What are your coaching credentials. We have a pretty credentialed coaching panel. Given, neeld is a first year coach ....but was a very experienced assistant coach .......can we really aspire to "armchair" coach better? Sometimes what we see on field .....which is extremely disappointing doesn't reflect what is going on behind the scenes. Why would we pay out probably close to a million dollars to get rid of the coach & assistants for a caretaker just to appease mainly a voracious media & the usual disgruntled supporters. I don't necessarily think neeld is the best person but am prepared to let him at least finish the year if not his tenure. History shows us that there will always be someone down the bottom & subject to ridicule etc. Agreed, melb has been there for awhile. However they are my team ...I will support them & I tend to believe that the players do support him & would be quite surprised if any leave. Steps have been taken by people far more experienced & attuned to what is happening than us. Let's give them time to implement them & let's stop bagging our club. Essendon have systematically injected their players with a cocktail of drugs (illegal or legal is a moot point) but their behaviour towards their players has been reprehensible .....however their supporter base has never been stronger. Our team is performing as most critics & indeed neeld warned us it would .....& we act as if it is a massive surprise. Come back to me when neeld is two years into HIS rebuild & I bet there will be a massive turnaround in supporter opinion.

Neeld isn't a first year coach. This is his second year. That's the whole point. We gave him leeway last season. Fair enough, I guess. In his second season it is not unfair to demand some improvement. A few people have used Clarkson as an example of someone in Neeld's shoes. In Clarkson's first year, the Hawks won 5 games and finished 14th. In his second, they won 9 games and finished 11th. That's very close to the sort of incremental improvement we should be looking for. Obviously, in our situation we're building from a slightly lower base, due to a dearth of leadership, but the point still remains.

Neeld wouldn't be on more than $400,000 per year. It's hardly going to equate close to million to pay him out. He'll have a season and a half to be paid out. Let's say $600,000. No one wants to pay him out, but our coaching situation is dire and it's not just "the usual disgruntled supporters". It's imperative that we provide the players, sponsors and supporters (let alone potential players) hope.

This is not a question of supporting the club or not. I am there every week.

I won't need to come back to you when Neeld has had two years with this list, because thankfully it won't go any further than that. He'll be gone after the bye or at the very latest come the end of this season. There'll be no "massive turnaround in supporter opinion". In Neeld's words, "it is what it is" (what a horrible phrase).

I forgot to mention the mfc are big excuse makers.

Making excuses is the easiest way to defer accountability and responsibility. Excuses like;

Experience

Fitness base

New game plan

Players

Lack of leadership

Culture

In regard to these excuses, how do you explain that Bailey won 8 and a half games with a lesser player list, less experience, less of a game plan, a worse culture, less coaching staff and supposedly a horrid fitness base.

It defies logic. But I'm sure there will be an elaborate excuse to explain this. Always is.

So you are suggesting that we had a lesser playing list and less experience despite the fact that the team had Brad Green (254 games), James McDonald (238 games), Cameron Bruce (224 games), and Brad Miller (133 melbourne games) all playing. Not to mention Moloney (currently at 145 games) and Rivers (150 games) who have also recently left and were best 22 players.

We currently only have four players on our list with more AFL experience than what Brad Miller left with. They are Nathan Jones, Col Sylvia, Aaron Davey, and David Rodan.

So we obviously had more leaders playing up until 2010 under Bailey. We had more senior experienced players who knew how to go about playing AFL football and could play the game plan the coach was demanding.

I'm guessing you must have also forgotten the fact that our "brand" of football under Bailey was widely panned and criticized for being soft "bruise free football".

Seriously, if you are going to try and make an argument comparing the Bailey era with the current Neeld era, it might actually help your cause to do some research instead of coming in and just talking rubbish that is factually inaccurate.

I look forward to your "excuses" for your poor argument.

In 2011 when we won 8,1/2 games, we did not have miller or j.Mac.

Neeld chose to not persue moloney or rivers nor keep green for another year.

He selected the most inexperienced captains in history.

In the meantime, neeld picked up rodan and burns, and recruited Dawes, Clarke, seller, gillies, pederson, m.jones and terlich who are all mature recruits.

Using a lack of experience as an excuse to justify how pathetic we are is like pissing in the wind.

Edited May 31, 201312 yr by tonatopia

Neeld isn't a first year coach. This is his second year. That's the whole point. We gave him leeway last season. Fair enough, I guess. In his second season it is not unfair to demand some improvement. A few people have used Clarkson as an example of someone in Neeld's shoes. In Clarkson's first year, the Hawks won 5 games and finished 14th. In his second, they won 9 games and finished 11th. That's very close to the sort of incremental improvement we should be looking for. Obviously, in our situation we're building from a slightly lower base, due to a dearth of leadership, but the point still remains.

