The list - who goes at the end of the year?

[Johnny Karate 559]

My thoughts on the list...

In my estimation there are about 7 players currently on the list whose departure would hurt the club: Jones, Frawley, Trengove, Clark, Grimes, Tom McDonald & Howe.

There are players who are very capable footballers at AFL level but where they are our core they would probably be icing on the cake or on the fringes of the better sides: Watts, Sylvia, Garland, Moloney, Jurrah, Rivers & Jamar.

Then there are the following role players, who are NQR but one or two could easily be hidden in a champion team: Bartram, McKenzie, Petterd, Nicholson, J Macdonald, Sellar, Martin, Jetta, Bail, Couch, Magner & Spencer.

Then there are the rookies/players who are too early to call: Gysberts, Blease, Strauss, Cook, Evans, Tapscott, Davis, Taggert, Lawrence, Tynan, Fitzpatrick, Sheehan, Williams, Gawn. Some definitely need more time, particularly the talls but none scream A grader to me.

Finally it's the guys who are past it/no good: Bate, Bennell, Morton, Dunn, Green & Davey.

Outside the first group of 7 there isn't much to lose sleep over if they weren't at the MFC next year & beyond. An oft overlooked part of list management is the fact that it is somewhat beneficial to have a few spudleys to chop at the end of each year so you don't have to lose a couple of good players. Our list is like gold in that respect.

[old55 22,844]

List management will be fascinating this year - to see who we persist with and who we part company with. Without inside information it's very hard to predict what might happen. Selection is not really a guide because the FD is likley to be playing some players to see if they can cut it, fit players not getting selected ought to be worried. Who is in and out of contract does have a bearing on the final decisions.

Only a very limited number of players are GUARANTEED to be on our list next year - that's what makes it so interesting.

The only players I'd bet my house on being at the club next year are:

Frawley, Trengove, Clark, McKenzie*, Grimes, Garland*, T.McDonald*, Jamar*, Tynan**, Taggert** - * because they were just re-contracted, **because they get 2 years.

Jones and Howe can be added to the list when we contract them.

That leaves 34 players who are candidates to be elsewhere.

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

He isn't Gandhi.

I wouldn't want to ride headfirst into the Melbourne Kindergarten Club we will have if we get younger AGAIN in this next draft.

I don't care if he's Einstein and Churchill rolled into one.

There is the best way to progress and then there is the rest. I don't want the way dictated or influenced by the length of Neeld's contract.

That you can't grasp this doesn't surprise me. If he is allowed to dictate list management direction based on the length of his contract it will be an abject failure of management and governance.

[Sir Why You Little 36,670]

I don't care if he's Einstein and Churchill rolled into one.

There is the best way to progress and then there is the rest. I don't want the way dictated or influenced by the length of Neeld's contract.

That you can't grasp this doesn't surprise me. If he is allowed to dictate list management direction based on the length of his contract it will be an abject failure of management and governance.

And the last 5 years have set us up so well. We do need wins next year Fan. Serious wins. That to me is management and governance. The club needs to breath some heat.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,857]

My thoughts on the list...

In my estimation there are about 7 players currently on the list whose departure would hurt the club: Jones, Frawley, Trengove, Clark, Grimes, Tom McDonald & Howe. Magner, Spencer.

Jimmi do you expect to be taken seriously with Magner in this list?

[Nasher 33,607]

Jimmi do you expect to be taken seriously with Magner in this list?

With the he wrote Magner and Spencer after the full stop, it looks like an editing error to me.

[rpfc 28,052]

I don't care if he's Einstein and Churchill rolled into one.

There is the best way to progress and then there is the rest. I don't want the way dictated or influenced by the length of Neeld's contract.

That you can't grasp this doesn't surprise me. If he is allowed to dictate list management direction based on the length of his contract it will be an abject failure of management and governance.

Excuse me, Fan, but I am not the one insinuating that because Neeld is asking for assurances over his future that he is dictating to the club.

He is an employee who will shoulder much of what will happen over the next few years and doesn't want to be cast aside for delivering on process at the expense of performance when the process meant that performance was impossible.

Our list is rough. There are a few gems there but the senior players are few and poor, the middle-aged 'peak' players are fewer still and NQR, and the vast array of young talent is unproven and/or NQR.

If he asked the club to have his back if they want him to continue this descent into the 5th straight year of getting younger and less experienced then go for it! (if you lose more than 464 games of experience you lose an entire season's worth)

Because if they baulk then he gets to say 'Good! Now upgrade Magner, Evans, and Nicholson, overpay for Boak, overpay for Cloke, risk Enright, Chapman, and Sewell, only take 4 kids in the draft, and let me get rid of the protected kids I don't think will make it.'

If we can't do these things as a club, if we collectively fail to add some experience and proven talent to the list then the coach shouldn't be held solely responsible and we should take a good long hard look at those who couldn't help Neeld pull off a way of making a three contract for the coach relevant.

[Hannibal 5,814]

You clearly haven't watched Clark this year because he has been sensational.

