The one thing that I find to be a major inconsistency in some of these arguments about Neeld losing the players etc etc, is that many of the players have come out and shown how they support Neeld and Garland even recently complimented Neeld by saying he was coaching better than ever.

To think that the reason we are still struggling is solely due to Neeld being unable to coach is just rediculous. By making such a statement it completely disregards the lack of support and strength in the footy department pre-Neeld but under Bailey, it also completely underestimates how bad the culture may have been and how much a change/shift in culture was required. Such things can not be done in a short space of time, and if you also consider what has been said by the coaches and players alike regarding the training standards of the club pre and post Neeld, it is obvious that the club faced an uphill battle just to get the players at an AFL fitness level.

I also find it unlikely that successful AFL types like Neil Craig and Dave Misson would continue in their work, given they are obviously well regarded in the league and would be sort after, if Neeld was an absolute basketcase and they felt they were wasting their time.

Just because some on here are getting annoyed that we are still losing does not mean that Neeld has gone about things the wrong way. Out of the players that have recently left the club, only Moloney and Petterd have been playing regular games. Stefan Martin is still getting injured and playing as above average athlete with below average skills. And for those criticising the game style being implemented, watch the Craig report video, and the passage of play highlighted as the way the team wants to play makes me think of teams like Sydney and St Kilda (under Ross Lyon), who constantly harass and pressure the opposition to win the ball.

All of us here are naive, myself included, about what is actually happening in the club. None of us have all the information, and to just say "sack the coach" based on perception while also disregarding relevant information is rediculous.

C'mon - what do you think the players are going to say about their coach in an interview - that he is a dud and most of the players don't respect him? Pft... Its clearly evident from our results over the last couple of years that the players don't like him or play for him. Talk is cheap.

This is some f___ers blog talking about a rumour that makes this club look like an AFL puppet.

Mark this one down as BS.

I'm willing to bet $50 this story about Roos is garbage, the last I remembered we were still a solvent endeavour not owned by the league.

SEN have just reported that Tony Schibeci has news on AFL head hunting Roos to take over Melboure.

First Peter Jackson an now Paul Roos

Has Xmas come early? :-)

How about a couple of gun midfielders as well ;-)

SEN have just reported that Tony Schibeci has news on AFL head hunting Roos to take over Melboure.

First Peter Jackson an now Paul Roos

Has Xmas come early? :-)

How about a couple of gun midfielders as well ;-)

Wpuld be amazing to land Roos.

Id love to keep Neeld as an assistant or midfield coach, I doubt he would be too keen on hanging around though.

Tony Sheehan is a journo with a reasonable pedigree to say the least. While is may be "wishful" thinking, it suggests an underlying dissatisfaction amid the AFL hierarchy.

Tony Sheehan is a journo with a reasonable pedigree to say the least. While is may be "wishful" thinking, it suggests an underlying dissatisfaction amid the AFL hierarchy.

They have every reason to be dissatisfied.

Anyone that cares about this club would be beyond dissatisfied.

They have every reason to be dissatisfied.

Anyone that cares about this club would be beyond dissatisfied.

Amen to that hh!

This is some f___ers blog talking about a rumour that makes this club look like an AFL puppet.

Mark this one down as BS.

And you don't reckon that's been the case?

I've got a feeling there's more to this than you're willing to give credit to rpfc.

They have every reason to be dissatisfied.

Anyone that cares about this club would be beyond dissatisfied.

Agreed, but according to some on here the "brand" is not important. Rather we need to wait for the supposed turnaround to come.................. again.

If we are the slightest chance of getting Roos im all for it... aslong as we dont sack Neeld and get another untried coach.

By the way im a Neeld fan but u couldnt pass up yhis opertunity

And you don't reckon that's been the case?

I've got a feeling there's more to this than you're willing to give credit to rpfc.

You watch the litany of people that will deny this.

It will be a parade. A massive depressing parade of people washing their hands of this story.

Roos will probably address it this Monday in a jovial fashion that will make me just puke.

What if Roos comes on and there's not a huge change this season and we still flogged. Will we have a time to go Paul Roos thread. I feel like that is where we will get to.

You watch the litany of people that will deny this.

It will be a parade. A massive depressing parade of people washing their hands of this story.

Roos will probably address it this Monday in a jovial fashion that will make me just puke.

Maybe so, but I suggest there is a reason this has been circulated. The AFL are an interested observer in all of this.

What if Roos comes on and there's not a huge change this season and we still flogged. Will we have a time to go Paul Roos thread. I feel like that is where we will get to.

I'd trust the experiance of Roos to get us through it even if we get smashed this season. I also think there would be a board change to follow and the Ox will be on it.