I won't need to come back to you when Neeld has had two years with this list, because thankfully it won't go any further than that. He'll be gone after the bye or at the very latest come the end of this season. There'll be no "massive turnaround in supporter opinion". In Neeld's words, "it is what it is" (what a horrible phrase).

This is the first season Neeld has been able to work with a list that is more of his creation, and we are only 2 months into the first season with that list, which has never been able to get it's best 22 on the field to date.

If you are comparing Clarkson to Neelds performance, it might be worth noting that at the time the Hawks, while rebuilding, still had a brownlow medalist by the name of Shane Crawford to set an example for others. Not to mention some quality players like Trent Croad, Joel Smith, Chance Bateman, Campbell Brown, Peter Everitt, Ben Dixon, Jonothan Hay (he used to be good), Richie Vandenberg (a really solid leader), and of course Luke Hodge and Sam Mitchell would have been in their 3rd season when Clarkson arrived.

The two situations are not the same.

Everyone here wants to see improvement, but with the amount of experience we have lost, and the fact that we have just 9 players with over 100 games experience, a further 7 players with between 50-100 games, and no other player with the equivalent of two and a half seasons of AFL experience would suggest that things are going to take time.

Neeld has had one year with a list he thought was not right, and 6 months with a list that he has contributed to the construction of. That is very different to 2 years of coaching. Last year was used to start rebuilding the culture and practices, and to evaluate and analyse the current player group. The list rebuild only started this year when you consider the moves made. It is fine to expect improvement, but when setting expectations you also need to consider everything that has happened at the club, including the changes to the list and the need for players to get used to playing with each other, while also trying to get used to the AFL level of play, and develop their skills.

Consider those things, and you might have a different perspective on things.

If neeld is retained, I would officially declare that MFC supporters are the most gullible supporters in Australia.

The saying is true, there are leaders, and there are sheep. Way too many sheep on this thread. All is good, an avg of 12 goal losses should be expected. Give me a spell. Unbelievable!

Edited May 31, 201312 yr by tonatopia

This is the first season Neeld has been able to work with a list that is more of his creation, and we are only 2 months into the first season with that list, which has never been able to get it's best 22 on the field to date.

If you are comparing Clarkson to Neelds performance, it might be worth noting that at the time the Hawks, while rebuilding, still had a brownlow medalist by the name of Shane Crawford to set an example for others. Not to mention some quality players like Trent Croad, Joel Smith, Chance Bateman, Campbell Brown, Peter Everitt, Ben Dixon, Jonothan Hay (he used to be good), Richie Vandenberg (a really solid leader), and of course Luke Hodge and Sam Mitchell would have been in their 3rd season when Clarkson arrived.

The two situations are not the same.

Everyone here wants to see improvement, but with the amount of experience we have lost, and the fact that we have just 9 players with over 100 games experience, a further 7 players with between 50-100 games, and no other player with the equivalent of two and a half seasons of AFL experience would suggest that things are going to take time.

Neeld has had one year with a list he thought was not right, and 6 months with a list that he has contributed to the construction of. That is very different to 2 years of coaching. Last year was used to start rebuilding the culture and practices, and to evaluate and analyse the current player group. The list rebuild only started this year when you consider the moves made. It is fine to expect improvement, but when setting expectations you also need to consider everything that has happened at the club, including the changes to the list and the need for players to get used to playing with each other, while also trying to get used to the AFL level of play, and develop their skills.

Consider those things, and you might have a different perspective on things.

I did consider those things. I did note that the situations weren't the same. I was simply quashing the crutch that people keep falling on RE: "look at Clarkson. He was almost sacked. Give Neeld time."

The other thing I pointed out is that our starting 18 is not that dissimilar from 2012's team. Look at this week's team. Neeld has had over a year with the majority of these players. You can try and dress it up as many ways as you like, but there's really no two ways about it.

In 2011 when we won 8,1/2 games, we did not have miller or j.Mac.

Neeld chose to not persue moloney or rivers nor keep green for another year.

He selected the most inexperienced captains in history.

In the meantime, neeld picked up rodan and burns, and recruited Dawes, Clarke, seller, gillies, pederson, m.jones and terlich who are all mature recruits.

Using a lack of experience as an excuse to justify how pathetic we are is like pissing in the wind.

