On 17/05/2013 at 00:04, iv said:

I certainly think the Board needs to be looked at as well. The lack of footy nous on the Board is not good in my view. However, as has previously been said on here, Neeld stated from the beginning that he wanted to make the MFC the hardest team to play against. They were his own words. While I accept his objective could not be attained within the time he has coached thus far, going backwards surely is not what the Board asked him to do.

Given the lack of footy smarts on the Board in any event, how on earth could they even think of telling him what he should do.

well hes saying they have set the parameters and hes within them?

one flash typical new coach statement . we are going to be tuffest to play against . is not a mortal sin for any coach

  On 16/05/2013 at 12:40, michael collins said:

This might be exactly what he was asked to do - wouldn't be at all surprised. I'm not saying we should expect better results. I am saying I think its fair that we are told what task he was set, and what results we should expect, in what timeframe. I don't expect confidential or personal information, but there is nothing but platitudes coming out of the club at the moment.

If we were told two wins this season, 8 next season, finals the year after - I could live with it. But we may be told, after this year, that we have to start again, under a new coach, who will say "we have to rebuild - be patient - everything is on track". There's just no way for supporters to assess how things are going, unless the club lets a bit more information out.

Your right, but would vlad like that information to come out that way?

& also if the young players Know,,,, that the restructure is on, & the old is out,,,, then where is the pressure on them to force themselves to Improve & get past the senior players they expect to leave? & what of the old,,, who are expected to show the right way forward? should they then just kickback & party??? just how do you reckon a 'deefeatist attitude' grows, in the First Place? which leads us all the Way to Last Place...

this attitude started all the way back in the late 60's or 70's... it was there in the Barassi time & he spent 5 yrs picking the dee'featist attitude apart & rebuilding from the grassroots & Up.....

He, handed over a very sound club which needed some more TLC & a administration & a board who were wyl-ling to continue the hard work... the truth of a Coach is not so much seen from when they are in power over a club in crisis,, but there worth is seen after 4 or 5 years after they finish...It takes 4 - 5 Yrs for the hard work from the grass roots stage to show its collective works.

so lets see >

after Barassi? = very good following 5 yrs for the club.

after Swooper? = not too bad but needed some more work, Schwarta & Neita came in, but imo something was missing...

after Balmey? = a strong but ailing list, 4 yrs being competative... something missing

after Danners? = lack of developed young players, a divided attitude amongst some, shot to pieces list, workrate, fitness & intensity - non existent.. boys against Men.

after Bailey? = a list of youth with talent, but No workrate, intensity or toughness.... boys against Men.

do you reckon we Nee'd a hard taskmaster, to fix the holes in the Hull? or do you want to go back to Nice'N'Easy?

.

  On 16/05/2013 at 22:27, rufus said:

Agreed. If he has been given some sort of assurance by the club at this stage then I think I may have lost the last bit of faith I had left. I just can't get my head around the people still trying to argue that this is all part of the plan. ...

This actually puts the heat right back on the Board.

Either Neeld is right, and he's doing exactly what the Board (on behalf of the club) want him to do. In which case the ownership of the "plan" lies with the Board. This would surely make the Board's position untenable. The President now needs to answer whether Neeld is in fact doing what they want him to do, and if yes, then explain to us what and why.

Or Neeld is not right, has seriously misrepresented the club by saying that he's only doing what they wanted him to do. In which case his position is untenable.

Either way, what Neeld said is more than trying to spin his way out of trouble; it's throwing petrol on the fire.

Providing, of course, that Barrett hasn't seriously misrepresented his discussions with Neeld. Which can never be discounted as a possibility. But if he hasn't, what Neeld told him would indicate we're in even bigger trouble.

  On 17/05/2013 at 00:21, jazza said:

well hes saying they have set the parameters and hes within them?

one flash typical new coach statement . we are going to be tuffest to play against . is not a mortal sin for any coach

If he said "tuffest" he should never have been a teacher. He stood up at the B&F night and stated it in front of the assembled faithful. If you consider that it is a typical flash statement from a new coach, then we clearly selected the wrong man. I have not heard any other new coaches making such "flash statements".

