Leaderboard

To demon31 & any other detractors of don mclardy.......you are small minded vitriolic people who should acknowledge that this man took on two positions ..MFC & Reach foundation.....positions he didn't want or need ... Simply to help out a mate! He did the job to the best of his ability & we should acknowledge that fact & be very grateful. We seem to live in a very gratuitous society.... Instant success ...everyone perfect ..no time for learning or development. I have taken the tack that the mfc for me started in 2011 & I am there for the ride. Let's get over the past problems, recruiting , bad development of players etc , we have a good man in p.jackson to get the ball rolling & we will go ahead. Really ...what is the point in agonising over past decisions.... Lets move on & have a bit of positivity

That's exactly what they (including our own supporters) keep telling us and the only measure of earning respect these days seems to be success on the field and nothing else. Therefore, if the rules of the competition entitle a team that performs poorly over a long period of time to concessions then so be it. The powerful teams are entitled to the best venues and fixtures over the others; its only right then that we claim that to which we're entitled.

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.

1) I doubt anyone serves on the board with the intention of driving the club into the ground 2) There are some absolute Karmichaels on this site

Sometimes it's better to just keep some of your thoughts to yourself. I'm pretty sure Jimmy didn't intend to get sick and leave himself unable to finish what he started. There is a lot more I could say in response to your posts on this thread, but I think I should take my own advice from my first sentence!

I feel like this will just make us even more dis-respected from the rest of the comp. We need to suck it up and draft the right way and run our club properly and then we may see some change. We are seen as the club who asks for handouts and is incompetent.

How sad that he wasnt even approached last time around, and we got Neeld instead. Two legends of the game we have burned (sheedy, matthews) and hired 2 absolute duds instead. The common denominator in these failures - Garry Lyon.

Before people shoot this thread down by saying it will never happen, please consider that he openly stated on radio that he was 'interested' in the melboune coaching position (2012) but was never approached by the MFC. Right now, our club needs Leigh Matthews. He is arguably the greatest player of all time, has won 4 premierships as a coach and is still heavily involved in football analysis and is super intelligent and will remove all doubt and division from our supporters by eliminating the 'can he or can't he coach' question. I keenly listen to him on radio, and have found him to have his finger right on the pulse, to the extent that it is very hard to argue against his opinions. His presence alone will unite our club - supporters and players. With lethal as head coach, we can halve our coaching department and focus most of the coaching budget towards the head coach himself. Dare I say, a man like lethal barely needs assistant coaches. Leigh understands the emotional and spiritual element to football, he is super tough and can quickly turn a bunch of losers into world beaters, ie, Brisbane, "if it bleeds we can kill it". He is also tactically elite, he starts from defensive attacking strengths. With the lions, he put his best attacking players down back, and created a fierce attacking backline. This created drive thru the midfield and was capped off by penetrating kicks down forward. Leigh is able to get the best out of his players and tailors roles specifically to his players strength. He works with what he has, and makes the team feel fierce and invincible. Some say he inherited a super team, others say he allowed a team to become super. I still think that our team can be super. We must persue lethal, and at least ask him if he is interested, for if he is interested and wants to coach us, it would be negligent not to give him the position of head coach. Presidents, the board, ceo's are very important, but nothing wins games of football like a "great" coach. And who could argue that Leigh Matthews is not one of the greatest football individuals in the history of the game. Nb, he even looks like a demon. Nbb, he is only 61.

If Kennett wants to be taken seriously, he needs to declare who he's running with. A Board is not a President and no one else; just like McLardy didn't do everything, Kennett won't do everything. So we need to know who he has with him. He also needs to give some sort of statement as to what he thinks needs to be done. It's not enough to say 'Melbourne needs change'. What change? What exactly do you think needs to happen? I'd also like to hear him explain if/why he no longer thinks we should merge with North Melbourne, a view he held just months ago, and now conveniently is not in existence.

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.

Mitch Clark says welcome.

It would help his case if he stopped waffling on about his 'team' and told us who they were.

i meant how can you be sure you are happy he is the right guy to be prez. You know buggar all about him and none of us have heard him speak or know what his platform might be. Getting ahead of ourselves methinks.

Only a fool (or a melbourne supporter) would knock back a chance to get Matthews as a coach No rocket science here

Disagree. Yes fix the club but take whatever we can get from the AFL, money, picks, players, good draw, etc etc etc. We are not in a position to refuse help. Would you refuse 4 mid range ( 20-23, 50 plus games ) mid fielders?

