He was wanting to go before Neeld got to the club, it's a convenient excuse now.

He almost went to Essendon the year before didn't he, but Watson woke up in a sweat, & that was the end of that?

& they also missed out on the Golfers servant...

And your evidence is?

It's more a question 'RR', the word was that he was headed for Essendon at the end of the 2011 season. I don't know for certain that it is true and maybe someone here might know the details but if it wass the case it would seem he was disenfranchised from the time Bailey left the club and Neeld is a convenient excuse.

There are a lot of things you can hang Neeld for but this may not be one of them, well not completely anyway. The players seemed to really lose their way during the 2011 season and have not been on track since. Neeld came in with a message that was in line with the chiefs but the Indians didn't buy it. Maybe, maybe not all I know is something went wrong and it wasn't just Moloney.

Moloney taken us to school when we played Brisbane, made us look second rate.

Yet some here will have you believe he wouldn't be in our best 18.

Moloney taken us to school when we played Brisbane, made us look second rate.

Yet some here will have you believe he wouldn't be in our best 18.

Oh, he would be in the 18.

He would be getting 30 touches against GC and GWS and 15 against every other team.

He would yell, and scream, and point - and we would be having the very same conversations about the future of the list that we are having now.

That isn't to say that Moloney should not have been kept - I would have kept him.

But the evocations of Moloney's use is being so inflated that I had to post in this thread: if he were at the club we would be exactly where we are.

He would yell, and scream, and point - and we would be having the very same conversations about the future of the list that we are having now.

The evocations of Moloney's use is being so inflated that I had to post in this thread: if he were at the club we would be exactly where we are.

They were the things he was best at. POinting Geez that used to give me the shiites. Too lazy to pick up a player and not damaging when he was on his own...

Tell me... exactly how many quality games against quality sides did Beamer put in over the last 2 or 3 years? I think I've heard the term "downhill skier" used in the past?

7th in the brownlow in 2011. You have to be pretty creative a thinker to say that that is an average player.

It's not that Moloney Left...he was cooked after 186, that is when his power base evaporated

It is the fact that Mark Neeld did not replace him with a like player...Big & Strong. he has had ample time to do it, Moloney had been shopping himself around before Neeld walked in.

Took a years salary too

I am intrigued that every second post about Moloney says he beats up on rubbish teams. Personally I didn't notice that anymore than any other player. I distinctly remember him tearing Collingwood a new one on Queens Birthday.

I am intrigued that every second post about Moloney says he beats up on rubbish teams. Personally I didn't notice that anymore than any other player. I distinctly remember him tearing Collingwood a new one on Queens Birthday.

That's because just like crap teams, Collingwood don't bother tagging anyone.

That's because just like crap teams, Collingwood don't bother tagging anyone.

I'm pretty sure he copped a lot of attention that day. Moloney dragged us back from a big deficit and I would be stunned if Malthouse just let that fly. And even if he couldn't take a tag, he wouldn't be the first player to do so. In fact only a select few can handle a tag and still consistently impact games. The fact he got a tag regularly shows he had quality that very few in our midfield have, actually moreso than all bar one of our current crop.

It's more a question 'RR', the word was that he was headed for Essendon at the end of the 2011 season. I don't know for certain that it is true and maybe someone here might know the details but if it wass the case it would seem he was disenfranchised from the time Bailey left the club and Neeld is a convenient excuse.

There are a lot of things you can hang Neeld for but this may not be one of them, well not completely anyway. The players seemed to really lose their way during the 2011 season and have not been on track since. Neeld came in with a message that was in line with the chiefs but the Indians didn't buy it. Maybe, maybe not all I know is something went wrong and it wasn't just Moloney.

A ha!....."the word"... Then it must be "fact". FMD

That isn't to say that Moloney should not have been kept - I would have kept him.

But the evocations of Moloney's use is being so inflated that I had to post in this thread: if he were at the club we would be exactly where we are.

No one is claiming otherwise.

He is C grade player whose exit has turned a D grade midfield into an E grade midfield.

Given we are so weak in the midfield, it so puzzling Neeld would seek to exit him.

And it would have been better against Bris if his 36 possessions were for us rather than them. He'll it may have even won us a game.

And given the absolute junk this supporter group has had to deal, they deserved the opportunity to at lease savour a win.

A ha!....."the word"... Then it must be "fact". FMD

Like I said, it was more a question. I would like to know more about it, was definitely talked about and now the conventional wisdom is it was all Neeld's doing. Was there any truth behind Moloney wanting to leave at the end of 2011? (remembered the ? mark this time).

Nowhere that I noticed I said anything about fact.

Like I said, it was more a question. I would like to know more about it, was definitely talked about and now the conventional wisdom is it was all Neeld's doing. Was there any truth behind Moloney wanting to leave at the end of 2011? (remembered the ? mark this time).

