I reckon people who've argued Neeld mishandled the Moloney fallout are probably spot on, and that Moloney would have added real value to the team in 2013 with his AFL ready body and clearence work etc etc

But I do support Neeld that Moloney is not the type of mid I want Viney etc to be. Moloney is a flat track bully and some people might be happy with that but I am not

Every new boss or manager that comes to an organisation has already formed an opinion on their staff.

Behind closed doors, it's usually "right so who is good and who is bad", with football its all in the media.

You're joking yourself if you dont think Neeld would have come to the club already wanting to make a mark on the leadership squad.

Doesn't help when you're club gets flogged and you're off getting so drunk you urinate on a bar earlier in the season.

Not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. As I said originally: "probably didn't get a good first impression"

If Neeld were to do so factual investigation unlike your good self, he woul have found out that your allegation was unfounded and a rumour.

Neeld also looked after the midfield and defence of Collingwood and oversaw the following Swan (assault), Krakouer (agg assault), Wellingham ( drink driving) and Shaw ( drink driving, giving false evidence at an accident and Perpetually lying).

And if Neeld showed as little insight as you have then he is more a problem than first thought.

If Neeld were to do so factual investigation unlike your good self, he woul have found out that your allegation was unfounded and a rumour.

Neeld also looked after the midfield and defence of Collingwood and oversaw the following Swan (assault), Krakouer (agg assault), Wellingham ( drink driving) and Shaw ( drink driving, giving false evidence at an accident and Perpetually lying).

And if Neeld showed as little insight as you have then he is more a problem than first thought.

You've been maligning his loss on the back of 3 or 4 games.

Big bodied, fair enough.....but, he didn't do what he was asked to do.

He had to go.

The Club is bigger than Moloney.

You've been maligning his loss on the back of 3 or 4 games.

Big bodied, fair enough.....but, he didn't do what he was asked to do.

He had to go.

The Club is bigger than Moloney.

well, at the moment the club is not looking very big

well, at the moment the club is not looking very big

You're right - quite dwarfish in fact.

Or, is that 'littlepeopleish?'

If Neeld were to do so factual investigation unlike your good self, he woul have found out that your allegation was unfounded and a rumour.

Neeld also looked after the midfield and defence of Collingwood and oversaw the following Swan (assault), Krakouer (agg assault), Wellingham ( drink driving) and Shaw ( drink driving, giving false evidence at an accident and Perpetually lying).

And if Neeld showed as little insight as you have then he is more a problem than first thought.

Brent Moloney did urinate on a bar. He admitted it:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/footy-player-caught-urinating-on-bar-in-st-kilda-report/story-e6frf9jf-1226036987002

He didn't have the power to change the leadership group at Collingwood - above his pay and responsibilities.

Even blind Freddy can see that when you have a new coach, who comes to a club that is under-performing, he will scrutinize every aspect of the club - particularly the leadership group.

He will have his own per-conceived view on players and of course he is going to look negatively at someone who is supposed to be a leader urinating at the bar in the same year of him signing.

Again, as I originally said: "probably didn't get a good first impression".

Is that link factual enough for you? There are some great quotes in there, I particularly like it when Moloney says: ""I went out for dinner and had a few beers. Then this happened. As I said I’m disappointed and embarrassed."

Seems like more than rumors to me.

You've been maligning his loss on the back of 3 or 4 games.

Big bodied, fair enough.....but, he didn't do what he was asked to do.

He had to go.

The Club is bigger than Moloney.

The isolation and despatch of Moloney was a mistake...pure and simple

Brent Moloney did urinate on a bar. He admitted it:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/footy-player-caught-urinating-on-bar-in-st-kilda-report/story-e6frf9jf-1226036987002

He didn't have the power to change the leadership group at Collingwood - above his pay and responsibilities.

Even blind Freddy can see that when you have a new coach, who comes to a club that is under-performing, he will scrutinize every aspect of the club - particularly the leadership group.

He will have his own per-conceived view on players and of course he is going to look negatively at someone who is supposed to be a leader urinating at the bar in the same year of him signing.

Again, as I originally said: "probably didn't get a good first impression".

Is that link factual enough for you? There are some great quotes in there, I particularly like it when Moloney says: ""I went out for dinner and had a few beers. Then this happened. As I said I’m disappointed and embarrassed."

Seems like more than rumors to me.

