Crackers Keenan thinks we shouldn't sack Neeld unless there's a suitable replacement available.

I think it's more complicated than that but I reckon Crackers is actually talking some sense for once.

I totally agree that replacing Neeld will not by itself fix the various ills at MFC. Howver i can't agree that the playing group is galvanised and united. There is no way a galvanised and united team can play the way we have played for most of this year. No way.

I'm not sure what anecdotal evidence you are referring to and the only message from the playing group i care about is what they do on game day.

Galvanised? They had the chance to shore up Neelds position with a solid win, a win that if achieved would have quietened the jungle drums. If they cared for their coach they would have been ballistic in their attack on the ball and opposition. If they cared for their coach and wanted to reduce the pressure on him they would have left nothing out there. To their shame they did the complete opposite.

The anecdotal evidence has been presented by myself and another poster in the Fire Mark Neeld thread. Both have spoken with people that are in and around the club every week, my colleague plays a key role in raising funds for the club and is in the rooms before and after every game. Both reported that they had not seen the players this united and positive as a collective group in years. They still hurt because of the results, but they are united in purpose and in the direction of the club.

Can anyone tell me how much they think Roos will coach for (if he does) and how much we would have to pay to get him (remember there will be other clubs looking for his services) . Then add that to our 1.5 million dollar debt and then add Neelds payout to that also. Then add his staff budget to that because he will want his people around him.

Just trying to gauge how in peoples minds they think we could realisticly get rid of Neeld with our budget anytime soon.

Would love to have him at Melbourne but I'm a realist not a dreamer and the reality is about availability and price.

Sorry if I come across as a downer (realist).

Can anyone tell me how much they think Roos will coach for (if he does) and how much we would have to pay to get him (remember there will be other clubs looking for his services) . Then add that to our 1.5 million dollar debt and then add Neelds payout to that also. Then add his staff budget to that because he will want his people around him.

Just trying to gauge how in peoples minds they think we could realisticly get rid of Neeld with our budget anytime soon.

Would love to have him at Melbourne but I'm a realist not a dreamer and the reality is about availability and price.

Sorry if I come across as a downer (realist).

The cost of doing nothing in the long run would probably far outweigh the scenario you have detailed in your post! (imo)

I don't think that Roos will coach again......Why would he give up a very comfortable life where he can just criticise from the safety of the sidelines.....He would have to change his address.....Change his life style....Not go to the USA every off season to see his wife's family......

To coach MFC....Where the chances of his great coaching record go south quickly, therefore diminishing his value to foxtel if he fails....

Crackers Keenan thinks we shouldn't sack Neeld unless there's a suitable replacement available.

I think it's more complicated than that but I reckon Crackers is actually talking some sense for once.

The underlined words are spot on bar only 1 proviso. IF it can be established that the players have so little confidence in Neeld that any temporary replacement would be better than doing nothing, then sack him for sure. IF....

The anti-Neeld brigade will say this is indeed the case, and point to the attitudes of some ex-players etc. (note the 'ex') and all sorts of tea-leaf readings to support that. But then I see posts like #127 which appear to be authoritative which say the players are united and behind him. If so, there is absolutely no point in sacking Neeld now given a Roos-Malthouse carbon copy is apparently not available next week.

Can anyone tell me how much they think Roos will coach for (if he does) and how much we would have to pay to get him (remember there will be other clubs looking for his services) . Then add that to our 1.5 million dollar debt and then add Neelds payout to that also. Then add his staff budget to that because he will want his people around him.

Just trying to gauge how in peoples minds they think we could realisticly get rid of Neeld with our budget anytime soon.

Would love to have him at Melbourne but I'm a realist not a dreamer and the reality is about availability and price.

Sorry if I come across as a downer (realist).

WE have little choice but to go for a high profile coach like Roos. I understand your argument but in reality a high profile coach like Roos will pay for himself via increased media interest, this in turn increases sponsorship and members. Just imagine the excitement and speculation coming into next season with Roos as coach. We have no choice but to go for the lowest risk, highest profile coach who has the best chance to rapidly make us competitive, if Melbourne cannot become competitive within a couple of years our finances will continue to deteriorate, we will become insolvent and the AFL WILL relocate us in time for the next broadcasting contract.

I feel few understand the magnitude of the situation we are currently in. We must go all out for Roos or a coach of similar criteria. As I said, simply we have no choice.

I think Chris Dawes article is a terrible indictment on the FD.

And if you saw the GCS game, it parellels the disturbing Dawes article.

Neelds departure must be imminent post the Richmond game.

