Some home truths and straight answers from Mark Neeld in an interview by the Herald Sun's Jon Ralph that every Demon supporter should read from top to bottom:

Melbourne coach Mark Neeld under no illusions about where his side sits

"The thing I find interesting is we finished 15 spots lower than Sydney and yet we only made four more changes to our list, and it's been big news for four months. Sydney made 10 changes, and we finished with four wins and made 14 changes. We made decisions based on what we want and the way we want to move forward.

He also talks frankly about the reasons why the club ditched some of its early draft picks.

He adds that the process of lifting the club will take time and require patience and modest expectations in the short term.

And naturally, because the club's playing group has flown under the radar for so long during the pre season, the expected media blooper -

Viney and Toumpas, the third and fourth draft picks last year, will not have outlandish expectations put on them.

Lachie Plowman of GWS, who was picked at #3 in the 2012 National Draft might have something to say about this. Viney was taken at 26 as a father/son but, Ralph obviously feels like I do - that Jack would have been a worthy top 3 in different circumstances .

I absolutely love Mark Neeld.

I lol'ed at the Sylvia lifts weights magnificently well comment.

I backhanded compliment if ever I saw one

I really like what Neeld brings to the club. What I find interesting is that one of his key factors to change isn't just the playing culture but the behind the scenes culture. I'm sure he has roles in mind for Byrnes and Rodan but he also spoke about the feeling they bring to the club.

He's also very smart not putting solid expectations on himself and the list. All he expects is for us to improve and win more games than last year.

I absolutely love Mark Neeld.

RB I will love him when we start winning games.

Until then he is just another coach of the MFC with a plan.

I like he is not making any predictions.

He knows that he started with a bottom list and that will take way longer than 2013.

I hope I have the ability to stay the course.

I really like what Neeld brings to the club. What I find interesting is that one of his key factors to change isn't just the playing culture but the behind the scenes culture. I'm sure he has roles in mind for Byrnes and Rodan but he also spoke about the feeling they bring to the club.

He's also very smart not putting solid expectations on himself and the list. All he expects is for us to improve and win more games than last year.

Level headed, although his last comment on the hawks was aspirational. The hawks are the best example of a team who not only beat us but humiliate us in the process, especially under bailey where the game plan fell apart.

Let's see if we can compete with them as he eludes to. That's one game I will in particular look at when assessing neeld.

I got a certain inner-confidence when I read the article. Of course, we have to wait until round 1 to get confirmation that his strategy gels however should Dawes and Clark both manage to get ready (and stay uninjured) then I am sure that we will have a much better win-lose ratio than we have had for quite a few years!

Just needs to get 50-100 games into em and everything will fall into place like magic.

That's exactly right. If we can keep these so called "overs" fit. We will be the ones laughing. I surely hope Dawes is just anxious to prove everyone wrong.

Plus I cannot agree more with the decision to bring in Rodan and Byrnes. At first I thought "not again MFC" older blokes that will use Melbourne for another 2 year pay and do bugger all. But both these 2 brought exactly what Neeld said we do not have. Personalities and that buzz which just gets anyone up and about and stuck into training (as both train and play hard)

I ended up watching the Geelong TV stuff that Byrnes use to host. He's one funny bugger lol.

I absolutely love Mark Neeld.

yep, spot on Ron. his approach and attitude is superb I reckon. Him, Craig and Misson the 3 best recruits the dees have had in a long time.

Great insight Mark.

Keep going this way...

The key line is ... "We have said we will coach the players in a way that stands up in finals. And I think 95% of Melbourne supporters get that".

There will be growing pains, particularly during the first half of the year. But I'll bank that that won't stop Demonland's noisy 5% from calling for Neeld's head before round 11.

It matters not. He will forge ahead ... and he will turn this club around.

I also thought he made very poignant comments about high draft picks once they are at the club:

"Neeld reasons that when clubs become seduced by the draft pick attached to a player's name, it can only lead to trouble.

"When the list management group sits down to go through our list, we put the players' name on the board, a summary of his performances, the results of his endurance and strength tests, a welfare report, and nowhere in all of that is the number he was drafted," Neeld says. "If we decide this player is at his ceiling and there is nowhere for him to go, where he was drafted is absolutely irrelevant."

And also about the salary cap and how much new recruits get paid:

One of the things I would like to see (greater understanding about) is the salary cap. When you use raw figures people go "whoa". But we all have $10 million to spend and with a young list, your first and second-year players are locked in. We have to pay 95 per cent of the cap, and we can't put that money in our back pocket. For Mitch Clark too, what percentage of the salary cap are we prepared to pay? That is different for different clubs. You have to get away from the idea that jeepers, we have paid overs.

Neeld is a very straight talker.

