One thing I did agree with Thomas on was when he said (on FC) that it was interesting seeing Bren Maloney (when interviewed) say he hoped the senior players would be playing against WCE and kept referring to Neeld as "coach" and not by name/nickname. He suggested Neeld has been disassociating himself from the players (which could be good).

Not suggesting there is anything in it, just that I (along with Thomas) found it interesting!

Me too - strange 'interview' don't you think?? Moloney looked p*ssed off and said all of 20 words.

Is he normally a sook?

Thomas is still [censored] off that we knocked the Aints out of the '06 finals and he got the Ar$e 2 days later.

The players attitude was the same under Daniher,Bailey and now Neeld-when it gets too tough we just roll over.We are easily the weakest team in the AFL mentally and every other clubs knows it.

Don't knock us St. Bedes boys!

Me too - strange 'interview' don't you think?? Moloney looked p*ssed off and said all of 20 words.

Is he normally a sook?

Bizarre! Completely seemed like Maloney had a massive chip on his shoulder or just wasn't satisfied.

Or then again he could have just been put on the spot and not came out with the "appropriate" answer.

Bizarre! Completely seemed like Maloney had a massive chip on his shoulder or just wasn't satisfied.

Or then again he could have just been put on the spot and not came out with the "appropriate" answer.

Well he needs to grow the f up if he does, this isn't high skool where you don't accept new teachers and throw paper planes at there backs.

Thought Thomas was a disgrace printing it as truth and include the typical journo back out line at the end

Thomas needs to comprehend that even after an apology and back down mud sticks

Might just fire us up

Always liked the us versus them culture

Grant Thomas is very harsh on Mark Neeld:

Footy Classified tonight may well be interesting; especially since Mark Neeld is On The Couch.

Grant Thomas is very harsh on Mark Neeld:

Footy Classified tonight may well be interesting; especially since Mark Neeld is On The Couch.

Thomas didn't have Brother Arthur during his time at St Bedes. Brother Arthur impressed me greatly as a human being.

Thomas didn't have Brother Arthur during his time at St Bedes. Brother Arthur impressed me greatly as a human being.

So another apology required from Thomas.

Thommo said Neeld rang him and emphatically denied Thommo's accusation, so Thommo pulled the accusation.

That's a disgrace. How about talking to Mark first Grant?

Thomas " After talking to Mark I withdrew my comments" so withdrawal makes it all OK, does it?

I used to quite like Thomas, saw his appoach as a fresh style combined with a candid nature tosay what ought to be said. I was simply wrong.. Hes nothing much more than an unsuccessful coach who still seems to have issues.

in a word...hes a [censored] !!

The guy reminds me of Mark Latham for some reason

His comment on the new Leadership Group is just Wrong.

The playing list voted.

this is what gets me. The old days of the coach appointing the captain and vice captain are gone. We go through a process where all the players had a vote, as did coaches and key administrators. The common concensus put forward the leadership group and the two Jacks were so overwhelmingly out front but level ( Neelds words) that they could not be split for the captaincy.

If that is not buy in and empowerment of the playing group I be buggered if I know wjhat is.

If any of the old leadership group have their noses out of joint then I suggest that that in itself is a good enough pointer as to why they are no longer in the leadership group.

Thomas - do some homework you goose.

Patrick Smith said on KB this morning that there was a rumour going around about Neeld and the indigenous group, but all the journos did their due diligence and discovered that the rumour was nonsense.

Thommo did not do his DD, and just went with the rumour.

It's what separates professional journalists from wannabe opinionistas.

PS: Not for a moment saying all journos are paragons of journalistic excellence.

Oh, and maybe the venerable headmaster of St Bedes should ring up Thommo and ask him to pull the shots at St Bedes teachers.

Venerable. St Bede. That's a joke, boy. I keep pitchin' 'em, you keep missin' 'em.

Another Great Moment in Journalism...

I know a few on here like Thomas for his dislike of AD but he is only interested in himself and his own views.

And damn those that get in the way of his meandering and obtuse 'point.'

Another Great Moment in Journalism...

I know a few on here like Thomas for his dislike of AD but he is only interested in himself and his own views.

And damn those that get in the way of his meandering and obtuse 'point.'

A non bogan, semi articulate Akermanis. ( "When I have nothing to talk about I will just provide a contrary viewpoint on anything")

this is what gets me. The old days of the coach appointing the captain and vice captain are gone. We go through a process where all the players had a vote, as did coaches and key administrators. The common concensus put forward the leadership group and the two Jacks were so overwhelmingly out front but level ( Neelds words) that they could not be split for the captaincy.