  On 17/05/2013 at 01:06, iv said:

If he said "tuffest" he should never have been a teacher. He stood up at the B&F night and stated it in front of the assembled faithful. If you consider that it is a typical flash statement from a new coach, then we clearly selected the wrong man. I have not heard any other new coaches making such "flash statements".

hinkley

we will never give up

this could be construed the same way.

flash statement it is,

your going to hang him on this statement seems CRAZY

come up with a better reason

  On 17/05/2013 at 01:13, jazza said:

hinkley

we will never give up

this could be construed the same way.

flash statement it is,

your going to hang him on this statement seems CRAZY

come up with a better reason

Sorry, I just don't see the comparison. I would be far more comfortable if my coach said we will never give up, than an over reaching superlative that we will be the hardest team to play against. Besides, I think right now, Hinkley can sit quite comfortably on his current record, when measured against an aspiration of never giving up.

  On 17/05/2013 at 01:20, iv said:

Sorry, I just don't see the comparison. I would be far more comfortable if my coach said we will never give up, than an over reaching superlative that we will be the hardest team to play against. Besides, I think right now, Hinkley can sit quite comfortably on his current record, when measured against an aspiration of never giving up.

they are both silly statements so whats your point

  On 17/05/2013 at 01:25, jazza said:

they are both silly statements so whats your point

More pertinently, what's the point of your insult? Perhaps if you go back to the top of the page, you might get the gist. As for silly statements, people in grass houses should not get stoned.

may have my wires crossed

but you seem intent with his statement being wrong or untenable

i just dont think thats comes into the equation of where we are where he is and where the board is

please give us something better than a fluff coach statement that ALL coaches have made at some time

  On 17/05/2013 at 01:38, iv said:

More pertinently, what's the point of your insult? Perhaps if you go back to the top of the page, you might get the gist. As for silly statements, people in grass houses should not get stoned

We will never give up is absolutely not a silly statement. It is a mantra, a code, a rally cry. It is achievable. And you know what? Port are playing as if they have integrated into their culture already. They have been terrific and have come back on two occasions fro 7 goals down to win and fought out the game against North.

I would have loved it if Neeld had said that as opposed to the ridiculous hardest team to play against that will be the epitaph of his coaching career. I wish we would never give up - every game we have played thus far have whole periods of the game where we have completely given up.

  On 17/05/2013 at 01:44, binman said:

We will never give up is absolutely not a silly statement. It is a mantra, a code, a rally cry. It is achievable. And you know what? Port are playing as if they have integrated into their culture already. They have been terrific and have come back on two occasions fro 7 goals down to win and fought out the game against North.

I would have loved it if Neeld had said that as opposed to the ridiculous hardest team to play against that will be the epitaph of his coaching career. I wish we would never give up - every game we have played thus far have whole periods of the game where we have completely given up.

oohh, binny for the last time YES dumb statement

they all make them

my point is dont hang him on that statement

theres too many other reasons to do that

i personally dont want hear any statements

it was made by a new coach and was DUMB

  On 17/05/2013 at 01:44, binman said:

We will never give up is absolutely not a silly statement. It is a mantra, a code, a rally cry. It is achievable. And you know what? Port are playing as if they have integrated into their culture already. They have been terrific and have come back on two occasions fro 7 goals down to win and fought out the game against North.

I would have loved it if Neeld had said that as opposed to the ridiculous hardest team to play against that will be the epitaph of his coaching career. I wish we would never give up - every game we have played thus far have whole periods of the game where we have completely given up.

oh gee, quick recruit hinkley, he'll Never give up... & sanderson before him, & I think it was worsfold last year & this year as well, in fact why don't we recruit all the coaches then we can't lose.... but be careful, they may disagree with one another...

footy teams aren't bought with cash off the shelf,, they require young talent that is developed in a healthy environment of hardwork, & pressure to perfom under pressure.

  On 17/05/2013 at 01:20, iv said:

Sorry, I just don't see the comparison. I would be far more comfortable if my coach said we will never give up, than an over reaching superlative that we will be the hardest team to play against. Besides, I think right now, Hinkley can sit quite comfortably on his current record, when measured against an aspiration of never giving up.

"Hinkley can sit quite comfortably on his current record when measured against aspiration of never giving up" ....... VERY early days !!! Don't jump on his band wagon yet ... Couple of cracks already appearing...I for one am reserving my opinion although I really couldn't give a Shyte about what Hinkley or his bloody team are doing... their record so far as a matter of non interest is beating Melbne., GWS, Gold Coast, (whoopy do) WCE (at their weakest) at AAMI , Crows in the Derby, which is usually unpredictable.... LOST to Kangas in Hobart, and LOST to Tigers at AAMI ( where they perform better than on any other ground.... NOT as convincing as ther 5 - 2 record appears.. ??

