Surely Fan's comment is fair. The administration has to take responsibility for coaching and footy department appointments. Who else is responsible?

The administration picked Bailey, and then moved on in a shorter period than it would have if that choice wasn't a failure. A lot of us knew/felt it was a flawed process and decision that led to Bailey's appointment. If it wasn't a flawed appointment, then I suggest he should have been given one more year (because the field in 2013 is far broader and includes Malthouse, Eade and maybe Roos, Thompson).

A lot of our on-field planning has been made a mockery of in where we currently sit.

I think the thing that "saves"/makes our Board and admin on balance effective is the extraodrinary steps we have taken off-field to improve and build the foundations for sustained off-field and hopefully on-field success.

We are talking about a particular player being 'retired' and then we get to The Evil McLardy Board very quickly from there. Bad decisions by people below the board in management are the fault of the board. That is a fair enough assertion IF you are willing to stick to those parameters. Is keeping Jones, Howe, et al an indication of a good board? Is getting Clark an indication of a good board? Is poaching Misson an indication of a good board?

Don't like arguments that look like swiss cheese.

Recruiting can be blamed but development is at least as important. Look at a comparison between Travis Johnston and Dale Thomas.

Both were high draft picks both labelled lazy taking shortcuts both had sublime skills. Johnston never reached the heights he could have eventually being traded and then delisted.

Thomas has developed into a gut running player still with great skills and more importantly with a team ethic

I would put forward if Trapper had been at Collingwood he may have reached his potential and Thomas at Melbourne may not have.

BTW our female cat ,named by my daughter, would now be called Daisy rather than Travis

I think that the club is now putting a lot more into development of the individual and less emphasis on picking up a potential champion and hoping that he will develop . This direction pleases me more than the other.

Toughen up and see if you can make a sensible comment.

I give plenty. On a wide range of topics here on Demonland.

I rarely see The Storm in a Tea Cup in any thread unless the topic is, or can be tied to, McLardy, Schwab and his band of Misfits.

Surely Fan's comment is fair. The administration has to take responsibility for coaching and footy department appointments. Who else is responsible?

The administration picked Bailey, and then moved on in a shorter period than it would have if that choice wasn't a failure. A lot of us knew/felt it was a flawed process and decision that led to Bailey's appointment. If it wasn't a flawed appointment, then I suggest he should have been given one more year (because the field in 2013 is far broader and includes Malthouse, Eade and maybe Roos, Thompson).

Bailey had already a one year extension. 4years at helm. The next contract would probably have been a 2 yr contract.

Anyone willing to offer Bailey such a contract after 186 given his form as coach..... would be akin to putting their head on the guillotine.

great article. makes you wonder if he ment Chris Connelly and Cameron Swchawb as people that need to get out of the club that were still involed with the bailey era..

We are talking about a particular player being 'retired' and then we get to The Evil McLardy Board very quickly from there. Bad decisions by people below the board in management are the fault of the board. That is a fair enough assertion IF you are willing to stick to those parameters. Is keeping Jones, Howe, et al an indication of a good board? Is getting Clark an indication of a good board? Is poaching Misson an indication of a good board?

Don't like arguments that look like swiss cheese.

The OP discussed the failure of the MFC since 2007 to grow and be successful. It talked of culture. That comes from the leadership in the club and the CEO and Board have been there for over 4 years now and we've gone nowhere under their guidance.

You can rejoice in the success of Clark, Howe and Jones if you like and if that is what you want out of footy that's up to you. I want a club that is respected and competitive and one who isn't consistently being belittled by the media and the footy public.

We are where we are because we have made consistently poor decisions. I want better and think it comes from the top. You don't and that doesn't surprise me at all.

We are talking about a particular player being 'retired' and then we get to The Evil McLardy Board very quickly from there. Bad decisions by people below the board in management are the fault of the board. That is a fair enough assertion IF you are willing to stick to those parameters. Is keeping Jones, Howe, et al an indication of a good board? Is getting Clark an indication of a good board? Is poaching Misson an indication of a good board?

Don't like arguments that look like swiss cheese.

I agree re the consistency. People make their mind up about something, and attribute whichever attributes they want to to that, and not others.

Personally, I hold the Board responsible for key administrative positions, key performance indicators and for the strategic direction of the club. I think as a general comment the Board gets a tick on those aspects they can directly control.