If that is not buy in and empowerment of the playing group I be buggered if I know wjhat is.

If any of the old leadership group have their noses out of joint then I suggest that that in itself is a good enough pointer as to why they are no longer in the leadership group.

Thomas - do some homework you goose.

actually in this case i think the players had only a very minor part in the choice of captain

and i agree with this, especially in light of the non-performance of the leadership group in recent years

quite apart from this i have always believed that the decision should largely be a coach/fd one

A non bogan, semi articulate Akermanis. ( "When I have nothing to talk about I will just provide a contrary viewpoint on anything")

Excellent analogy. So far the gold and silver medalists in media crap for the season, but its only round one.

actually in this case i think the players had only a very minor part in the choice of captain

and i agree with this, especially in light of the non-performance of the leadership group in recent years

quite apart from this i have always believed that the decision should largely be a coach/fd one

Absolutely, DC. Absolutely.

The only consensus building should be within the grown-ups in the FD. I would much rather the footy brains of Craig, Royal, and Neeld designing an appropriate LG, than the players.

Our players wouldn't know a leader if one cleaned them up at Telstra Stadium and copped three weeks...

Our dearth of onfield leaders means that Neeld and the line coaches have to be the ones demanding better - and possibly being less popular because of it. God knows our younger players cannot look to Moloney, Rivers, Green, and Davey for an 'example' of committed, disciplined, and consistent performance.

Absolutely, DC. Absolutely.

The only consensus building should be within the grown-ups in the FD. I would much rather the footy brains of Craig, Royal, and Neeld designing an appropriate LG, than the players.

Our players wouldn't know a leader if one cleaned them up at Telstra Stadium and copped three weeks...

Our dearth of onfield leaders means that Neeld and the line coaches have to be the ones demanding better - and possibly being less popular because of it. God knows our younger players cannot look to Moloney, Rivers, Green, and Davey for an 'example' of committed, disciplined, and consistent performance.

Agreed but from Neelds own mouth - this wasnt case - the players had a big say and unless this is a nonsense it is credit to the players that 4 of last years 5 LG didnt get a gig this year.

Whilst I might get shouted down, I think Bartram in the LG is a player thing not a coach thing.

Having saif that, I think the FD's handling of players in the future will have a large bearing on LG selections in the future. It will be hard for players to nominate a fellow player for LG duties when Neeld has them playing at Casey or out the door at another club.

I buy in, you buy in, he, she or it buys in.

We buy in, you (p) buy in, they buy in.

Just making sure we can all decline "buy in" correctly in the present tense for future application.

Speaking of future:

I will buy in, you will buy in... okay, okay, I will stop now.

Thomas agreed to take the blog down.. In no way did he apolagie for his stupid outlandish statement.

I think the AFL will take action

With regard to the LG, as Neeld has articulated numerous times, it was largely made up from the players, but it also had some input from the FD and administrative sides. Once tallied, the two Jacks came out on top as clear choices for the captaincy.

It will be interesting to see what action or how far they get with this matter. If AD has a bone to pick with Thomas, he may go the distance. Thomas has already intimated his source has gone to ground (not surprising really). But how unprofessional is it that he didn't have the sense to check with MN first ? Amateur hour.

GT doesn't mind stoking the ego of others, including that of FC fellow panel member GL, maybe it's AD's chance to balance the ledger.

There is every chance Thommo saw the Melbourne rumour as a chance to beat up the AFL over a supposed inconsistency vis-a-vis his mate Matthew Rendell.

Not sure if anyone has posted this already, but what I found totally offensive is the line from Thomas that " my informant who was only second hand has gone to ground and Neeld has denied it, so I guess I will have to take him at face value" . Since when was Thomas the Judge of what was said and what is right and wrong. That is a grossly offensive comment, to say to someone who has flatly denied doing something and without any other reliable evidence to the contrary, that " I will have to take him at face vaule." What about being a man and saying "I believe what Mark told me, my information was wrong and I apologize". [censored] weak and probably defamatory in the first instance.

Not sure if anyone has posted this already, but what I found totally offensive is the line from Thomas that " my informant who was only second hand has gone to ground and Neeld has denied it, so I guess I will have to take him at face value" . Since when was Thomas the Judge of what was said and what is right and wrong. That is a grossly offensive comment, to say to someone who has flatly denied doing something and without any other reliable evidence to the contrary, that " I will have to take him at face vaule." What about being a man and saying "I believe what Mark told me, my information was wrong and I apologize". [censored] weak and probably defamatory in the first instance.

Hear hear He needs to apologise. I have heard legal people may become involved(rumour only)