So you would prefer that we kept Moloney, despite statements already being made about how he moved on because he wasn't named captain, and refused to mentor young players and improve his aerobic fitness for the better of the team. Sorry, I've said multiple times already, if that is what happened, I don't want him even playing in the red and blue, let alone leading the club.

Please explain how you know that Neeld cut the players, and I'll reconsider my position.

I would have preferred Neeld found a way to engage Moloney and have him as an ally. We have the worst mid field in the competition and we simply could not afford to lose our second best mid. As i said who knows if what you say about Moloney is true ie he refused to mentor young players, sooked because he wasn't named captain etc etc. Are we going by what Robbo said or just rumours? Even if it was true a really good person manager would have found the key and got Moloney on board. But lets leave him aside.

Rivers, yes a free agent so it was his call. I still would have loved it if he had felt so confident of where Neeld was taking the club that he felt compelled to stay (and i recall a few years ago he was adamant he wanted to be a one club player) and to be honest i don't get the feeling they put up much of a fight to keep him. Perhpas they could have made him captain or more realistically vice captain. perhaps they could have offered him a really big contract, one that another club couldn't match. But ok lets leave Rivers aside.

You can't argue that he cut Morton, Martin and Pettard. All players up with more than 50 games experience (or close, not sure how many Martin played but must be up around 50). There's 160 games for you. Petard seems to be in the tigers (a side pushing for the top 8) best 22 so it is hard to see how he couldn't have been in ours. Martin was being selected at the lions before his injury. Morton hasn't yet but i reckon he'll get a crack but even so he would have added depth. He also cut Gysberts who has been in the system for a few years so had some experience.

As i say you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't bemoan a lack of experience after cutting experienced players (and not being able to keep others). And it is not right to emphasis a lack of experience so much given the replacements are older more mature players (i forgot Couch and Magner in my previous post) with plenty of games under their belt (albeit at lower levels) a, which mitigates against the impact of not having played too many AFL games.

Which raises the question if it really is a rebuild why bother selecting journeymen mid twenty players like Matt Jones? Why not roll the dice and just go with youth. The answer i guess Neeld would give is that you need hard bodies to help protect the younger guys and let them build into it. Which sort of highlights my point a bit ie an inexperienced at AFL level mid 20's player is not the same as an 18 year old just out of school who is still a boy.

No, but Leigh Matthews might be available.

Imagine,

Schwartz as president, surrounded by a good board of business men and marketing guru's.

Leigh Mathews as coach.

12 month turnaround.

I've got a secret for you - we might need a few skilled footballers as well or had thought slipped by you ? may put a wee dent in your 12 month plan.

If Neeld was installed to change the club culture and install elite performance the MFC would be making a huge mistake by making relational decisions.

If Neeld was brought in to the club to win games off the bat from 2012 he has failed and should be fired

Tonight will tell us which is correct - if he's fired simply because of media and supporter pressure I believe strongly this club is WEAK and will remain WEAK

Why is it that you associate the sacking of Neeld with bowing to media and supporter pressure.

Can you not see a rational argument for sacking Neeld based on his performance?

He has presided over possibly the worst first half of a season I've ever seen, which has followed on from a year in which he won four games (three against GC and GWS) and produced largely uncompetitive displays. He has the players confused and lacking belief in their style of footy, has completely failed to implement a working game plan, has taken the team completely backwards, has handled situations poorly, has repeatedly changed his tune on where the club is at and has given inconsistent and self-serving messages to the supporters. It's no wonder the players are confused and lack belief - I am confused listening to what he says in his press conferences!

To say a decision to sack Neeld would be bowing to media pressure is just completely failing to acnkowledge the strong performance based grounds supporting his removal.

One 25 goal loss, three 15 goal losses, one 13 goal loss and two 10 goal losses. All in half a season of footy.

Edited June 3, 201312 yr by Scoop Junior

If you claim the comments regarding culture and behaviour are just rumours (despite comments by robbo this week) and nothing more, then you are justified in saying that Neeld should have kept the

Neeld didn't take a short cut, he took the long road. They problem is the masses on demonland and in the media aren't willing to wait for the results.

