Hazyshadeofgrinter

You should have stopped here mate.

Nice to see you leading by example again there WJ. I never accused you of any ulterior motive or "agenda". I have always found such accusations ridiculous and I make no exeption when they are directed at others (even imaginary accusations). I did however infer that there are a small number of people on here who appear to be allergic to criticism of any element of the club, especially the administration, and often try to censor it. Yes, I number you amongst this group. I am not here to defend every stupid thread that someone starts. I am posting here to complain about your ill-conceived, self-serving proposal to merge all critical threads, including all of the most popular topics, into an unreadble morass. You say you have a responsibility to everyone on the site well here I am. You say I can question you over your attempts to moderate this site, well that's what I am doing. You continue to snipe at me but you only make yourself look foolish. The notion that I have not been posting much recently because I have an "ulterior motive" is ridiculous. It's not as if there has been a shortage of things to criticise the club about over the break. The penny is dropping. It has been a lonely few years holding our administration to account here WJ, but other forum users are starting to realise that pointing out how our club is being turned into a spiritless, hopelessly divided train wreck does not make you a bad supporter - it makes you a good one. Please don't paint yourself into an embarassing corner out of some misguided loyalty to Schwab and the other "mates". The club will still need you long after they are gone.

And what what is your definition of legitimate, constructive discussion? Could such discussion include criticism of "the club, the board, the administration, the coaches, fitness people, medical staff, bootstudders etc."?

And how difficult do you think it will be to find a response, much less hold a conversation, in a thousand page long thread of unrelated criticisms? As for your second point, dare I suggest that, instead of derailing this thread with your personal complaints about me, you instead start a thread of your own? Or am I supposed to now beleive that your comments are relevant to this discussion, and indeed all critical discussion, because they contain whingeing?

I see where you are coming from but you are exaggerating. As I pointed out earlier, I can see the merit in merging multiple threads on, say, Mark Neeld, or in your example, Pedersen. This is totally different to merging Mark Neeld and Pedersen threads together because they both happen to contain criticism.

No, I am not kidding. I suppose I simply didn't realise quite how onerous a burden it is to occasionally look for a thread on page 2.

It is one thing to consolidate threads for certain topics, e.g. Neeld, or major subtopics, e.g. sponsorship. Having one nigh unreadable thread for criticism, sorry, 'whinges', is an entirely different prospect.

You say that you are receiving "a lot" of complaints from forum users (none of which I have read outside this thread) about there being several different threads that are critical of the club. There are many different areas of the club of interest to Melbourne supporters, and different aspects of these areas, that are worthy of discussion, analysis and, yes, criticism. I realise that Demonland is not a democracy, but allow me to complain about how threads offering criticism often seem to get locked or, more recently, merged into almost unreadable "mega-threads" which discourage quality discussion and become nearly impossible to keep relevant. I can't help but think that this policy has less to do with the complaints of "a lot" of forum users who are too sensitive to handle more than one critical thread at a time and more to do with the views of a very few contributors who appear view criticism of our club as a blight on their rose-tinted landscapes and prefer to have it swept under the carpet.

Actually, not standing up for Range Rover here but I am pretty sure that MFC's record is 1034 W - 21 D - 1210 L. MFC existed long before Schwab came along and will hopefully survive long after he is gone. I am not in the least bit surprised that you have difficulty with that concept. Again, Schwab is not the same thing as the MFC. Criticising or even 'hating' Schwab does not mean that you hate the club, nor does it make you a bad supporter.

Re: mjt's situation, it sounds like there is some degree of institutional incompetence but hardly a hanging offence. If our club has managed to set up an automatic e-ticket email for all new members signing up or renewing during or shortly before the start of the season (this is was you're saying - isn't it?) then well done to them. Given that Schwab now heads over 40 non-football operations staff I think we are entitled to expect this sort of service. I will admit that I was pleasantly surprised to hear that it is currently being delivered though (again, this is what you are saying, right?) I noticed in the first edition of your post, which did not really resemble your edit 30 min later, you made out like I was blaming Schwab for Richmond supporters not getting emails - seems you are tilting at windmills. If you think my post to mjt was an attack, then you clearly haven't read many of my posts. Clunky membership renewal is pretty small beer compared to the many points I could use to illustrate how our club has become a hopelessly divided train wreck over the last few years.

