On 03/06/2013 at 05:18, Scoop Junior said:

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.

You have to start somewhere Scoop - clearly that is not good enough for yourself

No one is going to argue game day performances are not being met - because they clearly aren't.

Believe what you want to believe - but I'm with Neeld that our list wasn't good enough and we need to start again. I don't really care that you don't

How many examples of under development from the Bailey era would you like - Or is Cale's opinion of training standards prior to 2013 not good enough for you either?

The evidence is there that change is needed - I don't care if you agree or not - Neelds had the balls to do it and this weak club will fire him for it

  On 03/06/2013 at 05:20, sue said:

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.

Thanks sue

People have the right to be upset with Neeld no one is happy where we are - But a few people do miss the point of why it's not a good idea to be reactional and fracture the club further

Only the board can tell us who is right or wrong

  On 03/06/2013 at 05:33, Unleash Hell said:

Thanks sue

People have the right to be upset with Neeld no one is happy where we are - But a few people do miss the point of why it's not a good idea to be reactional and fracture the club further

Only the board can tell us who is right or wrong

Sorry but I have lost faith in the Board when it comes to making any on field decisions, they did very well in debt reduction but clearly have little understand about how to achieve on field success.Personally I will only have faith in an independent evalution of the MFC football department which includes Peter Jackson opinion.

  On 03/06/2013 at 05:22, Unleash Hell said:

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?

You are entitled to your view UH, and I'm not going to waste my time setting out my position again.

I've just highlighted the above comment you made. It was you, not me, that alleged the board was bowing to media pressure. So don't go asking me to prove to you that MFC is not bowing to media pressure. You made the statement, you provide the proof.

I have at least provided reasoning for my views, whereas you want me to disprove your opinion. I've never said you are wrong, all I've said is that there are strong grounds for sacking Neeld and that it is entirely plausable that a decision to sack Neeld is made on solid grounds and is totally unrelated to media pressure.

You assert that the board is bowing to media pressure, so you prove that statement.

Simple question for all.

If the club appointed Mark Neeld to rebuild the football department and the playing list, are results actually important during the first year that the reshaping of the list has taken place? And if results are still important, is Neeld to blame if he was given a mandate by the club to conduct this rebuild?

I'm not trying to further my arguments or anything else. Just genuinely interest in peoples response and thoughts?

  On 03/06/2013 at 05:56, Scoop Junior said:

You are entitled to your view UH, and I'm not going to waste my time setting out my position again.

I've just highlighted the above comment you made. It was you, not me, that alleged the board was bowing to media pressure. So don't go asking me to prove to you that MFC is not bowing to media pressure. You made the statement, you provide the proof.

I have at least provided reasoning for my views, whereas you want me to disprove your opinion. I've never said you are wrong, all I've said is that there are strong grounds for sacking Neeld and that it is entirely plausable that a decision to sack Neeld is made on solid grounds and is totally unrelated to media pressure.

You assert that the board is bowing to media pressure, so you prove that statement.

No problems Sccop

I did rush through my responses as I should be working - I could be Gonski as well if I get caught out haha

I didn't think you highlighted at all why the club wasn't making a mistake by sacking Neeld apart from the performances have been poor and you didn't like him - doesn't matter will re-read later if I get a chance

  On 03/06/2013 at 05:51, TheBigFrog said:

Sorry but I have lost faith in the Board when it comes to making any on field decisions, they did very well in debt reduction but clearly have little understand about how to achieve on field success.Personally I will only have faith in an independent evalution of the MFC football department which includes Peter Jackson opinion.

No problems at all BigFrog - I do agree with what you've said there

I think today PJ will be giving that opinion so let's hope they get it right (don't care if it sack Neeld or not as long as it turns out to be the right one)

  On 03/06/2013 at 06:04, pm24 said:

Simple question for all.

If the club appointed Mark Neeld to rebuild the football department and the playing list, are results actually important during the first year that the reshaping of the list has taken place? And if results are still important, is Neeld to blame if he was given a mandate by the club to conduct this rebuild?

I'm not trying to further my arguments or anything else. Just genuinely interest in peoples response and thoughts?

I bought this up yesterday. For all we know, the board highlighted certain players as "troublemakers" or something akin to that. Hence the reason Moloney and others were dealt with a heavy hands in regards to leadership or playing. We don't know any of this. There surely is a more obtuse reason for the goings on of Moloney and others when neeld arrived. Which leads me to believe perhaps neeld was, in fact, instructed for personnel restructuring before skills and gameplan rebuilding. I don't think anyone can argue neeld is different with the media this year as opposed to the awkward and uncomfortable figure we saw last year, irrespective of this years on field results.

  On 03/06/2013 at 04:53, chookrat said:

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 is a great point and one that should be discussed more. Probably makes the revolving door of team selection not due to injury less understandable though.

  On 03/06/2013 at 06:15, Strafford said:

That is a great point and one that should be discussed more. Probably makes the revolving door of team selection not due to injury less understandable though.

Exactly. Why was Magner dropped after only one game?

  On 03/06/2013 at 06:13, Unleash Hell said:

No problems Sccop

I did rush through my responses as I should be working - I could be Gonski as well if I get caught out haha

I didn't think you highlighted at all why the club wasn't making a mistake by sacking Neeld apart from the performances have been poor and you didn't like him - doesn't matter will re-read later if I get a chance

Not the poor performances from the team. HIS performance has been poor.

