deanox

To me, the main skill/attribute Melk has/has shown that the others havn't is smart delivery inside 50. We struggled for "connection" this year and that is Melks specialty. So I suspect that is why he got got games. Disclosure: I thought he didnt deserve games.

Really? Oliver isn't a bad kick. He kicks it out of packs, under pressure mlst of the time. And he does shank some he shouldn't. BUT it is very clear that he has a very good kick on him when he thinks about it, instead of blazing away.

I think they are two sides of the same coin. If they dont get midfield minutes because Oliver Petracca Viney are ahead of them, I don't think that would be a problem. If they are being player behind Sparrow ANB and Jordan, fair enough.

I think you are right on this. From a culture perspective, a club like MFC can't afford to be too ruthless as we are requesting loyalty from our squad. So in some ways the best outcome is for some of the quality but not untradable type players to ask to move. They have currency that we can use to improve other areas of our list without robbing Peter to pay Paul. And if they ask to move got more opportunity and we help them, we are the good guys RE culture.

I hope that's one thing we can all agree on, politics and economics aside! And also, when getting behind the dees, none of that stuff should matter either. Sorry to derail the thread, happy to keep it on TMac and how we can offload his salary or at least get value from his performance!

The IPA isnt a political side, it is Gina Rinehart and a small group of friends lobbying for their own gain. It promotes climate change denialism and lobbies to make insulting someone based on their race legal. If TMac has decided the IPA is on his, or anyone elses side, then it's a poor decision.

To some extent, this is my thinking. There is a chance he didn't realise how good it was over here and constantly battled a bit of nostalgia from home, thinking that would fix all his problems. It hasn't, and if he realises this he might be able to knuckle down and return. But I do think the club would be in the best position to judge that. And we wont take him and Brown.

I'm ok with that. But to do so we either need to trade out other high salaries (TMac, etc.) or trade out multiple smaller salaries (ANB, OMac, Hannan), AND find an alternate HBF.

He also went to see Jordan Peterson and was a guest on an IPA podcast, in case anyone needs further proof of his terrible decision making.

This is my thoughts as well. He showed a lot of promise as a forward. Good hands. Knew where the goals were. He did a great job as a tagger, but really failed off half back. His problem is that he is one of our most versatile players, but we have other, non-versatile, depth in his best positions, so instead of being a second stringer he underperforms in his worst position. If we move Hannan and ANB on then there is a role for him up forward again. Otherwise I think trading him to bring in a need (KPF, genuine HBF, wing) is probably best for us and for him.

Absolutelh. The worst part is, they could do this without telling everyone they are cheating.

This thread has taken yet another excellent turn that i wasnt expecting.

They got $80mil+ worth of bonuses and people are worroed about $20k of watches? Bringing her down for this is a political stunt. If it was really an issue, the obscene salaries and bonuses wouldn't occur in the first place. Bur that being said, Eddie is part of those obscene dollars.

I agree with this somewhat, except that I think he did have a plan pre 666 and has struggled to establish a consistent, working plan with the cattle we've had since then. Thus I don't know if he doesn't have a plan, or if he has one and is now making changes/modifications to the list to implement it. Fwiw I had a close contact at EFC when he was there. They spoke very highly of him, suggesting that he was one of the few coaching staff who (that they ever saw) spent time reviewing and analysing games and opposition, working with technical and analytic staff to understand tactics etc. In 2017 and 2018 we were very experimental both strategically and tactically. This matches with what I heard. Has he not been able to create a new plan? Is he still experimenting to find a new one? Or is he taling steps, but just not there yet? We'll know in 12 months.

This is almost exactly what I was saying above though. External group isnt happy with the current board performance. Instead of a divisive, public board challenge, the groups talk it through, and move forward together. Collectively there is now an otherwise unknown view on the board, theoretically making it better and more diverse. This risk is that its a token appointment, and the original board is just placating them, and gives them no real involvement or input. If the external group spends 12-24 months on the board and either feels like nothing is improving, then it might run a full challenge. If the placating appointment is only given lip service and no real input but dont complain, the board will let then run their course, they obviously dont know what they are taking about.

Agreed to some extent. But the board model we all know isn't necessarily the standard everywhere. The German codetermination model means that once a company reaches a certain size, the employees get to elect either 1/3 or 1/2 of the supervisory board depending on company size. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

Constitutionally it is required to "monitor Club's finances, audits of the Club's finances and its risk management systems and other responsibilities as tbe Board may determine..."

