Hazyshadeofgrinter

Yes, but that's precisely why you need it.

I have a mate who sometimes tries to give me a hard time about Watts (gets harder for him every year/round, thanks Jack). After a while, I realised that it all just stems from Richmond's bad history of drafting - he is desperate for Watts to fail because he wants to feel better about Tambling et. al. I can't see the following chant ever working in practice because it is probably not simple enough but I would love to hear it sung in reply to some bell-end from the grog squad who tries to have a go at Watts: To the tune of "Teddy Bears' Picnic": When you look at Richmond's drafting it is hard to believe your eyes That they took Oakley-Nicholls at 8 with Mitchell Clark there at 9 And Nathan Jones was there at 12 And as for Tambling, bloody hell And last of all, let's not forget Fiooooora

He plays with a lot of conviction.

I enjoyed it

yes

a new low

Junior?

Swap the numbers around - you should have bought a 13 to start with.

I realise that my off the cuff remark about being maligned is what slead to this thread going off the rails but if you guys want to talk about me can we please not hijack someone else's thread to do it?

And I might be a bit more prolific if I wasn't so maligned. Speaking of relevance, you'll find more of it in my post than yours.

You have just proven my point more eloquently than I could ever hope to. Still no mention of the MFC in here.

Sure thing, I just thought the "general" section would be more appropriate, given that nobody is discussing the MFC in this thread. Incidentally , I have received many PMs of that nature. Given that I am probably the most maligned figure on this website that is hardly surprising. For the most part I find them amusing.

What is this thread doing in the football forum?

bump

Funnily enough I have put "trade" in the title and "draft" in my post. The impression that I got was that it would be a trade window, not an extra draft. edit: confirmed, trade window

Just announced on the Footy Show. Apparently There may be a mid-season draft trade window as early as next year. The idea was presented at the CEO's conference by Cameron Schwab.

By the looks of things, the most influential Board member isn't even a Board member, it's Garry Lyon. As for you HT, it is no secret that you are a serial apologist for the Stynes Board. but you are not alone. Here are some more gems from that thread: Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Finally, here is one from the thinking minority:

I bet they are regretting that one. Harris to Connolly Connolly and Leoncelli to Stynes Stynes to Schwab Connolly to Viney Clusterfcuk to Garry

So, after making a myestrious phone call to set Jim straight, after Bailey has been dismissed ans Schwab offered a last minute one year extention, Garry is going to "thrash out" the issues with his mates (i.e. the most significant figures left at the club) in the hopes of finding a "resolution." And why is he qualified to do this exactly? Beacause he use to play for us? Because he is on the telly? Beacause he is friends with all of them? It is sure as hell not because he intends to stick it out and see things through. This is a farce. Worst of all, there may be no better realistic option.

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.

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."

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.

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.