Melbourne Football Club Commencement Dinner

[hardtack 10,861]

And no I don't think he is the Messiah...

Maybe he's just a naughty boy?

[old dee 24,003]

Maybe he's just a naughty boy?

Very good hardtack

Close to the best for today

Keep at it I am sure greatness is just around the corner

[Nasher 33,617]

I will let it go, but I don't know how I could possibly misread this^^.

dan, I reckon you're focusing too much on Fan's examples and less on his actual point. I reckon Thomo (and to a lesser degree Ben-Hur) puts it more clearly in less words (sorry Fan!) - you can't gouge people for a few hundred bucks and offer nothing*.

*By nothing I'm just regurgitating the words of others - I wasn't there, just trying to clear up a misunderstanding between posters.

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

dan, I reckon you're focusing too much on Fan's examples and less on his actual point. I reckon Thomo (and to a lesser degree Ben-Hur) puts it more clearly in less words (sorry Fan!) - you can't gouge people for a few hundred bucks and offer nothing*.

*By nothing I'm just regurgitating the words of others - I wasn't there, just trying to clear up a misunderstanding between posters.

But the coach said it all...watch the video.

[Choko 493]

I mean this with respect but I am bemused that you would expect him to talk about players that might nick off, or our drafting targets (I know you don't expect specifics). That is the type of information that I would expect Neeld to keep very much in house.

Did Dean Bailey present well at these types of dinners, how would you assess his performance?

Bailey was terrible at these functions.

Danners was outstanding.

Danners gave nothing private away, but he told us things that the industry knew that we didn't know. I can think of a few examples, like wanting Dunn to learn to play forward (when he started on a wing), what he expected from a kicking coach in terms of improvement, where he saw our weaknesses, etc....

There are many many examples of things that can be said that make fans feel like they are a little bit special, that does not compromise game plan, confidentiality, etc...

I am not having a go at Neeld, bc he is so new and it's always better to play it safe, especially before he has coached a competitive AFL game.

Of course we all want our footy to do the talking. But that is a different issue to when fans are at an MFC event.

I should say, MFC generally does events very well - to the envy of quite a few clubs.

[H_T 3,049]

Of course we all want our footy to do the talking. But that is a different issue to when fans are at an MFC event.

I should say, MFC generally does events very well - to the envy of quite a few clubs.

I've already had my say on this above, but you've rekindled my interest. Like Nasher, I wasn't there, I think the type of event can determine what information is expressed to the guests. For example, I recall a special pre-draft night a couple of years ago, where the guests were informed on the pick(s) and what the club were aiming for. Different concept I know, but i believe it was more in-house than from what I understand the Commencement dinner. Some of the examples Fan suggested I would imagine would risk putting the club in an uncomfortable and unnecessary position with some media present. Particularly re the CP picks and the clubs intention next week. I agree that the club should provide some 'bang for the guests buck'. And maybe the coach could have expressed what to expect in te first several rounds and the challenges ahead - rather than an overview of the pre-season.

However, I reiterate, he has stated many a time he doesn't wish to put any limits or expectations or a number of wins - he wants to set the bar high in terms of performance, and he wants to do it his way.

If there is an issue with the entertainment provided, the suggestion box at the club is a good place to start.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

dan, I reckon you're focusing too much on Fan's examples and less on his actual point. I reckon Thomo (and to a lesser degree Ben-Hur) puts it more clearly in less words (sorry Fan!) - you can't gouge people for a few hundred bucks and offer nothing*.

*By nothing I'm just regurgitating the words of others - I wasn't there, just trying to clear up a misunderstanding between posters.

Nasher my issue is with the posts that lay the blame for this boring night with Neeld. From what I hear the night could have been done better. Personally I want my footy coach sweating over the footy stuff and not about how cool the commencement dinner is going to be.

Neeld would not have organised it, he is probably not a natural entertainer and people who are expecting him to divulge sensitive information will always be disappointed, he is not that type of coach.

My concern is that some posters seem to laying the boot in over trivial matters before the man has fired a shot. I won't sit around and watch that happen. The man has been placed in charge of our ailing club and deserves every chance.

I know you will have read the thread, please read it again. I was very measured in my earlier posts, the detail of the posts became a more targetted as the argument continued and motives became clearer. Posts that laud Schwab and denigrate Neeld almost in the same breath yet still declare the night "boring" need to be rebutted.

Yes I am a bit fired up about this. If I suspect any bias against Neeld in here, or I don't think he is getting a fair go then I will stand against it. You know that I am not going to side with the established view just because it is the established view.

I will really leave it at that now. I am happy to continue this via PM.

Edited March 15, 2012 by dandeeman

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

To me the highlight the other night was MN. Without his speech, the night would have been no more than a "tree hugging" exercise and a p@*s up. In my opinion, the MFC, for far too long, has lacked an uncompromising leader such as Neeld. Sure, there are no measurable results on the board yet, but I would rather go into Neeld's reign with a never say die attitude, than the previous mantra of, "we just want to be competitive". I was speaking to a guy the other night who is the father of a Casey senior listed player (not MFC listed) and he reckons the Dees list is second to none and laden with talent. Mark Neeld is the man - along with his undoubtedly talented coaching and fitness team - to bring the best out of this list in my view.

