McNamee and Melbourne's decision/future -- Thoughts?

[cannons]

Does anyone know if there were any extraneous circumstances that led to his contract being terminated?

I ask because, as I see it at this point, the decision seems ridiculous. The man has been there for a very limited amount of time, and has hardly had any opportunity to implement any strategies or plans to rectify the current situation.

If he's done something untoward, or hasn't been working hard enough, then fine. However, it seems as if there has been no real indication of that, and if it hasn't happened then I think its a poor decision.

It just seems that if someone wants to do something innovative or creative at Melbourne, it doesn't work. The club has been very conservative in nature, the board has been a mess for a long period and nobody is willing to take any risks.

This decision makes me think twice about the Stynes administration. I thought they were going for a fresher outlook for the club, but it seems as if he was unhappy with the initial appointment and has sacked the man without giving him any real opportunity to prove himself. It almost makes me wonder whether the club will make any progress at all off the field if no-one is willing to take a chance.

Throw into that the limited depth of possible replacements, I don't know, I would have at least liked to see him have a opportunity to share and implement his vision for Melbourne. Instead, he's been thrown on the ever-accumulating scrap heap of Melbourne CEO's for having a different opinion to the board. There is something to be said for diversity in the modern workplace, and I get the feeling the board may be protecting their own interests in some way.

**Okay, I know some of that is a little sensationalistic in nature, and also I'm playing the Devil's advocate to an extent here as well. I just want to try and generate some discussion about the choice and the direction of the MFC in the future. Also, I apologise if it isn't written to fluently, I was just putting some ideas I generated down without too much thought in relation to structuring them.

So, what are your thoughts on this contentious issue?

 

[The Demon]

Reading between the lines,my best guess is that the No.1 priority of the Stynes administration is turning the financial situation around(as it should be).

It is possible that MacNamee did not have a solid financial background and was steering the MFC in a direction that would have been costly.Jimmy and his board probably thought that the short term cost of paying out MacNamee was a far better financial decision than having him there long term and steering the club towards exepensive initiatives.(However we will never know this unless MacNamee's vision for the club is released).

Entreperneureal types often don't have much regard for the financial side of things.

It also seems MacNamee diddn't have a great relationship with Connolly.

As I said this theory is just a guess on my part.

 

[Spirit of 26]

Stynes was invited by the previous administartion to interview initial candidates including McNamee. Stynes recommendation was to conducted further indepth meetings with a short list, including McNamee, but Stynes wasn't invited to be invoved with this process. Also the club selected another candidate on the shortlist that Stynes didn't meet with.

It appears reading between the lines that McNamee wouldn't have been Stynes's choice as CEO. As he was the previous board's choice, Stynes appears not to have faith in him being the man to work with the new administration. And fair enough too. All responsibility is with Jim, so he sould go with who he thinks is the right person, and if it wasn't McNamee, so be it.

The club is better to suffer some short term pain fo some long term gain. And at the end of the day, pissing off to Wimbleton half way through the season 2 months into the job
shows questionable judgement. Even if the previous board OKed it, it again shows the flawed thinking to even allow it.

In regard to chasing Brown, what the hell is the football department for?

Without any real hard evidence, McNamee gave off an aura of his ego writing cheques that his body can't cash.

 

[cannons]

Stynes was invited by the previous administartion to interview initial candidates including McNamee. Stynes recommendation was to conducted further indepth meetings with a short list, including McNamee, but Stynes wasn't invited to be invoved with this process. Also the club selected another candidate on the shortlist that Stynes didn't meet with.

It appears reading between the lines that McNamee wouldn't have been Stynes's choice as CEO. As he was the previous board's choice, Stynes appears not to have faith in him being the man to work with the new administration. And fair enough too. All responsibility is with Jim, so he sould go with who he thinks is the right person, and if it wasn't McNamee, so be it.

The club is better to suffer some short term pain fo some long term gain. And at the end of the day, pissing off to Wimbleton half way through the season 2 months into the job
shows questionable judgement. Even if the previous board OKed it, it again shows the flawed thinking to even allow it.

In regard to chasing Brown, what the hell is the football department for?

Without any real hard evidence, McNamee gave off an aura of his ego writing cheques that his body can't cash.

Personally, I think this is a little over the top. Its like saying you'll choose Brent Prismall over Chris Judd because you know he's going to need a week off at some point in the season. Really, one week? It isn't going to hurt the club drastically, especially with everyone else there to oversee what's happening during his week off. I don't think any reasonable person would pass up their 1st preference because of a matter this minute in the overall scheme of things.

However, I can understand the rest of your post and the logic behind it. Its a well developed argument.

 

[Spirit of 26]

The point is about McNamee's priorities and the previous administrations decision making.

As the new CEO, what he says does and acts sets the agenda for the club. I can understand the Wimbleton commitment was prior to his appointment. But surely with the club in such a precarious position, and being the new CEO, and leading by example, it could be reasonably argued that if McNamee cancelled Wimbleton and said it was because his number one commitment was to the MFC, it would have spoken volumes about how serious he was about what had to be done.

Again, for the board to allow him to go, says where their thinking was.

And if Chris Judd wanted a week off to go swanning around a tennis tournament mid season, I'd piss him off too.

 

[master bate]

From what I've seen/heard it simply came down to

Stynes plan: Closely monitor the financial situation, reduce unneccessary spending, build a side for continuous finals, work closely with MCC/AFL build enthusiasm for the club and get people through the gates.

McNamee plan: Recruit Jonathan Brown, brand ourselves as the premier club and hope it all works out.

