Hazyshadeofgrinter

Hahahah, I'm glad you asked - it gave me the motivation to edit the wikipedia entry from Rodney "Rod" Grinter to Rodney "Balls" Grinter. He is the last truly hard-hitting bastard we've had play for us (unless you include Byron's cameo). A Couple of interesting Grinter facts: He put Terry Wallace on a stretcher in 1988 He was on the mark when Jim gave away that penalty kick in 1987 Incidentally, Stynes was my favourite for a long time even though I am sometimes critical of his post-playing contributions. Even though I can't stand the bloke now, I used to love watching Farmer play as well. I remember one particular Queens Birthday match (2000) where my mate mentioned to me at half time that Jeff was the most over-rated player in the league. The Wiz then proceeded to kick 9 in the second half. The Wiz is also responsible for my all-time wittiest and simultaneously most unappreciated football heckle when, in a much later match against the filth, he made Prestigiacomo look like an absolute nonce which prompted me to scream my support for the "Prestidigitator". Needless to say it was lost on the toothless.

Balls

I wonder how many people want to watch him play for Melbounre this year simply because they are impatient to see the next great white hope. I know I am, but I don't think that any exception should be made for this reason. We should simply play who is best for the team short and long term (probably not Grimes in my view). Anyway, there's nothing stopping impatient people like me from watching him play for Sandy.

Consider it taken with a large amount of salt then. (I would be interested to read that stuff about the new board not interfering by the way. Do you have a link or something? I live in terror that Dean Bailey isn't going to be allowed free reign to get on with it.) Once again, just because something isn't uncommon doesn't mean it's good. I remeber Dermott Brereton getting in the huddle - does that make it better or does it present an alarming precedent where a board member is allowed to overstep their boundaries and implement an inappropriate corporate governance model with no accountability (or worse - accountability to oneself)? The previous administrations appointee (PMac) only spent around two months under that administration. It is impossible to predict how that situation would have been resolved but I can only assume that any such resolutiion would have taken all expert views into account and involved an amicable compromise as this was the precedent set by the board in question. I'm not even sure that the J. Brown plan was definitively announced during their tenure anyway, and I certainly don't think the handling of P Mac and the CEO postion reflects well on the subsequent board in any case... ...but all this is a discussion for another thread I guess. I'm glad that you agree with me that Stynes is just another human after all.

I suspect that it might be hard to implement given that transaction fees are likely to account for most if not all of a one dollar donation. Nice creative idea though.

Once again, I'm sorry to go off-topic. I would suggest that further discussion on these matters should be conducted in a new thread. Having said that... The last board did indeed set up a Football Strategy Review Group. This consisted of board representatives (Gardner, Phillips, Coglin and eventually Leoncelli who was invited to attend by the board), Management (CEO and General Manager (Footy Operations)) and Footy Dept senior staff (Senior Coach, assistant coaches, recruitment/list manager). This group met 2-3 times a year and these meetings took the form of presentations by the footy guys followed by a period in which their presentation was questioned, challenged and debated. So for example, if they said they were interested in drafting Pickett they would be interrogated on the reasons, cost etc and how this fitted with strategy but at the end of the day it was their call. The board did not view it as their job to tell the footy dept how to go about their business - but to instead determine if their buisness was delivering results. If it was found that they were not then the consequences were straightforward as Ray Ellis, Steve Harris (off field) and Neale Daniher could all tell you. So is the Jim model significantly different form this? I'm not sure. But the line that "A committee of Board members will be assisting Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly to manage our football operations" suggests to me that the board is likely to play a more instrumental rather than observational role. My worry is that this could all too easily degenerate into a kind of Pre-Clarkson Dermott Brereton fiasco where Jim and friends can get away with interfereing with Bailey's plans beacause, well, he used to play for us. To show how easily this might happen, ask yourself what your view would be of some middle-aged businessman who you've never heard of squeezing his way into the players circle after the match to give sweaty-palmed back slaps and arse gropes to players who have earned the right to be there by playing their guts out for the last couple of hours. Then ask yourself why you think it's appropriate for a middle-aged businessman named Jim Stynes to be there. The last board never took those kinds of liberties and never abused their position to interfere with the football department (except to replace them when they didn't perform) and it is to their great credit. Cheers. P.S. For the record Regarding the intial youth poilicy post: "Our 24-28 year-olds (Davey, Bruce, Green etc) may become disgruntled that the club is working to such a long term plan and may look elsewhere to achieve premiership success" 1. That doesn't bother me as long as we get something for them. If I had to pick one of those to stay it would be Green. I actually hope that Bruce gets traded at the end of the year. Also, 24-5 year olds are still a chance to play in a Grand Final in my opinion. "The young players, by the club stating that they are our future, will have their managers adding an extra 50K to their contracts because we have so publicly said they are our future" 2. Well, we have to spend the %92.5 on something. Better them than Yze, White, etc. "Sponsors may not want to get on board a club that is working to a 5 year plan (according to Stynes) or a 7 year plan (according to Connolly) as success is a long way away" 3. Sponsors aren't going to want to get on board the club if things stay the same.

