himself to acknowledge support from senior MFC staff during hisnpress conference? What action has been taken as a result of the Andrews review? Why doesn’t the openness and transparency referred to by Jim Stynes yesterday extend to the release of the Andrews Report paid for by members and until now a closely guarded secret? Why was McNamee appointed in the first place and what was he doing when he assumed the role? According to this article, he was appointed because it was felt that he brought "a wealth of experience in the sports marketing and management industry" and had "a track record of 20 years of successfully creating partnerships, and a reputation for building strong, effective teams." Frankly I don't think we got to see enough of Paul to judge if he would have been good for the club or not, but since you want to focus on the appointment, here's another couple of questions: Why did the Stynes Board feel it neccesary to waste $115k by sacking McNamee prematurely? Why did McNamee find out about this sacking by reading the newspaper? Most importantly, what has any of this got to do with the supposed "transparency" of the club currently?

The club has not been managing ethically/appropriately. Why do we have mates accountable to other mates? Why was our CEO given a $140k loan from the club? Was this done in a non transparent way? Was it ethical/appropriate? Why are boardmembers and non-football staff meddling in football operations? What constitutes meddling and try telling me that other CEO’s don’t involve themselves in football matters. Hello Greg Swan? As for your man McNamee, the only thing I recall that he did during his tenure other than go to Wimbledon in his first weeks was to try to recruit Jonathan Brown when we couldn't afford him, he didn't want to come and it was at odds with our recruiting policies of the time. Notabhly however, it was a case of the CEO meddling in football matters. Not meddling is setting a budget for the football department or perhaps decding that your General Manager of Football isn't up to it. I do not consider it appropriate for any board or non-football staff to interfere directly with football operations (do you?) and that goes equally for McNamee. Having said that, we could sure use Jonathan Brown at the moment. Why do unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable backroom operators like Garry Lyon have key roles in all major decisions including the decision to sack the coach and retain the CEO while maintaining a thoroughly implausible position of “not being interested in football politics or football administration”? You’re kidding, aren’t you? I am deadly serious. Here's another couple: If Lyon is not interested in football or admin why did he say on radio that he was going to ring Stynes? Why was Lyon told about the decision to sack Bailey before the Board? What does Connolly even do? Why do the players feel let down by the club? Which player has said this? Do you deny it? Why do the supporters feel the players let the club down? Rational Supporters will be feeling let down by the whole club, the reasons are obvious (to me at least).

The club can't manage a coach. Aside from the aforementioned meddling in the football department, the Stynes Board chose to extend Bailey’s contract until the end of 2011. If Bailey is blameworthy for being an inept Coach then surely the Stynes Board are equally culpable for appointing him after a 3 year audition. Furthermore, contrast the dignified way that Daniher's exit was managed with the events of the previous 48 hours. Daniher’s exit was no more or less dignified as Bailey’s. The caretaker even stuffed up the tank in Round 22 which ended up costing us Nic Naitanui. Really? Why didn't the Board have the decency to tell Bailey face to face? Was Bailey offered the opportunity to resign? How can Schwab now be CEO when everyone knows he doesn't have the support of the Board?

The club is not especially "inclusive". The demon summit was tokenistic. Our club has a recent history of in-fighting and power struggles. Prior to the stability of the Gardner years, the club went through the merger debate in 1996 and contested elections in 2001 and 2003. We are now reverting to type. Give us a break. Take off your blindfold. All I ever hear about is how inclusive the club has become now – well it doesn't matter how many ties you say it, it doesn't make it true. When Stynes took over, respected ex-boardmember John Phillips offered to stay on and assist with the transition. Phillips' expertise would not have cost the club a dime. Despite vacancies on Jim's ticket, Phillips was spurned. Meanwhile, the only significant staffer outside the boys club has just got sacked. The Summit was a nice enough idea, Jim's Board can take some credit for the "Demon Heartland" initiative that it spawned. But, as recent events show, if anything the club has become more insular and more divded.

Don McLardy is a coterie member and manager of an insurance broking business who, from a critical supporter's point of view, has done nothing special to distinguish himself as a boardmember aside from aligning himself politically with Stynes. As Patrick Smith said today “McLardy was not convincing whenever he spoke about events preceding yesterday's midday news conference”. Obviously not to you but he came across as sincere to me. Even you would admit that he is no Jim Stynes and you can't run a club on sincerity (not that I've seen much of it at the MFC lately).

Lyon is not the messiah either, he is an ex-footballer media type who has had ample opportunity to show his commitment to the club in a meaningful capacity but has continuously failed to do so. In any case, his is no better qualified to manage our club than Sam Newman. So what? He’s a football person who is about to have a dip and he was respected as a player and captain of the club. Great, an ex-footballer who might be up for a dip. That's it? Well I am glad that you said so because that brings me to my next myth busting fact:

The club has problems with accountability. Not only are there issues with accountability in the "boys club" but, as these forums show, the majority of our supporters are a pack of star-struck, jingoistic lemmings who can't bring themselves to think rationally when an ex-player is involved. Nothing demonstrates this better than the push for the new messiah, Lyon. If the last few years had happened under any other administration, Demons supporters would have gone berserk. Would you be making these excuses for Gardner? Szondy? Gutnick?

