My interpretation of this discussion is that we are talking ideal, that is, theoretical positions in a perfect world.

I have no time for the process which resulted in Neeld coming to MFC - the position should have been open to all interested candidates - hence we did not necessarily get the best choice. The same people were responsible each time - accountability?

I do not have an agenda, simply a logical position - the issue that angers me most is to simply blame the players for the whole club's poor performance. There are coaches with particular skills who would have achieved much more with this playing group given the chance. Likewise, there are others at the club who have not performed up to standard.

Given all this, yes, I do believe Neeld and others in many positions should be removed - that's hardly an agenda, just the result of observation of performances in several areas, and no I'm not going to get involved with names etc. apart from the most obvious one.

My interpretation of this discussion is that we are talking ideal, that is, theoretical positions in a perfect world.

I have no time for the process which resulted in Neeld coming to MFC - the position should have been open to all interested candidates - hence we did not necessarily get the best choice. The same people were responsible each time - accountability?

I do not have an agenda, simply a logical position - the issue that angers me most is to simply blame the players for the whole club's poor performance. There are coaches with particular skills who would have achieved much more with this playing group given the chance. Likewise, there are others at the club who have not performed up to standard.

Given all this, yes, I do believe Neeld and others in many positions should be removed - that's hardly an agenda, just the result of observation of performances in several areas, and no I'm not going to get involved with names etc. apart from the most obvious one.

Hmmmmm, I will have to rethink my understanding of the term 'agenda' - LOL

Hmmmmm, I will have to rethink my understanding of the term 'agenda' - LOL

Perhaps you could add 'conspiracy theory', 'incompetence', 'ego-trip', 'lack of knowledge', 'in the fullness of time', 'errors of judgement', 'simple mistakes' or even 'just lack of ability at the level required'!

No offence intended 'daisycutter' - just trying to show how simple things can be made apparently complex.

Personally, I always favour observation, evaluation and considered interpretation, which is why I don't always respond to comments immediately or at all.

Perhaps you could add 'conspiracy theory', 'incompetence', 'ego-trip', 'lack of knowledge', 'in the fullness of time', 'errors of judgement', 'simple mistakes' or even 'just lack of ability at the level required'!

No offence intended 'daisycutter' - just trying to show how simple things can be made apparently complex.

Personally, I always favour observation, evaluation and considered interpretation, which is why I don't always respond to comments immediately or at all.

no offence taken hardnut, but I think you left out 'obsession'

Bugger - this WAS a really interesting thread

Bugger - this WAS a really interesting thread

nothing stopping you adding something interesting Rog

no offence taken hardnut, but I think you left out 'obsession'

Like your humour 'daisycutter' - maybe we could think of even more words!

Like your humour 'daisycutter' - maybe we could think of even more words!

We could, but back on topic (for Rog's sake)

I'd like to see 10 cut

Recruit a mix of experienced players (hopefully possible) plus ready-to-play (or near-so) youngsters, no project players

I'm neutral over Neeld but for me he has to show something by mid season 2013

Board has had problems but this is their last throw of the dice

Alternatives are scarey

We could, but back on topic (for Rog's sake)

I'd like to see 10 cut

Recruit a mix of experienced players (hopefully possible) plus ready-to-play (or near-so) youngsters, no project players

I'm neutral over Neeld but for me he has to show something by mid season 2013

Board has had problems but this is their last throw of the dice

Alternatives are scarey

10 cut is possible, but would probably need to include rookies etc - it's not easy to make big changes to lists in one season for any club. How do you do it, trade with what for what, maybe picks, don't know.

10 cut is possible, but would probably need to include rookies etc - it's not easy to make big changes to lists in one season for any club. How do you do it, trade with what for what, maybe picks, don't know.

agree is hard. don't know how they will do it, too far out of the loop. would prefer cut 12 but don't think it feasible without huge exposure

We are so far behind in terms of ability it is tragic

Bugger - this WAS a really interesting thread

I know!

We could, but back on topic (for Rog's sake)

I'd like to see 10 cut

Recruit a mix of experienced players (hopefully possible) plus ready-to-play (or near-so) youngsters, no project players

I'm neutral over Neeld but for me he has to show something by mid season 2013

Board has had problems but this is their last throw of the dice

Alternatives are scarey

Agreed. Anything less would be disappointing for me.

My interpretation of this discussion is that we are talking ideal, that is, theoretical positions in a perfect world.

I have no time for the process which resulted in Neeld coming to MFC - the position should have been open to all interested candidates - hence we did not necessarily get the best choice. The same people were responsible each time - accountability?

I do not have an agenda, simply a logical position - the issue that angers me most is to simply blame the players for the whole club's poor performance. There are coaches with particular skills who would have achieved much more with this playing group given the chance. Likewise, there are others at the club who have not performed up to standard.

Given all this, yes, I do believe Neeld and others in many positions should be removed - that's hardly an agenda, just the result of observation of performances in several areas, and no I'm not going to get involved with names etc. apart from the most obvious one.

That is an agenda.

Don't care. Agenda's are fine. I am just informing you that your point of view diminishes every time you trace back every negative occurrence to your 'logical position.'

10 cut is possible, but would probably need to include rookies etc - it's not easy to make big changes to lists in one season for any club. How do you do it, trade with what for what, maybe picks, don't know.

This thread attempts to go through that.

Unless it is again derailed...

I don't see how wanting someone to be removed is an agenda *shrugs*

I'm not in favour of getting rid of Neeld, but some serious scrutiny should be placed on the coach after this week's loss. Serious questions.

We've been rebuilding for 5 years. What's another 5 hey?

nothing stopping you adding something interesting Rog

Not directed at you Daisy - more interested in the list slicing if Footy Nut's on the money, not the other nut

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.

The point surely is, have the board been held responsible for taking their eye off the ball and mismanaging rebuild V1.0 so badly?

Coach was sacked.

Players will be pruned at years end.

But the board?

bloody hell....I suggest every one of us who have had enough bombard the MFC with letters of complaint....time for a revolution!!!

we are all taken for a bunch of yearly suckers...the BS this club rolls out is a farce!!

I have no time for the process which resulted in Neeld coming to MFC - the position should have been open to all interested candidates - hence we did not necessarily get the best choice.

It's on record that there were several candidates who were spoken to/expressed interest in the job, and interviewed. Are you implying that is not the case ? If so, prove it.

You also went on to say there are other coaches with particular skills/aspects that would be ideal and got much more out of the list - perhaps they weren't interested ?

Cutting 6 would be enough for me. The 7th player to be cut would likely be no better than the 7th player recruited as a replacement but will have a better fitness base, body and understanding of the gameplan. Then another 6 can go the next year if there isn't measurable improvement of those remaining on the list.

For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to the bad recruiting mantra. Rather, I believe we have had poor development programs in place forever (well, at least since the early 1960s). And I'm serious. It's not just the Bailey era. It goes back to the Daniher era and beyond. And it's not just the senior coaches who are to blame. It's a club with an amateurish approach through a combination of poor management and sub-standard resources.

As I've posted elsewhere, for the first time in over 40 years of watching the Demons, I finally believe we have a development strategy in place. And I'm prepared to give the club time. I don't expect miracles to occur overnight.

For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to the bad recruiting mantra.

You might win my weekly "head in the sand" award.

You might win my weekly "head in the sand" award.

Why?! Very few experts had players in a different order to what we ended up drafting them (barring maybe Cook).

Don't let hindsight let you think you thought better at the time.

You might win my weekly "head in the sand" award.

What do I win for my efforts?