The cost of doing nothing in the long run would probably far outweigh the scenario you have detailed in your post! (imo)

I'm not advocating doing nothing I believe we need to start small with the hanger ons who have been here for a long time but have not improved us, eg: Brian Royal, and the administration nobodies.

We can/are angry about this situation but reality (I know its not a fun word) dictates what is do able and what is everyone's dreams.

This is why right or wrong i think Neeld probably needs to stay till years end.

At years end if there is a an experienced coach we can afford, available then we should take him.

I'm not defending Neeld in anyway ,just being a lame realist.

Besides I have just read on the hun website, Roos has stated he won't be coaching at AFL level again. So that puts an end to all that dreaming.

I don't disagree, but I say the culture is the direct responsibility of the coach. The lack of effort is indefensible. However, a good coach has the ability of developing a good culture, of motivating and inspiring players. Getting the most out of your players is the PRIMARY responsibility of a coach.

Neeld is part of the problem. He certainly is not part of the solution.

Paul Roos didn't succeed because he put character in to his players.

Bomba Thompson didn't succeed at the Catland, because he brought character to the Puussies.[censored].

They both helped build a new CLUB Culture.

Roos & Colless at the Swans... Costa & Cook & Bomba at the catland... changed the Club ! & look at the facilities they've built,,,,, For their supporters !

.

WE have little choice but to go for a high profile coach like Roos. I understand your argument but in reality a high profile coach like Roos will pay for himself via increased media interest, this in turn increases sponsorship and members. Just imagine the excitement and speculation coming into next season with Roos as coach. We have no choice but to go for the lowest risk, highest profile coach who has the best chance to rapidly make us competitive, if Melbourne cannot become competitive within a couple of years our finances will continue to deteriorate, we will become insolvent and the AFL WILL relocate us in time for the next broadcasting contract.

I feel few understand the magnitude of the situation we are currently in. We must go all out for Roos or a coach of similar criteria. As I said, simply we have no choice.

I agree fundamentally with what your saying but we would still need to be able come up with funds.

How can you see this happening immediately?

I can't see on my limited knowledge of the clubs workings how we could fund it at this moment. At years end after Jackson has had a chance to sort something out it might be possible

Top People and banks don't work for IOU's and good intentions and Melbourne isn't exactly rolling in cash.

I think Chris Dawes article is a terrible indictment on the FD.

And if you saw the GCS game, it parellels the disturbing Dawes article.

Neelds departure must be imminent post the Richmond game.

What if we get within 6 goals or dare we mention it, actually win

I agree fundamentally with what your saying but we would still need to be able come up with funds.

How can you see this happening immediately?

I can't see on my limited knowledge of the clubs workings how we could fund it at this moment. At years end after Jackson has had a chance to sort something out it might be possible

Top People and banks don't work for IOU's and good intentions and Melbourne isn't exactly rolling in cash.

you sounding like a Paul Gardiner clone, or an mcc demon supporter... but the numbers don't add up, we must have a surplus, slash & burn at all costs....

.... meanwhile just along the road, heard at a 4&20 Pie stand down on SWAN St, Eddie announces a new venture at the Olympic Park Swimming Centre.... we can build it he said.... they will come.

.

you sounding like a Paul Gardiner clone, or an mcc demon supporter... but the numbers don't add up, we must have a surplus, slash & burn at all costs....

.... meanwhile just along the road, heard at a 4&20 Pie stand down on SWAN St, Eddie announces a new venture at the Olympic Park Swimming Centre.... we can build it he said.... they will come.

.

I'm really depressing myself talking about it but that doesn't make it untrue.

I think I will go and cry in to a bottle of gin.

I think Chris Dawes article is a terrible indictment on the FD.

And if you saw the GCS game, it parellels the disturbing Dawes article.

Neelds departure must be imminent post the Richmond game.

Interesting comments Rino - I just read the article and got a completely different picture

Would like to know how you come to that conclusion? Am genuinely interested.

And if you could also specifically these two lines in the article – see below

Instead of being able to continue teaching an inexperienced playing group how to play a style of footy that will allow us to compete in finals, Neeldy and his coaching staff have to spend this week reminding us about something that we lacked for half the game on Sunday night - EFFORT.

That sort of effort shouldn't need to be coached, and the fact that this week it does need to be coached is an indictment of the playing group. Over the past month we've seen highly competitive, sustained efforts that have only been let down by lacking a bit of polish offensively. Sunday night felt like a step backwards. Disappointing? Yes. The end of the club as we know it? Definitely not.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/some-fans-may-have-given-up-hope-but-players-havent-20130514-2jklu.html#ixzz2TK71277E

I already feel it's safe to assume you'll say the disconnect between Neeld and the playing group is the reason - but in all seriousness that sort of effort described by Dawes is the sole responsibility of the player.

