On 06/06/2013 at 06:49, stuie said:

I'll be making a note of that statement.

I see a technicality in this, there is no such person as 'Gysyberts'

Neeld arrived.

Neeld sprayed a lot of the players.

Neeld demonstrated zero respect for certain older players and no interest in earning their respect.

Moloney thought he was a shoe in for captain.

Instead Moloney stood up to Neeld and voiced concerns of the players

Moloney got Casey for his troubles and off he went on his merry way.

  On 06/06/2013 at 07:47, Norm Smith said:

Neeld arrived.

Neeld sprayed a lot of the players.

Neeld demonstrated zero respect for certain older players and no interest in earning their respect.

Moloney thought he was a shoe in for captain.

Instead Moloney stood up to Neeld and voiced concerns of the players

Moloney got Casey for his troubles and off he went on his merry way.

That's a very idealistic way of thinking about it. You're missing a few steps there, such as Moloney not willing to do the required work and simply believing he deserved the captaincy and didn't have to work for it.

  On 06/06/2013 at 07:50, Django said:

That's a very idealistic way of thinking about it. You're missing a few steps there, such as Moloney not willing to do the required work and simply believing he deserved the captaincy and didn't have to work for it.

I don't understand this and everyone saying Moloney didn't want to do the extra work. He was the hardest trainer and was always doing extra work for e.g boxing camps during the bye. Also people saying it was Mark Neeld's best move getting rid of Moloney is bizarre. Why does everyone think we didn't offer a contract just because we didn't match Brisbane's?

He wasn't willing to do the work Neeld asked him to do (improving the defensive side of his game).

  On 06/06/2013 at 07:59, PeterJames said:

I don't understand this and everyone saying Moloney didn't want to do the extra work. He was the hardest trainer and was always doing extra work for e.g boxing camps during the bye. Also people saying it was Mark Neeld's best move getting rid of Moloney is bizarre. Why does everyone think we didn't offer a contract just because we didn't match Brisbane's?

Moloney sat down with Neeld at the end of the year and said he wanted out. So I don't think we offered a contract. If he thought there was more money on offer at Melbourne he might have played it out a bit more but obviously what/if anything coming from Melbourne contract wise wasn't the issue.

Most people agree Neeld's treatment of Moloney led him to leave and was a bad move, but what we don't know is exactly what that treatment entailed and whether it was a reasonable expectation. If I was coaching Moloney I'd be harping on to him about improving his dynamic speed in close and laying more tackles and running harder defensively. Because that's what stands out when he plays against good teams. Yet at the same time I think I'd value what he could do and keep him in the middle not playing forward or for Casey.

Interesting though we are see a very Moloney/Neeld dynamic play out with Swan/Buckley at the moment. If anything it's only Swan's greater talent than Moloney which hasn't resulted him getting to the 2's. Although publicly Buckley has been supportive of Swan. On the other hand we see Malthouse at Carlton fine Jarrad Waite for a stupid suspension but also bring him straight back into the team and into an important role.

can't remember who made this point the other day.. 'alienating the senior players' has become one of the key lines for anti-neeld sentiment. It should be noted that the shortcomings of this group (the senior players) has previously been considered the number one reason we have been so bad the last 6 years. There is a definite contradiction there.

  On 06/06/2013 at 08:12, Curry & Beer said:

can't remember who made this point the other day.. 'alienating the senior players' has become one of the key lines for anti-neeld sentiment. It should be noted that the shortcomings of this group (the senior players) has previously been considered the number one reason we have been so bad the last 6 years. There is a definite contradiction there.

and lack of these players in the first place

  On 06/06/2013 at 08:12, Curry & Beer said:

can't remember who made this point the other day.. 'alienating the senior players' has become one of the key lines for anti-neeld sentiment. It should be noted that the shortcomings of this group (the senior players) has previously been considered the number one reason we have been so bad the last 6 years. There is a definite contradiction there.

At the same time the new wave of "senior players" - Trengove, Grimes, Jones, Clark, Garland, Dawes, Byrnes, Rodan seem on side with Neeld. Davey seems to have come around.

The alienated group may include Frawley (we aren't sure), Sylvia (again not sure) and possibly Jamar.

Green I think had just had enough and thought life would be easier assistant coaching regardless of whether he was pro or against Neeld. That said the fact he went and worked for Malthouse shows some kind of agreement with Neeld's philosophy (maybe).

We know Rivers wasn't overly happy but he got a great opportunity and even Moloney got an opportunity to play for a coach who wanted him more, that doesn't necessarily mean he was completely alienated by Neeld.

