Was Jim Stynes' presidency a failure?

[Lord Nicholson]

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.

While I don't agree with the OP (or, as I say... time will tell) it is absolute horsecrap to say that you can't scrutinise something that someone has done just because they've passed away. That is ridiculous, every body of work is up for scrutiny from every angle regardless of context. It's not pissing on his grave, it's not reflecting poorly on Stynes' character as well, it's merely asking the question of whether or not what he did worked (or will work or whatever).

 

[Max Power 83]

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?

Built a war chest of $5m that enables us to increase spending in the football department (Neeld, Misson, Craig) in order to ensure on field success and attract members, which as you mentioned is the key to long term success.

Stynes' presidency wasn't a failure, this thread is.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I don't think people fully appreciate what stynes did for the dee's

Whilst he should cop a small whack for not stamping down on tanking from a top level, the fact is the football department is the football department

As pres stynes got them out of debt they have consistent attendance levels
And I'm pretty sure the actually increased memberships

If you look at what stynes did you question what other clubs have done
Building up massive debts and no on field success has left them worse off then the dee's

I think stynes knew the club was going to hurt and hurt for a long time, so he shored up support and financial position of the club no longer does the club have to worry about folding due to debts.

Now it needs to move forward on The footy field (one can only help but wonder what would have happened if stynes didn't get cancer) sadly for the dee's they found out that this world isn't a fairy tale there not magically going to turn things around to honour jimmy.

Look at it this way, port and tigers both failed on and off field and choose to put everything in to footy department and what happened?

Massive debts and no real on field success either (the tigers army to there credit stayed true) obviously each case should be viewed separately as there's a range of factors lead to clubs dropping off, the point I'm making is that even had he invested in the footy department and focused on that, it could have left the club worse off then it is now.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Can anyone provide me with Melbourne's latest financial report?

I can't seem to find it anywhere on their website.

 

[GreatBradScott]

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.

Yeah, nah.

You could ask the same of Ron Casey, who's dead too.

Sure, on field success, but financially North were screwed at the start of the last decade. (Hell, his whole presidency. The club made 7 prelims in a row *with two flags and another GF appearance* and hardly improved our financial state one little bit).

Pls, the bleeding hearts and irrationality is what brings this place down. This isn't a troll thread.

 

[00Stinger]

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.

Some of your points are fair. The major problem is the presidents that have turned their clubs fortunes around (ala McGuire) have had a sustained period at the club to see our their whole plans. Stynes was not afforded this, due to his illness.

He had a grand plan that was expected to take 5+ years, however he was only able to see out 3 years of this plan. Therefore instead of picking the negative points of presidenty that he was not able to erode, we must look at the problems he was able to turn around in his short time in charge.

For the time he was in charge, he did an impecable job. The problem is that time was not on his side and as a Melbourne supporter I/we can only hope that McLardy continues on with his good work and does not undo all of the hard yards that were done by him.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Considering where they were when he took over, it’s pretty obvious the business / commercial side of things was done very well, and football operations is still in horrible shape.

It’s probably hard to get the latter in order before you’ve fixed the former, so I think they did things the right way. I don’t think Stynes thought his work was done by any stretch.

 

[00Stinger]

While I don't agree with the OP (or, as I say... time will tell) it is absolute horsecrap to say that you can't scrutinise something that someone has done just because they've passed away. That is ridiculous, every body of work is up for scrutiny from every angle regardless of context. It's not pissing on his grave, it's not reflecting poorly on Stynes' character as well, it's merely asking the question of whether or not what he did worked (or will work or whatever).

It's like bagging a bloke because he didn't deliver on his promised 5 year plan because he passed away during this time.

Geez, Stynes how dare you pass away when you promised us a 5 year plan

 

[La Vache]

To relieve Melbourne of a huge financial noose is a godsend for them but the real test is in its sustainability. It's fine to come cap in hand to wealthier supporters and the alma mater but when that dries up you need to have a sustainable plan to consolidate that.

I don't think we'll know for a while if they've got that but on the surface Stynes did what had to be done.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

It's like bagging a bloke because he didn't deliver on his promised 5 year plan because he passed away during this time.

Geez, Stynes how dare you pass away when you promised us a 5 year plan

I'm sure Matthew Primus wasn't working from a 2-year plan.

 

[The Prosecutor]

To relieve Melbourne of a huge financial noose is a godsend for them but the real test is in its sustainability. It's fine to come cap in hand to wealthier supporters and the alma mater but when that dries up you need to have a sustainable plan to consolidate that.