The article states he denies the bar incident and the matter is only alleged. The only "evidence" is an unnamed caller. Read more closely. And Moloneys indiscretion is not a hanging offence of an AFL career. The Collingwood players I mentioned had criminal offences involved but still managed to continue their careers. The reference to them illustrated the strawman argument of your beat up that Neeld was pre judging Moloney on an isolated incident. As midfield coach at Collingwood he would have more likely come up against Beamer when they played MFC. Push that angle and you have a more plausible and valid point.

Nevertheless it's looking a poor decision by Neeld at 1 and 6 with a 4th world midfield.

Brent Moloney did urinate on a bar. He admitted it:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/footy-player-caught-urinating-on-bar-in-st-kilda-report/story-e6frf9jf-1226036987002

The "embarrassed" former vice-captain gave up the post, but denied allegations of public urination after he was asked to leave nightspot Pretty Please.

from your link - that doesn't sound like he admitted it

The isolation and despatch of Moloney was a mistake...pure and simple

The article states he denies the bar incident and the matter is only alleged. The only "evidence" is an unnamed caller. Read more closely. And Moloneys indiscretion is not a hanging offence of an AFL career. The Collingwood players I mentioned had criminal offences involved but still managed to continue their careers. The reference to them illustrated the strawman argument of your beat up that Neeld was pre judging Moloney on an isolated incident. As midfield coach at Collingwood he would have more likely come up against Beamer when they played MFC. Push that angle and you have a more plausible and valid point.

Nevertheless it's looking a poor decision by Neeld at 1 and 6 with a 4th world midfield.

from your link - that doesn't sound like he admitted it

I'll man up: I am wrong, they were rumors and nothing was conclusive.

Rhino, again all I said was ""probably didn't get a good first impression".

New coach, wants to assess what is going wrong, wants to make changes - Moloney probably give a good first impression re his activities earlier on in the season.

You've made a big deal about how Neeld wouldn't have pre-concieved views on players - be realistic, anyone entering a new organisation has pre-concieved views on staff and these activities wouldnt have helped. Sure, he would have most likely thought he is a good player - he had a great year, but he would be thinking is he a good leader for Neeld's leadership squad.

You've made a big deal about how Neeld was midfield coach over questionable Collingwood players - wasn't his list to make changes, different situation, he actually had control over who could be part of the leadership team

I've said this before, dont want to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

I dont like the idea of keeping someone just because we dont have anyone better. A player either adds value or they dont. I think it is pointless saying we should have kept Beamer because look at how the rest of the midfield are playing.

I have no problem with Beamer going at all. I have a problem with us having no midfielders who have really stepped up ( save possibly the two Jones boys) - the two issues are stand alone for me.

I have question marks all over Neelds player management and communication style but I only have the visual facts of the players are not playing well and with not much heart for me to reach that conclusion, although I have seen an improvement in the last couple of games. When Neeld came - i liked his no nonsense approach but I havent seen enough players flourish under his reign and i would have liked to have seen a player with some attributes ( and some deficiencies) like Beamer improve last year under Neeld - instead he went backwards.

There havent been enough players who have shown improvement for my liking.

I dont like the idea of keeping someone just because we dont have anyone better. A player either adds value or they dont. I think it is pointless saying we should have kept Beamer because look at how the rest of the midfield are playing.

I have no problem with Beamer going at all. I have a problem with us having no midfielders who have really stepped up ( save possibly the two Jones boys) - the two issues are stand alone for me.

I have question marks all over Neelds player management and communication style but I only have the visual facts of the players are not playing well and with not much heart for me to reach that conclusion, although I have seen an improvement in the last couple of games. When Neeld came - i liked his no nonsense approach but I havent seen enough players flourish under his reign and i would have liked to have seen a player with some attributes ( and some deficiencies) like Beamer improve last year under Neeld - instead he went backwards.

There havent been enough players who have shown improvement for my liking.

That's a strawman Nutbean. No is arguing the no one better

I question why he was ostracised and pushed by Neeld so readily when what he could possibly been of service in a midfield thats severely deficient. I am not sure what sort of positive development there is for players like Toumpas, Trengove and M Jones when you are literally smashed in the midfield. It does nothing for Terlich and TMac when opposition midfielders flood inside 50 without pressure or contest.

And your last sentence is spot on.

That's a strawman Nutbean. No is arguing the no one better

I question why he was ostracised and pushed by Neeld so readily when what he could possibly been of service in a midfield thats severely deficient. I am not sure what sort of positive development there is for players like Toumpas, Trengove and M Jones when you are literally smashed in the midfield. It does nothing for Terlich and TMac when opposition midfielders flood inside 50 without pressure or contest.