The short cut would have been keeping the senior players who wouldn't buy in to elite performance culture, or changing the game plan or standards to suit those players. We would have had better short term results, Neeld would have prolonged his career but the club would have gone nowhere. We may have made finals, but we wouldn't have gone further than that.

I agree to an extent, he certainly took a harder option, however i would also say it was an incredibly risky, even naive option as put simply he needed some wins on the board and his approach and not got them. Its not just DL posters and the media who are not willing to wait for results its the AFL, sponsors and general Melbourne fans (especially kids who will follow Miami Heat or a side that wins the odd game). Made finals. Yep, i'd take that.

He needed to find a middle ground as did the board. An approach that sees the results we have seen is not viable from any perspective, not least of which being a financial one. A very poor business decision if the board signed off on this approach.

That said i would argue that really getting the sleeves rolled up and trying to change culture and keep players would have been the really hard road. Yes it would have been risky but if successful the pay off would have been much better and the period at the bottom much shorter. He could have begun, not by drawing a line in the sand and with a clean slate but by acknowledging the psychological trauma that was so evident amongst the playing group post the 2011 season and doing something to heal it. That would have been the really hard, tough thing to do. Much easier to wipe people and send them packing and bring your own Neeldbots in.

Why is it that you associate the sacking of Neeld with bowing to media and supporter pressure.

Can you not see a rational argument for sacking Neeld based on his performance?

He has presided over possibly the worst first half of a season I've ever seen, which has followed on from a year in which he won four games (three against GC and GWS) and produced largely uncompetitive displays. He has the players confused and lacking belief in their style of footy, has completely failed to implement a working game plan, has taken the team completely backwards, has handled situations poorly, has repeatedly changed his tune on where the club is at and has given inconsistent and self-serving messages to the supporters. It's no wonder the players are confused and lack belief - I am confused listening to what he says in his press conferences!

To say a decision to sack Neeld would be bowing to media pressure is just completely failing to acnkowledge the strong performance based grounds supporting his removal.

I think you need to keep reading prior posts to see I've said I agree on performance solely Neeld shouldn't keep his job

But it sounds like you only read what you want to read

I listen to what is coming from the club - I try not to make relational decisions because a number of times this year after games I've thought Neeld should be sacked.

Chris Dawes as early as yesterday has said the club is on the right track - I listened to Brian Royal yesterday before the game - he said he thought the club was on the right track, it wasn't showing on the field but off field the club is going in the right direction - I could go on

You have made your own decisions and that's fine and in your argument you state GWS and GC are poor sides - I think you better have another look buddy. GC especially are a quality side, so I am going to dismiss your opinion as it is just an opinion with not too much credit given to where the club is at or the strength of other sides.

The simplest fact of the argument at the moment is - If the club bows to media pressure (have you seen the AFL website Scoop? Its a circus - this club is being treated like a side show). and don't follow through on their plans it is a weak act.

Strong sides do not bow to media and supporter pressure. See cats, pies, hawks etc etc when rebuilding all hit bumps in the road NONE bowed to the pressure.

If Neeld has been directed from the board to rebuild this club then bowing to pressure now will be a [censored] weak act from the club. I don't mind you have an opinion that differs Sccop but at least bring a better argument then you did. There are a lot of your assumptions in there

I do not think that Neeld isn't' sackable - it has to be for the right reasons, but at the moment it looks like (my opinion) the board is bowing to media pressure. Otherwise all the inside information/noise from the club has been lies and that is far worse IMO

Edited June 3, 201312 yr by Unleash Hell

I would have preferred Neeld found a way to engage Moloney and have him as an ally. We have the worst mid field in the competition and we simply could not afford to lose our second best mid. As i said who knows if what you say about Moloney is true ie he refused to mentor young players, sooked because he wasn't named captain etc etc. Are we going by what Robbo said or just rumours? Even if it was true a really good person manager would have found the key and got Moloney on board. But lets leave him aside.

