On 06/05/2013 at 04:25, Roost It said:

I'm just telling you what he will find.

....at Geelong.

  On 05/05/2013 at 08:45, Rhino Richards said:

Oh Dear!

You either daft or ingenious. I have clearly outlined where MFCs woes have stemmed from. I have never blamed it all on Neeld. But he is certaintly part of the current problems.

Neeld had a 3 year contract with a Club that was brittle at the end of 2011 and was in need of success. He has sent them backwards in on uncertain terms. The Club cannot affors to let this disaster continue. There is no plausible evidence to suggest he has got any clue of how to address the issues. He and the Club set the expectation of being competitive this year and after a solid pre season and the slop served up last year that would be a reasonable target. After round 1 where we were blown away he had no idea why it happened. He has five week and we are about as competitive in the AFL as a set of witches hats on peptides.

I have also clearly explained why sacking Neeld now is critical to recruiting a new coach. You seem to think we can work behind Neelds back and do that in this industry. Unbelievable.

Sort argues my point that players have not improved then. I am not surprised you cant name when asked. And I have given one more player than you have in Howe (although I reckon he has been poor the past 2 weeks)

Are you saying Carlton hadn't already sounded out Malthouse. i love they way you dress up your statements as facts.

You still won't tell us how you know the players haven't bought in.

The team has taken a step backward because we have introduced a wave of new young players and we are instilling a new game plan.I maintain that we are steadily improving. I thought there were numerous good signs against carlton although I'm as disappointed as you at the result and the seeming inevitability of it.

You add Dawes, Clark, Watts, Hogan and some decent midfield draftees, coax a gun mid from elsewhere, Toumpas and another season and preseason and I'd expect substantial improvement.from this list. A list that by then would be heavily loaded with Neeld selections, trained to play his way.with an AFL standard of fitness.

And the Malthouse situation only evidences the concern it does to the incumbent coach. Its destabilising and the less of that at MFC the better.

And MFC is not CFC. MFC is not an attractive option for respective coaches. Its more a death wish atm. We will need to spread the net wide and explore every opportunity to find a willing and appropriate applicant. I think they should get you to sell the job to each potential applicant and tell them we are such a well run club. If they dont laugh or move uncomfortably in their chair there straight through to the 2nd interview.

I can see how the players havent bought in under Neeld. Its been like that for the past year and half.

We were crap against Carlton particularly when they had no Kruezer, Carazzo and Gibbs and Waite was rusty in his first game back. And I would have thought the inevitability of it would strike a light with you but clearly not. You must be success starved if you are seeing improvements.

At 1 and 5 with 56% (LY 0 and 6 with 59%) I have seen the way they play Neelds style. They dont win the ball, they dont pressure they dont contest and they get run off their feet as soon as the ball goes wide.

Neelds game plan is so flawed that he destroys the players under him or the players realise what you cant and dont believe in him. Either way its a death knell for a coach.

And I do agree with you that MFC have gone backwards..Given that MN said pre-season:

"Expectations are on us this season and we’re setting ourselves that we need to see realistic progression. We need to get better in areas. We simply want to be more competitive for longer."

He has failed this standard badly. And I know you will tell me that realistic progression = steps backward.

  On 06/05/2013 at 04:57, Rhino Richards said:

And the Malthouse situation only evidences the concern it does to the incumbent coach. Its destabilising and the less of that at MFC the better.

And MFC is not CFC. MFC is not an attractive option for respective coaches. Its more a death wish atm. We will need to spread the net wide and explore every opportunity to find a willing and appropriate applicant. I think they should get you to sell the job to each potential applicant and tell them we are such a well run club. If they dont laugh or move uncomfortably in their chair there straight through to the 2nd interview.

I can see how the players havent bought in under Neeld. Its been like that for the past year and half.

We were crap against Carlton particularly when they had no Kruezer, Carazzo and Gibbs and Waite was rusty in his first game back. And I would have thought the inevitability of it would strike a light with you but clearly not. You must be success starved if you are seeing improvements.

At 1 and 5 with 56% (LY 0 and 6 with 59%) I have seen the way they play Neelds style. They dont win the ball, they dont pressure they dont contest and they get run off their feet as soon as the ball goes wide.

Neelds game plan is so flawed that he destroys the players under him or the players realise what you cant and dont believe in him. Either way its a death knell for a coach.

