Relax... We've still got Jesse Hogan...

[Little Richard 6,262]

Jonothan brown is a victorian boy, mathew pavlich is a south Australian, buddy is western Australian, none of the above have requested a trade to date, and we have plenty of upside with some good young players, the ability to play on the MCG 10+ times a year and very deep pockets in terms of cap room,

not going to resign to the idea he will up and leave first chance he gets just yet.

Surely this would have been something Neeld and the recruiting Team would have wanted to be confident about before the decided to invest so much time, resources and early picks on this young fella.

glass half full anyways.

You are keen to name key position players who haven't left their clubs to go back to their home states but the fact is there are a hundred players at least who play for different states and haven't gone home.... everyone chill the eff out.

Hogan will be a star and will be our star.

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

hes on the list of the worst club since fitzroy. cant compare that to jono browns situation. he will be thinking what the F#^*????!!!

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

Lets not kid ourselves guys. it is a VERY real threat that our good players are going to get out as soon as they can. to be flippant and blase about that is inviting disaster. in my opinion its the biggest threat we have - a slow but steady one way trickle of talent from our list.

the FD better get their ducks in a row quick smart. once players start leaving it wil create a vicious cycle that will be very hard to correct

[Strafford 182]

Barring injury the kid does look the goods. The team will look a lot different when his contract is up, so we actually don't know what the situation will be then. Until then just enjoy his play. He does seem to be a competitive beast, which is what we need.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I can understand the reticence of some posters to make predictions these days, but Hogan will be the club's best player since Flower. And if he's as good as I think he'll surpass him; merely for being one of the most dominant key forwards in his generation. They don't grow on trees.

With what is happening at the club I doubt any supporter wouldn't be a tad nervous about his future, thankfully we have nearly 3 years to entrench him into our club. Mitch Clark and the young guys like Viney, where he's living, will be the key. Players love their mates. Obviously he needs to see the chance of future success, but it would be highly unusual for a player not to sign a second contract. There's no commencement club on the horizon to offer ridiculous money and it's unlikely he'd just walk into the draft, so I reckon we'll be OK.

But Boy, do we need to start getting things right at this club. Call me mad, but I still reckon the young core of the list isn't too bad. But there are clearly deep seated issues that are yet to reach the public surface. Someone needs to get to the bottom of what is going on and do whatever it takes to fix it. It's not necessarily kowtowing, or pandering to the players, but it's about understanding their needs, understanding what drives them, what unifies them and bringing about the best practices to maximise their collective potential.

Neeld, may, or may not survive, I reckon he's toast, because there's just too much baggage under his tenure, but if there is change, they must bring in a voice that the players respect. It must be a coach that has had significant success. Easier said than done.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

I can understand the reticence of some posters to make predictions these days, but Hogan will be the club's best player since Flower. And if he's as good as I think he'll surpass him; merely for being one of the most dominant key forwards in his generation. They don't grow on trees.

With what is happening at the club I doubt any supporter wouldn't be a tad nervous about his future, thankfully we have nearly 3 years to entrench him into our club. Mitch Clark and the young guys like Viney, where he's living, will be the key. Players love their mates. Obviously he needs to see the chance of future success, but it would be highly unusual for a player not to sign a second contract. There's no commencement club on the horizon to offer ridiculous money and it's unlikely he'd just walk into the draft, so I reckon we'll be OK.

But Boy, do we need to start getting things right at this club. Call me mad, but I still reckon the young core of the list isn't too bad. But there are clearly deep seated issues that are yet to reach the public surface. Someone needs to get to the bottom of what is going on and do whatever it takes to fix it. It's not necessarily kowtowing, or pandering to the players, but it's about understanding their needs, understanding what drives them, what unifies them and bringing about the best practices to maximise their collective potential.

Neeld, may, or may not survive, I reckon he's toast, because there's just too much baggage under his tenure, but if there is change, they must bring in a voice that the players respect. It must be a coach that has had significant success. Easier said than done.

Well said.

[Roost It 1,434]

The AFL should direct and sponsor Paul Roos to be our next coach

[Strafford 182]

To me you touch on a very important point Ben Hur. Players do love their mates and for all the rhetoric over bleeding for the jumper etc etc they are in reality bleeding for their mates, to not let them down. The wrongs and rights of our situation are up for debate, but any clear out of players creates turmoil and grief, because you are turfing out mates.