And I never said I don't like him. All I said was that IMO his performance has not been up to scratch for a senior coach.

  On 03/06/2013 at 06:04, pm24 said:

Simple question for all.

If the club appointed Mark Neeld to rebuild the football department and the playing list, are results actually important during the first year that the reshaping of the list has taken place? And if results are still important, is Neeld to blame if he was given a mandate by the club to conduct this rebuild?

I'm not trying to further my arguments or anything else. Just genuinely interest in peoples response and thoughts?

Results always matter pm. Always. And not just wins but how a team perform when they lose. Which is why the heat has not been on the bullies.

  On 03/06/2013 at 06:24, binman said:

Exactly. Why was Magner dropped after only one game?

You mean after two games right. Richmond + Freo.

  On 03/06/2013 at 06:41, pm24 said:

You mean after two games right. Richmond + Freo.

Yep, you're right 2 games. But the point remains, why was he dropped?

  On 03/06/2013 at 06:41, binman said:

Results always matter pm. Always. And not just wins but how a team perform when they lose. Which is why the heat has not been on the bullies.

Good point. I agree, that if the results had been closer then there would not be as much focus on Mark Neelds performance. If the Port and Gold Coast games in particular where under 4 goals, the results would probably be looked at as disappointing rather than atrocious like they were.

  On 03/06/2013 at 06:42, binman said:

Yep, you're right 2 games. But the point remains, why was he dropped?

I guess only the club can tell you that, but I actually liked the fact that we had Rodan in the middle. In a couple of stoppages, his pace was key to getting some of those clearances. Something Magner doesn't have.

  On 03/06/2013 at 06:15, Unleash Hell said:

No problems at all BigFrog - I do agree with what you've said there

I think today PJ will be giving that opinion so let's hope they get it right (don't care if it sack Neeld or not as long as it turns out to be the right one)

Totally agree.

  On 03/06/2013 at 06:44, pm24 said:

I guess only the club can tell you that, but I actually liked the fact that we had Rodan in the middle. In a couple of stoppages, his pace was key to getting some of those clearances. Something Magner doesn't have.

Has Rodan been injured? Played rounds 1,2,5,10

I think the club has said that Rodan was recruited with pick 88 (which they weren't going to use anyway) to be a stop gap for the younger players, so that they didn't get overworked during their first year or so. So, don't expect him to play every week as that's not his role within the club.

  On 03/06/2013 at 07:04, pm24 said:

I think the club has said that Rodan was recruited with pick 88 (which they weren't going to use anyway) to be a stop gap for the younger players, so that they didn't get overworked during their first year or so. So, don't expect him to play every week as that's not his role within the club.

Which overworked youngster did he replace this time?

  On 03/06/2013 at 06:32, Scoop Junior said:

Not the poor performances from the team. HIS performance has been poor.

And I never said I don't like him. All I said was that IMO his performance has not been up to scratch for a senior coach.

I've said on multiple occasions that I agree - you can't be happy with Neelds performance on occasions, but you also need to take things in context.

What you fail to take on board yet again is that his performance is 1 factor in multiple factors in his employment. You and I both have no idea for certain what Neeld has been advised to do with the club. And the media clearly don't. I don't blame you for being upset with Neelds performance and the performance of the club.

But I choose to look at the plight of the club from multiple perspectives - not just performance. I am not buying any spin, I am making decisions from information I get from people inside and around the club. If we can't trust their opinions who can we trust? I am not going to be making my mind up from whats written or spoken in the media thats for sure.

  On 03/06/2013 at 06:57, Strafford said:

Has Rodan been injured? Played rounds 1,2,5,10

Only the FD can answer that for sure

I am sure there are targets players have to meet before getting a game - all coaches not only Neeld set these - I don't think the public would have any idea what these are unless you have direct contact with the FD or a player

  On 03/06/2013 at 08:12, Unleash Hell said:

Only the FD can answer that for sure

I am sure there are targets players have to meet before getting a game - all coaches not only Neeld set these - I don't think the public would have any idea what these are unless you have direct contact with the FD or a player

Which is true enough, but chookrat raised a good point. I merely extended it to point out that a relatively high turnover of players every week is unlikely to be helpful in our guys getting used to playing with eachother. In my view two of our major problems are teamwork and confidence. Confidence not only in themselves as individuals, but in their teammates as well.

  On 03/06/2013 at 03:07, Unleash Hell said:

...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.

Hawthorn sacked Schwab and Ken Judge. Collingwood sacked Tony Shaw and put in Malthouse. Sydney sacked Eade mid-year and put in Roos. And if we sack the clown it won't be due to media pressure. It will be to save what is left of the brand and his non-competitive efforts.

Plenty of strong clubs sack coaches - some mid year and some not. Whether you like it or not footy is a results business. If Neeld sees the year out so be it, but he sure as hell won't be coaching in 2014. The worst on-field performances in 30 years kind of see to that. Funny, I know.

  On 03/06/2013 at 08:22, Strafford said:

Which is true enough, but chookrat raised a good point. I merely extended it to point out that a relatively high turnover of players every week is unlikely to be helpful in our guys getting used to playing with eachother. In my view two of our major problems are teamwork and confidence. Confidence not only in themselves as individuals, but in their teammates as well.

Sorry mate just jumped in on that convo Apologies

With such bad performances we as a club are walking a fine line I agree - finding a competitive 18 is a pretty tough job ATM - glad it isn't me