Was Jim Stynes' presidency a failure?

[The Prosecutor]

I realise the man is dead, but the topic is still a relevant one, especially as he played a key part in Melbourne’s current predicament. His passing doesn’t mean he is immune from criticism.

The popular belief is that Jim Stynes’ reign as the Melbourne President was an unmitigated success, was it really though?

While Stynes was rather effective in solving short-term off-field issues, I put it forward that he failed in his primary role, that being ensuring the on field success of the Melbourne Football Club.

After all, the main function of a football club is to perform on the football field.

Surely it would’ve been more prudent to invest in the football department, as success on field would have been critical in improving off field issues for the long term such as memberships, sponsorships and not to mention the general morale of the club and its supporters.

Instead, all Stynes appeared to have left was a band-aid solution, with the clubs short term financial position secured some what, while not providing a long term solution to either Melbourne’s on field or off field situation.

Further to that, under Stynes’ presidency, the tanking mentality came to the floor, crippling Melbourne’s on field performance even further and possibly for the foreseeable future.

While he may not have been coaching, the position he held meant he was utterly responsible for any direction the club took, including to tank.

Since he took other in 2008, Melbourne has been nothing more than an irrelevant specter on the AFL map.

So, with all that, was Stynes’ presidency really the success many believe?

What long-term solutions did he implement to ensure the clubs viability?

Unfortunately I don’t think his presidency was a successful one.

 

[00Stinger]

The club was $6m in debt and was close to being wound up when he took over. By the time he left the club not only had he erraticated the debt, but he also had the club in a position where it now have $5m in the bank. The plan to get the club in a very good financial position before increasing football club spending was a great initiative, rather than blowing the money straight away.

He managed to united broken factions and bring people back to the club who had previously left and had not planned on returning. Membership increased to record levels as did sponsorships for the club.

Yes the club did not progressive as well as planned on the field, but he did put the club in a financial position that will see its future become less bleak than it was when he first came on board.

To say his presidency is a failure is utterly idiotic, without Stynes there is a very high chance the club would not have managed to keep itself a float. Football is a business, you need to stabalise the clubs financial position before you can look forward. Now the club can look forward with the security of being able to pay its bills.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Only time will tell.

I'm more mystified by how Cameron Schwab continues to evade blame, but I'm not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs of the MFC.

All I think is that everything they could have done wrong post-Daniher, they pretty much have done.

 

[masai]

Only time will tell.

I'm more mystified by how Cameron Schwab continues to evade blame, but I'm not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs of the MFC.

Yep, it appears to me that he orchestrated a clean out, but was really only half hearted about it. The coach & CEO should have both gone, not one.

Still got big question marks over Gary Lyon's role around this time, due to Jim's illness was he leaning on Gary for good advice ????. Unfortunately Gary is walking around as "Mr Teflon".

 

[The Prosecutor]

The club was $6m in debt and was close to being wound up when he took over. By the time he left the club not only had he erraticated the debt, but he also had the club in a position where it now have $5m in the bank. The plan to get the club in a very good financial position before increasing football club spending was a great initiative, rather than blowing the money straight away.

He managed to united broken factions and bring people back to the club who had previously left and had not planned on returning. Membership increased to record levels as did sponsorships for the club.

Yes the club did not progressive as well as planned on the field, but he did put the club in a financial position that will see its future become less bleak than it was when he first came on board.

To say his presidency is a failure is utterly idiotic, without Stynes there is a very high chance the club would not have managed to keep itself a float. Football is a business, you need to stabalise the clubs financial position before you can look forward. Now the club can look forward with the security of being able to pay its bills.

The problem with that though is while you sit on your hands with this money, the rest of the competition is splurging money in to their football departments which has been achieving results. Just look at the top clubs in football department spending, it translates fairly well to the ladder.

Memberships have hit record highs across the board, what has Jim Stynes done to substantiate these members for the long term? Jim would've had no problem bring in the bandwagon members, but what plans did he put in place to retain them beyond his tenure? It goes back to the football department, on field success= retention of members. Instead the Demons languish at the pits of the ladder with players leaving and being rumoured to leave left, right and centre.Look at Hawthorn with Tasmania as an example of innovation. The members they now have down there plus their deals to play in Tasmania have well and truly secured Hawthorn's long term future. What is Melbourne's equivalent of that?

While you mention he brought factions together, did he ultimately fail to exclude factions that out to have been excluded? I refer to that of Schwab and the whole fiasco after 186 and keeping Barry Prendergast in the club.

I think you summed it up when you said Stynes left the club with its future looking "less bleak". He did phenomenal things for the Demon's off field future for the short term. I just can't see what he implemented to make Melbourne rise in an upwards trajectory.

The fact remains that Melbourne is a business that relies on it's supporters. If Melbourne doesn't show any improvement on field, then those members will slowly dwindle away and the Fitzroy comparison start to re-eneter discussions. Melbourne tried their luck with the drafting route, it hasn't worked. Investing in the football department seems to be the only place left to turn, otherwise years of on field mediocrity would only further enhance the problems faced by Melbourne.

