timD

His disposal is awful and he came as close to any player on our list to singlehandedly being responsible for losing a match last year because of it. I mean awful by AFL standards btw. No groupthink exists on that topic. Everyone looks better with "better players around him". He does not beat his opponent every week. Motherhood statements are really quite sweet. So are gumdrops and lollies and everything else in fantasyland. My prediction is that Bartram's brain and heart will get him in the side and then, when more highly skilled others' grow a set, he'll be phased out. It's a pity, but I think it is inevitable. Funny, because as a tagger he'll be around the footy - if played this way it will have him around the footy more and as a result his disposal will be more of an issue. Now, if the structure of the team limit this liability, good. My bet is that our midfield will still get crucified and Bart's disposal will be exposed.

That is about the most wafer-thin response you could give. Why bother? You've accused me of unconsciously working for an an oligarchy that runs the site that I have not met and then suggested that I am victim to a series of cogntive errors. When asked a set of questions you just refuse to engage. You are able to question my character and duck the issue. I think lawyers call that 'Ad Hominem'. Try playing the argument. Don runs a finance company. What does he know about how an FD should run? Why was Jim left to monitor something he couldn't? What was Don trying to do before the Geelong game? Why was Baliey fired after Gary got involved? These questions are important because they go to the heart of how decisions get made. Now, everything may work for the best but it will due ot good luck rathre than good planning. That is not something I was to see perpetuated. If you cannot answer these fairly basic questions then it is clear that you do not want to question the board, that you seen no issue with or need to ensure a separation between board and day-to-day club functions and that whatever Jim/Don do is fine, regardless of impact or consequence. Devotion is cute, but thoughtless and deliberate ignorance ain't.

Ben-Hur, not to run over an issue again, but it was Jim's job to watch the footy department. The questions you need to ask are: (a) What was Don and the rest of the board doing before W186; (2) What would Don actually know about how to judge a footy department?; (3) Why was it Don and not another 'footy' person doing it?; (4) What was the source of the discontent?; (5) What are the players going to really understand about Admin vs FD issues?: (6) If Don is involved with FD issues, can he fire himself for meddling or interfering which then produces detrimental results? Don needed to be separate because that is the best position to be making decisions from, and then you don't have the complications of fouling up the waters and then judging the other players while artifically forgetting or excusing yourself.

The only thing Nathan Thompson has covered is the seat he sits on. That, and the market on vacuous fillers.

Maldonboy, i am reporting you for implying that Morton has anything resembling a positive quality. Mods! MODS!!! PS: Thanks for the writeup!

Franky, I think neither has done enough on field to be captain. Neeld may be naming them because they are closest to what he wants. There is no ideal solution. Tough on Green. Needed though.

I agree about things getting personal Macca. Avoiding that is good. It really should be my new years resolution! I'm not so sure we are so far apart. The issue for mine is whether the board can functionnally by-pass Jim. In the paper's before x-mas Jim was pretty clear that he was awfully close to dying. It is unreasonable to expect any man or woman to work effectively under those pressures. I hope the board is picking up the slack. My concern is that they were not pre-186. Why...I don't know - and as you nicely put, hard to know without being there. BUT we had rumors of Schwab being sacked, bailey been given an extension and then 186 led to to cam being given a 12 months extension and bailey being sacked. Don spent time interviewing players before the 186 match to figure out what was happening. Jim sacked Bailey over the phone (which still bemuses me) and then the resurrection of the club was handed to a mate. Now, all of this might end up working out. I think you can mount a decent case that the board was was functionally AWOL before 186. I hope to hell that they've recognised that and done something about it. So, I guess that I see Jim and the board's part of 186 and surrounding events as worse that 5%.

He must have been regarded as too 'something' to go at 79. Perpaps it is just that melbourne recruiting is always bad no matter what and unless you question it with hindsight you'll never really know. Ron, what the hell? Are you really using the hird pick to suggest that people will justify anything? Are you using a fluke to justify that Cale ws bad pick and that thinking about things is wrong? Is this just very very subtle irony?

