jimcor

It seems a bit odd to me that we would go hell for leather after under-performing players but would be so precious and concerned about unfair or ill-considered comments regarding the management. Surely if we're demanding that the players toughen up, we would expect the execs to set a good example??

Ps the moderators can always deal with any hurtful or irrational posters

To his credit, he didn't seem to have the same concerns that you mention two weeks ago when he posted. There are always going to be people who'll criticise irrationally but that'll just a fact of life. Having said that, everyone (including CS) is entitled to an opinion and frankly, I just read and then ignore the ones I don't think make sense. Surely others could do the same. Many DL readers and posters are members so I would think that it would be a useful forum to, when appropriate, communicate through. It's obvious to me that there is no shortage of passion & loyalty amongst all of the DL mob and it should be seen as a positive rather than some sort of threat.

Thanks PJ. Easily done. As other posters have already said, even without the Facebook rants, his previous business/commercial shortcomings would have been readily available and should have set off the alarms. I can't believe that you or I would have made the same error and, if we had, we would have expected consequences. Certainly, I think it's now been proven that a closer eye needs to be kept on the CEO's performance. Given that CS posted on DL recently, there's no reason why he couldn't come on again and explain what went wrong and reassure the supporters about where our sponsorship strategy will be taking us.

Oddly enough, it wasn't me who raised the Footscray involvement. It was another poster. Also I think you'll find I haven't called for anyone to be fired, merely to say that the FOJ sponsorship strategy was flawed and that a careful examination of EW and it's principals would have rung alarm bells. The person accountable for these decisions would be the CEO. Due diligence is the description of the activities that an organisation needs to undertake when considering entering into a commercial relationship with another entity. The point of the exercise is to make sure that the other organization satisfies the needs of your own organization. The lack of this seems to be the only rational explanation for what's happened.

The only other suggested reason came from PJ 12345 and that was 'crap happens' - an explanation I find marginally under-argued. If it's not a lack of 'due diligence' on the part of these organizations, what can it be? Large companies will often use PR agencies to seek out sponsorship opportunities. If that was the case, who knows how it would have been pitched? At the end of the day, the MFC reputation is in the care of the MFC and that's why it's hugely important that it is not exposed in this way again.

I think that the avoidance of 'crap happens' is the reason that due diligence is normally carried out - in the expectation that potential accidents can be avoided. As I understand it, the Board's responsibilities are primarily governance and the approval of medium to long term strategies. They might also participate in the creation of these strategies. The day-to-day running of the club is the responsibility of the Executive headed up by Cameron Schwab. My guess(and hope) is that the Board will review the sponsorship strategy and get it fixed. The great thing about history is that it provides an opportunity to learn. The first step is to identify your mistakes.

As on-going MFC supporters, we are, by definition, optimists otherwise we wouldn't still be supporting the team. One of the areas where we (the supporters) go wrong is to unrealistically expect change (e.g. coach, game plan, new season, etc) to bring immediate success. Like a lot of other posters, that was my mindset after the club addressed the on-field disaster of 2011with a new Footy Dept and the Footy Dept invoked a change of approach when it came to pre-season training. After last week, however, I realised that my expectations were unrealistic and that my new reality is that it takes time to learn a new game plan. Instead of zeroing in on specific players each week and calling for them to be dropped/retired/traded/counselled/brain-scanned, I think we need to give them some time to settle into the new way of playing and work on what they need to be doing to put the new game plan into practice. How can Neeld and his team assess the strengths/weakness of the playing groupwithout playing them in 'real' games in order to identify what needs to be done to achieve some success. Most of the players are coming off of years of trying to play to an unsuccessful plan and getting hammered week after week. No wonder why most of them look a little shell-shocked. Success will breed more success. Without doubt, Neeld will make (already has made) mistakes so what's new?? If he's not making mistakes, he's not trying enough new things. I will continue to be patient. ps Jack Watts will be a great Demon footballer if we don't drive him out of the club and Matty Bates needs to be given the opportunity to play at least 4-6 full games. And it's going to be a great draft year.

So, a couple of days on and it's still all a little surreal. On reflection, we were not the only ones to have been sucked in however that's really not a great excuse. The fact that we were not the only ones to make a huge error of judgement does not make it any less dumb. And, frankly, it's not that reassuring to me to know that the MFC is not on its own. I would like to be reassured that we have a plan in place to secure a new sponsor (or two). At the start of the season we were the only AFL club without a commercial FOJ sponsor and we have taken this to a new level by being the only club with neither a FOJ or a BOJ commercial sponsorship. Is this some sort of record? As I see it, the challenge is to make sure that, in the future, there is an appropriate level of governance and oversight in relation to our Commercial options but not at the expense of the Board becoming de facto day to day managers. A sometimes difficult balance to strike.

Thanks Rpfc, I'm not sure how 'breaking the law' comes into it. Generally, in relation to business transactions, I thought it meant doing your homework. That was the sense I used it in. If some Demonlanders were surprised that EnergyWatch emerged from nowhere to commit to substantial sponsorships, I would be hugely surprised if others - particularly Board members - didn't raise an eyebrow when it was announced. Of course, I could be wrong and could be expecting too much of people. Who knows?

