On 07/05/2013 at 12:06, rpfc said:

Give me an argument he is better than those five. He would be lower if we were talking about 'most important.'

I am not the one making ultimatums here, and neither is James. You are making them on his behalf and I don't think he would appreciate the excuse for his form you are tacitly giving him as I know he is a proud individual.

You can dress it up how you like but you don't know whether getting rid of Neeld will help or hinder player retention (or whether it will matter at all).

He is better than Howe every day of the week and twice on sundays. He is better than viney and will be for 2 more years. He is better than clark because he can stay injury free. In terms purely of performance he is better than all on your list. Now ask yourself how many key backs we have at the club and how many mids.

If we lose him we have no replacement.

If neeld has lost players and the players are not just being ultra sooks, then neeld goes. We cannot keep losing experience and talent.

  On 07/05/2013 at 11:10, Ron Burgundy said:

Really?!

Yeah Fat Tony highlights the needs for a more flexible game plan, as our current game plan is based on Malthouse model 2011.

Clearly, the game of AFL football has evolved since 2011, as a club, we need to evolve our game plan to adapt with the current environment.

Our list simply isn't strong enough to go against the grain and keep a rigid game plan - like Collinwood done in 2010-11.

Players like Trengove and Moloney became too defensive under Neeld, now we see what Moloney can do under Voss.

We see Trengove stagnate to the point of VFL - where he should be at the moment, lets not pretend otherwise.

The kids talent should have him no where near VFL, like Moloney if Trengove left our club - we would be a VERY good player.

Fat Tony also highlights another Neeld mistake, which is signing up Jamar and McKenzie for 3 years.

Jamar was lucky to be on our list and McKenzie makes Josh Thurgood look like Shaun Burgoyne.

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:07, Spork said:

TSFKA - please don't take this the wrong way, but the gifs are losing their impact and it's getting to the point that pages take ages to load. If you are who I think you are I've supported your gif talent elsewhere but overload takes its toll. (this is not a bump)

yes, yes yes. I understand. i'll stick to words, and leave the gifs for particular impact where required.

So yes, from now on mostly words for TSFKA...

Sooo umm... how's those...dee's???

umm...sack...that Neeld?

Watts...won't..i mean.. will...no i mean won't...no will...yes will make it!...?

Ummmm...well...ahhhh...be right back!

*runs out the door, slams it, and a car is heard starting and screeching away*

  On 07/05/2013 at 11:46, The Song Formerly Known As said:

  On 07/05/2013 at 11:41, Hardnut said:

  On 07/05/2013 at 11:36, The Song Formerly Known As said:

  On 07/05/2013 at 11:31, Hardnut said:

Nothing!

Melbourne fullforward,, watching play down the other end

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:19, Harrisonrules said:

Melbourne fullforward,, watching play down the other end

If that was the case he would need a beanie and a snow jacket on as it gets mighty cold deep in our forward line!

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:00, Jaded said:

6th best player. Lol.

So you'd keep a known commodity, a rare one, over a speculative coach with an appalling record??

I'm not suggesting we sack Neeld right now, but the longer he stays the worse the discontent within the player group. So you can try to devalue Frawley all you like, but you know full well that if players of his quality (of which we have so few) walk out, we go back 5 years.

Hang on a minute so we sack a coach to keep a player??? wtf... Maybe the player is finding it to difficult to adjust to the culture change. So what happens when a new coach come with different ideas, another senior player says f thst im outer here Come on.

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:22, rednblue4life said:

Hang on a minute so we sack a coach to keep a player??? wtf... Maybe the player is finding it to difficult to adjust to the culture change. So what happens when a new coach come with different ideas, another senior player says f thst im outer here Come on.

The point is we have already lost good players because of MN - time to turn the club in the right direction!

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:34, Hardnut said:

The point is we have already lost good players because of MN - time to turn the club in the right direction!

We lost two good players the rest where duds Rivers - wanted to play finals, fair enough. Moloney had a sook like a five year old cos the coach said he had to work on his defencive game.

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:11, timD said:

He is better than Howe every day of the week and twice on sundays. He is better than viney and will be for 2 more years. He is better than clark because he can stay injury free. In terms purely of performance he is better than all on your list. Now ask yourself how many key backs we have at the club and how many mids.

