Quote from Brad Scott after North rolled Geelong today:

But it's difficult when you're working really hard at something and you're sitting in (a press conference) after a loss and talking about just continuing to work on a style of play - it sounds clichéd and it sounds trite when you've lost.

Let's consider that next time we're thinking of ragging on the coach about his performance in press conferences.

I wonder if there is any chance whatsoever that some day the AFL will invest just a few dollars in a roving mic so that we can actually hear the questions that the coaches are answering? It is bloody annoying, and frankly unprofessional.

The approach Neeld took in his first after match was a breath of fresh air to the supporters and some journos. He got hung out to dry on that one so I guess I would be happy to see him do the old Alan Jeans, one week at a time and give em absolutely nothing from now on.

And "experience hurt us"? Wtf? We have more if not the same amount of experience as Richmond. Unintelligent comment, I thought. Either obviously lying or worryingly denying the reality.

Its highly likely that the press conference isn't necessarily the same message told to players or its delivered in a much different way.

I would imagine it is an absolute certainty that the same message isn't being conveyed to the media and then to the players......

FFS its a presser and they only do it because they are obliged to by the AFL, get realistic I couldn't give a bollox what is said at the presser, I think the fact there is rumours of players not being happy with being told some home truths since Neelds arrival tells you he is a straight shooter and tells the players what he thinks and that IMO is all that matters

He uses some very important terms - again I think he is talking to us. "Tigers programs, development, supporters moral"

.... he is telling the truth at the moment, they are not excuses, they are reasons.

A distinction lost on many here.

RE: Neeld's "3 or 4 year plan" remark, it has a certain sense of de ja vu. I just hope this trend doesn't continue until I'm dead:

Coach 1: We have a 3 or 4 year plan

3 years later...coach gets sacked.

Coach 2: We have a plan over 3 or 4 years

3 years later...coach gets sacked.

Coach 3: In a few years we'll be at the right level

3 years later...coach gets sacked.

Several coaches later...

I'm 95 years old and on my death bed when I've heard we've just lost in the Grand final to the New Zealand Rabbits by 1 point at the CMCG (The first C stands for Coke)

RE: Neeld's "3 or 4 year plan" remark, it has a certain sense of de ja vu. I just hope this trend doesn't continue until I'm dead:

Coach 1: We have a 3 or 4 year plan

3 years later...coach gets sacked.

Coach 2: We have a plan over 3 or 4 years

3 years later...coach gets sacked.

Coach 3: In a few years we'll be at the right level

3 years later...coach gets sacked.

Several coaches later...

I'm 95 years old and on my death bed when I've heard we've just lost in the Grand final to the New Zealand Rabbits by 1 point at the CMCG (The first C stands for Coke)

I too can recall so many 5 year plans abandoned in the 3rd year

Maybe we should be looking for a plan that matches our coaches contract. Neeld did indicate this early and so I have some confidence in him

Yes it takes time to improve but it needs to be done within what appear the industry norms

Plenty of others have indicated other team progress Hawks, cats and bears and each seemed to be 5 -6 year to premiership.

Its just that like you I am hoping and have been hoping for decades for our plan to be completed. Will not give up just yet.

GO DEES

I love Jeremy Howe

Sharon actually makes me laugh out loud!

I take it you mean Sharon Hoe(y)... yeah, rabid I think is the term that best describes her.

RE: Neeld's "3 or 4 year plan" remark, it has a certain sense of de ja vu. I just hope this trend doesn't continue until I'm dead:

Coach 1: We have a 3 or 4 year plan

3 years later...coach gets sacked.

Coach 2: We have a plan over 3 or 4 years

3 years later...coach gets sacked.

Coach 3: In a few years we'll be at the right level

3 years later...coach gets sacked.

Several coaches later...

I'm 95 years old and on my death bed when I've heard we've just lost in the Grand final to the New Zealand Rabbits by 1 point at the CMCG (The first C stands for Coke)

What else can a coach do?

Click his fingers and magically turn crud into gold?

We just have to sit tight and hope we got the right coach that will do it right... or accept that maybe 3 or 4 or 5 years isn't ENOUGH for any coach.

When is the last time we saw a team get turned around in only 3 or 4 or 5 years, btw?

What else can a coach do?

Click his fingers and magically turn crud into gold?

We just have to sit tight and hope we got the right coach that will do it right... or accept that maybe 3 or 4 or 5 years isn't ENOUGH for any coach.