I disagree. He walked through the door with a heavy hand, lost the senior players, some of whom have since left, he rid the club of talent that was deemed worthy enough to be recruited by other clubs, and brought in duds. I agreed with many of the delistings at the time, but have since wondered whether some of them weren't hindered by his approach. He couldn't improve ANY of them. At times Morton, Petterd, Gysberts and even Bennell have shown AFL talent. All of them were worse under Neeld. No-one can convince me this guy improves anyone. And we all know many players didn't "buy in", because players kept telling us so. Getting Viney was a no brainer, as was Hogan. FFS, I even had getting Hogan as a priority in my sig for about 3 months before the draft. Every club would have chosen Toumpas at pick 4. Why do you give such credit to Nerd when even amateur onlookers would have done the same ? Jones and Terlich were Todd Viney's selections. Dawes is a win for Neeld, even with the hefty price we paid. Byrnes, Pedersen and Rodan were poor decisions. With the help of Schwab and Connolly, as well as a Board that fell asleep at the wheel, Nerd has contributed to the ruination of the club.

So far from hilarious it's not funny. We are a rabble and a laughing stock who has to go to the AFL for money and further draft assistance because we have no idea what we are doing. I'm just hoping this is (another) first small step on some kind road to respectability and winning on the field.

It's now time to look forward, no use crying over spilt milk.

Speaking the truth with respect and grace does no discredit to anyone, regardless of who they are. In hindsight it appears that what Jimmy started became the problem. We all love him like we love no other but the sad state of things now shouldn't make him a sacred cow that cannot be mentioned or scrutinised. The failed McLardy board is in reality the failed Stynes board, and we have no way of knowing if it would have succeeded had the great man survived. We simply have what we have.

Schwab, McLardy and Neeld in a short time. Satyriconhome: "everything going fine"

I understand what you're saying, but I think I look at it a little differently. Less than 2 weeks ago, the club had a board meeting, it was acknowledge that the football department structure needed addressing and that Neeld needed some clean air in order to Coach. It was also stated that all those personnel with football responsibilities would be continually assessed. Since then we have had one game. This is an organisational change process we are going through, and from my experience, you do not change your view after two weeks. If you say assessments will be undertaken, then assessments will be undertaken. I see things like this. Jackson says football department needs to be restructured and Neeld needs clean air, while all personnel will be continually assessed. I'm going to approach this from a HR perspective, because that's my expertise, but until you have set up the new structure, identified the roles and responsibilities that you need performed, and provide time for personnel to get used to operating under that structure, you can not properly assess their productivity or effectiveness in the role within the new structure. What Jackson's statements say to me is: We're reviewing the entire football department, including all the roles and responsibilities of those in the department and will assess whether the people within the organisation are able to perform the roles that will exist within the new structure. Remembering that Jackson has only been around for less than 2 months, and the comments about the list being in a similar state to GWS, I don't believe their is a strong enough body of work that Jackson has witnesses intimately (within the club culture) to make a decision on Neeld, let alone assess whether he fits into the new football department structure given that it obviously hasn't been finalised as it was put to the AFL as a proposal in order to receive the funding. Remember back to Bomber Thompsons early days at the Cattery. He was on shaky ground regarding the teams performance (who were further advanced than us), and the club decided to free up Thompson from some of his responsibilities, restructured the football department and then all of a sudden things improvement rapidly. Same thing happened with McKenna last season at the Gold Coast, and now they're taking that next step in competitiveness. If we truly are in a similar position to GWS from a list perspective, then it is right that we are on the bottom of the ladder. In assessing Neeld's performance, that also would need to be taken into consideration. From what we've seen, Jackson won't be swayed by media or public pressure. He will go through this process in the way he knows is right, and won't deviate from that until he's got a solid body of evidence to make the right decision. To me that suggests Neeld will be given until at least the end of the season. This is about long-term stability, not short-term concerns.

Ahhhh no he wasn't! Let's get the facts right. Pick 3 and Pick 13 went to GWS in return for Hogan, Barry and Pick 20. Also as part of this deal we allowed Gold Coast to take the first mini draft selection in a trade for pick 3 and therefore meant Viney got through to the second round. See Emma Quayle reference. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/three-win-in-minidraft-20121009-27bbk.html So it's Hogan, Viney, Dawes and Barry for pick 3, 13, and 26. So you can actually break that down as Hogan for pick 3, Viney for pick 13 (even though he was drafted at pick 26) and Dawes for pick 26 (despite being traded for 20) and Barry as the set of steak knives. It was said pre draft that his value was as a late second or third round pick - somewhere between 30 and 55. That's where we should consider him for player development, not that it should be influenced by draft pick. Taylor Duryea and Sam Grimley played in their first games for the hawks this year after being on the list for 4 years. They also showed little until last year that they'd even make it to AFL standard. We should hold on to kids for too long because we do have an opportunity to play them if they are good enough but what they do in their first year at least should be inconsequential.

