Hannabal

Hazy, unlike you, I don't particularly like Stynes and I see him as not much more than a club icon and figurehead to unite the masses, which is important by the way, as the club has been fractured for far too long. But I have a good deal of faith in the Board that Stynes has been able to assemble. Guy Jalland, Don McLardy, Peter Szental, and Peter Spargo are highly respected businessmen. One of the reasons that Gardner and his Board handed over the reins to Stynes in such a smooth and magnanimous fashion is due to the high quality group Stynes had managed to put together. The incumbent Board would have put up far more of a fight if it wasn't for the strength of this team. Everyone is disappointed that we haven't got a major sponsor. But I recognise the difficulty in presently getting major sports sponsorships amidst a global financial meltdown. I also have faith that a major sponsor isn't far away. Now you'd call this mindless faith. So be it. I also recognise that presently the MFC is the least attractive club in the league to sponsor. We're seen as a minnow with little branding, a poor free to air tv schedule, low support base, and a draw full of unattractive Sunday games. It's little wonder that we're the last club standing in the race for a major sponsor. I don't have a defeatist attitude and I also believe that with the right stewardship we can change much of what ails the club, but I recognise the difficulties and understand that it will take time. You say that your patience has run out. I don't believe that you were ever patient to start with. You and Liarwing joined within 2 days of each other. By the second day of your tenure here you were active on the President Stynes thread. One of your first posts was as follows: If you ask me the whole thing is arse backwards - Jim Stynes (whom I dearly love and who was my favourite player for a long time) comes out of nowhere and, without even mentioning his plans or his prospective appointments, has the nerve to suggest that the current board should sheepishly make way so as not to make a scene? Give me a break - I didn't vote for Stynes and I don't even know who his running mates are yet. Now none of that is to suggest that Stynes isn't up to the job, but I was surprised to read in an article ironically entitled "How I'll save Dee's: Stynes" (Ironic because he doesn't actually say anything about how he's going to do it or who he's going to do it with) that Stynes thought "that I (Stynes), and many others, have been complacent for far too long thinking someone else will fix the problems faced at the Melbourne Football Club. I knew it was time we got serious." Jim might be surprised to learn that there already are a group of people who have been "getting serious" and trying to "fix the problems." I would have liked to see Jim run a couple of ideas past these people and maybe try co-operating with them for a bit before deciding that nothing short of a full-scale, Messianistic coup would do. Hopefully the whole matter will be clearer after Jim finally speaks to the board on Thursday. I am very curious to hear what exactly Jim plans to do differently (and why he has kept his cards so close to his chest about it). However, Jim's approach so far (co-opting the 150 anniversary and using hot air and sweet nothings to try and drum up support, purley on the basis of his profile as a footballer) has already set alarm bells ringing as far as I'm concerned. Thankfully the current board has at least three level business minds (Starkins, Coglin and Phillips) who obviously place a lot of importance on their responsibilites as elected members. It would be a real shame to see these people painted as "trouble-makers" or "barriers to progress" given their obvious commitment and the great improvements made to the club over the last few years. Your clear love of the previous Board is touching. Your contempt for a Stynes led Board before they took over was no less obvious. Rightly, you wanted to know more of Stynes' plans and his people, but it's also clear from the above post, dated 11 June 2008, that you were anti Stynes from the start and glowing in your thoughts of the previous Board. I've never been one to entertain ludicrous conspiracy theories, but I doubt you've had unbiased motives from the day you joined this website. Others can form their own view. And I look forward to your next overly excited maniacal response. PS: without wishing to sound a pedant, the word 'believe' isn't spelt "beleive". The first time I thought it was a typo, the second... Cheers Hugh

The only fact, or cold hard truth, you're able to present is that we don't have a sponsor. The reasons are far too complicated than to simply blame a new Chairman and new CEO, but it suits you and your agenda to lay the blame squarely at their feet. And you do so in the absence of any knowledge of detailed discussions to date. Your black and white view is that we don't have a sponsor ergo it's their fault. I'd hate to be innocent and caught holding a smoking gun with you on the jury. You even admit the McNamee sacking is a side issue. Well at least you can write pages and pages about a non event. Congratulations.

