sue

Looks like asking for politics to be kept out of this discussion is pointless. Here's my view, I hope I won't be tempted to post again: I didn't like Kennett's politics at all, but I think that has nothing to do with whether he'd be a good MFC President. I'd much prefer a Demon fan as President, though I don't think it is 100% essential. (However, a lower-profile supporter of another club wouldn't worry me as much as someone with Kennett's Hawk's public profile.) While it's true the players are no longer loyal, I'd hate footy to get the state where I may as well be barracking for CocaCola over Pepsi in their weekly sales figures. My concern with Kennett is his merger/relocation past positions. When things continued bad despite his efforts, my fear is that it would be easy for him to declare the task was beyond Jesus and return to his merger/relocation position. That would be the end of MFC. Don't want to take that risk. Therefore I say - surely there must be someone else that can do the job. I don't move in the right circles, so I've no idea who, but how many can say they knew the names of ALL successful presidents before they got the job?

Another knee-jerk anti-Neeld post. Anything that seems wrong, it's his fault. Maybe it is. But as a number of subsequent posters have posted, there may be many sensible reasons as to why Magner was omitted. And add to that there may be things that we don't know - not that that would stop some people rushing to judgement. Continually amazed by the depth of anti-Neeld sentiment. You'd think he took over the Hawks and suddenly they became a crap team, rather than he took over a crap team, cleaned it out and started again.

I may have missed some posts, but the ones I saw where people didn't like Kennett for political reasons, were arguing how his political background wouldn't be good for the MFC. I have no opinion on that. But you just started to carry on about how the nation was going down the drain because of the Federal govt - nothing to do with footy. So sure, please yourself, and I'll please myself to continue to ask you to stick to footy.

Yes it could be worse. Let's say Kennett starts with all the right intentions, but discovers that he will not be able to pull off success within the time he has allotted for it. Isn't it possible that he may then declare the job was impossible, that even HE couldn't save us. A not unlikely scenario I fear. He'd then pull the plug on us and return to his earlier merger/relocate convictions. A man with his ego and a Hawks supporter may well take that line when a true Demons supporter facing a similar situation might continue to fight for us. The best odds are with a true supporter President (or even a neutral) who may not be quite as 'good' as some see Kennett, but less of a risk in the long run.

Please keep your politics out of this. I expect many of the 'leftists' you see all about you would prefer Stockdale to Kennett even though Stockdale is more of a silvertail than Kennett. Why? Because he is a successful man who supports the Demons and hasn't called for our merger with North within the last 13 months. Kennett may be the dynamo to save us as some here argue, but I still say, why take the risk of trusting him. If there is any doubt, find someone else with the right skills, eg Stockdale perhaps, though I expect there are plenty out there we just don't know about. We didn't know the names of president's of many top sides before they took the job. So the MFC may have similar potential presidents in the wings.

Yes a well known technique. But why combine it with a statement saying that the Demitriou's/AFL plans for GWS is an idiotic mistake. Just the way to make friends with the AFL! Those fingerprints appear pretty faint to me. Another example of how desperate some MFC supporters are that they'll clutch at any straw.

And the evidence for this is....??? .... they disagree with you on a few topics and how to achieve playing in finals. What a load of nonsense.

He retracted years ago did he?? How do you explain this from April last year?: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/demons-and-kangas-should-merge-kennett-20120419-1x9pk.html Yes, maybe his ego is so big that he'd forget his past views in order to be seen as saviour. But I say again, why take the risk? There must be someone out there who can do the job without the attendant risk. My opposition has nothing to do with his politics or personality. Why take the 'merger' risk? Some of you guys just sound so desperate.

Yes but once he controlled a board which wants a merger and is in control of the 'facts' it could be very hard for members to counter it. After a season or so Kennet tells us we are bankrupt, makes little effort to turn it around and says the only solution is merger. Surely there is someone with the right qualities out there who could do the job without the danger of being a person with pro-merger history. EDITED TO ADD: I know many members are desperate but I am staggered that anyone would take such a risk. DM may be useless but when drowning it is better to look around for a new life buoy than grab a hold of the nearest shark.

That's the trouble with many in the anti-Neeld brigade. They don't consider that it might not be the same thing. With no inside information they just assume it is. I'd rather rely on someone like PJ interviewing everyone in the club, thinking carefully and identifying the cause and THEN acting. But hey, where's the fun in that.