[Hannibal 5,814]

To me you touch on a very important point Ben Hur. Players do love their mates and for all the rhetoric over bleeding for the jumper etc etc they are in reality bleeding for their mates, to not let them down. The wrongs and rights of our situation are up for debate, but any clear out of players creates turmoil and grief, because you are turfing out mates.

My Brother was on Hawthorn's senior list for 3 years and he told me many years ago that it's their teammates they play for. They have a bond with the club and jumper, but it's their mates that are the glue.

When you jettison so many over a relatively quick period you're clearly damaging the fabric of a club. That said, I was all for clearing out the dead wood. I lost sight of what drives footy clubs.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Ben-Hur

[Chook 15,013]

My Brother was on Hawthorn's senior list for 3 years and he told me many years ago that it's their teammates they play for. They have a bond with the club and jumper, but it's their mates that are the glue.

When you jettison so many over a relatively quick period you're clearly damaging the fabric of a club. That said, I was all for clearing out the dead wood. I lost sight of what drives footy clubs.

I think the danger lies in only going halfway. Either you turf em all and everyone forms new bonds or you keep em all and maintain the bonds that already exist.

If you don't go all the way, the ones that remain feel [censored] off that their mates are gone; while the new boys can't join the circle because the ones that remain have become too insular.

I fear that getting rid of Neeld half way into his cleanout will only serve to further the divide between those who remain and those who are still to come.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Chook

[timD 994]

My Brother was on Hawthorn's senior list for 3 years and he told me many years ago that it's their teammates they play for. They have a bond with the club and jumper, but it's their mates that are the glue.

When you jettison so many over a relatively quick period you're clearly damaging the fabric of a club. That said, I was all for clearing out the dead wood. I lost sight of what drives footy clubs.

I think a lot of people - me included - did too. The utter void of leadership also caught me out. I assumed that blokes would step up and I assumed that there would be people ready for the job.

So wrong.

[mjt 640]

Even if they did want him by then they would have to give us like pick 1,2 and 3 for him (I think there would be competition for a J.Brown jnr).

Thats exactly correct, we hold the cards.

[Strafford 182]

My Brother was on Hawthorn's senior list for 3 years and he told me many years ago that it's their teammates they play for. They have a bond with the club and jumper, but it's their mates that are the glue.

When you jettison so many over a relatively quick period you're clearly damaging the fabric of a club. That said, I was all for clearing out the dead wood. I lost sight of what drives footy clubs.

The other complicating factor is the bonding with staff. Players aren't robots, they do see some staff as father figures, mentors and friends. Again lots of turnover hits them. Jimmy dying would have hit them hard. I'm the same as you things had to change, but it had to be handled very carefully. I think the mistakes we made after 186 impact heavily on where we are at now.

[Nasher 33,615]

I think a lot of people - me included - did too. The utter void of leadership also caught me out. I assumed that blokes would step up and I assumed that there would be people ready for the job.

So wrong.

Is the alternative of holding on to players who won't fall in to line a better one? Like you I was all for the cleanout, but now I have doubts. Just reinforces to me that I have NFI about this stuff. As supporters we have to just hope those in charge do know best.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I think the danger lies in only going halfway. Either you turf em all and everyone forms new bonds or you keep em all and maintain the bonds that already exist.

If you don't go all the way, the ones that remain feel [censored] off that their mates are gone; while the new boys can't join the circle because the ones that remain have become too insular.

I fear that getting rid of Neeld half way into his cleanout will only serve to further the divide between those who remain and those who are still to come.

How can you keep a coach that has lost the players ? Whether you think Grant Thomas is a buffoon, or not, he's a former coach that has an understanding of footy clubs and he stated that Neeld had "lost the players" after round 1 last year. Does it look like the players are playing for him now ? Has anything changed.

I can't fathom how you can't make a call on a coach that is clearly poles apart from his playing group. Ask yourself a question. Are the Port players playing for first year coach Ken Hinkley ? And then think of Melbourne and Neeld. There comes a point in time where there's just too much damage to keep going.