Jack and Maurie, on reflection I think that you are right. Having Jim removed would look bad and have potentially very negative consequences that we can ill-afford. That is why I wrote earlier that Jim should pick a replacement and resign. If not resign, then the board need to functionally by-pass him. That assumes that they can actually function. Macca, what are we disagreeing on? I'm not trying to be clever, I genuinely don't know. Do you think that jim and the board should be questioned (like any board by the memebrs of the club)? Are they doing a good job? If you can't tell if they do badly, when do you know that they are doing well?

I'm not sure how anything is misperceived in this Macca. I think that Jim's functioning is so grossly comprmised that he cannot do his job; there are periods where areas under his direct observation were out of control; the board have been ineffective (again, my view) under his leadership and him remaining president builds in a dysfunctional state into a board of limited ability (on performance to date). Most others see the same problems and are happy that they (board and pres) continue because Jim is a good bloke. OK, perhaps a very, very good bloke. This argument is not hard to understand. Unless he has effectively (functionally) been replaced and our board has grown a set we are vulnerable to exactly the same sort of nonsense as last year. You see that as ok - indeed you think that because Jim is a good bloke he should get to see what he wants done, in whatever way it suits, regardless of any consequences and without examination. Put simply, you have faith - nearly unconditional support. Bob's point was that unconditional support has bad outcomes when you push it to real-worl extremes. 'Unconditional' IS the position of many, if not the majority of posters on this thread. You believe. I don't. I value the club and my team much more than I care about Jim. I'll question him and whoever/whatever else I see fit to question. That differentiates me from you and most supporters I guess. So boards are hard to judge. So are governments, councils, judicial processes, PTA"s etc etc. I'm sure you manage there.

I'd guess quicksilver and sugar, old dee.

Bonkers, I think it is important to recognise what Jim has done, what he has failed to do and what he has not done at all. It is a myth that Jim has saved the club. Saving the club is a massive operation that has demanded many things and is not done yet. jim effectively demolished the debt with member/supporter help. He did not improve our facilities, change our list, develop Casey etc etc. All essential ingredients. Jim's done none of them. Not one. The one thing he did do was preside in an essential way over the debt demolishion. Jim hads not put the club ahead of himself. He has put himself at the head of the club. I'm not being smart - that is his position. Hundreds of members paid their money to save the club. jim did not do it by himself. He is necessary but not sufficient. It takes no balls to come in to a hopeless situation because no one will blame you if you fail. No-one at all. It is a free swing. Did he inspire and unite - hell yes! Was he essential - yes! Is he responsible for [censored]-ups -hell yes. Has the board appeared disengaged or paralyzed behind him - yes. Are things better now - well, they look it, don't they. My hope is that Jim's figurehead position is being maintained while his responsbilities have been redistributed within the board somehow. Best of both worlds. as for the afl, well, they can go and pleasure themselves out of the sight of delicate eyes. And Deemonstrative, the "low moral fibre" thing is bizarre. Genuinely. I'm saying that governance is a concern and Jim's ability to discharge his responsibilities are an issue and you think that is 'low'? Ignoring it to make yourself feel good -now that is 'low' - it risks much in order to avoid pesonal discomfort. As in, it's the bottom of the barrel of moral reasoning. Nice work if you can get it.