Thanks for reading. You're welcome. This time read it with your eyes open.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Hazyshadeofgrinter

[Guest dieharderdee]

People say that Jim Stynes is not the messiah but sh*t hes dam close.

If you watch at Vineys interview he makes mention that the reason he steps in is to take the load from Jim, the reason Gary has stepped in is to take the load from Jim.

When no one else wanted to take responsibility for this club Jim did.

Jim has shown love and a passion for the club when there was little around.

Now based on the unselfish actions of a one Jim Stynes others are starting to follow.

Jim has a following and its not only great people in our club its the supporters and just about all of the football comunity.

And hazyshadeofgrinter to say that jim is just a exfootballer with terminal cancer is to belittle the life of a man who has inspired more people to do more with there life and gives so much to others through reach and the MFC associations.

If the club comes back from this dark hour its because Jim has been the light.

God bless Jim,

Edited August 2, 2011 by dieharderdee

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Good points as always HSOG.

It is somewhat (read greatly) diminished by the fact that you are rarely on here and seem to be only posting when there are board issues or a poster has taken exception to the Gardner board.

All board members, past and present, have the best interests of the club at heart.

Your inability to see any positives in the current board, nor admit any negatives in the Gardner board, don't do your arguments justice.

There is no black and white with well-meaning people.

And PS - Neale Daniher was asked to re-apply for his position. If their was any dignity in his dismissal it was all Neale's.

I will not continue to respond to posts of this nature as I am aware that this will trigger 6 pages of ad hominem attacks.

Needless to say say that if you know what ad hominem means, you will also know that my character/beliefs have nothing to do with the validity of my arguments.

For what it is worth, I agree with you that "all board members, past and present, have the best interests of the club at heart."

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

People say that Jim Stynes is not the messiah but sh*t hes dam close.

If you watch at Vineys interview he makes mention that the reason he steps in is to take the load from Jim, the reason Gary has stepped in is to take the load from Jim.

When no one else wanted to take responsibility for this club Jim did.

Jim has shown love and a passion for the club when there was little around.

Now based on the unselfish actions of a one Jim Stynes others are starting to follow.

Jim has a following and its not only great people in our club its the supporters and just about all of the football comunity.

And hazyshadeofgrinter to say that jim is just a exfootballer with terminal cancer is to belittle the life of a man who has inspired more people to do more with there life and gives so much to others through reach and the MFC associations.

If the club comes back from this dark hour its because Jim has been the light.

God bless Jim,

and f*&K you hazyshadeofgrinter.

Jim was not the reluctant saviour that your mythology makes him out to be. He elbowed others out of the way, refused their help and occaisionally disparaged their contributions to the detriment of the club (see MFC "nuturing an environment of exclusivity (sic.) and ignorance” towards women).

He was then swept in to the position of "President" (previously "Chairman") on a wave of sentimental populism and bright promises for the future. The promises have not been kept but, as you demonstrate, the sentimental populism remains.

Having said that, as a charasmatic figurehead, I have no doubt that Jim has made a significant off field contribution to the club. I have no doubt that the "debt demolition" campaign was made more successful through Jim's involvement.

But don't kid yourself that we have Jim to thank for "saving the club". Rumors of the club's imminent death were exaggerated and, "debt demolition" aside, it's not like the club is in great shape now (thanks to 3 years of the Stynes Board). If we have anyone to thank it is each other as supporters who would have contributed when it was needed no matter who was rattling the tin.

As for Jim's legacy with the Reach Foundation, I applaud it. But as far as the MFC is concerned, it is clear that by refusing to step down Jim is putting his own pride ahead of the interests of the club.

[Guest dieharderdee]

The list is awsome,

The facilities are awsome,

The cash is in the bank

The board has a1 credentials.

Your egotistical maniac argument just doesnt fly.

I dont know if you have noticed but Jim is to old to play. The team is the issue not jim.

[Guest hangon007]

HSOG does raise some interesting points, but I think most are just as well refuted by Pink Freud.

I could also add a few points that refute further some of the question marks, but I don't think it's necessary.

The most salient point worth noting is that neither Stynes nor Lyon are a messiah.

It will take a concerted effort by all corners of the club.

It will take time, it will take money and it will take a lot of swallowing of egos.

I hope this whole ugly mess has taught the remaining factions within the club a valuable lesson, and that they move forward with purpose.

With all due respect I dont agree with much that you say ... but I love this.

ALL is the right word. Yip money is our weakness ... we need to build a massive "treasure chest". We need to find a way.

Edited August 2, 2011 by hangon007

[Disco Demons 92]

Melbourne players play like there fate is to lose.

Finals? people gotta be joking.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

And hazyshadeofgrinter to say that jim is just a exfootballer with terminal cancer is to belittle the life of a man who has inspired more people to do more with there life and gives so much to others through reach and the MFC associations.

This.

Still waiting for some soultions hazyshadeofbigot...

What would the previous admin had done differently, since you dont like how the current admin went about it, what was their plan to eradicate the debt, which I am sure you would agree was not sustainable.