Rivers, yes a free agent so it was his call. I still would have loved it if he had felt so confident of where Neeld was taking the club that he felt compelled to stay (and i recall a few years ago he was adamant he wanted to be a one club player) and to be honest i don't get the feeling they put up much of a fight to keep him. Perhpas they could have made him captain or more realistically vice captain. perhaps they could have offered him a really big contract, one that another club couldn't match. But ok lets leave Rivers aside.

You can't argue that he cut Morton, Martin and Pettard. All players up with more than 50 games experience (or close, not sure how many Martin played but must be up around 50). There's 160 games for you. Petard seems to be in the tigers (a side pushing for the top 8) best 22 so it is hard to see how he couldn't have been in ours. Martin was being selected at the lions before his injury. Morton hasn't yet but i reckon he'll get a crack but even so he would have added depth. He also cut Gysberts who has been in the system for a few years so had some experience.

How do we know that Neeld didn't try to do this already? With communication, sometimes a message can be conveyed in a hundred different ways, but if they listener/receiver of that message is not willing to listen, then it will make no difference to what is said, or how it is said. You question whether we can really be certain that Robbo's recollection of things is accurate or if it just rumors? The same can be asked about those rumors that Neeld didn't do everything he could to keep Moloney and Rivers.

I never argued that he didn't cut Morton, Martin and Petterd, but do you actually think we'd be better placed if they were here? None of them showed anything last season. Someone has even come on here and alluded to some real issues with Martin as a player. Gysberts, could come back to bite us, but he still hasn't even had a senior game with North Melbourne. Who knows what will happen with him, but he was one player I was disappointed to see go, though I would prefer to have Viney, Toumpas, Matt Jones, Terlich in the team based on what they have provided then Gysberts and Morton.

Why is it that you associate the sacking of Neeld with bowing to media and supporter pressure.

Can you not see a rational argument for sacking Neeld based on his performance?

He has presided over possibly the worst first half of a season I've ever seen, which has followed on from a year in which he won four games (three against GC and GWS) and produced largely uncompetitive displays. He has the players confused and lacking belief in their style of footy, has completely failed to implement a working game plan, has taken the team completely backwards, has handled situations poorly, has repeatedly changed his tune on where the club is at and has given inconsistent and self-serving messages to the supporters. It's no wonder the players are confused and lack belief - I am confused listening to what he says in his press conferences!

To say a decision to sack Neeld would be bowing to media pressure is just completely failing to acnkowledge the strong performance based grounds supporting his removal.

One 25 goal loss, three 15 goal losses, one 13 goal loss and two 10 goal losses. All in half a season of footy.

The key fundamental to the argument Neeld shouldn't be sacked based on performance is if the direction Neeld and the club agreed when Neeld was employed was to rebuild the list and the culture of the club

I am not going to do your research for you - Look it up yourself.

If the agreement was to rebuild the culture and the list then Neeld has done nothing wrong (there has been errors but I am not going to argue [censored] for tat crap)

So I'll say it again

If Neeld and the board agreed to rebuild when Neeld was appointed - sacking Neeld now is a weak move by the club - this is why we can't judge Neeld solely on performance.

That's why I believe you are off the mark Scoop

Edited June 3, 201312 yr by Unleash Hell

...

Made finals. Yep, i'd take that

...

That said i would argue that really getting the sleeves rolled up and trying to change culture and keep players would have been the really hard road. Yes it would have been risky but if successful the pay off would have been much better and the period at the bottom much shorter. He could have begun, not by drawing a line in the sand and with a clean slate...

...That would have been the really hard, tough thing to do. Much easier to wipe people and send them packing and bring your own Neeldbots in....

I wouldn't be happy with "made finals". Making up the numbers isn't enough. We need to our together a team to win flags. There is a difference.

Neeld took 12 months to try and with the relationships out before delisting anyone. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make then drink. You are seeing the 5 out of 40 odd that didn't work. Blease and Sylvia are two examples of relationships that have worked.

