U know we are in crisis when we have turned a pick #5 into Pederson...

This may be a dumb question but does the MCC actually run any successful sporting teams currently?

Just won the cricket premiership again.

'10 years to turn it around' - Luke Darcy

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-04-08/it-will-take-ten-years-to-turn-the-demons-around

Now he is one person who wouldn't have a clue.

We are not in crisis,we are doing well financially and better than some other clubs.

We have a coach who has a gameplan that our players aren't buying.The players aren't stupid,they know which teams' gameplans work and that ours doesn't.This 5 metre zoning is crap.

JT had a great debut season,playing with confidence and flair and Neeld coached it out of him and he's shot mentally.

Beamer's style didn't suit Neeld's gameplan,well we'd be a better team with Beamer's big body around the stoppages,feeding it out to our runners.

Stef Martin is a B grader who's been replaced by D graders in Pederson,Gillies and Sellar---Stef is a better footballer than all 3.

In all my years watching this great game,i've never seen a club come out of this with the same coach,it won't turn around with Neeld's gameplan that the players aren't buying.

A thumping by the Eagles and a loss to the Giants and Neeld's gone.

Jack & Jimmy don't need too much more of this crap.

The mind boggles on why you would ever try to turn a 28 year old attacking midfielder into a defensive half forward. Just another in an extremely long list of terrible coaching moves. People reading this shouldn't see this as me necessarily defending Moloney. It's more the theory of such a poor decision. Nonsensical in my opinion.

A leopard doesn't change it's spots and it's always important to try and get the best out of a players strengths. How's our midfield clearance work going? Apart from the work of Jones, it's virtually non existent.

Get the best out of the best and the most out of the rest. That should always be a coaches modus operandi. It's fair to say Voss will know how best to use Moloney. Brent probably won't be a dominant all round player but he will be of some value.

What if we start seeing Jones used as a defensive half forward? Nothing would surprise me.

Edited April 8, 201312 yr by Macca

This is unbelievable!!!

I've found vision of the conversation between Schwab and Bailey before Junior was asked to leave Melbourne.

No Club wants to see the AFL step in to help them sort out problems which the Club itself should resolve, but we appear to have: a weak Board and President; a problematic CEO; and a Coach who has no idea (all of which have been referred to already by many other posters).

No matter how proud and independent we may think we are, we have no choice - we need the AFL's help - they have a way of making things happen and we need to realise the urgency. It really is a tragic irony that some posters think this is all some sort of joke.

No Club wants to see the AFL step in to help them sort out problems which the Club itself should resolve, but we appear to have: a weak Board and President; a problematic CEO; and a Coach who has no idea (all of which have been referred to already by many other posters).

No matter how proud and independent we may think we are, we have no choice - we need the AFL's help - they have a way of making things happen and we need to realise the urgency. It really is a tragic irony that some posters think this is all some sort of joke.

You have my vote Hardnut.

From my seat it appears the current team have no idea what to do next after spending 5 years getting us to this point.

as they used to say od, i you haven't got a solution you must be part of the problem

as they used to say od, i you haven't got a solution you must be part of the problem

A good example of the tragic irony and so-called humour I was talking about - a meaningless misquote.

A good example of the tragic irony and so-called humour I was talking about - a meaningless misquote.

its not a misquote hardnut its an often used variation, which is appropriate to certain current key mfc employees

its not a misquote hardnut its an often used variation, which is appropriate to certain current key mfc employees

Good. Glad to see you are serious DC - now what solution do you suggest?

There is no doubt whatsoever we are a club in crisis.

I went to the game with my son on Saturday night and what was evident was that the club and coach has lost the players. I Think we should support Neeld but the awful truth is that the only way he'll survive to seasons end is if there is at least some on field turn around. Coaches rarely last when their clubs are regularly hammered on field.

I support Neeld. However when he was appointed i said that i believed they needed to get some psychological help to deal with the trauma that led to 186, that game and it 's fallout, most notably the sacking of Bailey - by all accounts a coach close to his players. The players could not have helped not to feel responsible for his sacking.

It was reported that the players were in conflict with Schwab, that the board sought their opinion and that it was rejected. Now i belive, even in these circumstances that it would have been possible to address the conflict. Mediation perhaps or some other mechanism. Certainly some group counselling to heal the rift and trauma.