If we lose him we have no replacement.

If neeld has lost players and the players are not just being ultra sooks, then neeld goes. We cannot keep losing experience and talent.

I love this argument - Sack Neeld now or a player signed until the end of 2014 will walk (maybe not your exact point TimD but that is the gist I get from the Neeld has lost the players argument) good ol scare mongering

Ahh disappointed i wasn't the #2000 post - i'll aim for #2222

Edit - clarification

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:00, Jaded said:

6th best player. Lol.

So you'd keep a known commodity, a rare one, over a speculative coach with an appalling record??

I'm not suggesting we sack Neeld right now, but the longer he stays the worse the discontent within the player group. So you can try to devalue Frawley all you like, but you know full well that if players of his quality (of which we have so few) walk out, we go back 5 years.

' ... the longer he stays the worse the discontent within the player group.'

Some posters here continue to assert this - but what exactly is this based upon?

I'm not trying to be a smart arse here, although I would really like to know where this is coming from.

If it's purely outside speculation, that's fine. If not though, I'd just like to know what the underlying evidence for such statements is - and, if it is actually based on something, what exactly it is, who exactly thinks it within the player group, how serious it is and how exactly did it occur?

Ie, please provide some facts ...

Edit - iPad typo

  On 07/05/2013 at 11:47, Jaded said:

If you had to make a choice between Neeld and Frawley for example, who would you choose?

I think this opens up a valid argument about the priorities we need to look at when we are talking about coaching changes.

That's a slippery slope you walk on though Jaded. If you pick the player over the coach once, then who's to say you won't do it again...and again and again and again?

Let's not let the sheep herd the shepherd here. I'm not saying that's happening, but it very well could.

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:53, Chook said:

That's a slippery slope you walk on though Jaded. If you pick the player over the coach once, then who's to say you won't do it again...and again and again and again?

Let's not let the sheep herd the shepherd here. I'm not saying that's happening, but it very well could.

If the coach was performing and doing a good job, it wouldn't even be an issue. But he isn't getting results so this is not a slippery slope.

As for the evidence, there are enough to suggest that enough good players are unhappy and want to look elsewhere. You can choose not to believe it. I choose to trust the information I have.

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:48, Ron Burgundy said:

' ... the longer he stays the worse the discontent within the player group.'

Some posters here continue to assert this - but what exactly is this based upon?

I'm not trying to be a smart arse here, although I would really like to know where this is coming from.

If it's purely outside speculation, that's fine. If not though, I'd just like to know what the underlying evidence for such statements is - and, if it is actually based on something, what exactly it is, who exactly thinks it within the player group, how serious it is and how exactly did it occur?

Ie, please provide some facts ...

Edit - iPad typo

Ron, I believe a poster (grand new flag or grandson of a gun, or some other G name!) mentioned they spoke at length with a ex player still involved at the club (robbo?) who suggested a lot of the players don't enjoy playing at the club under neeld and will look to be traded at the end of the year. Can't remember if they name dropped frawley and Sylvia and co (that sort of era of player) but that was the suggestion

Basically speculation, but not sure why anyone would make up such a statement.

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:59, Jaded said:

If the coach was performing and doing a good job, it wouldn't even be an issue. But he isn't getting results so this is not a slippery slope.

As for the evidence, there are enough to suggest that enough good players are unhappy and want to look elsewhere. You can choose not to believe it. I choose to trust the information I have.

The same information that said that Grimes would be out for the rest of the season?

You only have to look at the (improved) performances of Nathan Jones and Garland (and perhaps Sylvia, but we've been burnt before ....) to see what's going on.

  On 06/05/2013 at 21:26, RobbieF said:

What's your tipping point bob?

Spot on - that's the question for both sides of this debate.

I will give up my opinion that Neeld should go - I would reckon I should give it up, it's only reasonable in terms of what I am worried by - if MFC beat the Suns and then maintain an average losing margin of no more than 30 points in the following 4 weeks.

Weighing up your tipping point is a productive thing to do. thankyou.

  On 07/05/2013 at 05:39, jumbo returns said:

No, not really.