In 2010 we did, but you are right, in 2011 we didn't. Regardless the list was still experienced than the one we currently have.

Neeld then, after consulting with the players, and having all players measured against characteristic of leadership, appointed Grimes and Trengove who were clearly identified by their peers as the best leaders in the team. And from everything that has continue to be said about both Grimes and Trengove, they continue to be seen as fantastic leaders both within and outside of the club.

It has already been explained why Byrnes and Rodan were brought in, while none of Dawes, Clarke, Seller, Gillies, Pederson, M Jones and Terlich have played over 100 AFL games. While Dawes has just over 70 games experience and Clarke has 94 games, while Sellar still only has 43 games, none of Gillies, Pederson, M Jones and Terlich have more than 20 games experience. Age does not equal AFL experience.

Try and come up with a more factual retort next time.

I did consider those things. I did note that the situations weren't the same. I was simply quashing the crutch that people keep falling on RE: "look at Clarkson. He was almost sacked. Give Neeld time."

The other thing I pointed out is that our starting 18 is not that dissimilar from 2012's team. Look at this week's team. Neeld has had over a year with the majority of these players. You can try and dress it up as many ways as you like, but there's really no two ways about it.

That is true when one is narrow minded.

If neeld is retained, I would officially declare that MFC supporters are the most gullible supporters in Australia.

The saying is true, there are leaders, and there are sheep. Way too many sheep on this thread. All is good, an avg of 12 goal losses should be expected. Give me a spell. Unbelievable!

You appear to define Sheep as anything not a Parrot.

Dermie is a bit of a whacker, but he's essentially just echoed my thoughts. Sponsors, supporters and players.

Mature recruits are called mature recruits for a reason, they are ready to play afl footy.

Anything else you want me to explain pm24?

Maybe that footy is not just a gameplan and fitness, it is about a thirst for victory and domination that results in a chemical exuding from the clenched of you jaws. A big spirit that thrives on combat and self expression. It's not soccer, it's more like freestyle electricity that is harnessed into a lightning bolt that finds the quickest way from point a to b.

Unfortunately for me, neeld does not believe in arousing the spirit. He is a sad soul. Probably explains his weird face twitching.

Professor nutjob, you've done it again. Another 12 goal belting. Yippee. One step closer to regime change.

If neeld is retained, I would officially declare that MFC supporters are the most gullible supporters in Australia.

The saying is true, there are leaders, and there are sheep. Way too many sheep on this thread. All is good, an avg of 12 goal losses should be expected. Give me a spell. Unbelievable!

results don't look great and nit building our midfield at trade period was also a mistake but perhaps I would define gullable as people believing media reports of the reasons for a mass player exodus when those media views are external.

Dermie is a bit of a whacker, but he's essentially just echoed my thoughts. Sponsors, supporters and players.

What did he say?

You appear to define Sheep as anything not a Parrot.

Try English mate.

What did he say?

Basically said that they would get rid of Neeld cause he looks to have lost the players which they base on the way they are playing.

They also said the cost of not doing it now would be far worse financially and membership wise than if they waited. They also mentioned that its affecting the next generation of supporters too.

Basically said that they would get rid of Neeld cause he looks to have lost the players which they base on the way they are playing.

They also said the cost of not doing it now would be far worse financially and membership wise than if they waited. They also mentioned that its affecting the next generation of supporters too.

So Dermie is perceiving, from what he has seen on the field, that Neeld has lost the players. It's not based on any interviews with players or anything else. But despite that, he believes they'll get rid of Neeld.

Nothing but Dermie repeating the opinion of half the media. Nothing new.

Dermie is a bit of a whacker, but he's essentially just echoed my thoughts. Sponsors, supporters and players.

Well as long as he is a genius whacker then

Yes neeld is a second year coach but I would equate him more to hardwick than clarkson. It is not just neeld that would go but assistants & then the payout gets larger. Hardwick for example is in his 4th? Year...finished 12th in his last two years (&remembering GWS joined last year) & at this stage won't make the 8. However there has been massive kudos for richmond but I for one believe in two years with our list we will be well ahead of them. I don't want a caretaker....it achieves nothing ....& you have absolutely no proof that players will leave ....sponsors will drop off.....just doomsday & media hype. You cannot turn around a club like ours with all its inherent problems in 18 months. It unfortunately takes time. Until I categorically have proof that the players don't want him then I will support him. Hearing Daniel rich saying he will sign with bris even though there is no guarantee voss will be there ( he wants him to be there) but he believes in the club ....why not give our players the same credence. Just because you as a supporter is p**sed off does not mean the players or club are. Instead of continually bagging the club just give them the year

So Dermie is perceiving, from what he has seen on the field, that Neeld has lost the players. It's not based on any interviews with players or anything else. But despite that, he believes they'll get rid of Neeld.