When is the last time we saw a team get turned around in only 3 or 4 or 5 years, btw?

Agree with the first comment, but as far as the 'turning it around' comment goes, how long have we been trying to do that now? As someone else alluded to somewhere here on these forums, we have the turning circle of a Mac truck.

Agree with the first comment, but as far as the 'turning it around' comment goes, how long have we been trying to do that now? As someone else alluded to somewhere here on these forums, we have the turning circle of a Mac truck.

I firmly believe that when you change coach you effectively start again, albeit with a different starting point.

Neeld is starting off better resourced and with better young player prospects than Bailey, but he is nonetheless starting again.

I take it you mean Sharon Hoe(y)... yeah, rabid I think is the term that best describes her.

Yes! Delusional is the word. Going to the football is cake and coffee to sharon. The football dept. is doing its job if the boys are looking smart.

Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere.

During the Fox coverage on the game, in the 4th quarter Malthouse was asked what needs to happen at Melbourne etc etc.

He pointed out quite a few posotives and said all is not bleak and so on and so forth.

What was interesting was that he mentioned being concerned for the supporters who support the club week in and week out who turn up to games and passionately follow ttheir side who may be getting very disheartened by the continual on field floggings. (Didn't use those words but anyway) He then suggested the supporters remain positive and be patient as the club is clearly in a rebuilding phase and may not see the true abilities of the game plan/players for a few years.

Then, low and behold, the exact words (almost) are expressed at Neeld's post game response.

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere.

During the Fox coverage on the game, in the 4th quarter Malthouse was asked what needs to happen at Melbourne etc etc.

He pointed out quite a few posotives and said all is not bleak and so on and so forth.

What was interesting was that he mentioned being concerned for the supporters who support the club week in and week out who turn up to games and passionately follow ttheir side who may be getting very disheartened by the continual on field floggings. (Didn't use those words but anyway) He then suggested the supporters remain positive and be patient as the club is clearly in a rebuilding phase and may not see the true abilities of the game plan/players for a few years.

Then, low and behold, the exact words (almost) are expressed at Neeld's post game response.

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

Malthouse actually commented during the game tha the caught up with Mark Neeld on Friday, and Neeld said to him tha the is basically having to rebuild the club from scratch. It was after that that he went on AFL Gameday on Sunday, and said what has been reported.

I've got an issue with this - sure Neeld and Malthouse have a close connection, but what is Neli Craig doing there if Neeld feels the need to confide in Malthouse about such issues?

Malthouse actually commented during the game tha the caught up with Mark Neeld on Friday, and Neeld said to him tha the is basically having to rebuild the club from scratch. It was after that that he went on AFL Gameday on Sunday, and said what has been reported.

I've got an issue with this - sure Neeld and Malthouse have a close connection, but what is Neli Craig doing there if Neeld feels the need to confide in Malthouse about such issues?

Sorry, what is Neil Craig's role again?

"Official Neeld Confidant"?

Oh right, got it.

And of course, Neeld is not allowed to speak to his former mentor.

Once he signed that contract, all ties are severed forever.

Not even allowed to acknowledge him with a nod.

Seriously, I know we've had some bad losses, but what sort of pathetic witch-hunt are you trying to create??

Sorry, what is Neil Craig's role again?

"Official Neeld Confidant"?

Oh right, got it.

And of course, Neeld is not allowed to speak to his former mentor.

Once he signed that contract, all ties are severed forever.

Not even allowed to acknowledge him with a nod.

Seriously, I know we've had some bad losses, but what sort of pathetic witch-hunt are you trying to create??

Jose, why is it that anything I bring up has to have a hidden agenda (in your opinion)? I'm just stating my opinion.

Anyway, I was under the impression that Craig was employed to play the "director of coaching" role, just with a different, wanky title.

As Malthouse now works in the media, I would've thought that there were areas that were not to be spoken about by Neeld. I have no issue with Neeld speaking to Malthouse, but it's the content that has me concerned. I can't help but think that when Malthouse comes out saying that the Club is about "everything other than football", that this could effect any potential sponosrs, members, or even as simple as trying to lure a star player to the club.

Maybe you should take a look at Craig's role description and use some common sense before casting aspersions?

There would be many things Neeld wouldn't have discussed with Malthouse.

There'd also be things they discussed that Neeld would make it clear were off the record.