And I'm not quite sure, but are you calling Clark and Dawes Neeldbots?

http://www.sen.com.au/display-afl/Stats-say-Neeld-is-worst-coach-in-30-years/59684

Of course, this probably just another media beat up as well.

http://www.sen.com.au/display-afl/Stats-say-Neeld-is-worst-coach-in-30-years/59684

Of course, this probably just another media beat up as well.

But we don't know if he's still meeting KPIs...

I never argued that he didn't cut Morton, Martin and Petterd, but do you actually think we'd be better placed if they were here?

Look we're going around in circles clearly but you said ' Please explain how you know that Neeld cut the players, and I'll reconsider my position.' I pointed out that Neeld did in fact cut experienced players.

The second point (ie do i think we'd be better placed if they were here) is a bit of weird question. You were the one who was arguing that our woeful performance this year (and apparent regression from the previous year, which was pretty bad anyway) should be seen context that we had a less experienced side than 2012. Using your logic if we had kept our expereinced players rather than cutting them we would be a better team. It is your contention not mine.

How do we know that Neeld didn't try to do this already? With communication, sometimes a message can be conveyed in a hundred different ways, but if they listener/receiver of that message is not willing to listen, then it will make no difference to what is said, or how it is said. You question whether we can really be certain that Robbo's recollection of things is accurate or if it just rumors? The same can be asked about those rumors that Neeld didn't do everything he could to keep Moloney and Rivers.

I never argued that he didn't cut Morton, Martin and Petterd, but do you actually think we'd be better placed if they were here? None of them showed anything last season. Someone has even come on here and alluded to some real issues with Martin as a player. Gysberts, could come back to bite us, but he still hasn't even had a senior game with North Melbourne. Who knows what will happen with him, but he was one player I was disappointed to see go, though I would prefer to have Viney, Toumpas, Matt Jones, Terlich in the team based on what they have provided then Gysberts and Morton.

Interesting. I would argue that Morton,Martin,Petterd, Gysberts have more upside than Pederson,Gillies,Rodan & Byrnes. I think the biggest single thing against Neeld however is our complete uncompetiveness over his entire time in the gig. We are being routinely thrashed, not even an honourable loss over his whole time to hang our hat on. Hard to see any vision I'm afraid.

Neeld has had 6 losses over 90 points. 4 of them this year

Bailey had 4 losses over 90 points in 4 years (incl 186)

Neeld can't coach, He offers no hope. He is the problem.

I'd be pretty sure he didn't get the gig by saying"the list is crap, let me do a 5 yr rebuild". His rebuild of the rebuild comment is one of the worst I have heard from a coach. Totally demoralising and devoid of any hope.

...Interesting. I would argue that Morton, Martin, Petterd, Gysberts have more upside than Pederson,Gillies,Rodan & Byrnes...

...I think the biggest single thing against Neeld however is our complete uncompetiveness over his entire time in the gig....

If agree what you've said about those players. But they were recruited for a different reason. Those players represented poor attitudes or training with ethics or ability to perform in key areas the coach wanted. The players brought in represent work ethic, hard training, good attitude, competitive etc. They were brought in to help set an example, to hemp lift the standards. Yes some were expected to play well and some were expected to pay occasionally. But performance isn't everything, it was about blokes who embodied the minimum requirements of an elite footballer.

Agree re uncompetitiveness, and that will be what costs him his job, either today, next week, end of year or later. But his legacy will be setting us on the right path of the field.

I'm not sure if anyone else has seen the article on the AFL website titled "Five big questions for the Melbourne board" but it is a great read, and one of the most sensible articles I've read on everything that is happening.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-02/five-big-questions-for-the-melbourne-board

I 100% agree with this article. It takes the emotion out of it all, and asks some bloody good questions.

Look we're going around in circles clearly but you said ' Please explain how you know that Neeld cut the players, and I'll reconsider my position.' I pointed out that Neeld did in fact cut experienced players.