If you say it is because of the disconnect between the playing group and Neeld and David Parkin today in the HS has said he believes Neeld and Craig are competent coaches and Craig in particular is the right man for the rebuilding job - Is it fair to say Rino that Neeld is not the main problem and 2013 will be the cull of the list the MFC desperately needs?

Thoughts

I'm really depressing myself talking about it but that doesn't make it untrue.

I think I will go and cry in to a bottle of gin.

No don't run away... this IS the Northern Stand Culture... Safety first!

... lets all face this here & now.

the northern stand culture is one of exclusion, keeping the ferrals out! keeping it safe & cosy inside.... keeping everyone inside comfortable, nice & conservative, guaranteed. No Risk...

thats just It. no risk taking, only acting on guarantees & inside racing &/or stockmarket sure things...

Footy is Not like this...if you stand still,,, you shrink amongst the competition.

..... this is what happened to us, {after the Entrepreneurial 'Diick Seddon led team' of the eighties, which fostered a growth spurt}, again started to wither on the vine.

Witnessed a few short Years after Diick moved into an AFL job & others off field moved on, & Barass & Jordan handed over the reigns of a strong & growing club list...

by the time 5 yrs had passed, growth had stopped, & the wheels were grinding again to a standstill.

... this is the culture we see onfield & on the weekend, "when unsure go into shell"...

that isn't what Neeld is teaching, its the existing culture that is already there, baulking at change.... too much talk behind the scenes, undermining the authority of the One trying to be Entrepreneurial. a purveyor of change... not seen since the early Eighties.

.... this distraction is imo, what we are witnessing this year... dividing players focus.

Frank Costa started his Job in 1998, it took a while... 2007

Paul Roos started his work in 2002... it took a little while as well, taking a steady club with a competative playing list, to the Mountain Top.

.

Interesting comments Rino - I just read the article and got a completely different picture

Would like to know how you come to that conclusion? Am genuinely interested.

And if you could also specifically these two lines in the article – see below

Instead of being able to continue teaching an inexperienced playing group how to play a style of footy that will allow us to compete in finals, Neeldy and his coaching staff have to spend this week reminding us about something that we lacked for half the game on Sunday night - EFFORT.

That sort of effort shouldn't need to be coached, and the fact that this week it does need to be coached is an indictment of the playing group. Over the past month we've seen highly competitive, sustained efforts that have only been let down by lacking a bit of polish offensively. Sunday night felt like a step backwards. Disappointing? Yes. The end of the club as we know it? Definitely not.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/some-fans-may-have-given-up-hope-but-players-havent-20130514-2jklu.html#ixzz2TK71277E

I already feel it's safe to assume you'll say the disconnect between Neeld and the playing group is the reason - but in all seriousness that sort of effort described by Dawes is the sole responsibility of the player.

If you say it is because of the disconnect between the playing group and Neeld and David Parkin today in the HS has said he believes Neeld and Craig are competent coaches and Craig in particular is the right man for the rebuilding job - Is it fair to say Rino that Neeld is not the main problem and 2013 will be the cull of the list the MFC desperately needs?

Thoughts

Rhino interprets the way he wants to interpret

The anecdotal evidence has been presented by myself and another poster in the Fire Mark Neeld thread. Both have spoken with people that are in and around the club every week, my colleague plays a key role in raising funds for the club and is in the rooms before and after every game. Both reported that they had not seen the players this united and positive as a collective group in years. They still hurt because of the results, but they are united in purpose and in the direction of the club.

That's interesting pm24. However i simply can't believe that it is actually true (i believe that your colleague believes it to be true).

Perhaps they appear united and positive in the rooms but really the proof of the pudding is out on the ground. I don't want to be argumentative for arguments sake but in the game i watched on Sunday they played with no unity or collective spirit. I can only recall one time where a player sprinted to a contest to lay a shepherd for a team mate, for instance (Spencer who struggled but at least puts in). They played selfish football that was the very opposite of unity and there was nothing positive at all in the collective energy. They showed no care for each other as team mates and none for their coaches.

Dawes made clear that there was not the required effort from players. AFL players not showing sufficient effort. Do you seriously believe a team that is united in purpose and believes in the direction of the club would not play with effort? As i noted in the post you quoted they had the opportunity to shore up their coaches position (and therefore the current direction and focus of the club) but through a complete lack of effort (not skill, but effort) they have achieved the exact opposite outcome.