From our website I can tell we have: - Finance, Audit and Risk Committee, chaired by John Trotter, inc David Thurin - Facilities Working Group, chaired by Glen Bartlett, inc Kate Roffey - Bentleigh Club Subcommittee, chaired by John Trotter - Nominations and Remunerations Subcommittee, inc Steve Morris, David Robb I'd be very surprised if there aren't at least a couple of other subcommittees. But the FARC is responsible for all risk oversite, and for setting up structures that oversee/manage risk throughout the organisation. They don't need to necessarily assess the risk themselves, but make sure it is being done properly.

Agree RE governance. I should have used that word instead of operational when describing the AFRC. We discussed the role of the GM Football recently, and it is possible that the football department structure could be interwinned. That is, in some cases the risk oversight may be delegated to the GM Football or the CEO, whereas in others that may be provided by a football director/board subcommittee. The later provides complete separation between the two groups, and thus it offers a true external risk oversight, but there is potential for the football director to overstep, mudying the water.

When there is a casual vacancy, the board can appoint a director to fill that vacancy. That appointment is valid until the next AGM at which they need to be elected. Members can nominate for directorship. If there is only one nomination, there is no election.

I don't actually. We have an Audit Finance and Risk Committee which is likely to oversee all aspects of risk within the organisation. Without a formal "football director", we may not have been also operating a "football subcommittee". I'm not sure that is a problem but there may be advantages in separting out football rial management from operational/financial risk. I can't recall ever reading about our board signing off on trades or contracts, like I do at other clubs. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but we haven't been advertising it. At other clubs like North Melbourne and Adelaide, the "football director" seems to be doing more then strategic risk management, and actually running the place. I think this is likely to be worse.

I met a (now ex) board member in a pub once, and we had a chat, but that's the closest relationship I've had with one. The types of people we are talking about don't get "talked out". If they have concerns and think change may need to be made they would enquire. If they are satisifed with what they see, they'll move on. If they not, they'll assess if the situation would be improved through a challenge, consider if they have an alternative ticket who would stand with them and then make a decision. It may be that they think the current practice isn't as good as it could be, but that destabilising would produce a worse outcome. People can put their hands up for an election whenever they want. There absolutley will be an election is a single person nominates themselves. People who are capable of operating in this environment understand that you dont fight and force yourself into a board. The board needs to be on the same team, alligned. You enquire, express interest, become part of the team (whether officially or unofficially there are more then just the directors working on stuff), and if there is an need for your particular skills in the mix, you get more involved. The other option is a whole board challenge, which brings down the house.

You have just explained why you aren't going to succeed, because you are in the minority. If you have a full opposition board, with experience, skills and track record, and any real plan or direction, then maybe you'd stand a chance. But you don't, you're one bloke complaining. And if you were worth your salt and genuinely felt there needed to be change, then you wouldnt complain. You'd get in touch with the current board, explain that you'd like to help on the board and that you had some ideas. They'd listen to you and decide whether you were a crack pot or a legiment asset, and react accordingly. Put up or shut up.

Irrelevant. Put your hand up if you think its important. As a member you can nominate for the board whenever you want. Obviously the people with the skills haven't thought it was required and have opted to remain supportive of the current board. Edit: A call for directors went out with the AGM notification last year. Put your hand up if you think you can do a better job. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://resources.melbournefc.com.au/aflc-melb/document/2019/12/16/2e4671f9-3884-4ae8-85be-507838f91f1e/MFC-Notice-of-AGM-2019.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA7KWU6MnsAhXz7XMBHepHCiMQFjAEegQIIRAH&usg=AOvVaw070qS-E0nxcumCZWIb-kg2&cshid=1603425301335

Clear and concose description, thanks. The one thing I would add is that the purpose of the board is to manage risk and not to manage decisions or tasks: - the reason the Board/Subcommittee needs to sign off contracts of a certain length/value shouldnt be because the board are onvolved in list management decisions, its to make sure there is external review of higher risk management decisions. For example: people have complained about Goodwin selling our future to win extra games next year by signing Smith for 3 years, and this would probably need board approval first. - the reason the Board/Subcommittee needs to sign off game plan /strategy isnt because they get to tell the coach which positions players should play, but so that the end goal /strategic direction of the plan is accepted. For example: we are on a development year, and our strategic imtent is to give players the opportunity to learn and develop through failure, vs we are going to make ruthless changes to win every game.