Instead the club and Neeld decided to draw a line in the sand and seemingly pretend the conflict never happened. They went further. Embarrassing senior players by removing them from the leadership group. Implying they were part of the problem, not making them part of the solution.

Again i said at the time this was a high risk strategy but perhaps it was the right one, that time would tell. That maybe i was wrong and it wasn't necessary to heal the wounds - it could all be just consigned to the historical dustbin. Certainly i agree - and still do - that boundaries had to be made, that a clear firm direction needed to be set, that the tail couldn't wag the dog.

But as i say it was high risk and to be honest an approach that seems to be contrary to accepted modern HR practice in terms of dealing with trauma and conflict.

What i saw on Saturday night was a team that is still in shock, a t group of players still traumatised and broken. The approach they have decided to take has not worked and the consequences are potentially catastrophic - a word i don't use lightly.

Despite all that I think the situation is savable. But it will require that healing work to happen. I don't know if it is possible for that healing work to happen with Schwab at the club as i don't know the extent of the damage. But whatever the damage it would have been better dealt with 12 months ago.

On Schwab. I certainly have not been in the sack Schwab camp. I don't know what went on before last season but it would appear he has pulled back from his meddling in the FD and at the least has been serviceable since then in terms of the business side.

But in the last week i believe i have seen some clearer evidence of poor performance and issues of real concern. One was his comment on MMM that he had attended sveral leadership meetings to "see what goes on". Why? I mean if the rumours about players hating him are even 1/3 true and given there seems to have been no mediation how on earth does the club expect those in the leadership to deal with that? I could only assume they would be furious to have him sit in on meetings when Mclardy has made clear he has been told to focus on admin and leave the footy to the FD.

But the big one for me is the media strategy. Firstly what on god's earth were they thinking inviting the media into the room for the coaches address. So stupid. Unforgivable - and one can only assume it was CS's call.

Secondly in the lead up to round 1 and 2 there was a veritable media blitz with endless interviews. Again i assume CS's call. We didn't need that pressure and after the Essendon game our media palava about playing hard looked and being competitive "for longer" nothing short of pathetic.

The big one however relates to a point i've been meaning to make for a few days. It relates to the post match interview with Jack Watts where he made those stupid comments about not having leaders at the club like Selwood etc (which by the by was an insult to Jones and Viney who had just tried their guts out).

The club and in particular Watts have been rightfully slammed for those comments. That interview was a DEETV BLOODY INTERVIEW with everybody's mate Matt Burgan (the fact that it was with Burgan is relevant i reckon as JW was perhaps more open and less guarded that he would have been with a normal reporter).

I have no problem with Burgan or the interview per se (other than Jacks silly comment) but what was the club thinking loading it on the website? Surely someone would have watched it before doing so and surely any one with half a brain or sense of the media environment would have realised that those comments would just be like loading a gun and handing it to the general media to shoot us down. Which they duly did! Our reporter. Our website. All the lazy journos needed to do was press play. So stupid it defies belief. And this after Neeld praised the media guys at the AGM.

They then compound this incredible lapse of professional judgement by giving the media a free reign at the coaches address. So, so stupid. I must have heard 3 commentators bagging Watts for looking at the floor not at Neeld and four times as many that bagging the club for allowing the media in in the first place.

Now i'm sorry but the buck stops firmly with CS on this. He is in charge of media (or in charge of those doing that work) and is certainly responsible for the overall media strategy. Completely amateur hour. Simply not good enough.

To end my rant a couple of comments about Neelds coaching in the Essendon game. Firstly it made no sense putting Watts up forward. Sure Zaharakis towelled him up (but why play him on a small player in the first place) bt surely, given the game was lost and he has made it clear that he sees Watts as a backman then why not put him on say Hurley or even better Crameri.

Secondly what was he thinking leaving Gillies on Crameri - the poor bloke got slaughtered. It was embarrassing and far from being good for Gillies (ie by allowing him to learn about a good forward) might ruin him. That is not how you develop players. He'll probably drop him and who knows he may never come back.

Finally subbing Watts was stupid and i felt almost as if Neeld wanted to humiliate him (much as he did when he first came to the club with his public crticism). What was he trying to achieve with that? I would have subbed Jamar before even thinking of Watts. What was really weird is he did it after the bit of play where Watts had it on the wing, mucked around with it, looked up forward and no one came at him so coughed it up going backwards. Sure, poor bit of play but one of Neeld's pre match points was for the players not to worry about mistakes. He then makes a big show of subbing him directly after a mistake.

