Neeld is not the problem

[DEELIRIOUS 156]

You've just proven my point. You have decided Neeld is the problem based on what you see on tv and you resort to name calling because you are unable to have a rational discussion or actually discuss why you feel that way.

I understand the arguments for keeping Neeld. My opinion is that we probably need to move him on because I think when a group is so demoralised it will be difficult to ever get that confidence back. I'm not sure when he should move on, but I do have faith that Peter Jackson will make the correct decision at the correct time. But I'm not willing to make outrageous claims about issues I have no idea about such as players hating him, without any knowledge. And I think that if someone who works there full time hasn't decided to sack Neeld in a full month, there could be no reason why anyone on this forum would know better.

And no-one here had that knowledge , which is why instead off having a discussion people resort to name calling.

You wouldn't have these sorts of conversations at work, you'd get sacked for bullying, so why talk to people like that online? Try having a reasonable discussion, it will get you further.

We will have this discussion in due time my dear friend, time will tell 'Ox'

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

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 2013. The worst on-field performances in 30 years kind of see to that. Funny, I know.

True - the point you missed is they weren't sacked through re-building stages, which we've only got Neeld to confirm that the club has taken that route at this stage. Don't give a flying if you agree with that or not but fact is we are playing a lot of young blokes and trying to put some decent senior talent around them.

Schwab was sacked when he declared the hawks would win the flag - Shaw and Eade are too long ago for me to remember. But name the ready made replacement we have lined up to replace Neeld?

Thanks for updating me on what I can see on field BH - But if you notice the thread title this thread is about aspects other then Neeld, stick to Time to go Neeld - to talk your crap about how you hate Neeld. I've already had this discussion with Scoop Junior that PERFORMANCE is one measure

Edited June 3, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Hannibal 5,814]

that PERFORMANCE is one measure

Over time It's the only measure. There are degrees of everything, but the non-competitive efforts are simply too great to ignore. Thankfully, he'll be gone at season's end.

And no, I don't hate him. He couldn't coach his arse to fart, but I don't hate him, just what he's doing to the club.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Over time It's the only measure. There are degrees of everything, but the non-competitive efforts are simply too great to ignore. Thankfully, he'll be gone at season's end.

And no, I don't hate him. He couldn't coach his arse to fart, but I don't hate him, just what he's doing to the club.

Cool story bro - would read again

I have no doubt if he can't improve on what's been implemented in effort and structure he will be gone at seasons end...... Thanks for sharing

Edited June 3, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

True - the point you missed is they weren't sacked through re-building stages, which we've only got Neeld to confirm that the club has taken that route at this stage. Don't give a flying if you agree with that or not but fact is we are playing a lot of young blokes and trying to put some decent senior talent around them.

Schwab was sacked when he declared the hawks would win the flag - Shaw and Eade are too long ago for me to remember. But name the ready made replacement we have lined up to replace Neeld?

Thanks for updating me on what I can see on field BH - But if you notice the thread title this thread is about aspects other then Neeld, stick to Time to go Neeld - to talk your crap about how you hate Neeld. I've already had this discussion with Scoop Junior that PERFORMANCE is one measure

Don't confuse Neeld's performance with the team's performance.

The team's performance is a critical KPI for Neeld, but it is not his only one. His performance would also be assessed relative to other KPIs, such as development of young players, leadership, team development, cultural influence, etc.

It is my view that Neeld's performance has been sub par (and I'm not basing that solely on the team's performance week to week, I'm basing it on a number of factors).

Neeld's performance is all that matters in judging him.

[DemonFrog 1,356]

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 2013. The worst on-field performances in 30 years kind of see to that. Funny, I know.

Think you mean 2014.

Oh well I will prepare for total annihilation for the rest of the season (think that 14 more games). I can see this year is be one of breaking all records and not in a good way.

Although I have heard Casey can actually play the MFC game plan, Are we allowed to recruit them for the rest of the season?

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Think you mean 2014.

Oh well I will prepare for total annihilation for the rest of the season (think that 14 more games). I can see this year is be one of breaking all records and not in a good way.