I am more than happy with what I have heard and seen of Neeld thus far.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Nasher my issue is with the posts that lay the blame for this boring night with Neeld. From what I hear the night could have been done better. Personally I wnat my footy coach sweating over the footy stuff and not about how cool the commencement dinner is going to be.

Neeld would not have organised it, he is probably not a natural entertainer and people who are expecting him to divulge sensitive information will always be disappointed, he is not that type of coach.

My concern is that some posters seem to laying the boot in over trivial matters before the man has fired a shot. I won't sit around and watch that happen. The man has been placed in charge of our ailing club and deserves every chance.

I know you will have read the thread, please read it again. I was very measured in my earlier posts, the detail of the posts became a more targetted as the argument continued and motives became clearer. Posts that laud Schwab and denigrate Neeld almost in the same breath yet still declare the night "boring" need to be rebutted.

Yes I am a bit fired up about this. If I suspect any bias against Neeld in here, or I don't think he is getting a fair go then I will stand against it. You know that I am not going to side with the established view just because it is the established view.

I will really leave it at that now. I am happy to continue this via PM.

I was happy with Neeld and what he said it was the rest of the night that I thought was a bit disappointing but on reflection the night was about Blazer presentation and that's what I got.

[Slartibartfast 18,007]

For the record I don't in anyway blame MN for the content of his speech, I think the content would have been agreed by consensus. I accept that in trying to highlight where we could have done better my focus was on Mark's speech but that was not intended to be a criticism or an expression of a lack of confidence in him. My intention was to highlight the content not the person.

My comments were made to highlight how I felt the club should do something better. I do not expect or care if Mark is an "entertainer" and I take issue with Dandeeman's continual reference to "sensative information" which I've been at pains to say should not be the content.

Dandeeman you seem to think I had a motive to attack Neeld. I didn't. I was making observations on how the night could have been done better. It lacked footy content and Mark was the only footy person who spoke - hence the focus of my comments.

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

For the record I don't in anyway blame MN for the content of his speech, I think the content would have been agreed by consensus. I accept that in trying to highlight where we could have done better my focus was on Mark's speech but that was not intended to be a criticism or an expression of a lack of confidence in him. My intention was to highlight the content not the person.

My comments were made to highlight how I felt the club should do something better. I do not expect or care if Mark is an "entertainer" and I take issue with Dandeeman's continual reference to "sensative information" which I've been at pains to say should not be the content.

Dandeeman you seem to think I had a motive to attack Neeld. I didn't. I was making observations on how the night could have been done better. It lacked footy content and Mark was the only footy person who spoke - hence the focus of my comments.

But if you watch the video of his speech, he spoke a lot about footy. I don't know what else he could of said before coaching a game for 4 points.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

For the record I don't in anyway blame MN for the content of his speech, I think the content would have been agreed by consensus. I accept that in trying to highlight where we could have done better my focus was on Mark's speech but that was not intended to be a criticism or an expression of a lack of confidence in him. My intention was to highlight the content not the person.

My comments were made to highlight how I felt the club should do something better. I do not expect or care if Mark is an "entertainer" and I take issue with Dandeeman's continual reference to "sensative information" which I've been at pains to say should not be the content.

Dandeeman you seem to think I had a motive to attack Neeld. I didn't. I was making observations on how the night could have been done better. It lacked footy content and Mark was the only footy person who spoke - hence the focus of my comments.

This post contradicts much of your earlier posts and if it is an acknowledgement that you regret your earlier comments then good on you.

I responded to the content that you put in your posts. If you have erred in explaining yourself then really that isn't my problem.

I haven't continued to respond to the "sensitive information" issue. My issue has been with your statements on the whole about Neeld's "performance".

Stop muddying the waters.

Edited March 16, 2012 by dandeeman

[jabberwocky 2,301]

For the record I don't in anyway blame MN for the content of his speech, I think the content would have been agreed by consensus. I accept that in trying to highlight where we could have done better my focus was on Mark's speech but that was not intended to be a criticism or an expression of a lack of confidence in him. My intention was to highlight the content not the person.

My comments were made to highlight how I felt the club should do something better. I do not expect or care if Mark is an "entertainer" and I take issue with Dandeeman's continual reference to "sensative information" which I've been at pains to say should not be the content.

Dandeeman you seem to think I had a motive to attack Neeld. I didn't. I was making observations on how the night could have been done better. It lacked footy content and Mark was the only footy person who spoke - hence the focus of my comments.

Seeing you wont let this die and have resorted to sending me PMs...for whatever reason.

1. I never used the word attacked, you certainly held Neeld responsible for lack of footy content hence making the night boring.

2. Surely you can pick apart your posts and find the hypocrisy in them. You hold Neeld responsible, you don't hold Neeld resposible. I want info on Drafting and FA, no I don't really. Come off it man.