The two plans can't work together, Stynes is in charge, he goes with his plan and decides that there are better people out there to implement it (where as McNamee would be very good at his plan) and so McNamee has to go.

 

[cannons]

From what I've seen/heard it simply came down to

Stynes plan: Closely monitor the financial situation, reduce unneccessary spending, build a side for continuous finals, work closely with MCC/AFL build enthusiasm for the club and get people through the gates.

McNamee plan: Recruit Jonathan Brown, brand ourselves as the premier club and hope it all works out.

The two plans can't work together, Stynes is in charge, he goes with his plan and decides that there are better people out there to implement it (where as McNamee would be very good at his plan) and so McNamee has to go.

Although you put McNamee's side in a very simplistic fashion, I agree somewhat with what you're saying. On the other side of the argument, diversity in thought and opinion is not always a bad thing. You can generate more ideas, more potential solutions and hopefully come up with a more well rounded plan as a result.

The issue I have is it seems Stynes is building a group of his pals to form the core of the club's operations, and that doesn't seem like the way forward. They are likely to be similar in thought, which could lead to a narrow minded approach. In addition, if Schwab comes back it will be a step backwards towards the old days, and I'm sure no-one is too enthusiastic about that prospect. I guess I'm worried its going to become of group of people fixated in the way they do things, who are afraid of change as it may harm their personal interests.

 

[w00dy]

McNamee plan: Recruit Jonathan Brown, brand ourselves as the premier club and hope it all works out.

I'm sure McNamee had more to his business plan than hope it all works out. But no matter how detailed it was, if McNamee's plan didn't work out as he hoped, then the MFC might not be around much longer.

While McNamee was reaching for the stars, the new board are building the spaceship to get there.

The new board is all about consolidation. Something it appears the MFC needs at the moment.

When McNamee was appointed our situation was no where near as dire. The club had made a small profit the previous year, and we had knocked off a large portion of our debt. All of a sudden our debt has doubled and we're headed for a $2m loss. Something that wasn't on the radar at all when McNamee was appointed.

I'm 100% behind the board's decision. They've made the hard decision, they haven't gone the soft option and given him till the end of the year. Took some balls to let him go at this stage, and I'm glad they had the balls to do it.

 

[McLean_4_Captain]

I'm sure McNamee had more to his business plan than hope it all works out. But no matter how detailed it was, if McNamee's plan didn't work out as he hoped, then the MFC might not be around much longer.

With what i've heard so far, i agree with the decision.

But if McNamee happens to go to another football club and becomes a sucessful administrator & the MFC does some how fail as a club and folds/merges, Stynes and this rash decision will be seen as the cause of Melbourne failing.

This has put even greater pressure on Stynes to suceed, not only has he taken on the job but he's has made some controversial and seemingly rash decisions. I'm sure Stynes and the board are fully aware of the additional pressure this would put on them before they made the decision, so this makes me believe that they truly think they've done the right thing and that in time it'll show the it was a necessary decision for the long-term survival of the MFC.

 

[Trav 20]

There were already concerns about MacNamee's financial administrative ability, is work ethic, relationships with staff, and a lack of footy nous.

Add all this to the fact that he wasn't the favoured appointee of Stynes, or the AFL originally, and a picture starts to emerge. MacNamee was really Gardner's last legacy.

Better to make the decision now than in 12 months.

 

[stickman11]

There were already concerns about MacNamee's financial administrative ability, is work ethic, relationships with staff, and a lack of footy nous.

Add all this to the fact that he wasn't the favoured appointee of Stynes, or the AFL originally, and a picture starts to emerge. MacNamee was really Gardner's last legacy.

Better to make the decision now than in 12 months.

It is quite simple, Melbourne want money from the AFL and the AFL tell us what to do. It is not hard to work out. The AFL commission wanted to get rid of McNamee, and the Dee's desperate for cash said ok. Seriously, this club is shot because most of the supporters are passionless spineless whimps. How many supporters I come across who lower their voice and say my team instead i=of the Dee's is so ****ing embarrassing its not funny. Are Melbourne supporters so ****ing embarrassed about who they support, they want to hide. I am so fed up with it. At least I can proudly say I barrack for the dee's.

 

[Trav 20]

It is quite simple, Melbourne want money from the AFL and the AFL tell us what to do. It is not hard to work out. The AFL commission wanted to get rid of McNamee, and the Dee's desperate for cash said ok. Seriously, this club is shot because most of the supporters are passionless spineless whimps. How many supporters I come across who lower their voice and say my team instead i=of the Dee's is so ****ing embarrassing its not funny. Are Melbourne supporters so ****ing embarrassed about who they support, they want to hide. I am so fed up with it. At least I can proudly say I barrack for the dee's.

On the contrary, Melbourne have regularly bucked the AFL, and it's well known that the relationship was fractured. The AFL didn't favour Steve Harris, the China experiment, Paul MacNamee, or Paul Gardner's outspoken stance on drug issues. And yes, the Club needs to be on a good footing with the AFL. It presently just makes sense.

The rest of your post is emotive crap. Have a lie down.

 

[rotto]

McNamee - Hopman Cup - great success
Australian Open - great success
Australian Golf Open - average results
Melbourne FC - not enough time to know

Does it say more about the Melbourne Football Club that a successful sports adminstrator is moved on after less than 4 mths than its says about McNamee?

 

[johnson252525]

Once McNamee was in he should have been given at least 1-2 years to have a crack at it.

Melbourne shamed a great man.

 

[undies37]

apparently over in perth last week he was invited to talk to the perth demons, he didnt go and went and started to help organise the hopman cup, he needed to prioritise and he chose that.
good thing to get rid of him