Leaving the contempt they showed their coach aside they had a chance to win and to show supporters that the current direction the club is heading is positive and something we should get behind and support. Again they achieved the complete opposite. Compare how they played to how the Saints played the following night. Now there was a team who were playing in a united fashion, who were playing as a collective, who played for their team mates.

At the risk of being accused of exaggeration i have seen hundreds of Melbourne games and never i have been more disappointed in the teams performance in terms of effort, unity and playing as a collective. Their actions speak louder than what appear to be hollow words.

I can't help but feel Neeld has had too much say in FD operations and possibly over-complicated things. These are things that Jackson is beginning to uncover.

Spells out a bad ending for the coach I reckon.

I can't help but feel Neeld has had too much say in FD operations and possibly over-complicated things. These are things that Jackson is beginning to uncover.

Spells out a bad ending for the coach I reckon.

Interesting McQueen

I beleive Jackson's refrence to the FD has nothing to do with Neeld - it's more an ineffective operation due to it's structure and how it works - but i could be wrong.

On Neelds' influence in the FD being the head coach and having his head on the chopping block I'd say it's fair enough he has a lot of influence. I am not attacking you McQueen i realise there are issues there as well

But you kind of can't have it both ways - blame MN for everything on field and then also blame him for having too much influence

Interesting McQueen

I beleive Jackson's refrence to the FD has nothing to do with Neeld - it's more an ineffective operation due to it's structure and how it works - but i could be wrong.

On Neelds' influence in the FD being the head coach and having his head on the chopping block I'd say it's fair enough he has a lot of influence. I am not attacking you McQueen i realise there are issues there as well

But you kind of can't have it both ways - blame MN for everything on field and then also blame him for having too much influence

I recall Malthouse giving Neeld advice about getting to the club and as head coach taking control of everything.

It's just an inkling but I reckon Neeld has overdone it. His influence obviously has to be effective but if he's caused the over-processing of communication within the FD then it might start to add up and expliaing some of the problems with his style and the inability to connect with the playing group.

Would love for us to go after Simon Black for a midfield coaching role next year, whether it be as the main midfield coach or as an assistant. Highly likely he will retire at the end of the year, and has been doing a coaches course. He carved us up every time we played them, and is an extremely smart footballer. Think he would be a great asset for the club. Not sure if he would want to move away from Brisbane, and they might want to keep him, but definitely worth having a crack at getting him.

I recall Malthouse giving Neeld advice about getting to the club and as head coach taking control of everything.

It's just an inkling but I reckon Neeld has overdone it. His influence obviously has to be effective but if he's caused the over-processing of communication within the FD then it might start to add up and expliaing some of the problems with his style and the inability to connect with the playing group.

Good points - no doubt it is possible.

If there is an issue there, you'd have to assume it is pretty serious to really have a massive effect on the performance of the playing group? I can see there being problems with Neeld and the incumbent employees from the Bailey era - but for that to effect the player performance stinks of club mediocrity

Paul Roos built Sydney into the club that they are today, whilst also getting them to 2 grand finals, in which they won one.

He left them with a culture rivalled only by arguably the best team to ever play the game - certainly one of the most consistant, in Geelong.

Over a period of the past 10 years, Sydney are up there with Geelong for consistancy and Roos built this, it's his the culture that he built.

It's a culture still going strong, still at the top.

So how much time would I give a bloke who built Sydney and turned them into one of the most consistant clubs in the past decade?

I'd give him as much time as he needs, because the job will get done, the rewards will be worth the pain, unlike at the moment, we just see pain, no reward in sight.

Absolute rubbish. This whole situation would be fixed already if it only took one guy to make a club. The next coach of this club is another filler, regardless of who it is. A club is only as strong as it's embedded senior players and we have a nice round number of those - zero. What happens when you install Roos or the like and we are in the same place in 12 months? Do we take the same action or say, it's Roos, he deserves longer? Do we give him a one year contract or sign him for five knowing he'll only coach one or two?

Absolute rubbish. This whole situation would be fixed already if it only took one guy to make a club. The next coach of this club is another filler, regardless of who it is. A club is only as strong as it's embedded senior players and we have a nice round number of those - zero. What happens when you install Roos or the like and we are in the same place in 12 months? Do we take the same action or say, it's Roos, he deserves longer? Do we give him a one year contract or sign him for five knowing he'll only coach one or two?

Pretty good summation of our current situation WAClark