What ? If that was actually the case I'd have no problem, but your history suggests otherwise.

Your problem is that you think I should call every issue. I don't. I call the one's I want to.

So does everyone.

Your problem is that you think I should call every issue. I don't. I call the one's I want to.

So you "call it when you see it" - "sometimes" ?

Gotcha.

Oh i am sure Hazy is lurking in the shadows. Sharpening his army knives by the campfire...

He's not here. Let's not involve a guy who has not involved himself. Let sleeping dogs lie and all that.

that was interesting. I can kind of now understand why the form of some of the senior players was pretty poor last year. If the coach backs you, you back the coach. Players obviously develop close relationships with their coach and not so close with other ie Cameron. The senior boys were obviously backing Dean whilst there was a sh*tfight going on behind closed doors. Big Jim then wanted answers and the boys told their side as they would be expected to do. The rest is history but those senior boys would feel a massive part of Deans sacking ande they were in his corner. Cant imagine how hard this would be on them. Anyways lets just get on with and turn this great club around.

A perfect summation of the situation.

MFC has a history of making mistakes and then repeating them. It is indeed time to move on and turn the club around. However, to do this will require difficult decisions. Changes in personnel, on and off the field, almost inevitably involve resulting ill-feeling between those involved, and also between those observing. Nevertheless, sometimes it just has to be.

What ? If that was actually the case I'd have no problem, but your history suggests otherwise.

Knowing that you never once queried the Gardner led Board in its 4 years when there was $5mil worth of debt and Daniher had to coach with "limited resources" (your own words) I consider it a bit rich that you now refer to yourself as someone that "calls it as you see it". Having said that, I have empathy with the position you were in. But it does make me bristle a bit that now when the restraints are off you seem only to eager to have a swipe at the incumbents.

The current Board has wiped out the debt and given the Football Department the resources Daniher never enjoyed. Despite your stony silence one can only wonder what you really thought of the previous Board.

I was not a fan of Gardner but credit where it's due, it was the Gardner board which initiated the move away from the Junction Oval, they just didn't get to reap the rewards of that move.

MFC has a history of making mistakes and then repeating them. It is indeed time to move on and turn the club around. However, to do this will require difficult decisions. Changes in personnel, on and off the field, almost inevitably involve resulting ill-feeling between those involved, and also between those observing. Nevertheless, sometimes it just has to be.

Didn't we do all that in 2008.....oh yeah it's Melbourne, we need to do it again!!!

Didn't we do all that in 2008.....oh yeah it's Melbourne, we need to do it again!!!

No offence WYL, but maybe we need to get it right then we wouldn't have to keep doing it - in any case 2008 is 4 years ago, a long time in football! Perhaps we need some new input into the process - people outside the club who can take an impartial, realistic and productive view.

No offence WYL, but maybe we need to get it right then we wouldn't have to keep doing it - in any case 2008 is 4 years ago, a long time in football! Perhaps we need some new input into the process - people outside the club who can take an impartial, realistic and productive view.

You are right...But it is exactly what was done in 2008...When will this old sleeping giant get it right??

You are right...But it is exactly what was done in 2008...When will this old sleeping giant get it right??

I agree WYL.

Purely as an example of sleeping giant thinking, wasn't it MFC who insisted they wanted an experienced coach for 2012 (not a bad idea), and wasn't it MFC who then panicked when one wasn't available, and then appointed an inexperienced coach without interviewing any alternatives (according to media reports I believe)? No, I am not attacking the coach only, I am attacking the whole process and those who were part of it - it's a good example of the sleeping giant syndrome at work.

I was not a fan of Gardner but credit where it's due, it was the Gardner board which initiated the move away from the Junction Oval, they just didn't get to reap the rewards of that move.

What was the story with the tennis player from Sydney. Anyone?

I agree WYL.

Purely as an example of sleeping giant thinking, wasn't it MFC who insisted they wanted an experienced coach for 2012 (not a bad idea), and wasn't it MFC who then panicked when one wasn't available, and then appointed an inexperienced coach without interviewing any alternatives (according to media reports I believe)? No, I am not attacking the coach only, I am attacking the whole process and those who were part of it - it's a good example of the sleeping giant syndrome at work.

That's half right...Neil Craig is on board, & i would put cash down that Malthouse is a quiet contributor.

i am happy with Neeld...the list he was given is in need of a lot of work.

That's half right...Neil Craig is on board, & i would put cash down that Malthouse is a quiet contributor.

i am happy with Neeld...the list he was given is in need of a lot of work.

That maybe the understatement of the year WYL.

Unfortunately I think 2012 is a right off, it may be just about sorting out who to keep and who to drop.

Not sure the MFC can afford another 2 game winning season but we do not have much choice.