The second point (ie do i think we'd be better placed if they were here) is a bit of weird question. You were the one who was arguing that our woeful performance this year (and apparent regression from the previous year, which was pretty bad anyway) should be seen context that we had a less experienced side than 2012. Using your logic if we had kept our expereinced players rather than cutting them we would be a better team. It is your contention not mine.

Fair points mate. I was probably referring more to Riv and Moloney as that's what most of the focus has been on. Given both of them were Free Agents

However, with that said, I believe Neeld would have been involved in the list discussions about Morton, Gysberts, Petterd, Martin etc, but I don't think there loss has hurt as greatly. Yes, I take your point regarding my argument about losing experience meaning we are now more inexperienced as a list as one of the main reasons for our current form. But if we start comparing what we are now with what we might have been with Morton, Gysberts, Petterd etc, we are just going to be dealing with hypotheticals. However, from what has been shown on the field by Terlich, M Jones, Kent, Viney and Toumpas, I'd rather have them at the moment instead of Morton, Gysberts, Petterd. Though I think Morton, Gysberts and Petterd are talented, I think that Terlich, Jones, Kent and particularly Viney have more grunt than any of the other three, and are better building blocks than the others.

Is that inconsistent with my previous statements. It could be seen that way, it is the loss of players with the level of experience of Rivers and Moloney that I more had in mind. Both had established themselves as AFL players. None of Morton, Gysberts or Petterd have done that.

Ok let's just have a look at what you've said now.

I think you need to keep reading prior posts to see I've said I agree on performance solely Neeld shouldn't keep his job

Thanks for agreeing with my view. How else do you measure someone other than on performance?

Chris Dawes as early as yesterday has said the club is on the right track - I listened to Brian Royal yesterday before the game - he said he thought the club was on the right track, it wasn't showing on the field but off field the club is going in the right direction - I could go on

Chris Dawes and Brian Royal have said we are on the right track. What!?! Wait a second, stop this all now! Sign Neeld up for another 3 years, because a player and assistant coach have told the public we are on the right track. Surely we MUST be on the right track then. All this worrying for nothing.

(Sorry about the sarcasm but to give anything more than scant regard to comments by a player and assistant coach that 'we are on the right track' is the height of naivety. What do you expect them to say – "we are clearly on the wrong track").

The old "it's not showing on the field but the club is going in the right direction" - I can't believe you fell for this one. Classic Neeld spin. Saying a club is going in the right direction is absolutely meaningless without some sort of action to back it up.

The simplest fact of the argument at the moment is - If the club bows to media pressure (have you seen the AFL website Scoop? Its a circus - this club is being treated like a side show). and don't follow through on their plans it is a weak act.

Strong sides do not bow to media and supporter pressure. See cats, pies, hawks etc etc when rebuilding all hit bumps in the road NONE bowed to the pressure.

If Neeld has been directed from the board to rebuild this club then bowing to pressure now will be a [censored] weak act from the club.

Again you say it's bowing to media pressure. For the second time, let me state that it's not bowing to media pressure if the decision is made for the right reasons. I'm really not sure why you are assuming that a decision will be made owing to media / supporter pressure when there are at the same time clear grounds (which you agree with) supporting the decision to remove him.

I don't mind you have an opinion that differs Sccop but at least bring a better argument then you did. There are a lot of your assumptions in there

I do not think that Neeld isn't' sackable - it has to be for the right reasons, but at the moment it looks like (my opinion) the board is bowing to media pressure. Otherwise all the inside information/noise from the club has been lies and that is far worse IMO

Ok, so let's get this straight. My opinion is based on performance, something that is clearly ascertainable from watching Melbourne play each week. Yet your whole argument is based on "your opinion" that the board is bowing to media pressure. How on earth would you know what grounds the board are making their decision on? You are just going on a hunch. I've got no issue with you stating your opinion, that's fine, but it doesn't carry much weight in comparison to the clear undisputed evidence that Melbourne's performances under Neeld have been absolutely horrible.

Yet it's me that needs to bring a better argument? Extraordinary.