Good coaches know where their list is at. The press conference after the Brisbane loss in Round 1 2012 showed that he'd overestimate where we were at. His comments at the commencement dinner 2013 where he suggested we'll surprise a great many looks very silly half a season later. If he'd made mention of his re-build of a re-build in November of 2011 then we might be a little more sympathetic. The youngest, most inexperience teams in the comp are never the hardest to play against. There's been too many catch-prases and too many shifts in thinking. Rightly or wrongly, they come across as excuses and more disturbingly a shift of responsibility from him to his predecessors and even to the players. He may still have the players but his vision (whatever it is?) is not evident on the field. Melbourne supporters unlike most others have incredible patience. We can hang in there if we see a future and a direction but right now we're so far off the pace and so uncompetitive that those on the reality bus who have been so well trained at calling a spade a spade know that a win/loss percentage of 50 is unjustifiable. Belief is shot to pieces. The chances of the same coach who was at the wheel during smashing after smashing after smashing being their when we turn it around is really really low.

Melbourne president Don McLardy stands down as the Dees ask for a priority pick Well, we've gone and done it - asked for a priority pick due to our poor performances over a sustained period of time. I believe we're entitled to some sort of assistance from the AFL under its rules notwithstanding our poor recruiting and development record over the past decade. There's been resistance from different quarters but the reality is that the decision will not be made on emotion or pity but rather on what makes this competition tick - dollars and cents. The league and the clubs don't want a non-competitive Melbourne dragging down attendances and television ratings and, as Vlad has said, "there's nothing gained by having a team smashed every week". The best way to avoid that (among other things like stable administration and improvements in coaching and development) is by giving the club access to more good footballers and the solution that appeals most to me is a GWS-style mini-draft. If other clubs are given the option of pre-drafting 4 players aged 17 in return for trades with Melbourne, the club would pick up combination of draft selections and player trades to enable it to top up its list and enable it to achieve the rapid improvement in its on-field stocks that everybody's looking for. In addition, the nature of a mini draft is such that it doesn't create any new draft picks as would priority selections because the concept involves trading existing picks. Therefore, those clubs that aren't involved in the trading aren't adversely affected by the existence of the mini draft. Anyway, that's my idea for the day.

Really annoying.

Interesting debate, having just listened to Jeff interview on Triple M I'm more for him than I was before....and I was one of the crowd who votes him out of politics after he lost the people.....but he achieved a massive amount and made me proud to be Victorian again. Or state was a debacle in the Joanie and Cain eras, everyone off the QLD and embarrassed to be a Vic. As for him not being a Dees fan.....I get the passion debate, I mean its the only reason I'm writing this.....but I'd loe the fact we have former mad passionate Bomber Jackson as CEO, I warmly welcomed a former Pie as coach, loved when we got a big Lion as our new full forward, an ex Crow to run footy science, would love to have passionate Cat Balmly back as Footy Director and so on. S if I can happily have a non Demon become a Demon in every other club role why not a board member???? Whether he comes in or not I reckon him being so active right now if good for us, something will happen and happen quickly either way. Jeff said we'd no more early this week including others involved......big week ahead, maybe we might even win a game!

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

It was just so infuriatingly amateur.

I have the same problem Waltham. There is only one thing I need from the MFC and that is to be a winning team. Beyond that I don't care - who the players are, if they are first class citizens or if they kick their dog and swear at their mother. - who is the coach - who is the President - how much involvement the AFL has in the running of the club Just start winning games.

It was already crap.

Gold Coast are currently being bankrolled to a flag. They will win one in the next two-three years. Swans were on AFL life support in the 90's and they are now an elite team which doesn't bottom out. Remember MFC gave up the MCG to the competition at the end of our long reign of glory.

The money I can accept and think we deserve. Pick we don't and I don't want. Time for this club to accept it has failed and fix its own mess in terms of players and develepment

If we ever get up the top of the ladder, other supporters will be ribbing us about how the AFL had to bail us out. That's the only thing I don't like about this, but we really need it sadly.

No reason why not if you did a deal. Why would you restrict it if it was true value.

Semantics. Deserve, require, are deserving of - it all comes down to seven consecutive years of abject on-field failure. The AFL Commission has made a rod for its own back by not codifying what 'earns' qualification status for a priority pick. If seven consecutive years rooted in the bottom half of the ladder doesn't qualify for a pick, then what does? A Richmond-esque 10 years? If so we could be back begging in three years time!