I don't think we'll know for a while if they've got that but on the surface Stynes did what had to be done.

That pretty much sums part of what I'm alluding to.

Good post.

 

[Bluelegs]

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.

Daniher and the administration at that time screwed over the club by letting it fall into a hole with no decent middle of the table or youth players to take over the senior playing roles as our older stars ended their careers. When Daniher left Melbourne had barely anything to put into the next generation of players; Sylvia, Bate, McLean, Moloney, and Jamar were all underdeveloped and underperforming players who had been given a blind eye because Daniher only had eyes for his beloved star players, some of them came on to their potential, others didn't. Daniher created a situation where future stars didn't want to stay at the club in Darren Jolly and Scott Thompson because he barely played them or developed them, So when Daniher left essentially he was taking White, Yze, Robertson, Neitz, and so on with him.

The current situation at Melbourne has been brewing for a lot longer than the Bailey era and while Stynes didn't get everything right, he did what he could with what he had and in the end he didn't have a magic wand. So he paid off Melbourne's debts and put them in a strong enough financial position that they could move forward, got the club out of junction oval and into the elite training facilities of AAMI park did the rebuild go as well as it should have? Absolutely not, but without him Melbourne probably wouldn't exist. Without a doubt the Bailey era was a failure but Stynes was there just long enough to give Mark Neeld the job and the power to overhaul the footy department. If Mark Neeld can do anything with the club then I think Stynes has to be credited with that.

 

[Darksidepoints]

How many more of these threads are going to continue here mods?

Embarrassing.

 

[The Prosecutor]

How many more of these threads are going to continue here mods?

Embarrassing.

What exactly is so bad about this thread?

 

[00Stinger]

I'm sure Matthew Primus wasn't working from a 2-year plan.

Could you have picked a more idiotic example?

I didn't realise Stynes was sacked or primus died

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Could you have picked a more idiotic example?

I didn't realise Stynes was sacked or primus died

Aren't you arguing that the plan was interrupted and is therefore beyond scrutiny?

I'm not saying that they're the same situation. I'm just saying that everything can and should be scrutinised.

 

[MaddAdam]

I'd argue we have one of the stronger, more recognisable brands atm, thanks to Schwab.

In all seriouslymess, what is that brand?

 

[Max Power 83]

In all seriouslymess, what is that brand?

What does that even mean?

 

[MaddAdam]

What does that even mean?

What is Melbourne's brand?

What's its USP?

What's the image or emotion that first springs to mind when you think of Melbourne?

For me, about the only positive one is: "oldest club".

 

[Max Power 83]

What is Melbourne's brand?

What's its USP?

What's the image or emotion that first springs when you think of Melbourne?

For me, about the only positive one is: "oldest club".

It's such a ridiculously subjective concept.

Can you define the "brand" of every club?
I'm sure if we both went through every club we'd end up with very different "branding"

 

[The Prosecutor]

It's such a ridiculously subjective concept.

Can you define the "brand" of every club?
I'm sure if we both went through every club we'd end up with very different "branding"

Well if Melbourne don't have a brand, what are potential members meant to identify with?

 

[Tulip]

For one to comment on this discussion, they need to think back a few years to the point where we had the largest debt in the league, a disinterested line of Presidents, decrepit list and a divided supporter group after the merger, Gutnick's reign, etc.

Stynes was the one and only man who was able to unite the supporter base, get them to dip into their pockets and help out, expand the coaching staff and get us out of Junction and into AAMI.

He didn't really have a huge bearing on the on-field successes, a President rarely does. All he can do is give them a coaching staff, facilities and a secure backroom.

People need to remember that one of the reasons for our on field success was his death, he was the biggest figure relevant in football at the time.

It would be naive to suggest we haven't been spending on our FD. It hasn't taken effect yet.

Along with that, we had the racism scandal, Energy Watch etc.

WCE and Adelaide were cellar dwellers who both ended up at the top.

The only players who have walked out against our ultimate wishes is Jurrah.

 

[MaddAdam]

It's such a ridiculously subjective concept.

Can you define the "brand" of every club?
I'm sure if we both went through every club we'd end up with very different "branding"

I pretty much could.

A Melbourne poster above said the club has one of the best brands in the league. I have no idea what it is.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

I was going to say that it had a stronger brand in the '90s, but I think that's basically true of every club.

 

[Demonheart]

I love how much Essendon fans hates Melbourne. Even when we're at our absolute worst, we can still deestroy their season