Yes, we are in a crisis. I'm not sure what the answer is but i do believe whatever it is it's gone pat steady as she goes. That sign in Neeld's office about staying calm or whatever now looks ridiculously ironic.

Something drastic is required. A good start would be making a real attempt to heal the obvious wounds amongst the playing group rather than pretending they don't exist.

And shave the bloody beards off.

Edited April 8, 201312 yr by binman

There is no doubt whatsoever we are a club in crisis.

I went to the game with my son on Saturday night and what was evident was that the club and coach has lost the players. I Think we should support Neeld but the awful truth is that the only way he'll survive to seasons end is if there is at least some on field turn around. Coaches rarely last when their clubs are regularly hammered on field.

I support Neeld. However when he was appointed i said that i believed they needed to get some psychological help to deal with the trauma that led to 186, that game and it 's fallout, most notably the sacking of Bailey - by all accounts a coach close to his players. The players could not have helped not to feel responsible for his sacking.

It was reported that the players were in conflict with Schwab, that the board sought their opinion and that it was rejected. Now i belive, even in these circumstances that it would have been possible to address the conflict. Mediation perhaps or some other mechanism. Certainly some group counselling to heal the rift and trauma.

Instead the club and Neeld decided to draw a line in the sand and seemingly pretend the conflict never happened. They went further. Embarrassing senior players by removing them from the leadership group. Implying they were part of the problem, not making them part of the solution.

Again i said at the time this was a high risk strategy but perhaps it was the right one, that time would tell. That maybe i was wrong and it wasn't necessary to heal the wounds - it could all be just consigned to the historical dustbin. Certainly i agree - and still do - that boundaries had to be made, that a clear firm direction needed to be set, that the tail couldn't wag the dog.

But as i say it was high risk and to be honest an approach that seems to be contrary to accepted modern HR practice in terms of dealing with trauma and conflict.

What i saw on Saturday night was a team that is still in shock, a t group of players still traumatised and broken. The approach they have decided to take has not worked and the consequences are potentially catastrophic - a word i don't use lightly.

Despite all that I think the situation is savable. But it will require that healing work to happen. I don't know if it is possible for that healing work to happen with Schwab at the club as i don't know the extent of the damage. But whatever the damage it would have been better dealt with 12 months ago.

On Schwab. I certainly have not been in the sack Schwab camp. I don't know what went on before last season but it would appear he has pulled back from his meddling in the FD and at the least has been serviceable since then in terms of the business side.

But in the last week i believe i have seen some clearer evidence of poor performance and issues of real concern. One was his comment on MMM that he had attended sveral leadership meetings to "see what goes on". Why? I mean if the rumours about players hating him are even 1/3 true and given there seems to have been no mediation how on earth does the club expect those in the leadership to deal with that? I could only assume they would be furious to have him sit in on meetings when from Mclardy has said he has been told to focus on admin and leave the footy the FD.

But the big one for me is the media strategy. Firstly what on god earth were they thinking inviting the media into the room for the coaches address. So stupid. Unforgivable - and one can only assume it was CS's call. Secondly in the lead up to round one and 2 there was a veritable media blitz with endless interviews. Again i assume CS's call. We didn't need that pressure and after the Essendon game our media palava about playing hard looked and being competitive "for longer" nothing short of pathetic.

The big one however relates to a point i've have been meaning to make for a few days. It relates to the post match interview with Jack Watts where he made those stupid comments about not having leaders at the club like Selwood etc (which by the by was an insult to Jones and Viney who had just tried their guts out). The club and in particular Watts have been rightfully slammed for those comments. That interview was a DEETV BLOODY INTERVIEW with everybody's mate Matt Burgan. (the fact that it was with Burgan is relevant i reckon as JW was perhaps more open and less guarded that he would have been with a normal reporter).

I have no problem with Burgan or the interview per se (other than Jacks silly comment) but what was the club thinking loading it on the website? Surely someone would have watched it before doing so and surely any one with half a brain or sense of the media environment would have realised that those comments would just be like loading a gun and handing it to the general media to shoot us down. Which they duly did! Our reporter. Our website. All the lazy journos needed to do was press play. So stupid it defies belief. And this after Neeld praised the media guys at the AGM.

They then compound this incredible lapse of professional judgement by giving the media a free reign at the coaches address. So, so stupid. I must have heard 3 commentators bagging Watts for looking at 4 times that bagging the club for allowing the media in.