To me, and AD did say that the mention of Picks came at the end of the meeting and was not at the core of our plan, that we are simply getting in early and trying to make sure the AFL doesn't bow to the pressure of flogs like Barrett and co. that say we shouldn't get a pick. No-one deserves a PP, but we should get one. For the betterment of the competition.

No he wasn't - not by a long shot. I'm not sure you realise just how bad we are and how many decisions the board has made that has directly contributed to it. Not indirectly. Not incidentally. Worst board in our history.

Luke Dunstan just sounds like exactly what we need. Pure mid with fantastic leadership. I don't care if Aish is meant to be more silky I want a tough leader cause this club needs them in spades.

One of the things I find to be interesting is that four of Walls' top 8 in importance are not available to play or injured at present (5 out of the top 12) and another two (T Mac & Toumpas) played their first games back from injury on QB. Add to that the fact that Jack Trengove has laboured due partly at least to the fact that he had no pre season and you have a fairly solid reason why we've been behind the eight ball for most of the first half of 2013. Of course, it's not the only reason but it gives rise to hope that when the changes are rung in for next year, we'll rise more quickly than some expect.

Am I allowed to say "[censored]"? If not, I withdraw having just said it. No-one defended Jurrah's actions. (I see that the word I had originally used has been automatically replaced by "censored". The Demonland software saving us from ourselves.)

Another achievement of the Jim Stynes board, which I can't remember at Melbourne for a month time was trying to unite the club again. On the surface at least, and I heard no rumblings in the background (although there are plenty more qualified people on this board than me to confirm), the club was united in its approach. Old boys were welcomed back, supporters, members etc were either working together or keeping their noise out of it. In the past 12 months this hasn't been the case, we've had ex presidents and past players talking rubbish to the media, public spats between people and now in fighting between supporters such as what we've seen on demonland recently. I'd like everyone who loves the club to step back and think "what would Jimmy do" when it comes to dealing with other club members, particularly in public. To me that was Jim Stynes' legacy as president - get everyone working together - but unfortunately we fell apart again on field before we could achieve success ruining all his good work. I hope that whoever the new board and president is comes out and says "ask Melbourne people are welcome back and welcome to contribute and welcome to be part of the club, even if they weren't successful in their attempts to run the club, because after all, despite failure they were working for the club they love as well as the club we love.

If he can get the players to walk an inch taller and run a bit harder, then he's the one for me. Too many of our problems are between the ears.

I know that Jimmy was an inspirational man, but to me, the rot really set in as he took the helm. The McLardy Board is actually the inherited Stynes Board and it has proved to be one of our worst ever. I hate thinking this, but I have to conclude it is true. Apart from the debt demolition which was no small feat, have there been any big achievemetns on or off the field that have not ended in failure? He had vision and incredible leadership ability, but his decision making is proven by its fruit - rotten, rotten fruit. Whether it was the inability of the board to function without him, I don't know, but there is a pattern of dysfunction. All the crap with Schwab and Connolloy Horrible nepotism (jobs-for-the-boys) Don Mclardy was never meant to be in charge Coaching appointments I admire Don McLardy for his effort and resilience and thank him for his work, but we need fresh, new, capable, bullish leadership.

That's why a good recruiting team will form their own assessments and not just go along with the heard like we do. It seems as if some just think "big footy" when they are looking at the draft.

Hopefully we'll say the same thing about you soon.

Don should be applauded for putting the interests of the club first. Despite what we might think of the Governance of the club in recent years, he has made a contribution and is now doing the right thing by the club by stepping aside.

I know there's a lot of angst around the club because of the way the team's performing at the moment but I think we should give Don a vote of thanks for being there for the club when Jimmy became ill, for standing with him and then for taking over in such difficult times. I hope history judges him kindly in that light. As for Peter, he's now the "Interim Man" - twice had the gig and I'm sure he hopes he won't hold it for too long and that we get a stable and strong leadership to take us into the future.

Thanks for everything Don, certainly thrown in the deep end, had his moments but did it for a his mate Jimmy

Sorry C and B I don't believe that No one suggested from my memory that Cook would go first round. Lots suggested Strauss and Gysberts were taken way earlier than expected.

I've been reading a number of threads in the past couple of days where topics degenerate as a result of personal abuse by posters towards others. I ask posters to note the following:- Code Of Conduct ... With regard to posts on the Demonland Forums, the Demonland Administrators and Moderators reserve the right to edit and/or remove posts that are considered to be: Acts of personal abuse That's the first item ... and I'll be asking the moderators to take a stricter position on personal abuse from now on. Thanks