Well I appreciate this response as opposed to the insulting rant by Jose! I also saw the 1964 premiership. So I withdraw from this topic, I want nothing more than a club going somewhere with capable management, and I sincerely hope I'm quite wrong. I find it a little hard to agree that Rodan is a product from a successful club--a castoff from a club worse than ours is my impression--but again I wish him well and if he can lift us, then terrific!

I'm a "64 guy" too and if someone told me as I left the ground that day we wouldn't win another flag for more than 40 years I would have told them they were idiots; however that's how it is. We've had a problem at the club for years and it had to be eradicated, hopefully now it has.

You talk about Adelaide, well think back to when Malcolm Blight took over, the first thing he did was sack their 3 most senior players, 3 players who had been running the club and dictating to the committee who would and wouldn't be coach. They were holding the club back and since they got the arse Adelaide haven't looked back. I reckon we've just had an Adelaide moment.

Ben hur effectively says that I've lost the plot, that I fail to see what wonderful developments have occurred under Neeld. As to 1 point you are correct mate. I see NONE! And I hate the tendency of those on this site to bag previous coaches.

I might be wrong but I think that in the r22 match of 2010, NM did play a more experienced side than MFC, but even if I,m wrong, it was a pretty good game. In that season Dees beat Swans by 100 plus with Morton playing a cracking game on Goodes. Ever since I've known that he CAN play. In 2010 we also drew with Cwood and lost to them by a point. Then in 2011 we beat 3 teams including Adelaide by 90 plus, with of course the Russian suffering a serious injury in that match.

In my opinion the awful loss to Geelong caused repercussions which were way over the top. In the 1980s Ess under Sheedy lost by 160, but did they sack him? I might be wrong but I will always think that if Jimmy had been in good health Bailey would not have been sacked summarily. Sure there were problems. I agree that defensively we were poor particularly in midfield. These were glaring issues to be addressed including, it is suggested,, fitness.

In any field of endeavor I do not rate the new coach, CEO, manager or whatever who feels the need to make his mark by getting rid of the most senior people in the organization. Just as Sanderson has done in Adelaide Neeld should have gathered the senior players around him, got the best out of them for a year and then made decisions. Instead in my view he decided to downgrade, humiliate even certain players. Why on earth should Green- a decent character if ever there was one- have been left out of the leadership group.?

I consider the playing list has gone back considerably. Could any of you, honestly, have envisaged we'd go out of our way to recruit 3 mature players who had been or were about to be delisted?

Anyway I hope I'm quite wrong. Membership renewed I will be there urging them on as usual

Love the passion SS12 - and I haven't read much of this thread until today... anyway I higlight the bold part as this has divded our club for the better part of the last 18 months.

I don't have an solid 'inside' contacts/sources but from what I can gather the senior list had issues about the management/administration of the club which led to '186' - now right there that is a MASSIVE issue

1/ at waht stage do players have a say in how the club is run

2/ the fact that the player made a stand (186) says right there instantly says that someting has to change immeaditely

3/ once that stand was made - players and administrators careers should have been terminated (in my opinion) - how is that allowed to happen??? It was a bloody disgrace and it still boils my blood to this day. If that kind of mutitanty happened in the Army the players would have been executed as traitors (which i jokingly support in this occasion)

OK so no matter what side of the fence you sit (pro players or pro current administration) I don't think anyone can deny there were problems within the organistation and CHANGES had to happen

Rumors (as i've stated i don't know exactly what happened) - the senior playing group had issues with CC & CS (I personally have no idea what these issues were) but these 2 groups could no longer co-exists

So as the president of a divided clune what do you do???

1/ playing lists can't be immediatly turned over

2/ footy admin is not easily exchangable (just look at Norf strggling for a CEO) and for whatever reason the admin side kept their jobs (except Bailey who was the scape goat) - my opinion Bailey was a top bloke and a decent coach - but IMO his game style was never going to be conistantly successful against the good clubs. Look at this years GF and any GF in the last 10 years - contested footy wins Grannys and the Dees under Bailey were not that team. The teams we smashed (ADEL & SYD don't always play at the G and were vunerable) had off days - how do you explain how we ere so easily smashed by VIC teams under Bailey???

So decisions were made and Neeld was brought in... Neeld didn't win over the senior group for 2011... Who goes then??? The players who initiated 186 or the new coach??? Stupid questoin really - especially when these players have already embaressed themselves and the club.

I don't know if i have answered the question or have just ranted but I have never seen a Demon p'ship (I am 30) and I fear i will probably never see one. I'lll support Neeld for 2 reasons

- He had identified weakness in the club and sought to solve the problems

- He is willing to take action - a divided club will never win games

There are no passangers in the Neeld gameplan and I support that - it's gong to take time to develop an actual decent list.... YOu have every right to your opinion SS12 and I respect you more for signing up again when you don't agree with the club's moves (respect to you)

Winning footy talks - if Neeld can't deliver he will go as well

Pretty much agree with all that U.H.