I'm not saying that it is uncommon for board members to involve themselves (inappropriately or otherwise) in football operations. Nor am I saying that when Jim and other new board members encroach upon the players circle to vicariously soak up their hard fought limelight, they are "making decisions." But, pushing into that circle where they have no business being, seems indicative to me of an erosion between on and off-field delineation. What I AM saying is that, contrary to 45's assertion, the "separation of powers" as you put it was very well maintained under the previous board and that it is preposterous to suggest that it is only now being addressed when, in fact, all signs point to the very opposite. Whether or not you think that board members should be involved with the decisions of the football dept., surely you can't pretend that the specific appointment of board members for this function doesn't repesent an increase in this sort of (in my view, inappropriate) meddling. But, you know, hail Jim and everything...

I'm not sure I follow you. Did you read the next post?

I'd be a little cautious about MCC bashing. They are probably our best chance for an ongoing MFC after Jim's tin rattle is finished. P.S. We had record membership last year as well (again, notwithstanding our on-field struggle).

Sorry to de-rail the thread, I just thought I might add this quote from the Letter to Members from 24th July. "ON-FIELD – A committee of Board members will be assisting Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly to manage our football operations. This group consists of past player and Club hero, Andrew Leoncelli, along with David Thurin and Peter Szental." 45, do you still think that the separation of the off field role of the board and the on field role of the footy dept. is "is finally being addressed"? Perhaps "eroded" is a more accurate term.

That's odd, I didn't notice the previous board members pushing into the circle to sing the anthem and grope the boys... I tend to think that one of the major strengths of the last board was the emphasis placed on clear boundaries and that this is in danger of being lost.

And Britney presumably...

Schwab became the favourite for the CEO position weeks ago when Stynes publicly endorsed his application (e.g. here and here). The whole debacle is a bit "on the nose" if you ask me, and I don't mean in the betting sense.

I read this article in today's age. I'm starting to think that MCC incorporation might be the only viable option for an ongoing MFC in Melbourne. I wonder if the new board are seriously considering it for when the tin rattle money runs out. They wouldn't get any arguement from me on this score. Thoughts?

Or their ticker for that matter?

Obviously the bubble-dome = melbourne demons identity is not a given but it was my hope that a stable and ongoing presence there as the sole AFL patron of the ground (and thus the only patron that anyone from Victoria really cares about), would do much the same for us as the lexus center has done for Collingwood. Actually, I did enjoy some pretty good coverage at Hotham early last week but given that we played Freo interstate I guess I can't use that as an excuse. It must be the poor on-field performance after all!

1. The main reason I don't want the footy dept back at the 'G is because I want it SOMEWHERE. I feel the whole "MCG is our ground" notion to be deluded and besides which, I think the training facillities will be poor in comparison to the bubble dome. I think that if we establish a homeground that is undeniably Melbourne Demons it will do much to improve our supposed "brand weakness". Ideally this would have been the Lexus center, in the circumstances the bubble dome is best. The MCG will simply "do us slowly" to paraphrase Keating. 2. 106 days in the job 40 under an unsupportive administration. $115,000 down the toilet for what? Ego? 3. 1999-2003: aggregate losses of $8.52 million. Since then? 4 years of profit followed by an admittedly dissapointing projected loss for of $1.5-2m this season (on the back of sharp increases in football operations funding I might add). What would YOU call it? 4. I think you'll find that our record membership came on the back of last years, wait for it, record membership. But thanks very much to Jim for enticing those last few hundred to come on board this year. (Something he could have done when he was not on the board I might add). 5. I'm glad you agree that they cared because a lot of this "big jimma bleeds for the club" talk seems to imply that this is somehow a differentiating characterisitc. 6. The people at the games have gone to the snow like they do every year. Probably moreso this year due to our poor on-field performance (and good snow season). Thankfully they have at least been buying memberships in record numbers...