 

[GarnerSmash]

They are clear of debt and have a very nice sumo suit filled with $7mil in cash to ride the bumps of the next few years, so I reckon on that front Jim did a sterling job. They have increased FD spend and appointed a truck load of coaches and other staff to help with player development. Whether or not these are the right people for the job is yet to be seen.

If they hadn't shot themselves in the foot with a number of their draft selections they would be in a much better position than they are now, but as it is they are still in a position where they can reload and get it right while maintaining a strong off field position. Fingers crossed they don't **** it up this time.

 

[deeman87]

Gah let the man RIP ffs! He saved the club from extinction he isn't really to blame for the appalling recruiting from Barry Prendergast and Dean Bailey... /thread

 

[THRILLHO]

Only time will tell.

I'm more mystified by how Cameron Schwab continues to evade blame, but I'm not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs of the MFC.

All I think is that everything they could have done wrong post-Daniher, they pretty much have done.

Wasn't Schwab told to clear out his desk, then 186 happened, and he somehow had his contract renewed while Bailey was fired?

 

[Cudi_420]

I don't know...I mean, he basically used his gift of the gab to get people to pay up. That was his skill. He got us out of debt because he had an uncanny knack of getting people to contribute.

Has that left an impression on the club as a whole? Maybe not that specifically, but I do believe he left the foundations of what can be a really great culture.

As a PRESIDENT, I don't know.

Only time will tell.

I'm more mystified by how Cameron Schwab continues to evade blame, but I'm not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs of the MFC.

All I think is that everything they could have done wrong post-Daniher, they pretty much have done.

You mean increase membership, generate profit, develop a brand, and a home?

I'm not sure what you mean?

I'm MORE mystified by how people think Schwab has done anything wrong.

The guy wanted to hold Bailey accountable for creating a team with no accountability. That's where the friction was, and the players hated that someone off-field was essentially forcing the coaching and football departments to pull their heads in. You had a group of players that could get away with murder.

Do you know what a Collingwood supporter high up at that club told me about Melbourne training? That he was mystified by how much Melbourne players got away with. When some of the new coaches visited the Footscray Markets as part of the "Melbourne Business Community" (a corporate initiative started by Schwab that helped the club land Clark), word was going round that they were frustrated and angry that a club could let players get away with so much. This is why players like Moloney have struggled so much.

In 2008, Vlad said Melbourne "has no brand". I'd argue we have one of the stronger, more recognisable brands atm, thanks to Schwab. He's set Melbourne up to be a powerhouse IF it wins games. It's in a very, very good position financially, and he's also managed to clear bad things up very quickly. The way he dealt with EnergyWatch at the start of the season was nothing short of superb.

Stynes seemed to do a good job of selling the club to prospective donators, and was just generally a superb person to have around the club, but outside of that, I'm not sure how he performed as a president compared to what other presidents in the league do for their clubs. I basically saw Stynes as a last resort to get things jump-started. McLardy was always going to take the reigns, but let's be honest: McLardy probably couldn't have coerced people to donate millions of dollars.

 

[Hellgood]

Not so sure about Stynes - obviously he'd have to cop some blame for where they are at on field, but he did a pretty good job of getting the club together. Whether he prioritised the off field stuff at the expense of the on field issues, or not I'm not sure.

However, it is absolutely incredible that Schwab is still there and still getting contract extensions, Stynes may have made mistakes, but at least he unlike the rest of the underperforming admin there, realised that Schwab was a dud and was going to get rid of him. That was at least, until 186 happened when Bailey took the bullet. Schwab played a large part in setting Fremantle back a few years in theri development and has overseen Melbourne's list in possibly their worst period in existence yet continues to get rewarded? What the hell is with that?

 

[Clay Davis]

I think it was a success.

He drummed up support for Melbourne where previously there was none. He did more than most presidents usually do. Without him, Melbourne might already be gone.

The blame for their predicament lays squarely at the feet of Cameron Schwab. He has been involved with football clubs for nearly 30 years and none of them have seen any kind of meaningful success.

Stynes came close to sacking him, but the 186 loss meant the coach had to go, and they were worried about the stability of the club if they sacked both Schwab and Bailey. Now Schwab has an extended contract.

Think about that for a second.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

We've reached new lows, it seems.


What a distasteful thread.

 

[the distributer]

I realise the man is dead, but the topic is still a relevant one, especially as he played a key part in Melbourne’s current predicament. His passing doesn’t mean he is immune from criticism.

The popular belief is that Jim Stynes’ reign as the Melbourne President was an unmitigated success, was it really though?

While Stynes was rather effective in solving short-term off-field issues, I put it forward that he failed in his primary role, that being ensuring the on field success of the Melbourne Football Club.

After all, the main function of a football club is to perform on the football field.

Surely it would’ve been more prudent to invest in the football department, as success on field would have been critical in improving off field issues for the long term such as memberships, sponsorships and not to mention the general morale of the club and its supporters.

Instead, all Stynes appeared to have left was a band-aid solution, with the clubs short term financial position secured some what, while not providing a long term solution to either Melbourne’s on field or off field situation.