Of course there is more respect in DIY than in handouts. But you haven't addressed the free agency issue. Nor has Deespicable who only looks at why it's not a solution to pay our existing players more. (That of course may change over time and before we become competitive, thereby halting progress towards competitiveness.) But how do we grab someone like Franklin (not personally suggesting him) without paying more than other bidders when, as our negative posters say, 'who would want to come to the MFC'? DIY is best, but if not feasible watch out - "pride cometh before a fall"

Will you be saying that when our good players are taken by other clubs under free agency? As much as it hurts, we may have to pay over the odds to retain them or attract strong players from other clubs. So if the AFL stumps up the cash and the permission to spend it on players I can't see how we could say no. If there are problems in winding it back over time, I'm sure this can be managed. As the team improves so will our income and equilibrium with other clubs will be reached.

CBF, I thought your post #3 was the wisest post I've seen from an anti-Neeld person. You said " but I guess I don't know everything as I'm not an insider." I think we should take the same view on the above. Namely, what actual evidence is there that some on the board were keen to fire MN but PJ saved him? Nor do we know the 'rationale behind it' to be able to agree, disagree or respect it. Almost everything we say should start with a gigantic IF X is true, then I agree/disagree/respect etc.

I wish I had so much certainty about things I don't have actual firm information on as the above and similar posts. Yes the financial cost may be a factor, but it may not, or it may not be the dominant factor. I'm happy to read speculations, but why do so many people word their speculations as if they were written on tablets of stone handed down on Mt Sinai.

Statements like the above are made assuming the anti-Neeld posting here are representative of typical supporters. But posters here are clearly not typical. I'm confident there is a groundswell of disappointment amongst all supporters, but it's not so clear there is a groundswell of opinion on how to solve the problem. In any case, I would expect PJ to make a better decision than anyone posting here or any groundswell detected elsewhere. So I'm happy if he ignores any groundswell. Yes, we pay our membership; so what. I pay my taxes, but I don't expect to tell the army who should be the next chief of staff. PJ might just have some facts and inside knowledge on which to base his decisions rather than the mixture of media speculation and frustration expressed on this forum.

Very true. We need a new word for these idiots rather than having to put "journalists" in quotes. I'm also amazed how many posts I read here which make definitive statements as to what will happen when the poster clearly has no facts to base it on. At least the "journalists" have the excuse of making a living out of their confections.

It would be interesting to hear the views of posters on how they suggest we try to deal with Cloke next week. What can we do? It would be especially good to see the suggestions from anti-Neeld posters who will probably blame Neeld for forgetting to clone Frawley when Cloke kicks 10 goals.

How do you expect to be told? By personal carrier pigeon? Would you feel so much better if they sent you an email - which of course would appear in the press within 10 seconds. Please name any other club which regularly tells its members exactly what is going on, especially when they are in the middle of making important decisions? As many of us hoped, the club is not making rushed decisions just because the media is in 'camping out' mode and disappointed members are (quite reasonably) getting emotional.

Since I'm not on the Board, I don't know. You seem to be missing the point I made as well as UH's.

But isn't UH saying that the MN may be 'performing' in ways other than the 'on-field performance'? And if he is performing as directed then he shouldn't be sacked just because there are 20 'journalists' camping outside the Board meeting. Sounds very reasonable to me. Of course feel free to argue that the Board directions were crud. That's a different argument.

And a lot of posters remind me of George W Bush - blunder in with no thought of the possibility of negative consequences, declare mission accomplished and leave a bloody mess.

I wondered how long it would take before someone took that line. Some of what he said seems irrelevant to bolstering his position within the MFC which gives the entire article some credibility in my naive view. Of course, that may just be a cunning ruse. As for timing, when else would you expect it, regardless of the motivation?

Sums it all up for me.

If it was another club, eg Bulldogs, I'd say they deserve one too. And the argument that we stuffed them up in the past isn't relevant to if it would be a good idea now. Maybe we've leant the lesson about relying on young Messiahs and not developing players. But in this age of free agency, I think agree with PaulRB - more loot to buy established stars would be more useful to us.

From the AFL site today: "Although the Hawks will go in overwhelming favourites, Neeld said the team believed it could win." Now the anti-Neeld brigade can start a new thread potting him for making unrealistic over-confident statements.