Felix, I talked about empathy and I don't think that there is any conflict. Two states exist and neither should impinge on the other. I feel sympathy for Jim; I seriously question whether he can do the job. I think he has done a hurculean job for the club; I strongly suspect he is a figurehead president who is being carried by the board. I hope they have replaced his functional role. Empathy and sympathy are very different things BTW (they are often used interchangeably too). Empathy is feeling what someone else feels; sympathy is varying states of pity or compassion for another. And if you want to discuss it (and I mean discuss), PM me. It is a hell of a cheek to state that my values are 'misplaced' (what does that mean anyway - sounds meaningless to me) and then to state that I'm hiding them behind a feeling I may or may not have. I made the statements - use my name and if you want to see what I mean, ask. This is very simple in the end. It is evident to everyone that Jimmy's functioning in general is grossly compromised by cancer & its treatment. It is evident that the Board were ineffective at managing the FD/admin issues. Jimmy was responsible for reporting to the board about the FD - a position HE took after Leoncelli left. Then Geelong, no coach etc. It is evident that Jimmy was unable, with his board, to rectify things on their own. Gary came in and WHAM!...we have now. The board got themselves into a stinking mess that they should have seen coming. The man who had the most contact, theoretically, was unable to intervene or adequately inform the board. Jimmy is front-and-centre of that effing mess. Jimmy handed the reigns of fixing it to someone else. This, as a buisness process, as a governance process, is a worry. It is not the end of the world or anything dramatic, but, it falls way short of good practice or effective leadership. What standards do you people want to hold for your club? If he were an aussie cricketer you would want him gone now. If he were PM, your accountant, your GP, your CFO, your stockerbroker, your kids' nanny, your uni lecturer.. Truth is, Felix, that Jimmy's leadership makes people feel good and they (you) use that to justify ignoring failures he is responsible for (not wholly, but in significant part). You justify keeping him on b/c the poor man is dying and he has done great things. Now who is hiding behind what?

Nitpicking? Hardly. Jimmy saved the club? No, he did not. Cam got sponsors. Many people threw their hard-earned at the club. Decisions about development, training and list management were already in place before Jim arrived. Jim built a facade and lots of people did the saving. Jim was a supremely effective figurehead and absolutely crucial to it all - but let's not get starry eyed. Gary saved the club? Old is bang-on. Gary gets to be responsibility-free. All glory, no cost. That might not be bad - hell, I don't know. It is worth noticing though. And now he gets to back to the dark room of melbourne intra-club politics. And comment from a distance while nestled in the inner sactum (and deny it, too). This is NOT to denigrate his efforts or decisions. I want it all to work. I also want to see it for what it is. I'll see your 'nitpicking' and raise you 'spin-free understanding'.

Kento, I agree with most of what you've written. Empathy is a funny one: I am a psychologists, and I have empathy for most of my patients and that absolves them of none of their responsibilities. Jimmy has responsibilities. On his watch, with his role, the FD wobbled and now has almost been entirely replaced. Did he let it happen so Bailey could be easily replaced? DId he just not notice? Ws he too sick? Why sack a bloke over the phone? What the hell were the rest of the board doing? My concern is that Jim is controlling and relatively effective at the 'house-building' that you've described. That means decisions (of a size) get left up to him...and when he doesn't make them they don't get made by anyone. From outside, I think that is what happened. As pres, the buck stops with Jim. He needs to take responsibility and hold himself and his board to account. If he cannot do it then it begins to compromise board functioning. Can Melbourne, so flush with life but so bloody vulnerable afford that risk now? A board that didn't know what the footy dept was doing, that was unable to stop FD and admin quarrels and that was interviewing players about club functioning? WTF? All with Jim front and centre. Thanks Jim. Without you, my kids would not know the Dees and that is a debt I can never repay. What I'll do is brainwash them and take them to games and pay my memberships and post on forums and be active and interested in the life of my club. And it is now time to recognise your limits, hand the job to a man you trust and respect and see that your job is continued. I have empathy for Jim; I don't think he can do that job (too sick) or that the board can carry him and I don't think it should carry him. I wonder if he thinks it should? They've shown little ability to step up when Jim was so sick this year - hell they needed gary to come in and do stuff (or let schwab do stuff) to fix the mess. It might make Jim sad, but at least telling him to step down would be being honest about his capacity, genuine in assessment and respectful of where he and the club are and need to be. Empahy is great, however, if you sacrifice your values in order to not make someone feel bad, then you are basically lying to them and yourself. So that you and they can feel better. Not my thing.