I think our administration is limited in its talent. Some are great, some are poor. That makes it really hard to pinpoint whether things that are done poorly are the responsibility of those in charge, or the nature of a traditionally underfunded administration which is still not up there with the best in the league.

I think what we don't like about our Board and admin is that communication is quite PR spun, and the opportunity for honest reflection on things we need to improve isn't always there. That would be the same at all clubs. I personally think we spend too long polishing turds at the MFC and should sometimes call a turd a turd and move on.

Bailey had already a one year extension. 4years at helm. The next contract would probably have been a 2 yr contract.

Anyone willing to offer Bailey such a contract after 186 given his form as coach..... would be akin to putting their head on the guillotine.

Well that's assuming two things. Firstly, you are assuming 186 is a reflection of his coaching ability. I don't know about that. Secondly, you assume he needed to get 2 years. I don't think that had to be the case. He could have been given one, and told absolutely explicitly what a pass mark was. I don't think Bailey would haev been in a position to refuse 1 year instead of 2.

I am not saying it should have happened. I am saying the fact it didn't is to me some recognition that he was a mistake all along.

The administration picked Bailey, and then moved on in a shorter period than it would have if that choice wasn't a failure. A lot of us knew/felt it was a flawed process and decision that led to Bailey's appointment. If it wasn't a flawed appointment, then I suggest he should have been given one more year (because the field in 2013 is far broader and includes Malthouse, Eade and maybe Roos, Thompson).

As HT noted - the previous board is resonsible for Bailey. The current board gave him an extension before the 2010 season for 2011 in a move that saved a great deal of money and heartache.

If Bailey had not been given an extra year we can all prognosticate about what contract he would have been given around the time of THAT Sydney game when our Happy Horde of Frontrunners caught the Swans asleep and dismantled them.

Well that's assuming two things. Firstly, you are assuming 186 is a reflection of his coaching ability. I don't know about that. Secondly, you assume he needed to get 2 years. I don't think that had to be the case. He could have been given one, and told absolutely explicitly what a pass mark was. I don't think Bailey would haev been in a position to refuse 1 year instead of 2.

I am not saying it should have happened. I am saying the fact it didn't is to me some recognition that he was a mistake all along.

You can't give a bloke consecutive 1-year contracts.

That's akin to making Daniher "re-apply" for his job in 2007.

You can't give a bloke consecutive 1-year contracts.

That's akin to making Daniher "re-apply" for his job in 2007.

Why not? It would get the club achieving some results.

Long contracts can be a disaster in a club like the MFC.

Until a winning mentality permeates every room in the building.

With the quality of your comments it wouldn't surprise me.

In the words of John McEnroe, surely you can't be serious ?

The fish rots at the head, MFC boards past and present should not be immune from criticism. However I struggle to think of an incoming chairman who hasn't had extreme challenges (probably moreso than other clubs) or been handed a poisoned chalice by their predecessor.

In short Gutnick inherited a club divided by the merger battle, Szondy inherited a club divided by Gutnick, Gardner inherited massive debt, Stynes inherited worse & McLardy has to deal with the corrosion of goodwill from a botched rebuild. The sniping from the cheap seats from whoever has been out of power at the time hasn't helped any MFC Board from 1996.

FWIW I think the Stynes/McLardy board has done a good job. They didn't hire the failed rebuild crew, it's too early to judge whether Neeld, Craig, Misson & the re-signing of Schwab will be successful or not but either way they will be club defining decisions.

Ultimately though, misery fills column inches, airwaves & fuels forum debates. Until the club is successful, posters will circle jerk over past mistakes & the mass debate will continue. Until the club & most importantly the playing group stands up & owns the present; we are doomed to be owned by the past.

In general, I'm not a fan of Olympic administrators, but Coates' comments about not blaming the athletes or lack of money for our under-whelming performances were interesting - he directed the responsibility at the upper echelons of administration and coaching (which could include himself of course) - in short, a top down approach. Something MFC should think about?

In general, I'm not a fan of Olympic administrators, but Coates' comments about not blaming the athletes or lack of money for our under-whelming performances were interesting - he directed the responsibility at the upper echelons of administration and coaching (which could include himself of course) - in short, a top down approach. Something MFC should think about?