So, let me get this straight, some people now think Neeld should be dismissed as head coach because some of his messages in the media have been a little inconsistent? That is one of the weakest arguments/reasons I have heard yet. If I was to be sacked for something like that I'd be tempted to lodge an unfair dismissal case against my employer. It's been obvious from the get go that the focus was on rebuilding the club by changing the culture, and embedding elite training standards. Last year we had more experience than we had this year, and Neeld and co used that time to evaluate the current player group. They then went about moving on those not fitting within the plan for the list and brought in young players to begin the rebuild of the list.

Has anyone considered that the lack of experience line has been used more this year because our team is actually much less experienced compared to last year. We no longer have Rivers, Green and Moloney, not too mention guys like Morton who had played 73 games (which would make him one of the top 10 experienced players on the list at the moment), and Petterd who had played 54 games. They've been replaced with guys like Gillies (20 odd games), Terlich (first yr player), Matt Jones (first yr player), Viney, & Toumpas. Take a total of all those players experienced and they don't even equal Petterd's 54 games.

All it takes to understand some of these variations in messages is a little bit of thought. A little bit of rationale thought that is.

Not only is our team less experienced in games played, but also in games played together. This is massive when it comes to the players working well together.

Ok let's just have a look at what you've said now.

Thanks for agreeing with my view. How else do you measure someone other than on performance?

Chris Dawes and Brian Royal have said we are on the right track. What!?! Wait a second, stop this all now! Sign Neeld up for another 3 years, because a player and assistant coach have told the public we are on the right track. Surely we MUST be on the right track then. All this worrying for nothing.

(Sorry about the sarcasm but to give anything more than scant regard to comments by a player and assistant coach that 'we are on the right track' is the height of naivety. What do you expect them to say – "we are clearly on the wrong track").

The old "it's not showing on the field but the club is going in the right direction" - I can't believe you fell for this one. Classic Neeld spin. Saying a club is going in the right direction is absolutely meaningless without some sort of action to back it up.

Again you say it's bowing to media pressure. For the second time, let me state that it's not bowing to media pressure if the decision is made for the right reasons. I'm really not sure why you are assuming that a decision will be made owing to media / supporter pressure when there are at the same time clear grounds (which you agree with) supporting the decision to remove him.

Ok, so let's get this straight. My opinion is based on performance, something that is clearly ascertainable from watching Melbourne play each week. Yet your whole argument is based on "your opinion" that the board is bowing to media pressure. How on earth would you know what grounds the board are making their decision on? You are just going on a hunch. I've got no issue with you stating your opinion, that's fine, but it doesn't carry much weight in comparison to the clear undisputed evidence that Melbourne's performances under Neeld have been absolutely horrible.

Yet it's me that needs to bring a better argument? Extraordinary.

But isn't UH saying that the MN may be 'performing' in ways other than the 'on-field performance'? And if he is performing as directed then he shouldn't be sacked just because there are 20 'journalists' camping outside the Board meeting. Sounds very reasonable to me. Of course feel free to argue that the Board directions were crud. That's a different argument.

Not only is our team less experienced in games played, but also in games played together. This is massive when it comes to the players working well together.

That's true, good point.

I did some counting on Saturday. In 2010 and 2011 when Bailey was trying to win he had 3 losses over 60 points. That is slightly under 10% of games played.

In 2012 and 2013 Neeld has had 13 losses over 60 points in 32 games. That's about 40% of games. 7 of those games have been this year 70%. FM.

I think MFC supporters have forgotten what it's like to go to the footy expecting to win or be competitive. That's how bad it's gotten.

All this has happened on Neeld's watch. He's the coach and he's responsible. He is the problem.

Edited June 3, 201312 yr by Baghdad Bob

But isn't UH saying that the MN may be 'performing' in ways other than the 'on-field performance'? And if he is performing as directed then he shouldn't be sacked just because there are 20 'journalists' camping outside the Board meeting. Sounds very reasonable to me. Of course feel free to argue that the Board directions were crud. That's a different argument.

You reckon Neeld is performing as directed? What has Neeld done to achieve his KPIs?

Improved training - appears to be the case, but I don't think this takes much coaching talent to be honest.