Don't be ridiculous. That is a fact and has been pointed out numerous times. Of all the posts I have read since the last weekend, the ones that really make me want to be sick are the ones that say we need more input from Garry and other "mates" from our club's recent history of failure. Schwab's bacon was saved by mate and "faceless man" of the MFC, Garry Lyon. Despite his throughly implausible protestations of “not being interested in football politics or football administration”, Lyon knew about the decision to sack Bailey before the Board did. Garry himself went on radio and declared that he would ring Stynes to intervene. Are you calling him a liar?

Acknowledging that this is a comparitively small example of Schwab (2nd) era incompetence and without wanting to go too far off track, you may be interested to know that two of my friends who support Richmond signed up late this season (just before the Cartlon game last weekend I think). This week, both of them received an email from the club with a link to their "my Richmond account" (whatever that is) and another link to a printable ticket to this weekend's game in case their new membership cards did not arrive in time. Did you have a similar experience?

"He talks about stuff being leaked to The Age. He goes to a fairly full length to say there is some conspiracy theory." "I have been lined up by certain people at the club, these are the same people who lined me up to move sideways from football manager" - Chris Connolly

For the sake of the club, I hope you are right about the MFC not being charged or being charged and found "not guilty". I do not agree that this means we should ignore the circumstances that led to our being charged (or asked to explain why we should not be charged) and the way the club has managed the tanking and associated fallout from the start. I have noted that there are many fanatical supporters of McLardy, Schwab and Connolly who are keen to do this as they believe that there is a conspiracy involving former club figures and, bizarrely, demonland posters like myself and they are keen to uncover it. Obviously I have a much simpler theory about who is at fault. Regardless of who is responsible for the situation we find ourselves in currently, the club would do well to at least try and learn from this debacle. As supporters, we have a duty to keep informed and to hold the club's leadership to account. Even putting the obvious stuff aside about indiscreet meetings and best corporate practice etc., we would do well to examine the integrity of senior club figures, relationships within the club and between the club and the AFL just as a starting point. After all, we are constantly assured that the club has never been more united and that our relationship with the AFL has never been better. This stands in stark contrast to recent events whereby Connolly has publicly claimed the existence of an internal club conspiracy and we are the only club being investigated for tanking by the AFL. Of course, I do not for one moment think that the Board and Admin will be transparent about these issues but it is clear they can't keep a secret so I am sure that further details will surface in time. You think this makes be a bad supporter, I think this makes me a better supporter. Once again, different camps.

I have always found that catch a good divider of opinion. I am not surprised to find myself in a different camp to you. In any case, I assume you took my point.

Strikes me as a refreshingly honest, fair and reasonable article that, if anything, does us a favour by placing emphasis on the culpability of the AFL in this matter.

I suppose that depends on whether or not you think this was a good slips catch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoWoxn4mFOw

I think everyone agrees that the situation we find ourselves in is not fair. I am more interested in finding out how we came to find ourselves in this situation and how the club can get out of it without potentially fatal damage. Incidentally, it seems odd that you would start a new thread for your post.

Your post is insulting, irrelevant and contributes nothing to this discussion. Mods, if you are continually going to overlook posts like this when they are directed at me, you can hardly be surprised when the thread gets derailed as I exercise might right of reply and you can hardly complain if I occasionally sink to their levels. edit: P.S. Mods, I only ask that you be consistent. I have no problem with you allowing people to derail threads with irrelevant posts that are written purely to have a go at me, provided that I am afforded the same opportunity to write such mindless, unprovoked, personally disparaging posts without risking censorship, a ban or the locking of a thread.

And you strike me as someone who would rather insult me than face facts. You are adding nothing to this conversation.

First of all, they wouldn't have to emphasise Synes' role publicly. Secondly, unlike you I do not claim to know what McLardy, Schwab and Connolly would or would not do or threaten to do in order to save their own arses. Thirdly, if "Big Jim" was involved in the tanking debacle (as he almost certainly was) then he tarnished his own legacy. Jim being involved in tanking isn't even so bad unless you beatify him in the first place. Finally, I remain loyal to the club, not a handful of incompetents who have put the club in this situation.

Don is fighting to protect himself from his own incompetence. He has done nothing special to distinguish himself as a board member aside from aligning himself politically with Stynes. Stynes was only human.

Of course Jim was involved. If Schwab, McLardy and Connolly are determined to pursue a "no case to answer" verdict, they may well seek to emphasise this fact in the hopes that it makes it unpalatable for the AFL to pursue. This may be the only strategy that could lead to the "no case to answer" result. Not sure I'd give them that much credit though.

Sorry mate, it's over. I'm just not that into you.

I think my earlier posts speak for themselves and I don't appreciate you trying to put words in my mouth. Have a nice day.