And finally, Malthouse didn't really reveal anything at all about the club, other than his opinion and an inkling of Neeld's opinion.

We just have our knickers in a twist because someone in the media said something about MFC and we are reading into it.

Neeld doesn't have to have told Malthouse ANYTHING for him to have formed this opinion.

Most others in the general football public have already done it without speaking to Neeld.

How many articles are written about our players looking like they don't care?

It's hyperbole for the most part, but you can't tell me Malthouse's comments were more damaging.

Maybe you should take a look at Craig's role description and use some common sense before casting aspersions?

There would be many things Neeld wouldn't have discussed with Malthouse.

There'd also be things they discussed that Neeld would make it clear were off the record.

And finally, Malthouse didn't really reveal anything at all about the club, other than his opinion and an inkling of Neeld's opinion.

We just have our knickers in a twist because someone in the media said something about MFC and we are reading into it.

Neeld doesn't have to have told Malthouse ANYTHING for him to have formed this opinion.

Most others in the general football public have already done it without speaking to Neeld.

How many articles are written about our players looking like they don't care?

It's hyperbole for the most part, but you can't tell me Malthouse's comments were more damaging.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/craig-chooses-demons-as-his-new-afl-club-20110929-1kyqb.html

"He will oversee the various elements of the football department and one of his most important roles will be to act as mentor for new senior coach Mark Neeld."

Pretty sure if you have a look at the Director of Coaching job description and the Director of Sports Performance job description, they'd have a lot of duties that are the same or very similar.

When Malthouse said during the game on Saturday that "I spoke to Mark Neeld yesterday and he basically told me I'm having to rebuild this club from the ground up", or words to that effect, I am of the view that some things from the inner sanctum should remain confidential. I'm only going by what Malthouse said, so if he's expanding the truth, I can't know that.

http://news.smh.com....0929-1kyqb.html

"He will oversee the various elements of the football department and one of his most important roles will be to act as mentor for new senior coach Mark Neeld."

Pretty sure if you have a look at the Director of Coaching job description and the Director of Sports Performance job description, they'd have a lot of duties that are the same or very similar.

When Malthouse said during the game on Saturday that "I spoke to Mark Neeld yesterday and he basically told me I'm having to rebuild this club from the ground up", or words to that effect, I am of the view that some things from the inner sanctum should remain confidential. I'm only going by what Malthouse said, so if he's expanding the truth, I can't know that.

But what Malthouse said isn't exactly revolutionary.

If Neeld went into no more detail than what Malthouse has said, then he has really divulged absolutely nothing Malthouse wouldn't already be able to glean of his own accord.

And, yes, I know what Neil Craig's role is.

But I didn't notice anything in there about Neeld being restricted from talking to anyone else outside the club, especially a former mentor.

Malthouse's words in regards to the club show a superficial understanding of the inner workings at best.

You're reading into what has been said between the 2, and you're being mischievous with no evidence to back it up.

By no means was my interpretation of 'interesting' supposed to be taken as an anti or pro anything.

To me, Neeld can have as many mentors as he likes. Heck he could call every head and assistant coach in the AFL for advice if he wants to, that's his choice. I was only commenting because I thought it odd to be concerned about the supporters and have never really heard this as a voiced concern before and then it was echoed again less than an hour later.

As I said, dont care how many mentors Neeld has, it just nudged my interest.

But what Malthouse said isn't exactly revolutionary.

If Neeld went into no more detail than what Malthouse has said, then he has really divulged absolutely nothing Malthouse wouldn't already be able to glean of his own accord.

And, yes, I know what Neil Craig's role is.

But I didn't notice anything in there about Neeld being restricted from talking to anyone else outside the club, especially a former mentor.

Malthouse's words in regards to the club show a superficial understanding of the inner workings at best.

You're reading into what has been said between the 2, and you're being mischievous with no evidence to back it up.

You can be quite painful sometimes Jose.

I am reading into what has been said, yet I have no evidence? Sorry, I thought using a Malthouse quote was evidence? It's not being mischievous at all. If MM made it up, or if he twisted Neeld's words, then the evidence is inaccurate and I apologise.

In no way am I saying that the Club restrict Neeld's visiting rights with anyone, I'm just saying that IF Neeld has comented on certain offield areas of the Club, that I would like to think he knows where the line is.

While Malthouse coming out and saying that the club was about everything other than football is pretty much only confirming what we all assumed, I just don't think it's good that he used our coach as his source.