Nothing but Dermie repeating the opinion of half the media. Nothing new.

It was a discussion between Lynch, Dermie and Mclure. Eddie basically didn't say much cause he is with the pies

Basically said that they would get rid of Neeld cause he looks to have lost the players which they base on the way they are playing.

They also said the cost of not doing it now would be far worse financially and membership wise than if they waited. They also mentioned that its affecting the next generation of supporters too.

This is what I was referring to.

Basically said that they would get rid of Neeld cause he looks to have lost the players which they base on the way they are playing.

They also said the cost of not doing it now would be far worse financially and membership wise than if they waited. They also mentioned that its affecting the next generation of supporters too.

It's pretty obvious ain't it?

. He spits in our face with his comments like, "I am doing exactly what I have been employed to do". Any excuse to blame someone other than himself. That pot shot was for the people that hired him. Professor nutjob, you've done it again.

Oh and according to Jon Ralph, the majority of our assistants are out of contract at the end of this end. So there will be no need to pay out. It would just be Craig (if he goes) and Neeld.

Mature recruits are called mature recruits for a reason, they are ready to play afl footy.

Anything else you want me to explain pm24?

Maybe that footy is not just a gameplan and fitness, it is about a thirst for victory and domination that results in a chemical exuding from the clenched of you jaws. A big spirit that thrives on combat and self expression. It's not soccer, it's more like freestyle electricity that is harnessed into a lightning bolt that finds the quickest way from point a to b.

Unfortunately for me, neeld does not believe in arousing the spirit. He is a sad soul. Probably explains his weird face twitching.

Professor nutjob, you've done it again. Another 12 goal belting. Yippee. One step closer to regime change.

I think this post just confirmed for me why it is pointless in debating something with you.....

Mature recruits may be more physically prepared to play AFL, that does not mean that they will be up to speed with the way the game is played, or have developed the skills to perform at a high standard against others with elite skills and experience in the league.

I wish I could take such a simplistic view of things as you, but then again, that would mean giving no consideration to a heap of relevant information when making decisions etc.

Yes neeld is a second year coach but I would equate him more to hardwick than clarkson. It is not just neeld that would go but assistants & then the payout gets larger. Hardwick for example is in his 4th? Year...finished 12th in his last two years (&remembering GWS joined last year) & at this stage won't make the 8. However there has been massive kudos for richmond but I for one believe in two years with our list we will be well ahead of them. I don't want a caretaker....it achieves nothing ....& you have absolutely no proof that players will leave ....sponsors will drop off.....just doomsday & media hype. You cannot turn around a club like ours with all its inherent problems in 18 months. It unfortunately takes time. Until I categorically have proof that the players don't want him then I will support him. Hearing Daniel rich saying he will sign with bris even though there is no guarantee voss will be there ( he wants him to be there) but he believes in the club ....why not give our players the same credence. Just because you as a supporter is p**sed off does not mean the players or club are. Instead of continually bagging the club just give them the year

I'm not "continually bagging the club". I am continually saying Neeld should be gone for (what I perceive) the good of the club. Ultimately, on-field performance is what football is about. There's no doubt there is a rotten culture off-field at the MFC, but there's absolutely no evidence Neeld has improved this by any measure. Incidentally, the cultural problems at the MFC have about as much validity as Neeld loosing the players. None of us can really know for sure, but we make assumptions based on this acquired information. If we have such "inherent problems" within our club, what are you basing this on? Heresy, unless you've been amongst the players yourself. This seems to be a monumental hypocrisy in many of the arguments defending Neeld and his position.

We go around in circles. No it is not heresy about the inherent problems of our club .... They are well documented & my comment does not need defending . You could not possibly in all honesty equate the problems of the mfc with the on field performance of the players & the coaching of mark neeld. I also agree with Jackson's comment that these problems can definitely be fixed but will take time. Time....that cliched word that no-one wants to hear.. It is somewhat symptomatic of our society ....instant gratification ....instant results! I am as despondent as you with our on field performances but until you can give me a viable solution to neeld's sacking & the benefits of a caretaker coach then I am prepared to back the coach. Jon Ralph, robbo etc arguments make no impression on me. They do not know....follow my club as I do ......they have papers to fill & readers to entertain !