  On 17/05/2013 at 01:44, binman said:

We will never give up is absolutely not a silly statement. It is a mantra, a code, a rally cry. It is achievable. And you know what? Port are playing as if they have integrated into their culture already. They have been terrific and have come back on two occasions fro 7 goals down to win and fought out the game against North.

I would have loved it if Neeld had said that as opposed to the ridiculous hardest team to play against that will be the epitaph of his coaching career. I wish we would never give up - every game we have played thus far have whole periods of the game where we have completely given up.

Yep that is a good statement because it is a base, something on which to build. Saying we will be the hardest team to play against sets the bar extremely high straight away, and surprise surprise we are now the easiest team to play against.

  On 17/05/2013 at 02:11, Django said:

Yep that is a good statement because it is a base, something on which to build. Saying we will be the hardest team to play against sets the bar extremely high straight away, and surprise surprise we are now the easiest team to play against.

Spot on Django. Ports win loss ratio is not relevant to what is essentially a mission statement. His players can lose games and still meet their coaches base line expectation. That's essentially what Robert Shaw said yesterday in comments that he resented comparisons between Fitzroy and Melbourne. he acknowledged they were not a good side but they never gave up. Its a great message, applicable for any sport. No matter what your standard you never give up.

I agree with baysidedave. I think sacking Neeld now will only cause greater problems. The club has already lost $1.5m with the sacking of Schwab if they sack Neeld they will need to pay him out too. Wait to the end of the year. Or a few games from if they can get a decent replacement in so we can retain some of the players.

  On 16/05/2013 at 14:22, chookrat said:

Dee-luded, I really like your explanation of our teams performances and what Neeld is trying to do.

I think back to the things that Neeld has said at various times and the themes are consistent:

- Teaching the players to have care for team mates

- Core group of young players

- Feel for the players, need to supporting the players

- Games experience

- There is nowhere to hide and no easy way out

To me this shows a clear focus on teaching the players to work for each other and to set the standard for how they play - rather than relying on the coach to rev them up if their performance drops. It also recognizes that such change is difficult and while the players know what is expected they also need support to get there.

Looking back over the past 5 years we rarely won games when we had our backs against the wall and struggled to stem the flow when teams got a run on. If we look at top sides such as Geelong, Sydney, Hawthorn they are at their best when the game is in the balance. These were all poor sides not too long ago, but learnt how to win by developing a core group of players that would not taking the easy way out.

My interpretation is that when Neeld came in it was clear that our senior players were not going to provide the leadership required and that our best leaders were among the younger players - Jack Grimes and Jack Trengove. I think last week we really missed them both, along with Mitch Clark and probably Mark Jamar to an extent. I think we have also felt the loss of Clint Bartram, Joel MacDonald (hasn't played a game this season) and Jared Rivers this season.

While our low at the moment seems much lower than other teams at their worst, this needs to be put into context of the situation our club was in in 2011 - leading up to 186. Our main problem is that we don't have a core group of players that have played many games together. As they younger players in this group get more experience I think our fortunes will start to turn rather quickly. The performances from Colin Garland and Colin Silvia is a sign of our more experienced players developing into leaders. I think we will see the team settle as the season progresses and with Chris Dawes in the side, Mitch Clark returning after the bye, Jack Trengove gaining match fitness and hopefully Jack Grimes continuing his form when he gets back from injury this should help us along.

I really hope we stay with Neeld for this season as I think making them work through this (no easy way out) will also give the confidence and shared belief that they as a group can turn their performance. Changing coach again would only shift accountability for poor effort away from the playing group and encourage lazy, unaccountable football and I think will set us back even further.

I really like what both of you are saying BUT BUT BUT BUT

1. this is why working on moloney and rivers was so important and such a big fail;

2. this is why failing to promote magner and play him at the first opportunity was such a fail;

3. this is why neeld's initial shirty, judgemental manner was such a big fail;

4. this is why neeld's inconsistent and undermining treatment of watts is such a big fail;

Neeld might well have lots of good reasons to do what he has done but he has totally failed - and I mean totally - to see how to do it. Kids need help. They need motivation and rewards. Expecting that to be self-generated is effing silly. Some personalities also need that internal release - to have someone tell them what to do and keep it simple. Having too many serious responsible types lends itself to a certain type of management...which appears to have been absent from the start. Now we are getting too little too late.

Neeld may have lots of the right ingredients to manage, but the first bloody skill is to know where your players are and know what motivates them at the start. That can be transformed over time...but not to start with.