And I do agree with you that MFC have gone backwards..Given that MN said pre-season:

"Expectations are on us this season and we’re setting ourselves that we need to see realistic progression. We need to get better in areas. We simply want to be more competitive for longer."

He has failed this standard badly. And I know you will tell me that realistic progression = steps backward.

Convenient out in your Malthouse claim but rubbish none the less.

We were 3 class players short of troubling the Blues yesterday. I can't help it that you can'y see that.

Game plan flawed. The guy's plans at Collingwood are credited with a flag. Its time you realised it's the players not the coach.

  On 06/05/2013 at 05:01, Roost It said:

Convenient out in your Malthouse claim but rubbish none the less.

We were 3 class players short of troubling the Blues yesterday. I can't help it that you can'y see that.

Game plan flawed. The guy's plans at Collingwood are credited with a flag. Its time you realised it's the players not the coach.

And the Blues were down 3 class players. And they did not get out of a gallop all day. And for the record, MFC have not a had a class player since 2006 when Neitz crumbled.

And it was Malthouses game plan not Neelds.

Just imagine Neeld at a well run club?? Oh but wait......

  On 06/05/2013 at 05:07, Rhino Richards said:

And the Blues were down 3 class players. And they did not get out of a gallop all day. And for the record, MFC have not a had a class player since 2006 when Neitz crumbled.

And it was Malthouses game plan not Neelds.

Just imagine Neeld at a well run club?? Oh but wait......

And I maintain had we had 3 class players we would of really troubled them.

No it was predominantly Neeld's plan but thanks for disagreeing

I never said I thought we were well run. I just told you what Peter Jackson will say.

  On 04/05/2013 at 22:28, Roost It said:

He'll find a well run club that can't win games of football.

  On 05/05/2013 at 08:47, Rhino Richards said:

And we are a well run club!!! FMD.

I have given you the benefit of explaining why the Club has issues.

  On 06/05/2013 at 04:25, Roost It said:

I'm just telling you what he will find.

  On 06/05/2013 at 05:22, Roost It said:

I never said I thought we were well run. I just told you what Peter Jackson will say.

What he finds and what he will say are completing different things Rooster.

And what he will say publicly will be alot nicer than what he is likely to find within MFC and has to say to the AFL.

  On 06/05/2013 at 07:44, Rhino Richards said:

What he finds and what he will say are completing different things Rooster.

And what he will say publicly will be alot nicer than what he is likely to find within MFC and has to say to the AFL.

I know, I'm not an idiot just because I back Neeld. I know how it will work

  On 04/05/2013 at 22:36, Roost It said:

I don't back losers and I haven't backed Neeld.

I am confused now just what your position is. First it's where you stand on the Club secondly you have flip flopped on Jackson.

Now you are claiming you are not an idiot for now backing Neeld. Does that imply otherwise earlier?

  On 06/05/2013 at 09:27, Rhino Richards said:

I am confused now just what your position is. First it's where you stand on the Club secondly you have flip flopped on Jackson.

Now you are claiming you are not an idiot for now backing Neeld. Does that imply otherwise earlier?

I haven't flip flopped on Jackson. I simply told you what he will "find" And I'll say it again he'll find a well run club.

I'm not backing Neeld in that I'll be happy to see him go if he can't improve the club.. I'm just giving him the required time to prove himself rather than screaming he's failed before he's half way there.

  On 06/05/2013 at 11:11, Roost It said:

I haven't flip flopped on Jackson. I simply told you what he will "find" And I'll say it again he'll find a well run club.

I'm not backing Neeld in that I'll be happy to see him go if he can't improve the club.. I'm just giving him the required time to prove himself rather than screaming he's failed before he's half way there.

A well run club doesn't get in the strife we've been in or have the results we are getting and have been for the last 6 or so years.

  On 06/05/2013 at 04:21, Fifty-5 said:

Ask Wade Lees ...

Read more: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/casey-scorpians-player-wade-lees-cops-18-month-ban-for-importing-performance-enhancing-drugs/story-e6frf33l-1226541646433#ixzz2SU0bMn3e

Precisely why some players could be in trouble because the rules give players very little room to wriggle out if they become involved with banned substances.

However, IIRC the Wade Lees story is tragic because the saga not only cost him thousands but he also decided to abandon an appeal against the suspension because of the cost of fighting the case. I think it's not a foregone conclusion that the Wade Lees case means that "attempted use" in that context is necessarily such that an automatic sanction would apply.