Yes, of course you're right.

I'll see how he goes tomorrow night.

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

I agree. I was directing a pretty simple question to Footynut who has yet to respond.

I'm not suggesting or supporting any particular course of action, I don't know if youth is the way to go or mature players, but we should expect the club to decide the correct approach and follow it and the length of Neeld's contract has nothing to do with that decision.

Like everyone I'm sick and tired of blue sky and young list, I want to succeed. That requires us to make good decisions. We haven't in the past and I just hope we do in the future.

[Footynut 302]

So are you saying that Neeld is looking after himself rather than the long term best result for the Club?

Well I would think that anyone doing any job in the world doesn't do it to sacrifice themselves and destroy their career for the sake of their company. They want to both see their business succeed and as a by product be successful themselves. I would have thought that it pretty reasonable suggestion from a coach that there be alignment with what the club wants both in the short term and the long term. Its where there is misalignment we often see coaches and club part with each other.

I think Neeld saying he is up for the fight if the club wants him to draft young again is a great sign but he wants this to be an overt decision so unrealistic outcomes are not expected from him. I would certainly be looking for my club for support if we all agreed to go young again. What do you think?

[Johnny Karate 559]

Jimmi do you expect to be taken seriously with Magner in this list?

My mistake, editing error as Nasher pointed out. Spencer for the win! I'll fix it now.

[robbiefrom13 877]

Footynut has been consistent on this theme all year, pretty well ever since the first loss. He may have been the first to refer to our players as "cattle". Was Neeld privately advising him that the players were crap, and that a major cull would be necessary, from as early as that - or has Footynut just anticipated the inevitable, right from the outset of Neeld's gameday results? Now we have numbers put on the cull, and the impression given that Footynut's comments about the scale of the cull is inside information. How much is Footynut interpreting what he's heard? Or extrapolating? Or assuming? What to think - how far to take Footynut's prophecies as gospel?

If there aren't at least 10 players gone at season's end, Footynut's credibility on this forum is going to be very much diminished...

Edited July 20, 2012 by robbiefrom13

[Hannibal 5,814]

He may have been the first to refer to our players as "cattle".

i think you'll find that another poster referred to the players as "cattle" many years ago.

[Footynut 302]

All understandable questions rf13.

Of course these are my interpretations from interactions I have had.

We all make interpretations of conversations we have each day.

Is this a school of thought right now that is dynamic and will be a moving target as to who goes and stays based on numerous factors..absolutely. What I do know is current group aren't up to it. There needs to be more maturity brought to the list. We need outside runners and that Nicho and Evans will be elevated. There is 2spots already. Add 4-5 draft picks. That's 6-7 without even considering anything else. I'm just offering the clubs current thought process. Thought people might like to know. I'm not here trying to do anything other than add some value to demonlanders who love this club.

[Redleg 40,224]

We need outside runners and that Nicho and Evans will be elevated.

If Evans is elevated or at least kept as a rookie, I will be happy. Nicho has earned his spot.

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

What do you think?

We are probably on the same page.

I'd expect:

• The Board to establish an objective (which we probably assume is "win a flag")
  
• The CEO and the FD to formulate a plan including timelines and KPI's to be met within the vagaries of football
  
• The Board to sign off on the plan making the Board and management accountable for results.
  
• The FD to be measured with reference to the KPI's established by the CEO and FD
  
• Neeld to follow the agreed processes with list management and player selection decisions
  
• Neeld (and others) to be terminated if the KPI's are not met (with reference to the variations that occur in footy)
  
• Neeld to be extended if he has meet the KPI on field and his off field KPI (which would be established separately)
  

What I wouldn't accept is Neeld (or anyone else) making decisions outside the MFC's objectives (established and agreed with the Board) to protect or enhance their position to the detriment of the club.

I don't know if recruiting a large number of mature players or investing in youth is the way to go, that is a decision for the CEO and the FD (not the Board) but people must be accountable for their decisions. Bailey followed the agreed path but his plan was judged a failure and he was terminated. Neeld should be subject to the same principles as must the Board and the CEO. The Board and the CEO are on their second chance in relation to our on field success and have blamed our failure on the people they appointed. I'd love to hear both McLardy and Schwab say "we must (individually) do better" rather than everyone just blaming the voiceless players. It's a cheap shot blaming a group with no voice and I believe the blame doesn't just sheet home to one group.

[Footynut 302]

Totally, totally agree with you on all of the above Fan.

Brings me to the thought of how many more players and coaches get burned at the stake before there is accountability at the top. You are right they have been silent. This second rebuild better work or heads will roll.

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

. This second rebuild better work or heads will roll.

They probably should have already but that's a story for another day.

[Footynut 302]

They probably should have already but that's a story for another day.

Agreed...

[Sir Why You Little 36,670]

They probably should have already but that's a story for another day.

Recruiting a bunch of kids to play against men always puzzled me from day 1.

[rpfc 28,052]

We are probably on the same page.