I'm sure people in the leadership industry can post about transformational leadership - starting with charismatic leaders and then becoming more empowering and less directly inspiring far better than I. Jimmy is an example of a charismatic leader...who left a poxy process behind him. Neeld has been too much process and not enough charisma.

Neeld has skipped steps and retreating aint working. When faith in the integrity of a leader is gone (see gillard) it almost never comes back. Stop-loss time.

  On 17/05/2013 at 02:25, ignition. said:

I agree with baysidedave. I think sacking Neeld now will only cause greater problems. The club has already lost $1.5m with the sacking of Schwab if they sack Neeld they will need to pay him out too. Wait to the end of the year. Or a few games from if they can get a decent replacement in so we can retain some of the players.

Given where MFC is ATM, how could ridding ourselves of Neeld cause greater problems.

As soon as we have an interim coach the rest of the season, Neeld should go and go quickly.

When Jackson announced the projected loss it's unclear whether the payout of the Coach was included.

Anyway it's not a plausible basis for keeping someone so profoundly failing his role.

NEVER GIVE UP.... Oldest and corniest cliche in the book !!! Applies to almost every situation that has ever existed when one needs just a little more effort. Safe comment to make and can hardly be left open to criticism.... Neeld may have set the bar a bit high saying we will be the hardest team to pay against... BUT IF (big if) he is still there in 2 years time he may achieve his "cliche".... Just at the moment we are the "softest" team to play against but we do have the "HARDEST" game plan to workout ..the "HARDEST" nosed (remaining) supporters and the "HARDEST" bloody team to stay loyal to...Neeld's statement was a silly one to make and one I am sure he may have sort of believed in at the time, but he isn't the first and wont be the last Coach/person to have to eat their words after a "throw away line.. I don't condemn him for his what now seems a foolish statement but I WILL condemn the Board if there is any truth in that "drop Kick" Damien Barrett's claim that Neeld alluded to the fact he is just adhering to the original "agreement" he had with the Board relative to the so called 5 year plan to develop the players, under which he was allegedly employed...

  On 17/05/2013 at 01:44, jazza said:

may have my wires crossed

but you seem intent with his statement being wrong or untenable

i just dont think thats comes into the equation of where we are where he is and where the board is

please give us something better than a fluff coach statement that ALL coaches have made at some time

The point of my post was given in the context of the topic of this thread. Some contributors to this thread believe that to cut Neeld loose now, would cause more harm than good. As with Rhino, I subscribe to the view that we are at absolute rock bottom. We can no longer afford the luxury of going through one re-build after another. I will say it for the last time, sure, we are nowhere near finals contention, but we are better than what we are putting out on the park at present. The players are just not responding. To let Neeld go now will obviously garner negative publicity in the short term, but who cares. We cannot get any lower. Right now we are headline sports news for all the wrong reasons and this is precisely why the AFL commission do not like what is going on at the MFC. We are trashing the AFL brand.

A new broom will provide for a new direction and that is clearly what we need. The sooner we do it the better and we will give clear air to the person who takes over. And it won't just be Neeld who will bear the responsibility by the way.

Neeld's proclamation, at the beginning of his tenure was ill advised and he painted himself into a corner because of it. It is akin to Terry Wallace's prediction, when coach of Richmond, that they would threaten the premiership. We all know what happened to Terry Wallace.

If you wish to sit and wait, hoping that by some freak of nature things will turn for the MFC, then as far as I am concerned you may as well wait for Godot. You can do that on your own.

timD - agree with your comments re transformational leadership. I think Peter Jackson's statement about a our inexperience at all levels of the Football Club does highlight the need for transformational leadership. Someone with the experience, credibility and maturity to oversee the change, make adjustments and ensure the whole club is heading in the right direction. Watching Peter Jackson communicate I think he provides a lot of this leadership. While Cameron Schwab was passionate and charismatic he probably lacked in these areas - experience, credibility and maturity.

I don't think it should be left to the Football Department to provide transformational leadership and I think we have good and capable people (Neeld, Craig, Misson) who know what a blueprint for successful footy club looks like. The problem is more in having that figure in the club to ensure everyone is heading in the same direction and to provide a steady hand. Peter's comments about the impact of external factors and that people need some "clear air" to perform their roles is very good leadership.