C'mon - what do you think the players are going to say about their coach in an interview - that he is a dud and most of the players don't respect him? Pft... Its clearly evident from our results over the last couple of years that the players don't like him or play for him. Talk is cheap.

So based on that the players clearly didn't play for Bailey or respect him either.

A question, if you so adamently feel that Neeld is the problem, do you also believe that our levels of fitness where at an AFL level? Do you also believe that the list we had before Neeld took over would have had success by now if the practices within the football department was left as it was?

Do you think we would have attracted guys like Mitch Clarke or Chris Dawes or Byrnes to the club if Neeld and co weren't here?

The only thing that is evident from the last 18 months that Neeld has been in charge, is that the club, from the moment Neeld took over, which Neeld identified, was not up to scratch with its training and preparation, and that a lot of work was going to be needed to get it to where it needs to be. It is also clearly evident that with the personnel changes that took place pre-Neeld, that we have lost a hell of a lot of experience from the club, including guys who could have been used to mentor our younger players. Think of McDonald, Miller (he wasn't the best player but he was a good clubman), Matty Whelan, Bruce, McLean.

We also have the third least experienced list in the league, only greater than GWS and GC. All of these things clearly indicate that we should not be expecting miracles, and to be playing finals football.

Watching the game on the weekend, I was actually pretty happy with the intent shown by the boys. The execution and skills were not there, but the soft football that the club played under Bailey was no-where to be seen. That to me, demonstrated that the players are buying into Neelds approach. Guys like Sylvia, Jones and Garland have shown improvement this year, Watts actually showed courage in being prepared to get crunched to take a mark in the game against Brisbane. This again, to me, indicates buy in.

But feel free to continue to feel that Neeld has lost the players on .......... what, perception???

Maybe so, but I suggest there is a reason this has been circulated. The AFL are an interested observer in all of this.

The reason this has been circulate is to sell papers, fill minutes on the innumerable sports and footy TV and Radio shows, and keep clown supporters like us tuning in...

Merde

The reason this has been circulate is to sell papers, fill minutes on the innumerable sports and footy TV and Radio shows, and keep clown supporters like us tuning in...

Merde

I very much doubt that.

It's relevant because we had to continue to run a profitable business, take care of all stakeholders, not just one and at the end of the day, ensure our paying clients remained on our books. Just how relevant do you want the point to be?

By any measure, Neeld has failed to reach the brief.

You seem to be comparing the MFC to your business situation. Was your business in dire straits? Was it dysfunctional at many levels? Did it need a complete overhaul? These are the circumstances in which Neeld was employed. I think the comparison fails because the board decided that we needed to endure some pain in order to change direction. They took a calculated risk and are prepared for some people to jump ship. Hence McLardy's comments about fair-weather supporters. They understand that the changes under Neeld will not be popular but they are prepared to weather the storm. Is this at all like the situation you're speaking of?

You seem to be comparing the MFC to your business situation. Was your business in dire straits? Was it dysfunctional at many levels? Did it need a complete overhaul? These are the circumstances in which Neeld was employed. I think the comparison fails because the board decided that we needed to endure some pain in order to change direction. They took a calculated risk and are prepared for some people to jump ship. Hence McLardy's comments about fair-weather supporters. They understand that the changes under Neeld will not be popular but they are prepared to weather the storm. Is this at all like the situation you're speaking of?

No, No and No. But principles of good business practice are fairly universal. You ignore those principles at your peril, whether your business is in trouble or not. The business cycle is never stagnant. You need to always protect the brand.

Edited May 8, 201312 yr by iv'a worn smith

So Roos is to be the saviour of this club because the AFL are worried about us......God give me strength......Since when do the AFL run this club......Who then worries about the Bulldogs...Nth...Ect.....Paul Roos took 202 games to get a premiership......Not sure posters here could wait that long.....

If the AFL are running my club, they can do it without my support.....

If this is true, which I doubt......MFC will have 6 less members from my family...

Look closely and i think you'll see it's just another creep journo/blogger trying to destabilise the unstable.

Ed: and he's succeeded...

Edited May 8, 201312 yr by McQueen

Look closely and i think you'll see it's just another creep journo/blogger trying to destabilise the unstable.

Ed: and he's succeeded...

Isnt that a double negative?

Edited May 8, 201312 yr by PJ_12345

Maybe so, but I suggest there is a reason this has been circulated. The AFL are an interested observer in all of this.

I posted a while ago that I thought we were now in bed with the AFL, after the non tanking penalties and what has happened since, only strengthens that view.

Isnt that a double negative?

Don't think so.

Stop trying to make sense of the senseless, PJ. It's a full time job here.