I agree hardnut, but that can only be done if they are challenged. Just like in politics, there must be an alternative. Unfortunately for the MFC, there is no 'powerful presence' keeping the board accountable for their decisions. That is why your voice is so important, you are the one of the few that are strong enough to challenge the decisions of all and sundry, and to the best of my knowledge, I agree with nearly all of your posts.

I think I have an ally, my friend.

I agree hardnut, but that can only be done if they are challenged. Just like in politics, there must be an alternative. Unfortunately for the MFC, there is no 'powerful presence' keeping the board accountable for their decisions. That is why your voice is so important, you are the one of the few that are strong enough to challenge the decisions of all and sundry, and to the best of my knowledge, I agree with nearly all of your posts.

I think I have an ally, my friend.

Tonatopia Posted 11 August 2012 - 10:55 PM

"We are playing more direct. Neeld seems to be adjusting his game plan a tad."

"We still lost, but at least I can finally see something."

"It seems like the penny may have dropped, I am definitely looking forward to 2013".

Yet another post for post sake - guess it all adds to the numbers! Sharks are circling!

Yet another post for post sake - guess it all adds to the numbers! Sharks are circling!

Embarrassing for Tonatopia isn't it.

And he's your running mate. Ha.

Neeld is very accountable, make no doubt. But he is also allowed to build his own list IMO.

Rrov, the reason why I am excited is because our side now understands the game plan, there will be no more excuses come 2013. We have a good list, now we can finally see if neeld can coach. I am very open to the possibility that we can make finals next year, but gee, neeld took a long time to show anything. Mind you, we havnt had a good win yet, but I saw a little something against the saints. Actually, I saw some direct footy which apparently neeld is against. It's got me stuffed but I will acknowledge good footy when I see it. Sat looked ok. Let's see if we can knock off Adelaide or freo and I will start paying some respect.

Rrov, the reason why I am excited is because our side now understands the game plan, there will be no more excuses come 2013. We have a good list, now we can finally see if neeld can coach. I am very open to the possibility that we can make finals next year, but gee, neeld took a long time to show anything. Mind you, we havnt had a good win yet, but I saw a little something against the saints. Actually, I saw some direct footy which apparently neeld is against. It's got me stuffed but I will acknowledge good footy when I see it. Sat looked ok. Let's see if we can knock off Adelaide or freo and I will start paying some respect.

Ox notes that Geelong have not had lots of high draft picks but ignores their extraordinary run of cheap father-sons - so cheap the bidding system came in.

Hahaha!!

Hardnut/tonatopia: "This club is pathetic, the board & coach must be held accountable."

Sane posters: "The coach is 5 minutes old & while decision making from the board has been a mixed bag they have had to deal with some pretty sticky circumstances."

Hardnut/tonatopia: "What is it you like about Neeld & his gameplan?"

Sane posters: "Pretty much nothing at the moment, but hopefully with a good off-season we'll see improvement next year. Sacking the coach now is not a viable option so I'm prepared to back him in. Give it time."

Hardnut/tonatopia: "We've heard that for the past 6 years. How about some results now?"

Sane posters: "Yes, it is frustrating how long it has taken, but there has been poor recruiting, a leadership vacuum & a general lack of experience too."

Hardnut/tonatopia: "Heard it all before, more excuses, excuses, excuses. Coach A of Club B said that x must be done in order to be successful. Neeld isn't isn't doing that."

Sane posters: "Well, while Coach A may've said that did you know that in his first year at Club B he actually did y NOT x?"

Hardnut/tonatopia: "I'll have to look into that further... Didn't this, this & that happen?"

Sane posters: "So? That wasnt your original point. Coach A actually did y NOT x as you suggested."

Hardnut/tonatopia: "Was just trying to have a discussion, no need for the venom."

Sane posters: "There's no venom, you just seem to have adopted a misguided, bordering on the nonsensical agenda. Every time somebody calls you on it or debates the issue & wins you cry about being picked on by a horde of unthinking plebs who aren't letting you have your say. You hijack every thread possible with this circle jerk & wonder why there is such frustration towards your posts. We all know your opinions by now, you're entitled to them, can't we just agree to disagree?"

Hardnut/tonatopia: "But this club is pathetic, the board & coach must be held accountable."

Your off your head.

You're