And yes, I don't litigate - it's a footy forum, we're talking footy.

Relax.

you are relaxed when you disagree with another post?

  On 07/05/2013 at 10:54, Roost It said:

I think you mean short sighted, reactionary and impulsive. Just what the club doesn't need at the moment.

no. He meant it the way he said it, I'm sure. It's you who thinks "short sighted' etc. - and you are trying to force your opinion into the mouth of someone saying something different to what you think. Just what this forum doesn't need at the moment.

  On 07/05/2013 at 20:02, robbiefrom13 said:

you are relaxed when you disagree with another post?

Yep, I'm talking footy.

I disagree with an opinion, I harbour no grudges against the person expressing it, I just disagree with it.

It's a footy forum.

We're talking footy and I love that.

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:59, Jaded said:

If the coach was performing and doing a good job, it wouldn't even be an issue. But he isn't getting results so this is not a slippery slope.

As for the evidence, there are enough to suggest that enough good players are unhappy and want to look elsewhere. You can choose not to believe it. I choose to trust the information I have.

Jaded, I am not choosing to 'believe' anything at all. I base my views on evidence, not 'beliefs'. In this regard, I find the statements that various players are unhappy with Neeld and wish to leave the club very concerning, and I would like to know what this information is based upon - in other words, where certain posters (including you) are getting this information.

Merely stating "I choose to trust the information I have" is not particularly compelling to me. In fact, I find it flabby and lazy in the extreme, as it doesn't disclose anything at all, other than perhaps your own personal bias against Neeld.

By analogy, in Kansas, many 'believe' the world was created about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Our current science based understanding, however, tells us that the world is in fact about 5.45 billion years old. Until the religious fanatics provide some compelling evidence to the contrary, I will continue to trust what I consider to be the better view, which is based on science and rational thought, not 'beliefs'.

Hence, please provide the facts, or, if not, please desist from saying that things are facts when they are nothing more than pure speculation.

  On 07/05/2013 at 13:27, DemonWA said:

Ron, I believe a poster (grand new flag or grandson of a gun, or some other G name!) mentioned they spoke at length with a ex player still involved at the club (robbo?) who suggested a lot of the players don't enjoy playing at the club under neeld and will look to be traded at the end of the year. Can't remember if they name dropped frawley and Sylvia and co (that sort of era of player) but that was the suggestion

Basically speculation, but not sure why anyone would make up such a statement.

People say a lot of stuff here, and then seemingly influence others to form quite strong views based on that information. Quite often, I don't trust the underlying information which is reported.

For instance, many seem to contend that Bailey was loved by the players and Neeld is not.

Here are a few things that perhaps counter the universal view that Bailey was loved.

1. I spoke to Stef Martin at a Debt Demolition Dinner a couple of years ago.

He told me, to my face, that many of the players, including him personally, hated the boring, tedious weekly regime that Bailey imposed on the player group, and that he regarded Viney (as caretaker coach) as a breath of fresh air. Martin said it was like going to a school class room each day under Bailey - it didn't feel like a 'footy club'.

2. I also know that Junior McDonald had a massive issue with how Bailey broke the news to him that he was not going to give him a contract extension. I understand it was on the flight to Adelaide before the game against Port in round 21 of that year. Not great player management IMO - particularly given that Junior then had to go into the sheds and rev the players up for that game shortly afterwards.

3. Scully. Even though we all know he left for the club money, it has been widely reported that he thought the football department and culture lacked discipline and wasn't sufficiently professional, and that this also influenced his decision to leave. Convenient line to adopt perhaps, but I expect there was some truth to it.

Hence, my request for facts re: player dissatisfaction under Neeld now. I want to know the reality, not base views on pure speculation and poster bias.

  On 07/05/2013 at 11:41, Deestar3 said:

I missed the "bimbo" article ..... Let me say .....one of the most measured and articulate statements I have read. It has restored my faith that there are some supporters who have foresight. I agree wholeheartedly with all the sentiments that were written. Let's not look for instant gratification as is synonymous with today's society & have a bit of faith !

praise the lord...................or was that a plea to give julia more time B)

  On 07/05/2013 at 22:24, Ron Burgundy said:

Hence, my request for facts re: player dissatisfaction under Neeld now. I want to know the reality, not base views on pure speculation and poster bias.