  On 17/05/2013 at 02:32, timD said:

I really like what both of you are saying BUT BUT BUT BUT

1. this is why working on moloney and rivers was so important and such a big fail;

2. this is why failing to promote magner and play him at the first opportunity was such a fail;

3. this is why neeld's initial shirty, judgemental manner was such a big fail;

4. this is why neeld's inconsistent and undermining treatment of watts is such a big fail;

Neeld might well have lots of good reasons to do what he has done but he has totally failed - and I mean totally - to see how to do it. Kids need help. They need motivation and rewards. Expecting that to be self-generated is effing silly. Some personalities also need that internal release - to have someone tell them what to do and keep it simple. Having too many serious responsible types lends itself to a certain type of management...which appears to have been absent from the start. Now we are getting too little too late.

Neeld may have lots of the right ingredients to manage, but the first bloody skill is to know where your players are and know what motivates them at the start. That can be transformed over time...but not to start with.

I'm sure people in the leadership industry can post about transformational leadership - starting with charismatic leaders and then becoming more empowering and less directly inspiring far better than I. Jimmy is an example of a charismatic leader...who left a poxy process behind him. Neeld has been too much process and not enough charisma.

Neeld has skipped steps and retreating aint working. When faith in the integrity of a leader is gone (see gillard) it almost never comes back. Stop-loss time.

  On 17/05/2013 at 03:07, iv said:

The point of my post was given in the context of the topic of this thread. Some contributors to this thread believe that to cut Neeld loose now, would cause more harm than good. As with Rhino, I subscribe to the view that we are at absolute rock bottom. We can no longer afford the luxury of going through one re-build after another. I will say it for the last time, sure, we are nowhere near finals contention, but we are better than what we are putting out on the park at present. The players are just not responding. To let Neeld go now will obviously garner negative publicity in the short term, but who cares. We cannot get any lower. Right now we are headline sports news for all the wrong reasons and this is precisely why the AFL commission do not like what is going on at the MFC. We are trashing the AFL brand.

A new broom will provide for a new direction and that is clearly what we need. The sooner we do it the better and we will give clear air to the person who takes over. And it won't just be Neeld who will bear the responsibility by the way.

Neeld's proclamation, at the beginning of his tenure was ill advised and he painted himself into a corner because of it. It is akin to Terry Wallace's prediction, when coach of Richmond, that they would threaten the premiership. We all know what happened to Terry Wallace.

If you wish to sit and wait, hoping that by some freak of nature things will turn for the MFC, then as far as I am concerned you may as well wait for Godot. You can do that on your own.

for the last time WHAT has that got to do with the statement??????

absolutely nuffffin

Need to give the club/players a fresh start - a clean slate!

Outs: all staff/coaches with a question mark over their heads (possibly make Neeld assitant coach)..... and any players who do not have the potential to be part of a successful club (Nicholson, Sellar, Pederson, Rodan etc.)

Ins: Brett Ratten and other qualified/proven people..... and young draftees (potential) - let's just bloody develope them right this time! ... and at least one leader (midfielder - trade)

Neeld is a proven assistant coach so that could save him but if he needs to go in order for the club to have a psychological fresh start - so be it!

  On 17/05/2013 at 04:36, jazza said:

for the last time WHAT has that got to do with the statement??????

absolutely nuffffin

Sorry, I am obviously dumb. My argument about Neeld and the worth of keeping him, is not based on one statement he made. The statement you refer to, is to me, only but one symptom of the ailment, not the cause of the overall malaise.

  On 17/05/2013 at 03:07, iv said:

The point of my post was given in the context of the topic of this thread. Some contributors to this thread believe that to cut Neeld loose now, would cause more harm than good. As with Rhino, I subscribe to the view that we are at absolute rock bottom. We can no longer afford the luxury of going through one re-build after another. I will say it for the last time, sure, we are nowhere near finals contention, but we are better than what we are putting out on the park at present. The players are just not responding. To let Neeld go now will obviously garner negative publicity in the short term, but who cares. We cannot get any lower. Right now we are headline sports news for all the wrong reasons and this is precisely why the AFL commission do not like what is going on at the MFC. We are trashing the AFL brand.

A new broom will provide for a new direction and that is clearly what we need. The sooner we do it the better and we will give clear air to the person who takes over. And it won't just be Neeld who will bear the responsibility by the way.

Neeld's proclamation, at the beginning of his tenure was ill advised and he painted himself into a corner because of it. It is akin to Terry Wallace's prediction, when coach of Richmond, that they would threaten the premiership. We all know what happened to Terry Wallace.

If you wish to sit and wait, hoping that by some freak of nature things will turn for the MFC, then as far as I am concerned you may as well wait for Godot. You can do that on your own.

so i gather you want him to go