Although I have heard Casey can actually play the MFC game plan, Are we allowed to recruit them for the rest of the season?

haha I've wondered that all season as well BigFrog

I agree it's depressing - but you only have to look at the teams fielded each week to see that we are in a developmental stage. I will continue to watch and listen and if Neeld continues to fail in all areas then he should be moved on

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Don't confuse Neeld's performance with the team's performance.

The team's performance is a critical KPI for Neeld, but it is not his only one. His performance would also be assessed relative to other KPIs, such as development of young players, leadership, team development, cultural influence, etc.

It is my view that Neeld's performance has been sub par (and I'm not basing that solely on the team's performance week to week, I'm basing it on a number of factors).

Neeld's performance is all that matters in judging him.

Thats fine that's your opinion

You should write a letter and inform the board you've solved the problem - because there must be something the board knows that you don't as the performance of Neeld hasn't gotten him sacked yet....

There is clearly more to Neelds employment then just on field performance and they way you rate him etc I don't care if you accept it or not

PS: I am not going to get in a [censored] for tat argument with you and BH over how the board should rate Neeld - It's pretty clear thought Neelds performance is not solely based on the criteria you blokes think.... On top of that no one has any idea what Neelds agenda/plan was or is now.... Wasting time

Edited June 3, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

There is clearly more to Neelds employment then just on field performance and they way you rate him etc I don't care if you accept it or not

PS: I am not going to get in a [censored] for tat argument with you and BH over how the board should rate Neeld - It's pretty clear thought Neelds performance is not solely based on the criteria you blokes think.... On top of that no one has any idea what Neelds agenda/plan was or is now.... Wasting time

I'll say it again...I'm not basing Neeld's performance on JUST our on field performance. Sure it is a big factor, but as I said I'm judging him on a number of other areas as well.

If you reckon Neeld thought we'd be as bad as we are right now then I suggest you have got it very, very wrong. The first few games totally and utterly shocked him and now he has changed his tune on where we are at to serve his own purposes and to act as a convenient excuse.

Compare his comments pre-season to his comments now. It doesn't take a genius to see the change in tune.

[Steven1980 0]

Melbourne's Midfield is still learning. They did manage to win more clearnaces than Hawthorn on the weekend.

[pm24 451]

Compare his comments pre-season to his comments now. It doesn't take a genius to see the change in tune.

I might be overly optimistic, and some would say I've probably got a veil over my eyes, but I believe this capacity to adjust when provided with new information, and adjust one's message to the media is a positive attribute for a coach. I would also say it's not unique to Neeld as a head coach. A lot of head coaches go into the season believing the list is at a certain point, based on their players preseason effort. It's only after they've played a few games that those views are confirmed or corrected (see Richmond, Port Adelaide, Nth Melbourne for how much things can change).

Edited June 4, 2013 by pm24

[binman 43,717]

I might be overly optimistic, and some would say I've probably got a veil over my eyes, but I would have thought the capacity to adjust when provided with new information, and adjust one's message to the media would have been seen as a positive characteristic. I would also say it's not unique to Neeld as a head coach. A lot of head coaches go into the season believing the list is at a certain point, based on their players preseason effort. It's only after they've played a few games that those views are confirmed or corrected (see Richmond, Port Adelaide, Nth Melbourne for how much things can change).

I think you have rose colored veil over your eyes. The big issue for me is that at the AGM his message to members was that we should be cautiously optimistic and that our improvement would surprise people. I assume he believed what he was saying and after the port game he was clearly shocked - and even more so after the essendon game - at how poor we were. He then changed his message to a rebuild of a rebuild etc etc but has never been able to sound anything other than not sure of what is actually happenning.

[Choko 493]

I'll say it again...I'm not basing Neeld's performance on JUST our on field performance. Sure it is a big factor, but as I said I'm judging him on a number of other areas as well.

If you reckon Neeld thought we'd be as bad as we are right now then I suggest you have got it very, very wrong. The first few games totally and utterly shocked him and now he has changed his tune on where we are at to serve his own purposes and to act as a convenient excuse.

Compare his comments pre-season to his comments now. It doesn't take a genius to see the change in tune.

I think no-one could say in good faith that he has proven he can coach, but the jury is still out in whether he can't.

I worry that he doesn't seem to have realised just how bad our midfield is... But then again if you look at list turnover and consider that you can't control, so you don't want to bash, the list you have remaining, it may be that he is talking bullishly to try to gain members and inspire confidence.

