Lutz

Jesus... In a nutshell, it's the simple concept that the President should be scrutinised, Jimmy Stynes or not. Purely because of the position they hold. I've not contended he should be removed, and I'm not sure anyone else has. But some posters are determined to give Jimmy carte blanche because of past achievements, regardless of whether he is capable of holding the position anymore, or not. This also includes the board being able to "carry" Jimmy by performing his duties while he remains a figurehead - if this cannot be done, then a solution must be found. Whatever that may be. It's the difference between blind faith, and being prudent.

See this is the problem with your argument. You think because no one can come up with any conclusive evidence, then there must be none. None of us are in a position to know either way. And Jim shouldn't get a free pass because he is inspirational and to us on the outside his hands look clean. He needs to be scrutinised like anybody else in the same position.

Not necessarily. If the board CAN effectively fulfil the president's duties on behalf of Jim, while he remains purely a figurehead, then I'm all for it. I just don't have the personal knowledge to know that it can. And I still maintain that questions need to be asked so that board can determine this for itself, rather than blindly having faith in Jimmy. You can have all the good intentions in the world, yet still be incapable of performing a task. And we have seen evidence of where the board has failed in recent times, so the questions maybe weren't being asked. I just hope they are now (as they appear to have been).

I take it you're speaking with the benefit of years of experience as a doctor of sports science and physiology, as opposed to just someone completely uneducated on the topic beyond their own limited personal experience..? Well, that's reassuring. Boo, Cale.

Grgic for Bizzel

Surely macca, it's about what Jim is able to do going forward, not what he has been able to do in the past, due to his unstable and changing condition? Questions have to be asked and solutions have to be found to ensure the club continues to function at a high level. Whether that means Jim stepping down or not, I don't think any of us have the answer.

Great concise post. Pretty much sums up the majority of this thread for me.

Neither will I; that's why I gave up with a weak parting shot. The end.

So now you've changed your argument? It's like arguing with WYL... Either way, it holds little merit.

If he missed his appointment to see his surgeon as reported, it seem that he may not have given himself the best chance to get it right anyway.

You ever seen Steve Johnson play? And a player's size doesn't necessarily determine the position or style they play. I any case, what I mean is, what's to stop him playing whatever style or height he likes, but alongside a CHF, instead of alongside a HFF?

^^^ Going off on a tangent here, but that seems to be demonland's MO sometimes.... What's to stop Watts becoming an elite very tall HFF?

If you're going to talk "first round selections", you can't just choose to ignore that Grimes, Gysberts and Trengove were also "first round selections". No, they weren't the first chosen, but surely those selections were also taken into account when making the first round selections the following year. You're trying to be selective with your data to strengthen your argument, but it only makes it weaker.

This old chestnut... Father-son selections are determined PRIOR to trade week people! Write a note in your diary, tie a piece of string to your finger... Do something that helps you remember this critical fact. I'm also not convinced that you'd be forced to use an "in-play" compo pick for a father-son selection, instead of only normal draft picks being vulnerable... But I'm yet to see any conclusive evidence either way.

I'm sure other clubs would have something, as we have in the past* but I think this will be more structured and scientific. *I recall Garland doing a lot of work with the recruiting dept to keep involved, when he missed a lot of games with the stress reaction in his foot. Jamar also credited his time off with a similar injury with improving his game considerably, as he spent a lot of time with the coaches, watching tape and learning about opposition ruckmen throughout the league, leading to him earning AA honours. (can't recall the article - it was years ago). Hence a big part of why I see Grimes being more than capable of sliding into the captaincy role.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/128234/default.aspx Great initiative, although I'd be surprised if no other team in the comp had a program along the same lines. I think initiatives like this will be the real value of having Neil Craig in the position we created for him. Something that maybe Neeld would think of, but never have the time to implement effectively.

or James Strauss.

Also impressed with Green's size... but will this slow him down further..?

Chip looks like the incredible hulk. Like a bloody WWE wrestler. LOOK OUT.

Surely it's possible, that as part of the deal with our new sponsor, we plan to release the details of the sponsorship at the same time as a big announcement, i.e. the captaincy? Surely that would be appealing for a sponsor and add value, rather than just a stand alone press conference?? And as such, a compromise might be made with the football dept, in that they won't rush the decision, but they'll push it forward a few weeks? As has already been announced?? I just think there's no need to panic. There could be perfectly reasonable meaning behind the delay, and even if there isn't, we'll get someone on board eventually. I mean, Kaspersky were last minute -- were they that bad..?

Wow. A bit overstated isn't it? And does it make his arguments any less valid? I'm going to name my kid James, but i still agree with a lot of what he says.

That view would be relevant if they were clones destined to develop at different paces, or even were in any way the same type of player.

Some people in this thread are letting their own thoughts run away with them. Saying that ANY president should be held accountable for failings while in his position does NOT equal "Stynes should be sacked". It means, there should be some form of quality control, and "irregardless" of what has been done in the past, realising that ALL people are capable of failings and they should be monitored. And back to the earlier point, Jim's condition has considerably worsened since assuming the post, and IF he is deemed to no longer be able to fulfil his duties, SOME solution must be found to rectify that. We can't just sit on our hands hoping the POTENTIAL problem might fix itself, purely because he is Jim Stynes. Calm heads, people.

That's just it - I don't have an accurate list of them and none of us are close enough to do so. But if there are any, they should not be ignored out of hand purely because he is Jim Stynes.

timD clearly gives Stynes due credit for what he has done. But it's folly to not realise that even Jim has limitations and should held accountable for any failings in performing his duties as president.