Admittedly I skimmed as it seems I'm not as rich with my time as you, but the content of your verbose offering could've been penned in 10 words rather than 1,000. You like P.Mac. You don't like Schwab. And you don't like Stynes. Nutshell. You and Liarwing have an axe to grind and it's plain for all to see. Some questions. Were you there last night ? And if so did you ask a question ? And if you weren't there last night why not ?

Just heading off now. I look forward to Hazy and Liarwing asking the hard questions.

"Leghumpers" ? I never said he did a great job selling insurance and I don't particularly like the bloke. Unlike you, I'm prepared to give him a reasonable time in an invidious position. Increased membership after taking the reins last year, on track for more members this year, debt demolition of $3 mil, negotiating extra revenue from AFL and MCC, a more inclusive relationship with supporters, cutting loose a wrongly appointed CEO by the previous Board, and regaining an initially reluctant and highly respected CEO in Schwab is a start. There's lots more to do. Where did the previous Board go wrong Wing ? And how badly did they manage the affairs of the MFC ? What's your take ? Btw, I don't believe you. EDIT: Just off to the AGM. I look forward to you and Hazy venting your spleen at the appropriate time. Should be fun.

I knew that the title of the thread was not exactly as I quoted, but when in the act of quoting one does not need to quote verbatim, or transcribe, as long as the substance is clear and identifiable. But surely you'd know this despite your pedantic attempts ? Where was this interest in accountability you refer to prior to Stynes administration ? You only joined when it became apparent there was to be a changing of the guard and you've had itchy fingers from the moment it was announced McNamee was being sacked. You've basked in the lack of sponsorship options, as well as the adverse publicity created by McNamee's demise, under the pretext of asking pertinent questions and keeping the current Board "accountable". As for anonymity ? I'm not anonymous to a couple of present employees of the MFC as well as some past Board members. Many posters/supporters on here know my true identity. Still, I won't shy away from candid views. But I don't have an axe to grind. Your constant reference to supporters being starstruck by Stynes is tiresome, not to mention belittling and condescending. Stynes sold me insurance at my home in the late 80's and I thought he was a great bloke. In a handful of subsequent casual meetings since I've changed my opinion, but he has my full support during a difficult time of the MFC. I'm hardly in awe of him. And I'm sure you'll say he has your support too as you're only interested in the best for the MFC, but your constant carping and eagerness to deride suggests there's more than meets the eye despite your predicted protestations. Imo you've had an agenda from day one. But you can set me straight. Have you been a former Director or closely associated with a former Director of the MFC ?

Really ? Do you remember the flak that McNamee got in the press at the time of his trip ? Do you remember the interviews he had to endure when he arrived back from Wimbledon ? If this sojourn was as triumphant as he's now making out, or even progressed to the level of 'significant discussions', don't you think he would have been at pains to relay the good news to not only his employer, but to the wider football community ?

You joined this forum the day of our 150th birthday dinner at Crown. Your first post was on the 'Jim Stynes President' thread the same day last June. Your second post was flowery in its congratulations of Paul Gardner and his team during the handover, your subsequent 90% posts are derisive of the present Board and in particular Stynes. You clearly have been associated with the club and its previous administration. You're an agitator with an axe to grind ably supported by your minion Hazy. Your head only popped up when it became clear that Stynes was in the throws of a takeover. Of course this could all be coincidental, as your minion would have us believe. Yeah, right. Everything you post of a political nature should be read with the above understanding. That of course isn't to say that some of what you write isn't without foundation or reasonable basis, but it is to say that balance will, and often does, escape you. Stynes has been in your gun since your first post. Only a fool thinks that they're debating a like minded, anonymous, and even handed supporter that forms independent views from a distance.

No, no there's only one Catholic school in the APS.

You're turning a tad green, boy. Then again, inferiority complexes are the norm from the alsoran Catholic schools. And name the school, champ.

Which soft cork school are you associated with, kid ?

I don't agree. Like all sports, at the pointy end, it's those with an incredible sporting brain that differentiates them from the very best of the rest. Neitz was a terrific player, but his footy smarts were a peg below the very best and all the luck in the world wouldn't address this downfall. This isn't to put Neitz down, as his exploits are underrated by many, but he was never going to be elite.