Love the passion SS12 - and I haven't read much of this thread until today... anyway I higlight the bold part as this has divded our club for the better part of the last 18 months.

I don't have an solid 'inside' contacts/sources but from what I can gather the senior list had issues about the management/administration of the club which led to '186' - now right there that is a MASSIVE issue

1/ at waht stage do players have a say in how the club is run

2/ the fact that the player made a stand (186) says right there instantly says that someting has to change immeaditely

3/ once that stand was made - players and administrators careers should have been terminated (in my opinion) - how is that allowed to happen??? It was a bloody disgrace and it still boils my blood to this day. If that kind of mutitanty happened in the Army the players would have been executed as traitors (which i jokingly support in this occasion)

OK so no matter what side of the fence you sit (pro players or pro current administration) I don't think anyone can deny there were problems within the organistation and CHANGES had to happen

Rumors (as i've stated i don't know exactly what happened) - the senior playing group had issues with CC & CS (I personally have no idea what these issues were) but these 2 groups could no longer co-exists

So as the president of a divided clune what do you do???

1/ playing lists can't be immediatly turned over

2/ footy admin is not easily exchangable (just look at Norf strggling for a CEO) and for whatever reason the admin side kept their jobs (except Bailey who was the scape goat) - my opinion Bailey was a top bloke and a decent coach - but IMO his game style was never going to be conistantly successful against the good clubs. Look at this years GF and any GF in the last 10 years - contested footy wins Grannys and the Dees under Bailey were not that team. The teams we smashed (ADEL & SYD don't always play at the G and were vunerable) had off days - how do you explain how we ere so easily smashed by VIC teams under Bailey???

So decisions were made and Neeld was brought in... Neeld didn't win over the senior group for 2011... Who goes then??? The players who initiated 186 or the new coach??? Stupid questoin really - especially when these players have already embaressed themselves and the club.

I don't know if i have answered the question or have just ranted but I have never seen a Demon p'ship (I am 30) and I fear i will probably never see one. I'lll support Neeld for 2 reasons

- He had identified weakness in the club and sought to solve the problems

- He is willing to take action - a divided club will never win games

There are no passangers in the Neeld gameplan and I support that - it's gong to take time to develop an actual decent list.... YOu have every right to your opinion SS12 and I respect you more for signing up again when you don't agree with the club's moves (respect to you)

Winning footy talks - if Neeld can't deliver he will go as well

The players could have gone one way or another that day and they chose to lay down and die, killing their coach in the process. No club can survive where the players decide when they will or will not meet their responsibility, which is to play to their best week in week out. Over the last 10 or so years I've heard too many times "we didn't come to play" or "we didn't bring our A game with us today" and the sad part is the coaches have allowed them to get away with it.

Neeld is not there to be their best friend, he's there to do a job and so are the players and that's to play football and not to get involved in Club politics.

How about the 'Whitfield cup this year between GWS and Gold Coast, were any of the GWS players moved to an unfamiliar position to normal??? Could be another example for our defense if there was.

Because it was a safe bet that game, everyone knew the result before it had started.

No, they just pretended Callan Ward had crippling Osteitis Pubis (for 2 games that happened to be against the 2 other teams in the bottom 3).

I take exception to this - since when was Paul Johnson a ruckman?

The Bulldogs found a home for a ruckman at CHB this season (Roughhead).

You just can't legislate against these actions unless they can be wholly and singularly attributed to deliberately losing games.

We absolutely tried to minimise our chances of winning, but those actions were not tanking if you think tanking can be legislated against.

Give me a definition of tanking that is useful in legislation and you will show me a very narrow definition and one that does not affect the MFC.

RP, All of the technical aspects of your argument may well be correct and as CB (below) has pointed out, my understanding of the definition of tanking is lacking. I just feel duped by those involved in us 'minimising our chances'. I seem to be in minority here but it really grates on me that I support a football club that essentially worked on the notion that we aren't good enough so let's just manipulate the system to gain assets. I understand that this is one of the traits of modern sport but it just seems alien to me.

You keep saying "tanking", but you don't know what it means.

Well he's wrong - the commission is meeting Monday week - the 19th.

Was he?

I can't believe that a committed Melbourne supporter could make a statement like this.

So you are happy to sit back while other teams take advantage of the draft rules by tanking away to their hearts content - only to accept a beat-up when we decide its our turn to put future development ahead of short term goals?

I gather that you didn't.sit through the Kreuzer Cup

Yep, probably didn't express myself as well as I could have with that initial post. Of course we aren't the only ones who should be under the microscope.