Now i'm sorry but the buck stops firmly with CS on this. He is in charge of media (or in charge of those doing that work) and is certainly responsible for the overall media strategy. Completely amateur hour. Simply not good enough.

To end my rant a couple of comments about Neelds coaching in the Essendon game. Firstly it made no sense putting Watts up forward. Sure Zaharakis towelled him up (but why play him on a small player in the first place) bt surely, given the game was lost and he has made it clear that he sees Watts as a backman then why not put him on say Hurley or even better Crameri.

Secondly what was he thinking leaving Gillies on Crameri - the poor bloke got slaughtered. It was embarrassing and far from being good for Gillies (ie by allowing him to learn about a good forward) might ruin him. That is not how you develop players. He'll probably drop him and who knows he may never come back.

Finally subbing Watts was stupid and i felt almost as if Neeld wanted to humiliate him (much as he did when he first came to the club with his public crticism). What was he trying to achieve with that? I would have subbed Jamar before even thinking of Watts. What was really weird is he did it after the bit of play where Watts had it on the wing, mucked around with it, looked up forward and no one came at him so coughed it up going backwards. Sure, poor bit of play but one of Neeld's pre match points was for the players not to worry about mistakes. He then makes a big show of subbing him directly after a mistake.

Yes, we are in a crisis. I'm not sure what the answer is but i do believe whatever it is it's gone pat steady as she goes. That sign in Neeld's office about staying calm or whatever now looks ridiculously ironic.

Something drastic is required. A good start would be making a real attempt to heal the obvious wounds amongst the playing group rather than pretending they don't exist.

And shave the bloody beards off.

I agree with a lot of your rant binman.

My father told me a long time ago"at least look like a footballer when you run out"

There is no doubt whatsoever we are a club in crisis.

I went to the game with my son on Saturday night and what was evident was that the club and coach has lost the players. I Think we should support Neeld but the awful truth is that the only way he'll survive to seasons end is if there is at least some on field turn around. Coaches rarely last when their clubs are regularly hammered on field.

I support Neeld. However when he was appointed i said that i believed they needed to get some psychological help to deal with the trauma that led to 186, that game and it 's fallout, most notably the sacking of Bailey - by all accounts a coach close to his players. The players could not have helped not to feel responsible for his sacking.

It was reported that the players were in conflict with Schwab, that the board sought their opinion and that it was rejected. Now i belive, even in these circumstances that it would have been possible to address the conflict. Mediation perhaps or some other mechanism. Certainly some group counselling to heal the rift and trauma.

Instead the club and Neeld decided to draw a line in the sand and seemingly pretend the conflict never happened. They went further. Embarrassing senior players by removing them from the leadership group. Implying they were part of the problem, not making them part of the solution.

Again i said at the time this was a high risk strategy but perhaps it was the right one, that time would tell. That maybe i was wrong and it wasn't necessary to heal the wounds - it could all be just consigned to the historical dustbin. Certainly i agree - and still do - that boundaries had to be made, that a clear firm direction needed to be set, that the tail couldn't wag the dog.

But as i say it was high risk and to be honest an approach that seems to be contrary to accepted modern HR practice in terms of dealing with trauma and conflict.

What i saw on Saturday night was a team that is still in shock, a t group of players still traumatised and broken. The approach they have decided to take has not worked and the consequences are potentially catastrophic - a word i don't use lightly.

Despite all that I think the situation is savable. But it will require that healing work to happen. I don't know if it is possible for that healing work to happen with Schwab at the club as i don't know the extent of the damage. But whatever the damage it would have been better dealt with 12 months ago.

On Schwab. I certainly have not been in the sack Schwab camp. I don't know what went on before last season but it would appear he has pulled back from his meddling in the FD and at the least has been serviceable since then in terms of the business side.

But in the last week i believe i have seen some clearer evidence of poor performance and issues of real concern. One was his comment on MMM that he had attended sveral leadership meetings to "see what goes on". Why? I mean if the rumours about players hating him are even 1/3 true and given there seems to have been no mediation how on earth does the club expect those in the leadership to deal with that? I could only assume they would be furious to have him sit in on meetings when Mclardy has made clear he has been told to focus on admin and leave the footy to the FD.