I agree there's speculation Ron but we're not going to get anything definitive on an open fan forum.

Some have sources and some sources have more credibility than others. We can observe what happens at training and on fields and extrapolate.

But unless you're on the inside it's impossible to really know if Neeld "has lost the players". Which really means important players to the club's future want to leave.

This if true would be the key reason to move on Neeld in the short-term. We don't know but those inside the club should know.

Edit: I've heard from sources I consider credible and seen on-field performance to make me very concerned.

  On 07/05/2013 at 22:24, Ron Burgundy said:

People say a lot of stuff here, and then seemingly influence others to form quite strong views based on that information. Quite often, I don't trust the underlying information which is reported.

For instance, many seem to contend that Bailey was loved by the players and Neeld is not.

Here are a few things that perhaps counter the universal view that Bailey was loved.

1. I spoke to Stef Martin at a Debt Demolition Dinner a couple of years ago.

He told me, to my face, that many of the players, including him personally, hated the boring, tedious weekly regime that Bailey imposed on the player group, and that he regarded Viney (as caretaker coach) as a breath of fresh air. Martin said it was like going to a school class room each day under Bailey - it didn't feel like a 'footy club'.

2. I also know that Junior McDonald had a massive issue with how Bailey broke the news to him that he was not going to give him a contract extension. I understand it was on the flight to Adelaide before the game against Port in round 21 of that year. Not great player management IMO - particularly given that Junior then had to go into the sheds and rev the players up for that game shortly afterwards.

3. Scully. Even though we all know he left for the club money, it has been widely reported that he thought the football department and culture lacked discipline and wasn't sufficiently professional, and that this also influenced his decision to leave. Convenient line to adopt perhaps, but I expect there was some truth to it.

Hence, my request for facts re: player dissatisfaction under Neeld now. I want to know the reality, not base views on pure speculation and poster bias.

i generally take time to read your posts and i rate what you have to say, but in this case you've discreteted the validity of another poster who has supposedlypassed on information he got from a past player, and then countered it with your own anecdotes of discussions with players?

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:11, timD said:

He is better than Howe every day of the week and twice on sundays. He is better than viney and will be for 2 more years. He is better than clark because he can stay injury free. In terms purely of performance he is better than all on your list. Now ask yourself how many key backs we have at the club and how many mids.

If we lose him we have no replacement.

If neeld has lost players and the players are not just being ultra sooks, then neeld goes. We cannot keep losing experience and talent.

Moving aside the argument over where Frawley stands in the team - my point remains that not only should we not be kowtowing to particular players over the coach, but we do not even know whether those players have issues with the coach or that removal of the coach would have a net benefit or deficit with player illusionment.

As I have said before and you took great issue with - it is a big 'if.'

We just do not know whether Neeld's immediate exit would be better for player retention or worse.

I don't want to lose Frawley and I think he is a very good FB. But he isn't Chris Paul/Peyton Manning/Gary Ablett. He should not be directly, or indirectly, making determinations over the fate of the coach.

  On 07/05/2013 at 12:13, ThreeOneSix said:

Yeah Fat Tony highlights the needs for a more flexible game plan, as our current game plan is based on Malthouse model 2011.

Clearly, the game of AFL football has evolved since 2011, as a club, we need to evolve our game plan to adapt with the current environment.

Our list simply isn't strong enough to go against the grain and keep a rigid game plan - like Collinwood done in 2010-11.

Players like Trengove and Moloney became too defensive under Neeld, now we see what Moloney can do under Voss.

We see Trengove stagnate to the point of VFL - where he should be at the moment, lets not pretend otherwise.

The kids talent should have him no where near VFL, like Moloney if Trengove left our club - we would be a VERY good player.

Fat Tony also highlights another Neeld mistake, which is signing up Jamar and McKenzie for 3 years.

Jamar was lucky to be on our list and McKenzie makes Josh Thurgood look like Shaun Burgoyne.

"now we see what Moloney can do under Voss".......he has had one good game this season, albeit against us......if Moloney leaving meant we could draft Matt Jones...good