  On 06/05/2013 at 11:46, rjay said:

A well run club doesn't get in the strife we've been in or have the results we are getting and have been for the last 6 or so years.

Like Rhino you don't see what I' m saying

  On 06/05/2013 at 12:06, Whispering_Jack said:

Precisely why some players could be in trouble because the rules give players very little room to wriggle out if they become involved with banned substances.

However, IIRC the Wade Lees story is tragic because the saga not only cost him thousands but he also decided to abandon an appeal against the suspension because of the cost of fighting the case. I think it's not a foregone conclusion that the Wade Lees case means that attempted use in that context is necessary such that an automatic sanction would apply.

i think too that the fact he imported the banned substance put a greater emphasis on intent and added a more sinister aspect than if he had bought a common over the counter substance

also i can't remember if the substance in his case was a "nominated banned performance" substance or a "catch-all not-approved-for-human-use" substance

  On 06/05/2013 at 12:09, Roost It said:

Like Rhino you don't see what I' m saying

What has been shown is that you have flip flopped in your support of Neeld. One minute you say you back him, the next you don't. The next time you do.

You got rightly potted for claiming that Jackson will find a well run club. And then squibbed away from it and Jackson would "say" it's a well run club.

You're either naively disingenuous or a fool and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and claim the former.

But when you post such absurdities you get rightly picked up for it. And Rooster you've posted a string of them.

  On 06/05/2013 at 12:09, Roost It said:

Like Rhino you don't see what I' m saying

Well explain it clearly so we can. I can't for the life of me understand why you would say the club is well run.

  On 06/05/2013 at 21:46, Rhino Richards said:

What has been shown is that you have flip flopped in your support of Neeld. One minute you say you back him, the next you don't. The next time you do.

You got rightly potted for claiming that Jackson will find a well run club. And then squibbed away from it and Jackson would "say" it's a well run club.

You're either naively disingenuous or a fool and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and claim the former.

But when you post such absurdities you get rightly picked up for it. And Rooster you've posted a string of them.

Garbage.

I have not flip flopped on Jackson. He will find a well run club whether it is well run or not.

I'm giving Neeld the benefit of time to prove he can do it rather than canning him now as you have done. I'm not backing or condemning him as yet.

If that's too complicated for you big guy then so be it.

I have no need to squib from you you're a light weight forum bully, at least Ben Hur talks some semblence of sense through his vitriol and displeasure.

  On 06/05/2013 at 22:21, rjay said:

Well explain it clearly so we can. I can't for the life of me understand why you would say the club is well run.

It was a conversation between me and someone else. Jackson will find a well run club whether it is well run or not. Unlike Rhino I've no doubt you can understand that.

  On 06/05/2013 at 23:09, Roost It said:

It was a conversation between me and someone else. Jackson will find a well run club whether it is well run or not. Unlike Rhino I've no doubt you can understand that.

I'm not sure what you are saying but is it that you think his outward or media position will be the club is well run even though it is not.

  On 06/05/2013 at 23:44, rjay said:

I'm not sure what you are saying but is it that you think his outward or media position will be the club is well run even though it is not.

Full points sir

  On 06/05/2013 at 23:48, Roost It said:

Full points sir

With you now, cheers.

I thought the CEO ran the club?

But other people can be 'grandfathered' into the decision making process and bypass the CEO?

  Quote

Hey, AFL!

We are sorry for being poorly run and we swear we will get better. Thanks so much for Pete, he is fitting right in.

We are going to sack the coach in a sec but Pete wasn't around in the first 4 rounds so it's cool we are making this decision.

Told you we knew what we were doing!!1!

Yours

D to the McL

Apparently Damo has done an interview with Jackson to be showed on the sunday footy show tomorrow. So if you want to hear what he says and what changes he has made then tune in.

  On 11/05/2013 at 03:19, dees189227 said:

Apparently Damo has done an interview with Jackson to be showed on the sunday footy show tomorrow. So if you want to hear what he says and what changes he has made then tune in.

Someone live blogging it? Just so we can have instant reaction from our crazed mob.

  On 05/05/2013 at 11:36, disco_demon said:

Time to sack the ceo. Has had no impact ;-)

I say sack the boot studder, too many of our guys falling over during game day..

Oh, yeah Dawes said in one of his interviews that the players do it themselves...sack the players