That maybe the understatement of the year WYL.

Unfortunately I think 2012 is a right off, it may be just about sorting out who to keep and who to drop.

Not sure the MFC can afford another 2 game winning season but we do not have much choice.

Certainly. But is it acceptable considering the amount of drafting since 2007? I think not.

I do not hold Bailey fully accountable, but would our current dire situation be any different if Kevin Sheedy had been made coach in late 2007?

For all his madness and percieved arrogance, Sheedy is a Winner. Bailey was an apprentice.

Did the club run away from pressure yet again?

Purely as an example of sleeping giant thinking, wasn't it MFC who insisted they wanted an experienced coach for 2012 (not a bad idea), and wasn't it MFC who then panicked when one wasn't available, and then appointed an inexperienced coach without interviewing any alternatives (according to media reports I believe)? No, I am not attacking the coach only, I am attacking the whole process and those who were part of it - it's a good example of the sleeping giant syndrome at work.

What were the alternatives and these media reports you speak of, Hardnut ?

Let me test this sleeping giant syndrome of yours.

Hardnut someone told me the other day that we only interviewed two coaches for the position but when I pressed them on it they were unsure.

Does anyone have an information on this? If it's right, who was the alternative. I find it hard to believe because I seem to recall McLardy talking to Burns in Perth although there is a significant difference between going through a rigorous interview and selection process and an initial chat.

If it's right it's mind-boggling.

It's pretty obvious that it's not true, though.

So it's not mind boggling.

My memory may be wrong, but in one of the footy shows I thought Garry Lyon actually admitted only Neeld was interviewed (of the inexperienced coaches) - my apologies to GL if I am mistaken - I thought this was later followed up, but again I am working from memory. (A bit like Fan's comment.)

My memory is also that there were a number of coaching positions and candidates around at about the same time.

The person who told me is someone I'd trust to know which is why I gave it any credibility. But again I have no direct knowledge.

Hardnut someone told me the other day that we only interviewed two coaches for the position but when I pressed them on it they were unsure.

Does anyone have an information on this? If it's right, who was the alternative. I find it hard to believe because I seem to recall McLardy talking to Burns in Perth although there is a significant difference between going through a rigorous interview and selection process and an initial chat.

If it's right it's mind-boggling.

Is there any more mud you can fling?

This is becoming ridiculous, are you completely oblivious to how you appear in people's eyes, or has your agenda completely blinded you to this?

This is an excellent site and it exists for punters to chat about the dees, it's sad that with your presence it becomes something more sinister.

Is there any more mud you can fling?

This is becoming ridiculous, are you completely oblivious to how you appear in people's eyes, or has your agenda completely blinded you to this?

This is an excellent site and it exists for punters to chat about the dees, it's sad that with your presence it becomes something more sinister.

I've been at pains to state my skepticism on this issue and didn't raise it, just responded to it.

If you have an issue with my posting I suggest you PM the owner of the site and if they think my posting is offensive I'll happily cease.

I've been at pains to state my skepticism on this issue and didn't raise it, just responded to it.

If you have an issue with my posting I suggest you PM the owner of the site and if they think my posting is offensive I'll happily cease.

Question...are you inferring that we didn't go hard enough for Ross Lyon who clearly WAS available with the right offer?

I am more than happy with Mark Neeld and co. but would have been equally happy if we had snared R Lyon.

I've been at pains to state my skepticism on this issue and didn't raise it, just responded to it.

If you have an issue with my posting I suggest you PM the owner of the site and if they think my posting is offensive I'll happily cease.

Seeing as you asked:

I have an issue with your one sided and agenda driven posts, but as they don't contravene the regulations I suppose we have to put up with them.

I don't think that the creators and owners of Demonland would have envisaged that the site would used in an attempt to destabilise the club and become a campaign platfom for individual political agendas.

I suppose they rely on people's individual ethics to regulate that.

This is becoming ridiculous, are you completely oblivious to how you appear in people's eyes, or has your agenda completely blinded you to this?

Just out of curiosity, are you aware of how you currently appear in people's eyes? And believe me, I say that as a fan of yours as a contributor to Demonland, both as a poster and your previous contribution as a moderator.

Just out of curiosity, are you aware of how you currently appear in people's eyes? And believe me, I say that as a fan of yours as a contributor to Demonland, both as a poster and your previous contribution as a moderator.

I would hope that people would do thier homework and perhaps search Fan's posts and my posts and form thier own conclusions. It seems that the club hasn't made a correct decision since the sacking of Dean Bailey according to Fan.

At least when they search my posts, they will be the sum of my contributions, I have no aliases. If it be the wish of the admin I will stop posting and say goodbye.