Further to that, under Stynes’ presidency, the tanking mentality came to the floor, crippling Melbourne’s on field performance even further and possibly for the foreseeable future.

While he may not have been coaching, the position he held meant he was utterly responsible for any direction the club took, including to tank.

Since he took other in 2008, Melbourne has been nothing more than an irrelevant specter on the AFL map.

So, with all that, was Stynes’ presidency really the success many believe?

What long-term solutions did he implement to ensure the clubs viability?

Unfortunately I don’t think his presidency was a successful one.

Bloody hell mate, the guy ran the club knowing he was going to die, give the man a break FFS.

 

[MarkT2]

You cartainly couldn;t call the Stynes presidency a failure at all. Stynes mobilised the club and repayed a lot of the debt. That was priority number 1 and he was therefore a success. Beyond that he unfortunately did not get the opportunity to take the club anywhere.

 

[The Prosecutor]

I agree with most peoples assessment of Cameron Schwab being a big factor in Melbourne's plight, however it was the board, led by Stynes, that originally appointed him, then failed to remove him.

 

[the_interloper]

Gah let the man RIP ffs! He saved the club from extinction he isn't really to blame for the appalling recruiting from Barry Prendergast and Dean Bailey... /thread

Come on mate, just because the man has passed away doesn't mean we can't discuss his presidential stint at the Dees, give the OP the benefit of the doubt. People didn't have any problems whatsoever discussing the ins and outs of Dick Pratt's presidency after he passed away.

 

[Clay Davis]

I'm MORE mystified by how people think Schwab has done anything wrong.

The guy wanted to hold Bailey accountable for creating a team with no accountability. That's where the friction was, and the players hated that someone off-field was essentially forcing the coaching and football departments to pull their heads in. You had a group of players that could get away with murder.

If the coach is that poor a CEO should intervene immediately and sack the coach. You don't post clips to youtube of you addressing the playing group about benchmarks and accountability.

Schwab's real ambitions are that of a coach, but he knows he will never be one. So, he is an administrator who heavily micromanages. How this is good for building a football club, I don't know.

 

[GreatBradScott]

Only time will tell.

I'm more mystified by how Cameron Schwab continues to evade blame, but I'm not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs of the MFC.

All I think is that everything they could have done wrong post-Daniher, they pretty much have done.

I'm more confused he still has a job tbh.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Bloody hell mate, the guy ran the club knowing he was going to die, give the man a break FFS.

If that was impairing his ability to fulfill his duties, then he shouldn't have stayed on in the role.

Just because he has passed on doesn't mean he should get a free pass.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

You mean increase membership, generate profit, develop a brand, and a home?

You think Melbourne has a "brand" at the moment? You can't be serious. That still needs to be built from the ground up. I'm referring more to disenfranchising people while "tanking", but when I'm saying time will tell it chiefly stems from the fact that I don't know what to think about Melbourne. I don't even know if the drafting is as much of a catastrophe as everyone lets on because apparently there was no accountability, because instead of a dominant, powerful, compelling and central figure in the head coaches role, Lyon and his cohorts selected a quiet, non-flashy type with superb credentials as an assistant. Whereas now...

The thing that disturbs me about Schwab is his degree of involvement in the football department, with player reviews and what not. I'm guessing that doesn't happen anymore, but the fact that it ever did is quite ludicrous. If the situation was that dire with Bailey, how the hell did he last to 2011?

I suspect things will get dramatically better for Melbourne within 3 years, purely because they have to, but if they don't... well, I still wouldn't know what to think.

 

[The Prosecutor]

We've reached new lows, it seems.


What a distasteful thread.

Why?

Are you saying he should get a free pass or shouldn't be criticised at all just because he has passed on? The man was president during their darkest years, of course it's worthy of being discussed.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Why?

Are you saying he should get a free pass or shouldn't be criticised at all just because he has passed on? The man was president during their darkest years, of course it's worthy of being discussed.

The argument would be that the darkest years would have been infinitely worse if not due to Stynes.

Might not even be a club.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

If that was impairing his ability to fulfill his duties, then he shouldn't have stayed on in the role.

Just because he has passed on doesn't mean he should get a free pass.

Do you rock up to a wake and say "Look, I know the guys dead, but hey, he wasn't a very nice bloke was he?".

You're effectively pissing on the guys grave, regardless of whether you accept it or not.

 

[The Prosecutor]

The argument would be that the darkest years would have been infinitely worse if not due to Stynes.

Might not even be a club.

My question though is what did he do to ensure Melbourne found it's way back in to good times for the long term?

I'm more than willing to admit he was fantastic for a short term fix, because if we're brutally honest, Stynes' fight with cancer played a significant role in getting people to buy in to the club.

What did he do beyond that though?

 

[The Prosecutor]

Do you rock up to a wake and say "Look, I know the guys dead, but hey, he wasn't a very nice bloke was he?".

You're effectively pissing on the guys grave, regardless of whether you accept it or not.

How long does his supposed wake go on for? It's been 6 months, it's not like it was last week.

And where did I ever question his character? I'm questioning his reign as presidency, which is worthy of scrutiny.