If by some miracle Sylvia makes it to the end of the year then he'll be the perfect test case for whether Neeld can get senior guys on board, but it's much more important he keeps the Jacks, Jones, Clark and co.

  On 06/06/2013 at 06:53, DemonWA said:

Moloney is better than almost all of our midfielders. Regardless of whether he can shake a tag or stands up in big games.

It's about sending a message though. I'd much prefer Jones showing our mids the work-rate required to become a competitive, rounded footballer than having Moloney still there. That is one short term pain, long term gain I'm willing to cop into the future.

  On 06/06/2013 at 07:47, Norm Smith said:

Neeld arrived.

Neeld sprayed a lot of the players.

Neeld demonstrated zero respect for certain older players and no interest in earning their respect.

Moloney thought he was a shoe in for captain.

Instead Moloney stood up to Neeld and voiced concerns of the players

Moloney got Casey for his troubles and off he went on his merry way.

The players voted for the Jack's - cant really put that one on Neeld.

Moloney stood up for himself and what he wanted - captaincy.

He wasn't a marytr.

  On 06/06/2013 at 07:50, Django said:

That's a very idealistic way of thinking about it. You're missing a few steps there, such as Moloney not willing to do the required work and simply believing he deserved the captaincy and didn't have to work for it.

The difference being mine was based on fact, whereas yours is assumption...

The truth will come out and there is definitely two sides to the story.

  On 06/06/2013 at 07:47, Norm Smith said:

Neeld demonstrated zero respect for certain older players and no interest in earning their respect.

Instead Moloney stood up to Neeld and voiced concerns of the players

  On 06/06/2013 at 08:36, Norm Smith said:

The difference being mine was based on fact, whereas yours is assumption...

Show me evidence for the above statements.

  On 06/06/2013 at 08:36, Norm Smith said:

The difference being mine was based on fact, whereas yours is assumption...

Please show me evidence of your facts on:

• Neeld spraying the players
• Neeld having no respect/not wanting to earn the respect of seniors
• Moloney staning up for the players

didnt he also try and get traded to the Dons before this ?

  On 06/06/2013 at 08:08, the master said:

Moloney sat down with Neeld at the end of the year and said he wanted out. So I don't think we offered a contract. If he thought there was more money on offer at Melbourne he might have played it out a bit more but obviously what/if anything coming from Melbourne contract wise wasn't the issue.

Most people agree Neeld's treatment of Moloney led him to leave and was a bad move, but what we don't know is exactly what that treatment entailed and whether it was a reasonable expectation. If I was coaching Moloney I'd be harping on to him about improving his dynamic speed in close and laying more tackles and running harder defensively. Because that's what stands out when he plays against good teams. Yet at the same time I think I'd value what he could do and keep him in the middle not playing forward or for Casey.

Interesting though we are see a very Moloney/Neeld dynamic play out with Swan/Buckley at the moment. If anything it's only Swan's greater talent than Moloney which hasn't resulted him getting to the 2's. Although publicly Buckley has been supportive of Swan. On the other hand we see Malthouse at Carlton fine Jarrad Waite for a stupid suspension but also bring him straight back into the team and into an important role.

  On 06/06/2013 at 08:38, Norm Smith said:

The truth will come out and there is definitely two sides to the story.

You need to stop posting this on various threads or give people something, it's just stupid.

  On 06/06/2013 at 08:41, Django said:

You need to stop posting this on various threads or give people something, it's just stupid.

  On 06/06/2013 at 08:41, Django said:

You need to stop posting this on various threads or give people something, it's just stupid.

mate I don't need to do anything - I can do what I like. Last time I checked it was a free country...

Someone told me a few things in confidence and Ill keep it that way - particularly when some clown gives me attitude. But there is a set of facts often reported here that are based purely on speculation.

Where you at the club watching Moloney train? Did you speak to him personally and did he say that? Did a club source openly come out and say that Moloney was playing casey because he wouldn't work on his defensive game? Did the coach say that? How were Moloney's tackle and defensive stats? Was he the worst offender in terms of is defensive game? How many tackles did we lay against gold coast?

You often see comments that Moloney wouldn't work on his defensive game or didn't work hard enough and that was the sole reason he was sent to Casey but its entirely based on nothing but speculation. At no time did the club say that was the reason he was playing at casey other than some subtle comments from in one pressor.

  On 06/06/2013 at 08:50, Norm Smith said:

mate I don't need to do anything - I can do what I like. Last time I checked it was a free country...

Someone told me a few things in confidence and Ill keep it that way - particularly when some clown gives me attitude. But there is a set of facts often reported here that are based purely on speculation.