Thanks Dee-luded, you could be right about there not being a huge range to choose from but again, with the benefit of hindsight, the sponsorship strategy has just not worked. Like many others on here, I am tired of feeling (and being) defensive about our performances both on & off. There was a touch of smugness about the lack of urgency regarding securing the FOJ sponsor - due to the fact that such a 'great' deal had been struck with EnergyWatch. This was seen as Cam's big achievement and it turns out not to so. I suspect the price we can now extract for both sponsorships will be considerably below what they had been 48 hours ago. Our off-field performance should be measured in a similar way to our on-field performances and when someone drops the ball, they should expect consequences. The Board will hopefully help secure a more successful sponsorship strategy in the future.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I totally support the action taken by all of the teams in ditching Dodgy Brothers immediately. My concern about judgements relates to: 1/- getting to this stage without having a FOJ sponsor and the lack of a Plan B in this regard 2/- the apparent lack of due diligence in appointing Dodgy Brothers in the first place In both cases, the results have been, to say the least, disappointing. Just my opinion, the world will continue to rotate and revolve regardless.

How quickly the concern re the missing FOJ sponsor has been put into perspective by the disgraceful behavior of the BOJ sponsor. As has been said often, hindsight is a wonderful thing but the apparent lack of a Plan B (alternative commercial FOJ backup sponsor) and the selection of the Dodgy Bros as the BOJ sponsor casts a big question mark over Cam Schwab's strategic and tactical judgement. There is no doubt about his love of the Club but sometimes that is simply not enough. I suspect this is one of those times. It's a bit of a cliche but if a deal looks too good to be true, it probably is. The Energywatch deal seems to confirm this to be so. On the positive side, this will at least give the Board the opportunity to insist that the need for both sponsorships should now be the No. 1 CEO issue. And, at least it's taken the spotlight off of the other events of the last 7 days! Looking forward to getting back to the footy tomorrow.

I was also surprised by the evident lack of puff - from pretty early on in the game. Been to at least a dozen training sessions and I can't believe it's due to lack of preparation. I wonder if it's because they are running aimlessly around not knowing how to respond to the instructions. So, two points: 1/- It was Round 1 and it will take more than the NAB Cup experience to learn how to put a game plan into practice under 'real' conditions 2/- Neeld had to give the likes of Green, Davey & Moloney the opportunity to show if they could satisfy the doubters in a 'real' game. I would still argue that the jury's probably still out because, again, it's too early to start panicking. I think Moloney is under scrutiny now because when it comes time for leaders to set an example, he is always missing. Finally,FCS, give Matty Bates at least three or four successive games to come to terms with the tempo of AFL. Like Jones, he never stops trying but will never be able to prove himself until he gets some game time and the chance to develop a playing relationship with the other mid-fielders. If he doesn't measure up, we know he's tradeable. I do not think the season is over!

I was at training yesterday for an hour or so and Ricky P was there. However he was the only player in compression pants so that would tend to support the theory that he's injured. He seemed to be moving pretty well so I don't think it was anything serious. I suspect they're just playing it safe given that we're down a forward with Jurrah being out at the moment.

In order to gain a context, does anyone know if there are any other AFL clubs without a FOJ sponsor at this point? It would seem harsh to make a judgement if we are one of of a number without a sponsor. It may have been covered elsewhere and I've missed it.

I arrived fairly late around 1030 on the off-chance. There was a small-ish group of players on the main (Collingwood's) oval - maybe around half of the playing group. They were all in one half of the ground exchanging foot passes and then having shots at goal. I thought the skills were pretty impressive - the passing was way out in front of the player on the lead and very few went astray or caused the leading player to back track. Missing were (presumably amongst others) Watts, Morton, Fitzpatrick, Bates. For the first time that I've seen, Sylvia & Jordie were in with the main group. The second drill I saw was a hand balling drill with the players broken into three groups with one group at either end and one in the middle. The one in the middle then had to try and intercept the ball from whichever of the 'end' groups had the ball before they got to 10 hand passes. If they did, they got to have a rest while the losing group then had to run to the other end and intercept the other groups series of hand passes. It looked exhausting for the losing groups. After about 15 mins of that, they then broke into two groups working in one half of the ground with one group trying to prevent the other hand passing up the ground to the centre. If they lost the ball the defenders wer then encouraged to have a shot at goal on the run. If enthusiasm is the key to success we're in with a chance. No-one seems to be taking their ownership of a spot in the 22 for granted and that's positive. All of the leadership group was there as were those dropped from the group. However like a true Dees supporter, I would say that I am assuming nothing until the 2012 season finishes - 'gun shy' does not do justice to the scepticism gathered over the last decade or two

I arrived at 11 just before they started running the 'square'. They worked really hard (I thought) and it looked bery gruelling. Davey was struggling throughout but he kept at it....more credit to him as did Watt. Howe was also left behind a bit at the end and I thought Nicholson copped an injury of some sort, perhaps lower back or upper thigh towards the end. I also passed another player at the end of the session with a very bad limp but couldn't work out who it was. Didn't see Moloney. Bate is looking remarkably fit alongside Jones and seems to be giving himself every chance of either making his mark here.