This is what Thomas said of Neeld over a year ago:

Mark Neeld was a school teacher and his attitude reminds me of some of the Christian Brothers I experienced at St Bede's College many years ago. All froth and bubble, threatening, dictating, my way or the highway and without a relationship bone in their body. One senses that wasn't the way he played and its not really his temperament or personality which players see through very quickly. He may very well be the first coach to lose his players before he started. His handling of the leadership group - whilst understandable and in my opinion correct - was obviously not implemented well and was done with little or no buy-in, or empowerment from the playing group.

Note that I'm not referring to his other allegations regarding meetings with the Indigenous players.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Ben-Hur

[Strafford 182]

Is the alternative of holding on to players who won't fall in to line a better one? Like you I was all for the cleanout, but now I have doubts. Just reinforces to me that I have NFI about this stuff. As supporters we have to just hope those in charge do know best.

It depends on how it is handled and who you get rid of. I don't think Neeld had a clear run at it. I reckon he made a few decisions on players based on the negative perceptions of others rather than just taking a season to look at the group and then make decisions about leadership and who you don't want at the club. The mistake can be jumping on guys who are vocal in their criticism, rather than look at the fact that they could just be egged on by others who are the real problem.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Is the alternative of holding on to players who won't fall in to line a better one? Like you I was all for the cleanout, but now I have doubts. Just reinforces to me that I have NFI about this stuff. As supporters we have to just hope those in charge do know best.

Is it time to question the role of List Manager Tim Harrington, or is he simply in charge of contracts and at the behest of the senior coach ?

[Hannibal 5,814]

It depends on how it is handled and who you get rid of. I don't think Neeld had a clear run at it. I reckon he made a few decisions on players based on the negative perceptions of others rather than just taking a season to look at the group and then make decisions about leadership and who you don't want at the club. The mistake can be jumping on guys who are vocal in their criticism, rather than look at the fact that they could just be egged on by others who are the real problem.

I reckon he did take a season to look at the list, which is why he made 15 changes after his first year.

[Strafford 182]

How can you keep a coach that has lost the players ? Whether you think Grant Thomas is a buffoon, or not, he's a former coach that has an understanding of footy clubs and he stated that Neeld had "lost the players" after round 1 last year. Does it look like the players are playing for him now ? Has anything changed.

I can't fathom how you can't make a call on a coach that is clearly poles apart from his playing group. Ask yourself a question. Are the Port players playing for first year coach Ken Hinkley ? And then think of Melbourne and Neeld. There comes a point in time where there's just too much damage to keep going.

This is what Thomas said of Neeld over a year ago:

Mark Neeld was a school teacher and his attitude reminds me of some of the Christian Brothers I experienced at St Bede's College many years ago. All froth and bubble, threatening, dictating, my way or the highway and without a relationship bone in their body. One senses that wasn't the way he played and its not really his temperament or personality which players see through very quickly. He may very well be the first coach to lose his players before he started. His handling of the leadership group - whilst understandable and in my opinion correct - was obviously not implemented well and was done with little or no buy-in, or empowerment from the playing group.

Note that I'm not referring to his other allegations regarding meetings with the Indigenous players.

I am torn on this one. I think he was heavily influenced by some who had strong views on the player group and acted accordingly rather than having an open mind and making his own judgements. I genuinely believe that he thought the players that left were a major reason as to why we struggled in his first year. Thus another reason for the shock at our first two rounds. Change hurts and leaves scars, which is why doing it frequently is not a recipe for success, but is Neelds position untenable and beyond retrieving. I just don't know.

[Strafford 182]

I reckon he did take a season to look at the list, which is why he made 15 changes after his first year.

But he changed the dynamics by changing the leadership group. Some of those who left may not have been the right ones if attitude was the criteria.

[Adam The God 30,239]

I can understand the reticence of some posters to make predictions these days, but Hogan will be the club's best player since Flower. And if he's as good as I think he'll surpass him; merely for being one of the most dominant key forwards in his generation. They don't grow on trees.

With what is happening at the club I doubt any supporter wouldn't be a tad nervous about his future, thankfully we have nearly 3 years to entrench him into our club. Mitch Clark and the young guys like Viney, where he's living, will be the key. Players love their mates. Obviously he needs to see the chance of future success, but it would be highly unusual for a player not to sign a second contract. There's no commencement club on the horizon to offer ridiculous money and it's unlikely he'd just walk into the draft, so I reckon we'll be OK.