Where you at the club watching Moloney train? Did you speak to him personally and did he say that? Did a club source openly come out and say that Moloney was playing casey because he wouldn't work on his defensive game? Did the coach say that? How were Moloney's tackle and defensive stats? Was he the worst offender in terms of is defensive game? How many tackles did we lay against gold coast?

You often said comment that Moloney wouldn't work on his defensive game or didn't work hard enough and that was the sole reason he was sent to Casey is based on nothing but speculation.

I didn't claim mine was based on fact however it is widely stipulated and has been for a long time that Moloney was not willing to listen to Neeld and improve the defensive side of his game. He has always come across as a bit precious and this matches with those stories.

You however, haven't provided any evidence for your comments which you claim were based on facts. All you have is vague statements about 'being in the know' so spare me.

  On 06/06/2013 at 07:59, PeterJames said:

Why does everyone think we didn't offer a contract just because we didn't match Brisbane's?

Because the club released a statement last year prior to the FA period stating that we would not be matching any offers for Moloney.

  On 06/06/2013 at 08:54, Django said:

I didn't claim mine was based on fact however it is widely stipulated and has been for a long time that Moloney was not willing to listen to Neeld and improve the defensive side of his game. He has always come across as a bit precious and this matches with those stories.

You however, haven't provided any evidence for your comments which you claim were based on facts. All you have is vague statements about 'being in the know' so spare me.

Oh so widely stipulated views made by external observers hold weight because people agree with them based on their personal views of Brent? Holds more weight than vague statements that dispute an opinion you voiced that you admit is based on speculation?

I wont be providing any evidence for my comments on a public page. Take it or leave it. but when you hear things from people that at least SHOULD know you feel the urge to pass them on despite not wanting to expose those people.

  On 06/06/2013 at 08:50, Norm Smith said:

mate I don't need to do anything - I can do what I like. Last time I checked it was a free country...

Someone told me a few things in confidence and Ill keep it that way - particularly when some clown gives me attitude. But there is a set of facts often reported here that are based purely on speculation.

Where you at the club watching Moloney train? Did you speak to him personally and did he say that? Did a club source openly come out and say that Moloney was playing casey because he wouldn't work on his defensive game? Did the coach say that? How were Moloney's tackle and defensive stats? Was he the worst offender in terms of is defensive game? How many tackles did we lay against gold coast?

You often see comments that Moloney wouldn't work on his defensive game or didn't work hard enough and that was the sole reason he was sent to Casey but its entirely based on nothing but speculation. At no time did the club say that was the reason he was playing at casey other than some subtle comments from in one pressor.

I wouldn't know what the club or Neelds reasoning was but from my viewpoint he struggled with a tag, often bombed the ball forward instead of looking for what the best option was, tried to break tackles when there was a better option (usually a teammate) rarely if ever used his body to clear space for a teammate, and only tackled when someone was in his space. I thought he was a selfish player and in the long run the right move was made.

As for the Collingwood game the other night Swan and Pendles were on and Beam struggled. Black showed how it should be done but I guess that's a bit unfair as he is a champion although a bit of revisionist thinking has Moloney up the rungs a bit further than he really is. He's been ok this year I will give him that, but the same bad habits come back to bite his team on the bum.

Long time between posts for me but I do read the page regularly.

Despite all of his character flaws Moloney bleed for the read and blue, performed well often comparative to our current list.

After priding himself as being a leader within the club he was ousted by the coach effectively meaning I dont give a rats ass about what you have done for this club.

Some call this as a good call, but surely a player than has played over 100 games for the club as in and under player, constantly fighting of tags needs to be shown some respect.

Respect is a 2 way street and Neeld came in and gave no respect to any of the senior players, hence the fractions.

Despite how poor their leadership might have been they always acted in the best interests of the MFC.

Within a year under Neeld he was essentially told the game had become too quick for him giving reasons like quicker stoppages e.g. ball up times is affecting Moloney at bounces. An example of confidence destruction under Neeld which a lot of our list are dealing with.........................

I will clarify the above - the words facts are a bit strong. The words should have been 'informed opinion'. I respect that if someone makes a statement without any facts presented people may scoff at it. I would. But I am confident its close to the truth.

Batemania, I like your angle on Moloney's departure. I think this is the best account of why Moloney looked elsewhere because it isn't overstating the clash he may have had with the boss. I think it would be a handy option to put Moloney in the team right now... if he was available (mature body, good with Jamar, etc etc). However, I don't think Moloney was the answer long term (lacking pace, bombing it long, not running hard enough the other way). Neeld's short term mistake is that he made structural changes like this too quickly. He wasn't wrong, taking a long term view, but he was impatient... much to his own demise!