But the big one for me is the media strategy. Firstly what on god's earth were they thinking inviting the media into the room for the coaches address. So stupid. Unforgivable - and one can only assume it was CS's call.

Secondly in the lead up to round 1 and 2 there was a veritable media blitz with endless interviews. Again i assume CS's call. We didn't need that pressure and after the Essendon game our media palava about playing hard looked and being competitive "for longer" nothing short of pathetic.

The big one however relates to a point i've been meaning to make for a few days. It relates to the post match interview with Jack Watts where he made those stupid comments about not having leaders at the club like Selwood etc (which by the by was an insult to Jones and Viney who had just tried their guts out).

The club and in particular Watts have been rightfully slammed for those comments. That interview was a DEETV BLOODY INTERVIEW with everybody's mate Matt Burgan (the fact that it was with Burgan is relevant i reckon as JW was perhaps more open and less guarded that he would have been with a normal reporter).

I have no problem with Burgan or the interview per se (other than Jacks silly comment) but what was the club thinking loading it on the website? Surely someone would have watched it before doing so and surely any one with half a brain or sense of the media environment would have realised that those comments would just be like loading a gun and handing it to the general media to shoot us down. Which they duly did! Our reporter. Our website. All the lazy journos needed to do was press play. So stupid it defies belief. And this after Neeld praised the media guys at the AGM.

They then compound this incredible lapse of professional judgement by giving the media a free reign at the coaches address. So, so stupid. I must have heard 3 commentators bagging Watts for looking at the floor not at Neeld and four times as many that bagging the club for allowing the media in in the first place.

Now i'm sorry but the buck stops firmly with CS on this. He is in charge of media (or in charge of those doing that work) and is certainly responsible for the overall media strategy. Completely amateur hour. Simply not good enough.

To end my rant a couple of comments about Neelds coaching in the Essendon game. Firstly it made no sense putting Watts up forward. Sure Zaharakis towelled him up (but why play him on a small player in the first place) bt surely, given the game was lost and he has made it clear that he sees Watts as a backman then why not put him on say Hurley or even better Crameri.

Secondly what was he thinking leaving Gillies on Crameri - the poor bloke got slaughtered. It was embarrassing and far from being good for Gillies (ie by allowing him to learn about a good forward) might ruin him. That is not how you develop players. He'll probably drop him and who knows he may never come back.

Finally subbing Watts was stupid and i felt almost as if Neeld wanted to humiliate him (much as he did when he first came to the club with his public crticism). What was he trying to achieve with that? I would have subbed Jamar before even thinking of Watts. What was really weird is he did it after the bit of play where Watts had it on the wing, mucked around with it, looked up forward and no one came at him so coughed it up going backwards. Sure, poor bit of play but one of Neeld's pre match points was for the players not to worry about mistakes. He then makes a big show of subbing him directly after a mistake.

Yes, we are in a crisis. I'm not sure what the answer is but i do believe whatever it is it's gone pat steady as she goes. That sign in Neeld's office about staying calm or whatever now looks ridiculously ironic.

Something drastic is required. A good start would be making a real attempt to heal the obvious wounds amongst the playing group rather than pretending they don't exist.

And shave the bloody beards off.

Binman if I'm not mistaken you are usually very conservative with your views. That being th case, taking the stance you are here really packs a wallop.

Fence sitters and status-quo merchants take note.

Binman if I'm not mistaken you are usually very conservative with your views. That being th case, taking the stance you are here really packs a wallop.

Fence sitters and status-quo merchants take note.

There you go again - trying to divide this place.

We are all filthy, RR. If we continue the way we are there has to be changes but at a time that suits us and our future.

Caretaker coach? Looking likely.

Caretaker CEO? You better know your sponsors are ok with that much upheaval.

Caretaker President? The final plank in the reaction of a Mickey Mouse organisation.

We are a joke at the moment, don't rub it in by spilling all those positions before September.

You are the one making posters who think like me as the enemy of the future of the club.

I do not appreciate it at all and I have been incredibly patient of late.

Binman if I'm not mistaken you are usually very conservative with your views. That being th case, taking the stance you are here really packs a wallop.

Fence sitters and status-quo merchants take note.

Fence sitters and status-quo merchants please also take note - the Che Guevara of Demonland is a flip flopper of John Kerry proportions.

"Had a cushy job at a successful club. Could have stayed there for a few more years. Could have chosen an easier option like Adelaide or St Kilda but no he came to the basket case that was/is the MFC and has staked his entire fledgling coaching career on turning around the Titanic.