But Boy, do we need to start getting things right at this club. Call me mad, but I still reckon the young core of the list isn't too bad. But there are clearly deep seated issues that are yet to reach the public surface. Someone needs to get to the bottom of what is going on and do whatever it takes to fix it. It's not necessarily kowtowing, or pandering to the players, but it's about understanding their needs, understanding what drives them, what unifies them and bringing about the best practices to maximise their collective potential.

Neeld, may, or may not survive, I reckon he's toast, because there's just too much baggage under his tenure, but if there is change, they must bring in a voice that the players respect. It must be a coach that has had significant success. Easier said than done.

Nope. I completely agree with you. It's about game plan, structures and personnel. Particularly in the midfield. We've seen that the backline as the ability to repel forward thrusts under Bailey - this is essentially the same back half, minus the admittedly experienced Rivers. Clark, Dawes and Hogan will be a powerful forwardline. Get some crumbers and goal kicking midfielders around them and it becomes an undeniable attacking threat. Viney looks like being a consistent ball winner. Nurture his abilities with A grade talent around him and all of a sudden Trengove, Grimes and even the limited McKenzie will start to look good.

But essentially what you're getting at is player buy in and respect both ways. Hence it has to be a coach that has had the ultimate success, I agree, so for mine Clarkson and Roos are our best options. I can't see us getting either of them, without the AFLs help. But given his ability to instil the bloods culture, I'd say Roos is almost the perfect fit. However, with our firepower in the forward half, we might be more suited to Clarkson, given his Hawthorn team. It's about strengthening the defensive mindset of the team, ironically the aspect Neeld was brought in to tackle.

[Strafford 182]

Nope. I completely agree with you. It's about game plan, structures and personnel. Particularly in the midfield. We've seen that the backline as the ability to repel forward thrusts under Bailey - this is essentially the same back half, minus the admittedly experienced Rivers. Clark, Dawes and Hogan will be a powerful forwardline. Get some crumbers and goal kicking midfielders around them and it becomes an undeniable attacking threat. Viney looks like being a consistent ball winner. Nurture his abilities with A grade talent around him and all of a sudden Trengove, Grimes and even the limited McKenzie will start to look good.

But essentially what you're getting at is player buy in and respect both ways. Hence it has to be a coach that has had the ultimate success, I agree, so for mine Clarkson and Roos are our best options. I can't see us getting either of them, without the AFLs help. But given his ability to instil the bloods culture, I'd say Roos is almost the perfect fit. However, with our firepower in the forward half, we might be more suited to Clarkson, given his Hawthorn team. It's about strengthening the defensive mindset of the team, ironically the aspect Neeld was brought in to tackle.

You make some good points. I think next season will give us a clearer picture as to where we are at, regardless of coach, just because rightly or wrongly we will have cleared out most of our senior players.

[Nasher 33,615]

Is it time to question the role of List Manager Tim Harrington, or is he simply in charge of contracts and at the behest of the senior coach ?

I've always understood it to be the latter and I reckon you will understand how I got that impression. I would love to know for sure.

[Adam The God 30,239]

You make some good points. I think next season will give us a clearer picture as to where we are at, regardless of coach, just because rightly or wrongly we will have cleared out most of our senior players.

It's tough though, because as BH says, there's probably too much baggage attached to Neeld and his time at the club. I'd agree again. I'm beginning to think we can't move forward without that change of coach. We'd really have to see a drastic change onfield this season to goes against this theory. I just can't see it happening.

Hogan's gonna be a gun, but I wouldn't be surprised if Mitch kicks 5 or 6 today.

Edited April 21, 2013 by AdamFarr

[Strafford 182]

It's tough though, because as BH says, there's probably too much baggage attached to Neeld and his time at the club. I'd agree again. I'm beginning to think we can't move forward without that change of coach. We'd really have to see a drastic change onfield this season to goes against this theory. I just can't see it happening.

Hogan's gonna be a gun, but I wouldn't be surprised if Mitch kicks 5 or 6 today.

Yep and that is the problem we face. It probably is too late for him, because at some point enough is enough. There really would have to be significant progress for him to survive. I honestly doubt he will be here come years end, but where I differ from a few is that I don't think It is entirely his fault if he does go. I truly hope I am wrong about him going as I believe that would mean we would have had to have improved significantly for him to have kept his job. Lose today and despite all the financial and stability implications, I just don't see how we keep him.