Nowhere that I noticed I said anything about fact.

You seem to be drawing some long bows based on nothing.

Did anyone listen to SEN pre-game tonight? Apparently Moloney spoke about his relationship with Neeld but I missed it.

Did anyone listen to SEN pre-game tonight? Apparently Moloney spoke about his relationship with Neeld but I missed it.

No bows just questions 'RR'

Did anyone listen to SEN pre-game tonight? Apparently Moloney spoke about his relationship with Neeld but I missed it.

Dermott said he was talking to him last night at FOX and asked him about one on one meetings with Neeld, said they never had one.

Voss's decisions in his recruiting are real headscratching material...

He will probably head up our recruiting department next season!

He would fit right in.

Edited May 17, 201312 yr by DemonOX

He would be getting 30 touches against GC and GWS and 15 against every other team.

Which would make him one of our best players this year....

He wanted premiership success yet he go's to Brisbane

It's more a question 'RR', the word was that he was headed for Essendon at the end of the 2011 season. I don't know for certain that it is true and maybe someone here might know the details but if it wass the case it would seem he was disenfranchised from the time Bailey left the club and Neeld is a convenient excuse.

There are a lot of things you can hang Neeld for but this may not be one of them, well not completely anyway. The players seemed to really lose their way during the 2011 season and have not been on track since. Neeld came in with a message that was in line with the chiefs but the Indians didn't buy it. Maybe, maybe not all I know is something went wrong and it wasn't just Moloney.

complete hogwash I'm afraid. Moloney was expecting the captaincy.

neeld had two options - manage Moloney as best he could despite the fact they didn't agree on much simply because he was a bigger body and drew the tag freeing up Nat Jones, or marginalise him and hope to replace him either with current players or pick up a replacement.

instead it would appear neeld expected Jones to do it while tagged it three players still in their first ten games.

my take is neeld looked at Moloney asa threat - voicing the decent of others (hence brad green telling the players to buy in at season's end). But getting rid of that threat will probably cost neeld his job.

complete hogwash I'm afraid. Moloney was expecting the captaincy.

neeld had two options - manage Moloney as best he could despite the fact they didn't agree on much simply because he was a bigger body and drew the tag freeing up Nat Jones, or marginalise him and hope to replace him either with current players or pick up a replacement.

instead it would appear neeld expected Jones to do it while tagged it three players still in their first ten games.

my take is neeld looked at Moloney asa threat - voicing the decent of others (hence brad green telling the players to buy in at season's end). But getting rid of that threat will probably cost neeld his job.

complete hogwash I'm afraid.

And given the absolute junk this supporter group has had to deal, they deserved the opportunity to at lease savour a win.

You mean the one you and many others 'talked down'?

If the difference is between a 'D' midfield and an 'E' midfield - then what does it matter?

Neeld couldn't get rid of him quick enough and while I have not seen much in the way of sound judgement from Neeld I am not about to throw away my own negative convictions when it came to Brent Moloney.

I recall many times in 2011 and 2012 when I felt his 'leadership' was wanting and his form was only valuable in one direction.

He averaged 10 less possessions in wins than in losses - while Jones averaged one possession more in losses.

He had some very good years at this club and I hope one day he can come back to a place he has great affection for, but not only is he not the answer to our present troubles, he was apart of the problem.

You mean the one you and many others 'talked down'?

If the difference is between a 'D' midfield and an 'E' midfield - then what does it matter?

I recall many times in 2011 and 2012 when I felt his 'leadership' was wanting and his form was only valuable in one direction.

He averaged 10 less possessions in wins than in losses - while Jones averaged one possession more in losses.

He had some very good years at this club and I hope one day he can come back to a place he has great affection for, but not only is he not the answer to our present troubles, he was apart of the problem.

You already quoted the reason why it mattered.

He averaged 10 less possessions in wins than in losses - while Jones averaged one possession more in losses.

He had some very good years at this club and I hope one day he can come back to a place he has great affection for, but not only is he not the answer to our present troubles, he was apart of the problem.

Sorry he averaged 10 less possessions in losses than wins.

And at Bris who have lost 5 games, he has averaged over 20 possessions in those.

MFC struggle to get one player to get over 20 possessions in a game.

And you have stated he would be in our 18 today.

And given he is gone he is hardly part of the problem. His departure certainly was

How Moloney left, Green's exit and Jnr Mcdonalds treatment all chop away at the fabric of the club. Poorly handled, with no plan to replace the experience that was leaving. Fail

Moloney has 21 disposals, 6 tackles, and a goal up to 3/4 time as the Lions give the Bombers a run for their money at their home ground.

Meanwhile, Pedersen, Rodan, Gillies looked like spuds even at VFL level today.

Thanks a lot Mark.