Swooper, as long as Mclardy is doing that, well, good i guess. Rumors about board functioning is all i have to go on and they were very very uncomplementary about the people and the process. Jim was the one who was suppossed to be pres, and monitoring the footy dept and battling cancer...and then sacked the coach....and then oversaw a massive recruitment process? If he were running a hospital, he would not be chairman of the board. I think it is excusing bad practice. I think we aren't serious.

Great post old. I wonder what it says about the board that Gary is seen as having the influence he does? I wonder what it says about Jim that Gary has the influence he does. I wonder if Bailey was white-anted by Gary for about 18/12 until he went and now, lo-and-behold footy expenditure has gone through the roof? The more I think about it, the more I wonder about the Board. And about how much longer we should accept the role of president being used as pre-palliative care. I wonder if anyone has the guts to get Jimmy to move on? If he were prime minister, he would be forced aside. If he ran policing, or health care - hell if he ran a serious business he would be moved on. If he was your accountant or GP none of you would see him - well, not for anything imporant. I think it says an awful lot that the mood of melboune supports is to canonise a living man and absolve him of his responsibilities...and line up to blame the first poor dolt who mis-fires. At least Gary sounds like he's been an effective figure-head (at worst).

Great write-up daveytrain1! Christ it is sad, but I really hang out for these reports.

Perhaps substitute the word 'before' for 'since' and you have what BRFE is getting at. Then you can skip all the clever hyperbole! Easy as that.

A lot better, Steve? Back it up why don't you. A lot would be what - 20% better - 40% better? Lets go for 40%. So, go and do the homework. How may picks did he have in what drafts? Go and find 40% worth of improvements and then name the better recruiters. Let's face it, if Barry could have a done "A lot better" it is important that we all know how the club has been dudded. Such certainty steve must come with a wealth of data to back it up and I for one demand to know how Barry has so markedly failed. Given how certain you are, this will be a doddle for you. Why, I'm sure you already have all the data just waiting to go. Go. For the record, I thing he has done a good job overall. I wish we had a better midfield than we do. I think we have a lot of potential in forwards and backmen and our ruck stocks are good.

...and rpfc, that is anyone who gives two hoots.

Don't have too much fun with this, Bob!

Preemptive strike!

Jack, I'm happy for the constructive criticism! The way I think of it, 'race' and racism' talks to making comments specifying the presence or absense of traits on the basis of genes uniquely associated with race. "The indiginenous player is good (better) at footy b/c of his genes" is an example. Except it is positive racism if you will. I think that the "issues of risk" with indigenous players highlights an unpleasant confusion occuring between 'race' and 'culture' (thanks old) and, as Bob says, stereotypes get employed. I have no problem with stereotypes in the main because they simplify the world. When stereotypes lead to prejudice, then thing become no good in my book. Jack, I understand better what you said and what you meant now. You should also know that raising ethnic cleansing is a potentially ineffective as a strategy b/c of the strong emotive quality it quite rightly evokes. That said, once people can employ stereotypes and prejudice, quite extraordinary evil can be produced - evil that should be named and denounced. Eugenics is another example of such (interesting side note: a number of authors have noted that the eugenics movement in psychiatry gave rise to the gas chambers in Germany before WWII). It's just that some people are not evil, they're clumsy or ill-informed (and others you get a free pass to saddle up and go to town on - you be the judge ). A really interesting book on the ideas of race is "Guns, Germs and Steel' by Jarrod Diamond. I remember reaidng it and being really impressed (knowing my luck, some kid will post about 90K errors of fact or science!).

General question, Jack. Aimed at no-one. No hidden meaning. The post is meant to invite discussion about what can be complex and rightly emotive issues. Or is your question rhetorical?