It wouldn't stop me drafting him.

I don't quite go along with that. By mid season opposition teams were sitting on him, which is one of the reasons he started to significantly wane in his output. Plus his weight and fitness levels.

Am I the only one that finds it a little odd that Rflowerwing and Hazyshadeofgrinter joined within 2 days of each other ? Am I the only one that finds it odd that RF's joining date is the day after our historic club function at Crown celebrating our 150 birthday and that his first post (listed immediately below) was in the President Stynes thread ? It was about this time that there was lots of talk about an imminent Stynes challenge and a likely smooth changeover. Here's his first post: Rflowerwing View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts Jun 8 2008, 07:50 PM Post #30 Demon Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 8-June 08 Member No.: 2,306 "The suspense is killing me. Gardner has done a so so job but everyone reaches a use-by date and now it's time for Big Jimma to come on down. Looks like Jim has kept his word by keeping his powder dry and his gun in the holster until last night's 150th celebration was behind us. Only just mind you as outside Crown as I left I saw a bloke selling early editions of the Herald Sun trumpeting Jim's plans to save the club. Well not exactly plans to be correct - talk of an unknown dream team and great (but unstated) ideas to bring the Club back from the edge. Which brings me to the really interesting part of the night for me. There was talk at a number of tables that I visited that Jim is by no means over the line. While impressed by Jim's willingness to get involved some have been asking "Do the Club need a ruckman or a super smart and connected business leader to take us forward"? Word is that an alternative to team Jim is being worked on as we talk in case the big fella fails to deliver. Promises to be a fascinating day and week ahead." A thinly veiled contemptuous tone, wouldn't you agree ? Here's the link:http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?showtopic=10463&hl= Low and behold one of Hazy's first few posts a day, or so, later was in the exact same Presidents thread, and is as follows: "1. The amount of negativity is indeed frightening. As a new-comer to these boards I have already been surprised at the swiftness and harshness of the condemnation of some of our players by some of the posters. I guess I shouldn't be surprised then that this brand of knee-jerk vitriol is also applied to our current board. Which leads me to... 2. Perhaps you would like to provide your reasoning for this because when I look at the last 5 years I'm happy with our direction. I have to admit that Jim in a superman costume flying through the window sounds pretty good to me but given the good work of the current board and the paucity of knowledge about what Jim would do differently... well, I at least am not prepared to make up my mind about the best option yet. I'm certainly not willing to write off the hard work of our current board with such glib ease. 3. "Faith?" no thanks. I prefer reason, preferably based on information (not announcments that are yet to come). As for your rumoured reports, I'd like to know where you got them. The only "new plan" that I think the AFL would be happy with is a merger with North. Conspiracy theory? Yes, but you read it here first... 4. I'm not 100% on this but I thought Gardner was stepping down this year anyway (2009 at the latest)? Besides which, many people who have already inexplicably jumped on the Jim bandwagon have pointed out how this smooth transistion is good for the club. This does not mean that Gardner supports Jim's plans - I was of the understanding that Jim hadn't even bother to inform the current board (let alone the members) of his plans yet. It is for this reason that I was glad to read in the Age that some of the Board members plan to stick about in case the fairytale turns out to be just that. How Jim Will Save the Dees? Try: How Jim Will Try to Launch a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in the Media by Announcing a Coup and then Accusing any Board Member with the Temerity to Ask What His Plans Are of Putting Their Interests Ahead of the Club. 5. How's this for change: Bailey, Connolly, McNamee, Casey Relocation. You can thank the "current president and administration" for those." And this 3 posts down on the very same Presidents thread: "You are obviously so star struck that you have amnesia. Coglin, Phillips and Starkins, the 3 board members who would at least like to hear what Stynes has to say before hitching up their skirts, joined the board in 2003, 2003 and 2004 respectively. They inherited a basket case." He was using the "starstruck" line the day after he joined the site. I'm not an overly suspicious character and I can see the protests coming loud and clear, but if these 2 haven't had an agenda from the start then Jack Thomas gets his suits tailor made. These 2 are either former Board members or closely associated with a connected group. These are the insidious type of supporters that use skull duggery to undermine those from different camps. The views that these two are currently spewing forth aren't carefully considered or fair criticisms, they are tainted views by those with a very heavy axe to grind as their very first posts show. Some people feel that Stynes may have finally brought all groups together of this proud club in the knowledge that infighting and personal agendas will only divide a club that desperately needs to unite. But these sly posters are evidence that this club will always have those that snipe from dark corners. They've had an agenda from the day they joined this site. It was the very reason they joined. I even wonder whether they're glad we're yet to secure a sponsor. It provides the ammunition they crave. So when you engage them in debate, realise the nature of the beast before you. Their agenda is set in stone.