One of the things I would like to see (greater understanding about) is the salary cap. When you use raw figures people go "whoa". But we all have $10 million to spend and with a young list, your first and second-year players are locked in. We have to pay 95 per cent of the cap, and we can't put that money in our back pocket. For Mitch Clark too, what percentage of the salary cap are we prepared to pay? That is different for different clubs. You have to get away from the idea that jeepers, we have paid overs.

My version of this is more pithy:

Gotta pay somebody.

Can someone explain to me the rationale for it being mandatory for struggling clubs to pay their players what the top clubs pay theirs?

Forgive my ignorance when it comes to economic theory, but I just don't get it. Why? How does it in any way shape or form benefit the competition, or the MFC?

Can someone explain to me the rationale for it being mandatory for struggling clubs to pay their players what the top clubs pay theirs?

Forgive my ignorance when it comes to economic theory, but I just don't get it. Why? How does it in any way shape or form benefit the competition, or the MFC?

totally agree Range.

Just makes the coaches jobs harder.

Level headed, although his last comment on the hawks was aspirational. The hawks are the best example of a team who not only beat us but humiliate us in the process, especially under bailey where the game plan fell apart.

Let's see if we can compete with them as he eludes to. That's one game I will in particular look at when assessing neeld.

Agree 100% - they have torn us a new one each time we've played them over the past few years, with an arrogance and swagger that is frankly admirable.

I also thought he made very poignant comments about high draft picks once they are at the club:

"Neeld reasons that when clubs become seduced by the draft pick attached to a player's name, it can only lead to trouble.

"When the list management group sits down to go through our list, we put the players' name on the board, a summary of his performances, the results of his endurance and strength tests, a welfare report, and nowhere in all of that is the number he was drafted," Neeld says. "If we decide this player is at his ceiling and there is nowhere for him to go, where he was drafted is absolutely irrelevant."

That quote was brilliant. Being a high draft pick and becoming an accomplished player are not mutually exclusive to each other. On occasion, top ten draft picks can end up being spuds and blokes who came through the VFL can end up stars. Just look at Sam Mitchell, Michael Barlow or James Podsiadly.

I'll stick my neck out and say that, unless the club is falling apart halfway through next season, the Board should offer him a contract extension ahead of time. It gives him confidence that he has adequate time to build his list and gives the club a stability that it hasn't had for a long time. He's clearly not here to feck about and neither should the club.

Can someone explain to me the rationale for it being mandatory for struggling clubs to pay their players what the top clubs pay theirs?

Forgive my ignorance when it comes to economic theory, but I just don't get it. Why? How does it in any way shape or form benefit the competition, or the MFC?

It's to stop clubs from trying to save coin by paying their players less; before the salary floor was introduced, clubs like Footscray were paying in the order of 70% of the cap. This means the club will be uncompetitive in the long run, as well as being unfair to the players at that club who were probably being paid less than their true worth and had no easy path for exit.

totally agree Range.

Just makes the coaches jobs harder.

How does it make the coaches job harder? Another nonsense statement with no logic behind it.

I honestly think Neeld is one of the better coaches in the comp, just doesn't have the list to get the wins yet, just listening to what the players say he has really changed the whole place for the better.

Yeah I would love to see Neeld have the successful career at Melbourne the same way Sheedy did at Essendon.

How does it make the coaches job harder? Another nonsense statement with no logic behind it.

Not at all. Where is the hunger to improve?

Our list at this time should not be paid the same amount as Top 4 clubs.

My version of this is more pithy:

Gotta pay somebody.

Exactly. I happened to listen to Denham on on SEN yesterday and he was scathing about how much we were paying Dawes and banged on an on about it. I know its all part of a shctick to rile people up and get them to call etc but his ignorance of the facts, how the salary caps work and the dees current position is still staggering. In response to KB saying something like they had to pay someone he had no intelligent response and just repeated several times that no matter what we should not be paying Dawes so much.

I've never called in to talk back but i was sorely tempted. Few dees fan would not agree we paid overs for Dawes however:

1. We would not have got him otherwise

2. He met a specific structural need

3. There were few players in that price range out there

4. GWS or Freo would have paid way way overs to get cloke as we would have - its the nature of the free agency (and trading) beast

5. We have to pay 92% of the cap FGS. Maloney, Green and Rivers all left the club last year - probably 3 of our top 6 highest paid players last year.

6. Given that, and the fact that we have a very young list, how on earth would we have met the 92% threshold without paying a new recruit overs. Of course we could have paid all players more but that has huge risks - who wants a bunch of over paid players running around, not great for culture. Also we have already front-loaded a lot of contracts so we are limited how much extra we can pay

Again i know he is there to deliberately wind people up but Denham's lack of knowledge about footy given he is a footy writer is staggering.