And your last sentence is spot on.

I trhnk the question is why maybe only 2-3 of the list has stepped up.

The isolation and despatch of Moloney was a mistake...pure and simple

The article states he denies the bar incident and the matter is only alleged. The only "evidence" is an unnamed caller. Read more closely. And Moloneys indiscretion is not a hanging offence of an AFL career. The Collingwood players I mentioned had criminal offences involved but still managed to continue their careers. The reference to them illustrated the strawman argument of your beat up that Neeld was pre judging Moloney on an isolated incident. As midfield coach at Collingwood he would have more likely come up against Beamer when they played MFC. Push that angle and you have a more plausible and valid point.

Nevertheless it's looking a poor decision by Neeld at 1 and 6 with a 4th world midfield.

If there was no more "evidence" than that of an "unnamed caller", then surely it was rough justice that he lost his place in the leadership group?

On the other hand, if the club spoke to the owners of the bar and got their story, then perhaps losing his place in the leadership group (without being suspended for even a single game) wasn't sufficient penalty and we would have been far better off imposing the sort of penalty that Collingwood did with Heath Shaw and the others which brought them into line. Perhaps if the club had dealt out tougher discipline with its errant players in the latter half of the 2000's, we might have been a club far better off for the experience?

I trhnk the question is why maybe only 2-3 of the list has stepped up.

Agree. I can name only 2 IMO that have and one of those is a qualified choice.

If there was no more "evidence" than that of an "unnamed caller", then surely it was rough justice that he lost his place in the leadership group?

We dont know if there is or isnt but if your position is correct then it may have been initial rough justice but I had felt that Moloney had done alot to turn it around.

The isolation and despatch of Moloney was a mistake...pure and simple

The article states he denies the bar incident and the matter is only alleged. The only "evidence" is an unnamed caller. Read more closely. And Moloneys indiscretion is not a hanging offence of an AFL career. The Collingwood players I mentioned had criminal offences involved but still managed to continue their careers. The reference to them illustrated the strawman argument of your beat up that Neeld was pre judging Moloney on an isolated incident. As midfield coach at Collingwood he would have more likely come up against Beamer when they played MFC. Push that angle and you have a more plausible and valid point.

Nevertheless it's looking a poor decision by Neeld at 1 and 6 with a 4th world midfield.

Trust me on this Rhino, he did it. The area had to be cleaned professionally.

Trust me on this Rhino, he did it. The area had to be cleaned professionally.

I'm getting the impression that the above information was leaked to you?

Am I right?

Trust me on this Rhino, he did it. The area had to be cleaned professionally.

I trust he missed your boots when he did it.

I'm getting the impression that the above information was leaked to you?

Am I right?

Funny and yes.

I trust he missed your boots when he did it.

Since my boots weren't propped up against a bar at 3 AM, yes he missed them. Pity the carpet and bar weren't as lucky.

Trust me on this Rhino, he did it. The area had to be cleaned professionally.

How much does it cost to hire a professional pee cleaner. Is it a lot?

Heads up that Beamer is a guest on tomorrow night's AFL 360. I wonder what sort of things they'll talk about..

Will be interesting to see if he goes the diplomacy route or the Rivers route. I'm tipping the latter.

Heads up that Beamer is a guest on tomorrow night's AFL 360. I wonder what sort of things they'll talk about..

Will be interesting to see if he goes the diplomacy route or the Rivers route. I'm tipping the latter.

As long as he doesn't go the Mclean route...

I hope he goes the diplomatic route and talks positively about the new opportunity he has at Bris.

He could send no more powerful retort to those that have "demonised" him while at MFC than to keep the positive form going and to get the Bris B&F.

Beamer is a WYSIWYG footballer who was never going to be a star and has had a few indiscretions off field. But after tough situations he has shown to apply himself to better his performance. And for that he deserves credit.

No matter if he goes the Rivers or McLean route, they are both spot on.

Brock and Scully left because of the board and culture problems and have since proven to be in the right.

Rivers and Moloney left because of Mark Neeld and both have since proven that it was a smart move on their behalf.

I will be watching 360 as Moloney bled Red and Blue and is one of our own, I hope he tees off on Neeld.

Taking the Rivers route by the looks.

..or not. Only said he didn't believe in Neeld and that was a reason that he left. Nothing to see really.

Edited May 16, 201312 yr by P_Man