Was Jim Stynes' presidency a failure?

[Messenger]

We can't pretend Melbourne have been the only ones to do it (allegedly).

 

[Gram2Lovett]

We can't pretend Melbourne have been the only ones to do it (allegedly).

we're not discussing other clubs though. This is about melbourne and stynes' role in it.

 

[The Prosecutor]

We can't pretend Melbourne have been the only ones to do it (allegedly).

I don't think anyone is, however this thread looks at the Stynes reign at Melbourne, which tanking was a prominent issue.

As such, other clubs aren't relevant to this discussion because it is looking at Melbourne's decision in isolation.

 

[Hellgood]

Indeed.

How is it we didn't realise we were actually such a strong team all this time?

What with all those marvellous players we've had at our disposal, like Morton, Petterd, Moloney, Martin, Gysberts...

And yet a week ago he would have been better than Naitanui?

 

[Messenger]

we're not discussing other clubs though. This is about melbourne and stynes' role in it.

I can't stay on topic either.

 

[Gram2Lovett]

I can't stay on topic either.

Any more off topic and I'll be dealing out cards.

 

[MaddAdam]

Do you keep posting shit until people actually reply to one of your posts?

Surprised there was no mention of North in any of your posts so far

Don't think it is the time or the place, but I'll happily say North tanked the last few games of 2006.

 

[MaddAdam]

And yet a week ago he would have been better than Naitanui?

He was.

When we were at war with Eastasia.

Right now, I'm just so angry about what is happening to our boys on the Malabar front at the hands of the Eurasian monsters that I'm going to make an extra sacrifice of rations.

That said, Stefan Martin has always been crap, and we've always been at war with Eurasia.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

10 steps to crisis control on bigfooty...

Just as well Brian Waldron was so upfront about it when asked whether St Kilda tanked.

We can't pretend Melbourne have been the only ones to do it (allegedly).

Seems like many people are perfectly capable of carrying that off with a straight face around these parts.

 

[Messenger]

Seems like many people are perfectly capable of carrying that off with a straight face around these parts.

I can't stray off topic again.

 

[swansfan51]

Sure, the AFL opened the opportunity for teams to tank, though it was Melbourne with Stynes as President that decided to proceed down that path.

As such, Stynes is responsible for the clubs actions at that time.

No one is questioning his character, just how successful his presidency was.

If he knew this was going on I'm damn sure questioning his character.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Just as well Brian Waldron was so upfront about it when asked whether St Kilda tanked.

And you're deflecting again.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

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.

What does this say about Essendons 1996 president Ron Knox?

What was this man getting up to in 1993?

Surely James Hird should hand back his 1996 Brownlow Medal?

Surely the league should instigate an investigation?

 

[The Prosecutor]

What does this say about Essendons 1996 president Ron Knox?

What was this man getting up to in 1993?

Surely James Hird should hand back his 1996 Brownlow Medal?

Surely the league should instigate an investigation?

How the hell does any of this even remotely relate to this thread?

 

[fairdinkum]

Don't think it is the time or the place, but I'll happily say North tanked the last few games of 2006.

I thought it was common knowledge that we 'put blokes in for surgery' towards the end of season 2006.

As many/most clubs have.

That said, I think it was a bit different to what the (then) Melbourne coaching committee are being accused of doing in 2009. There's a difference between not fielding your best team, and intentionally sabotaging the prospects of whatever team it is that you are putting out on the park.

And I agree with others that what the MFC did made sense at the time. They couldn't have known how bad their draft selections would end up being.

The priority pick was always a shemozzle and yet another example of AFL farcery (I know). Demetriou, Anderson and all the other muppets at AFL House should be embarrassed by how much 'moral hazard' their policy entailed.

As I said earlier, when even great men like Stynes are getting in on the tank, the system is stuffed.

 

[the_interloper]

Well for this sort of thing to go on during your presidential reign, you must have known, you could compare Stynesy to John Elliott in that regard.

 

[BLPC08]

A Presidents role is to achieve success both on-field and off-field. Whilst he did great things off-field, he failed dismally on-field and his team may suffer further pain after his death.

 

[Xtreme]

Failed on field
Succeeded off field, up until this recent development. Now it's just a failure all round

 

[The Prosecutor]

Failed on field
Succeeded off field, up until this recent development. Now it's just a failure all round

It's a shame really, for all the hard work he tried to do to get this club back on it's feet, an action under his reign maybe what ultimately resigns Melbourne to a dismal fate. Fair to say Melbourne's future is well and truly hanging in the balance, depending on how the AFL and potentially the State government and betting agencies react.