Elite standards - it's one thing to demand high standards and another thing to achieve it. Neeld is demanding it but there's no evidence he's achieving it.

Anything else?

It would take a fool to believe that on field performance was not a critical component of Neeld's brief. Do you seriously think we pay a bloke $400k a year to improve training standards?

No one expected him to make us a finals contender this year or have us playing sensational footy, but I'd be shocked if the board and Neeld himself didn't expect improvement from when he was appointed in 2011. He has taken us backwards and he didn't see it coming...he even said so himself.

Not only is our team less experienced in games played, but also in games played together. This is massive when it comes to the players working well together.

Very good point. Even those who were recruited in the Bailey re-build have had little time playing together due to injuries etc.

You reckon Neeld is performing as directed? What has Neeld done to achieve his KPIs?

Since I'm not on the Board, I don't know. You seem to be missing the point I made as well as UH's.

Ok let's just have a look at what you've said now.

Thanks for agreeing with my view. How else do you measure someone other than on performance?

Chris Dawes and Brian Royal have said we are on the right track. What!?! Wait a second, stop this all now! Sign Neeld up for another 3 years, because a player and assistant coach have told the public we are on the right track. Surely we MUST be on the right track then. All this worrying for nothing.

(Sorry about the sarcasm but to give anything more than scant regard to comments by a player and assistant coach that 'we are on the right track' is the height of naivety. What do you expect them to say – "we are clearly on the wrong track").

The old "it's not showing on the field but the club is going in the right direction" - I can't believe you fell for this one. Classic Neeld spin. Saying a club is going in the right direction is absolutely meaningless without some sort of action to back it up.

Again you say it's bowing to media pressure. For the second time, let me state that it's not bowing to media pressure if the decision is made for the right reasons. I'm really not sure why you are assuming that a decision will be made owing to media / supporter pressure when there are at the same time clear grounds (which you agree with) supporting the decision to remove him.

Ok, so let's get this straight. My opinion is based on performance, something that is clearly ascertainable from watching Melbourne play each week. Yet your whole argument is based on "your opinion" that the board is bowing to media pressure. How on earth would you know what grounds the board are making their decision on? You are just going on a hunch. I've got no issue with you stating your opinion, that's fine, but it doesn't carry much weight in comparison to the clear undisputed evidence that Melbourne's performances under Neeld have been absolutely horrible.

Yet it's me that needs to bring a better argument? Extraordinary.

Haha thanks for the lols

You attack my argument and rebut it with nothing more then personal insults and dodging the questions

Thanks for wasting my time - Why should sacking Neeld on performance be the only measure? What do you know of the measures the board has given Neeld? You haven't been able to highlight to me how the MFC is not bowing to pressure when this is a media driven campaign and has been from rd 1? What do they know of the performance measures issued to Neeld in year 2?

read this article - it is a good insight to the questions the board will be asking today - performance is 1 of the measures not the ONLY measure this is the point I am trying to get across (clearly poorly)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-02/five-big-questions-for-the-melbourne-board

I'll put it simply and bluntly too you Scoop Jnr as you don't seem to get it - There are more factors to sacking Neeld then just performance and you being upset with him. You have only discussed one factor that should determine if Neeld should be sacked today or not.

It is my opinion that by using only performance as a measure it is bowing to media pressure and shows that this club is WEAK. Not only does it tell the media we are weak it tells the footy world we are weak and can't see anything through when we hit hard times or we will fold when the pressure is on - just like our team that you watch every week. Ask someone outside of the club, they'll tell you all you need to do is put pressure on the MFC and they'll crumble under the pressure - does that look familiar??? That has been at the club a long time before Neeld took over. Quite the impressive image we give and that is not an opinion that is fact in the AFL industry.

Lastly, by people inside the club and Neeld saying that we are rebuilding does that mean they are lying to us in the media? What does that say to the outside world when we sack a coach half way in to a rebuild?

Once again impressive image this club gives isn't it.... All to appease the media and supporter pressure (Big clubs don't bow to this sort of pressure)