He's been prepared to put self-satisfied noses out of joint, sack ineffectual leaders, drop soft no. 1 draft picks and most importantly completely dismantle a useless game plan that would have seen us fold under the first sign of trouble in a final.

And he's prepared to get flogged week-in week-out, enduring the inevitable calls for his sacking by supporters fearful of change, in order to get the job done.

Hard as f..!k this bloke and I for one stand up and applaud him for having the cojones to put his own future in the game on the line in order to turn this joint into what for most of the past 47 years it has only ever been masquerading as ... and that's a football club.

I'm backing him in come hell or high water."

Thanks for the words of inspiration Rangey!

Don't break the glass just yet Rangey...

There you go again - trying to divide this place.

We are all filthy, RR. If we continue the way we are there has to be changes but at a time that suits us and our future.

Caretaker coach? Looking likely.

Caretaker CEO? You better know your sponsors are ok with that much upheaval.

Caretaker President? The final plank in the reaction of a Mickey Mouse organisation.

We are a joke at the moment, don't rub it in by spilling all those positions before September.

You are the one making posters who think like me as the enemy of the future of the club.

I do not appreciate it at all and I have been incredibly patient of late.

Then make one change. We tried the coach, problem remains. One of main reasons for Baileys issues was Schwab. Novel idea, remove the person who was (and I believe still is) the problem

That's a pretty good post Binman.

Please forgive me for adding a few comments on your post in a somewhat shortened version:

CS must go asap, his contract is up fairly soon I believe;

MN must go asap, but that will involve a payout;

The new senior coach must be experienced and be given full control to produce results;

Young players must be drafted/recruited to replace the older players MN brought in;

All players/coaches/staff must be treated with respect in line with modern HR methods;

The Board needs to be made well aware of how to act as a Board.

We have to accept that we may need AFL help in doing all of this.

The AFL will have to step in the MFC is incapable of running itself properly.

If they do decide to step in what can they do?

There you go again - trying to divide this place.

We are all filthy, RR. If we continue the way we are there has to be changes but at a time that suits us and our future.

Caretaker coach? Looking likely.

Caretaker CEO? You better know your sponsors are ok with that much upheaval.

Caretaker President? The final plank in the reaction of a Mickey Mouse organisation.

We are a joke at the moment, don't rub it in by spilling all those positions before September.

You are the one making posters who think like me as the enemy of the future of the club.

I do not appreciate it at all and I have been incredibly patient of late.

I believe you are misguided on this issue, Rpfc.

Why you refuse to acknowledge the urgency of the situation is puzzling.

The patient (MFC) is haemorrhaging blood and you want to leave it be 'til September?

Strange.

I believe you are misguided on this issue, Rpfc.

Why you refuse to acknowledge the urgency of the situation is puzzling.

The patient (MFC) is haemorrhaging blood and you want to leave it be 'til September?

Strange.

The patient (MFC) is hemorrhaging blood and you want to slash at it further?

Not very wise are you RR.

I believe you are misguided on this issue, Rpfc.

Why you refuse to acknowledge the urgency of the situation is puzzling.

The patient (MFC) is haemorrhaging blood and you want to leave it be 'til September?

Strange.

Rangey, haven't seen you posting on the Some Good News topic, what's wrong haven't the bottle

You are really getting quite dramatic with your hyperbole or are you trying to get Vlad really interested with the haemorrhaging quote (little historical teaser there)

Probably not wise to attack RR on this issue posters - the situation is critical and needs urgent action.

I believe you are misguided on this issue, Rpfc.

Why you refuse to acknowledge the urgency of the situation is puzzling.

The patient (MFC) is haemorrhaging blood and you want to leave it be 'til September?

Strange.

How is that strange?

What is your endgame?

Mine involves an established coach being hired by an industry leading CEO, headhunted by a energetic President with football or commercial appeal.

None of that can happen before September.

Your immediate sackings will have us with internal replacements and that is fine but the endgame is the same as mine.

The quicker you realise I am 3 kicks ahead in miles of space the better RR - I am no fool.

Binman if I'm not mistaken you are usually very conservative with your views. That being th case, taking the stance you are here really packs a wallop.

Fence sitters and status-quo merchants take note.

What stance, you ask the Club to be open and honest and then criticise when it is, right got it, Rangey, another hole in the foot, bang!!