I'd expect:

• The Board to establish an objective (which we probably assume is "win a flag")
  
• The CEO and the FD to formulate a plan including timelines and KPI's to be met within the vagaries of football
  
• The Board to sign off on the plan making the Board and management accountable for results.
  
• The FD to be measured with reference to the KPI's established by the CEO and FD
  
• Neeld to follow the agreed processes with list management and player selection decisions
  
• Neeld (and others) to be terminated if the KPI's are not met (with reference to the variations that occur in footy)
  
• Neeld to be extended if he has meet the KPI on field and his off field KPI (which would be established separately)
  

What I wouldn't accept is Neeld (or anyone else) making decisions outside the MFC's objectives (established and agreed with the Board) to protect or enhance their position to the detriment of the club.

I don't know if recruiting a large number of mature players or investing in youth is the way to go, that is a decision for the CEO and the FD (not the Board) but people must be accountable for their decisions. Bailey followed the agreed path but his plan was judged a failure and he was terminated. Neeld should be subject to the same principles as must the Board and the CEO. The Board and the CEO are on their second chance in relation to our on field success and have blamed our failure on the people they appointed. I'd love to hear both McLardy and Schwab say "we must (individually) do better" rather than everyone just blaming the voiceless players. It's a cheap shot blaming a group with no voice and I believe the blame doesn't just sheet home to one group.

lol

I love the way you can take a line about Neeld wanting assurances over his future to attack the administration...

At first it was 'what kind of admin would allow themselves to be dictated to by this coach' and now it is been massaged with footynut's assertions to be an attack on the admin for not taking blame and pushing it onto the players.

I saw it coming but I thought it would have a better conclusion that that.

And I know this has nothing to do with your 'point' but this dot point (actually relevant to this thread) is interesting:

• Neeld (and others) to be terminated if the KPI's are not met (with reference to the variations that occur in footy)
  

'The variations that occur in footy' is what we are talking about in this thread and to gloss over it is unfair to Neeld.

He can get rid of the crap but unless we succeed in FA and trades we will get younger again and those KPIs will have to be altered significantly.

[Hardnut 327]

We are probably on the same page.

I'd expect:

• The Board to establish an objective (which we probably assume is "win a flag")
  
• The CEO and the FD to formulate a plan including timelines and KPI's to be met within the vagaries of football
  
• The Board to sign off on the plan making the Board and management accountable for results.
  
• The FD to be measured with reference to the KPI's established by the CEO and FD
  
• Neeld to follow the agreed processes with list management and player selection decisions
  
• Neeld (and others) to be terminated if the KPI's are not met (with reference to the variations that occur in footy)
  
• Neeld to be extended if he has meet the KPI on field and his off field KPI (which would be established separately)
  

What I wouldn't accept is Neeld (or anyone else) making decisions outside the MFC's objectives (established and agreed with the Board) to protect or enhance their position to the detriment of the club.

I don't know if recruiting a large number of mature players or investing in youth is the way to go, that is a decision for the CEO and the FD (not the Board) but people must be accountable for their decisions. Bailey followed the agreed path but his plan was judged a failure and he was terminated. Neeld should be subject to the same principles as must the Board and the CEO. The Board and the CEO are on their second chance in relation to our on field success and have blamed our failure on the people they appointed. I'd love to hear both McLardy and Schwab say "we must (individually) do better" rather than everyone just blaming the voiceless players. It's a cheap shot blaming a group with no voice and I believe the blame doesn't just sheet home to one group.

Totally, totally agree with you on all of the above Fan.

Brings me to the thought of how many more players and coaches get burned at the stake before there is accountability at the top. You are right they have been silent. This second rebuild better work or heads will roll.

They probably should have already but that's a story for another day.

Absolutely agree with both of you - well said - don't worry about the apologists who will start appearing soon.

[old55 22,844]

Absolutely agree with both of you - well said - don't worry about the apologists who will start appearing soon.

Care to explain how Fan's post supports your position that Neeld and Craig are duds and should be sacked?

[rpfc 28,052]

Absolutely agree with both of you - well said - don't worry about the apologists who will start appearing soon.

lol

Give it up, hn...

Footynut has an agenda to defend Neeld, Fan is using whatever evidence he can within footynut's words to forward his agenda against the administration, and now you are using those massaged words to forward your own agenda to back the removal of Neeld?

Jeez...

And by the way, I have nothing against agendas - I had my own last year with my views on the 'Leadership Group' but if everything revolves around that agenda - and you only talk on said agenda - you are a fanatic.

[timD 994]

Absolutely agree with both of you - well said - don't worry about the apologists who will start appearing soon.

Apologists FMD!.

For whom?

For a board sidetracked by the journey of their dying charismatic president?

For a coach who led a team to one of the worst defeats in 150 of club history after 3.5 years in the job?

For players who let near enough be good enough and inherited culture like that?

For supporters who have faith ragardless of reason because, in the end, they've not got a lot else they can actually do?

You are fighting an imaginary war against an enemy that does not exist to prove a point that you wont admit you are trying to make.

There are meds for this sort of thing.