Where was this stated ? Please direct me to the pertinent interview, article, or other. I'm interested to know the origins of these alleged remarks.

I reckon Newton's 'talent' is greatly overrated. He's terrible below his knees, he's average when the ball is on the deck, and his pace can best be described as lumbering. A one trick pony if ever I've seen one. I'm still astonished he was gifted a 2 year contract last year. No doubt he was favoured due to our dearth of young key forwards, but in reality a vacuum >> Newton. And I don't mean of the cleaning variety.

Obviously

It's unlike you to take a dim view of things, Mo.

Whilst Carlton's top 8-10 players are clearly superior to our top end talent, they have terrible issues with depth. They had a 99 goal full forward, arguably the premier midfielder in the game, and a few super talented kids but still finished 11th. I've no doubt that CJ sees a more secure role on a half back flank in Carlton's team than Melbourne's. And I agree with him. Throw in a little more money, a past relationship with Riley and Ratten, feeling wanted, ...

I'm now comfortable with the notion that we're taking Watts. I'm virtually certain. He's clearly the best player and talent in the draft. Logic tells me that we simply won't overlook him. Even Scott Clayton said on radio tonight that "no one has ever tested to the levels" of Watts in all facets of the game. When one considers his "sure ball handling, size, speed, agility, and psycho motor testing/decision making". "He's going to be a great player, Jack". As I said, logic tells me we won't look past him. We're all nervous and the mind plays tricks. Watts will be in no.4 at the Dees.

Burgan has changed his top 20: Matt Burgan says: Since publishing my Phantom Draft at 2pm AEDT on Wednesday, it has been revealed that Fremantle will almost certainly be selecting Stephen Hill with pick No.3. As a result, I have reordered the first 20 picks as follows: 1. Jack Watts (Melbourne) 2. Nick Naitanui (West Coast) 3. Stephen Hill (Fremantle) 4. Hamish Hartlett (Port Adelaide) 5. Daniel Rich (Essendon) 6. Michael Hurley (Carlton) 7. Chris Yarran (Brisbane Lions) 8. Tyrone Vickery (Richmond) 9. Jack Ziebell (North Melbourne) 10. Jackson Trengove (Adelaide) 11. Steele Sidebottom (Collingwood) 12. Lewis Johnston (Sydney Swans) 13. Tom Lynch (St Kilda) 14. Ayce Cordy (Western Bulldogs) 15. Ashley Smith (Geelong) 16. Sam Blease (Hawthorn) 17. Ryan Schoenmakers (Melbourne) 18. Tom Swift (West Coast) 19. Dayne Beams (Melbourne) 20. Phil Davis (West Coast) http://www.afl.com.au/News/AFLBlogs/...x?newsId=70232

If someone else posted the same thing I'd have the same view as you and The Shaft. I can't really defend my position. It's just the way it is...

I've supported (and fought for) this club since 1970, but if they fark up the opportunity to recruit Watts it will be the end for me. My love has never been unconditional and I've always been clear about this. A flag is all that matters and Watts is the best chance for a star we've had in 40 years - not a ruckman with freak ability. Fraser, White, and Gardner are former no.1 draft picks. The Fijian is very different, but still a ruckman. I don't want one as numer one... well, not when Watts is on the menu. Btw, I'll always buy a membership. I hate soft corks who give excuses in this regard.

Very pragmatic and very noble. Maximised with a healthy dose of 'little choice'. I won't be so magnanimous.