I watched the game on TV and I'm sure I heard one of the commentators call him a speedster. What idiots. At least they won't have anyone with whom to draw inapproporiate comparisons with Naitanui! (sorry to go off-topic I am also excited about the prospect of Watts in our forward line (after he has had time to develop of course))

Hey guys, just so you know Wonaeamirri ain't that speedy (perhaps he is what he eats?). It annoys me when commentators and others propogate this notion, presumably on the basis of his racial background. I still love to see him play though. (just not running 40m sprint times, or kicking 40m+ for that matter).

You're right of course. Why should I be worried about the club wasting the vast amounts of money and hard work that went into securing training faciliites and a top-notch sports administrator for a CEO. We have an ex-ruckman in charge! And obviously the last democratically elected mob who occupied the board could not have possibly have cared about the club. It's not like they donated years of work for no renumeration just to secure record membership and an imporved financial postion...

I was appalled when I read about the seemingly heedless and certainly wasteful sacking of Paul McNamee by the new "President for life" and his board. Whilst I am not party to their reasons for this decision, I cannot help but think that, as one poster has already pointed out, McNamee could not be worse that an "interim" CEO, and $115,000 for nothing is an inexcusable kick in the guts. I am willing to concede that McNamee's appointment might not be optimal in the new climate given that there seems to be an overlap in functionality between him and Stynes (i.e. they are both high-profile types who deal with media and attract sponsors) however I refuse to beleive that McNamee had so little to offer that it was worth throwing away $115,000 to get rid of him. So far there has been a strong reek of nepotism from the Stynes camp and this is all the more alarming in light of the cloak and dagger style tactics that they seem to prefer in their business dealings. However despite these concerns, what worries me more than anything is the preponderance of comments like these: The same poeple who call for patience in the assemssent of Stynes bay for the blood of a CEO with 106 days in the job, 40 of which were under an unsupportive administration. The same people who cite the need for change at the club forget that the previous board installed a new coach, CEO and Operations Manager with this in mind. The same people who laud the new administration as being more representative of the interests of "real footy fans" convieniently forget that the new board were not democratically elected. The same people who praise Jim for raising our membership to record levels forget that the majority of these memberships came on the back of last years record number. The same people who consider "debt-demolition month" to be anything more than an unrepeatable charity stunt, defend the new board even as they fritter away $115,000. The call for level-headed fans who are capable of critical thought to "open (their) eyes" is the ultimate irony. This is a platitude of Orwellian absurdity. You would not have me "open (my) eyes" but rather shut them in imitation of the blind faith that you espouse. Some of you seem to think that being a good footy player makes you a good footy manager. Perhaps Jim shares this view and this might provide an alternative explanation for what otherwise looks like an alarming slide into back room deals, jobs for the boys and ego-driven management. Others of us have not been blinded by the glint of a Brownlow medal and we will rightly feel at least as wary about the current administration as we did about their predecessors.

Oh man, It's just too much isn't it? hahahahahahah

Whilst Jeff may well still be our best prospect in the ruck this does not mean we should be playing him - after all the season is shot anyway. The notion that by keeping Jeff on he is somehow going to impart his rucking wisdom by taking all the bounces seems a little off to me. If we want Jeff to pass on his knowledge then we should employ him in a coaching role (not that I'm actually advocating this because I have no idea if he'd be any good anyway). In the meantime I would prefer it if the other rucks enjoyed the instruction of another teacher, experience. All credit to Jeff for his great contribution to the club over the years but he will not play in a Grand Final and keeping him on the list is not doing the team any favours in the long run. Jamar may not be great but he's what we've got. More time in the center can only improve, if not his skills, at least his trade value.

Without wanting to really wade into the debate over whether this would be possible/likely/desirable I thought I might point out that (despite the club debt) the money factor is actually one thing that could work in our favour in such a scenario, given that Brisbane are probably straining under their salary cap whereas we will be retiring a lot of our more expensive players and running with a bunch of cheap kids...

This is kind of a funny comment to make because it displays the seeds of an ability to think from another club's perspective (sorely lacking around here) but it stops just short of rationality. Of course clubs are only looking to help themselves win a premiership. However, if, through trading, a club boosts its chances and that of another club, this is still a good result because 14 other clubs are missing out. Realistically, all trades should be expected to boost the chances of both teams winning the premiership (eventually) because if the list managers at both teams didn't think that this was the case, then they wouldn't go ahead with the trade., This underlying WIN-WIN priciple seems to be seriously lacking in some of the above proposed trades. Some examples of good trading: Team A has a shot at the Premiership in the next 2 years. Team B is rebuilding. Team A trades a draft pick or promising rookie for an experienced match winner from team B (which isn't going to win any matches any time soon anyway). Team C has a glut of promising midfielders Team D has 5 contenders for Key Forward positions etc. Cheers