I think with the benefit of hindsight he might have gone in too hard and assumed that most of the list would follow, only to realise they are fat cats that have been living off the fat of the land for too long to change. Then he was left with kids who he had to make leaders.

The way the game has changed has out more emphasis on midfields and less on shutting down oppositions, so that has hurt us too.

I don't think Neeld, or anyone involved in the footy club, deserves a pass mark, but I think there are far bigger problems, and I reckon that's what PJ said to the Board.

What we needed was a really strong senior coach with great culture. That was Sheedy in 2007, but no-one in 2011/12. It's unfair to Neeld that he has been handed such a rabble.

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

I might be overly optimistic, and some would say I've probably got a veil over my eyes, but I believe this capacity to adjust when provided with new information, and adjust one's message to the media is a positive attribute for a coach. I would also say it's not unique to Neeld as a head coach. A lot of head coaches go into the season believing the list is at a certain point, based on their players preseason effort. It's only after they've played a few games that those views are confirmed or corrected (see Richmond, Port Adelaide, Nth Melbourne for how much things can change).

Yeah but he shouldn't sell it as though he was right all along and that his understanding of where we're at hasn't changed.

We can see through it, we are smart enough to know that and I just think it's the wrong approach to try to sell the message as though everything is on track and is going as expected.

He recently told Damian Barrett that he wouldn't change a thing he has done. Surely that can't be the case. He is either fearful of making himself look bad (the most likely reason) or he is so stubborn that he can't admit or even see the mistakes that have been made.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

I'll say it again...I'm not basing Neeld's performance on JUST our on field performance. Sure it is a big factor, but as I said I'm judging him on a number of other areas as well.

If you reckon Neeld thought we'd be as bad as we are right now then I suggest you have got it very, very wrong. The first few games totally and utterly shocked him and now he has changed his tune on where we are at to serve his own purposes and to act as a convenient excuse.

Compare his comments pre-season to his comments now. It doesn't take a genius to see the change in tune.

We could debate this for hours and all year about how the season has imploded, why it's gone wrong and what we should do now. I don't question Neelds change of tact as he promoted hope at the start of the season and he season has imploded in his face and there is only reality and hard work to deal with now. You actually have to admire him facing that reality because we all know results are important and he is unlikely to keep his job.

Simple fact is - Neeld has been brought in to change the culture and improve standards at the club. Do we allow this to happen without focusing on results or are results too important??

The board need to tell us what direction we should be taking - it's a cop out by the board what they are doing now. Neeld and the club have been compromised further, it really is a joke.

I am not saying results are not important as they are - But we as a club need to choose a direction and stick to it. I believe Neeld was brought in to rebuild the club and that is the direction I wish the club to take, that is all I am saying.

[pm24 451]

Yeah but he shouldn't sell it as though he was right all along and that his understanding of where we're at hasn't changed.

We can see through it, we are smart enough to know that and I just think it's the wrong approach to try to sell the message as though everything is on track and is going as expected.

He recently told Damian Barrett that he wouldn't change a thing he has done. Surely that can't be the case. He is either fearful of making himself look bad (the most likely reason) or he is so stubborn that he can't admit or even see the mistakes that have been made.

I honestly haven't heard or read any statements that suggest this. Are you referring to statements where he has tried to iterate that it would take time?

As for his statements about not changing a thing, another way of looking at it is that he takes a view that all experiences make you stronger, and that because of what has happened his better for it now? Just another perspective.

I guess, the reason I overall support Neeld and Co is because I'm a fan of the direction being taken since they came in. I see a much more professional approach that what has been in the past.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Also when talking about Neeld the coach and changes you need to take in to account the poor state the FD and the club was left in when Neeld took over (And why I think Neeld should rebuild)

Failed draft picks one after another have hamstrung the club of leadership. Blokes like Dunn, Davey, Jamar, etc have struggled or refuse to take up the slack of an under developed list

Sylvia, Frawley and Garland we can't be sure where they stand. People bag Neelds recruitment without even mentioning the lack of leaders at the club in the first place. Moloney and Rivers walked to persue own interests no matter what you believe they both dropped their heads when asked to work harder.

The performance to date is a reflection of the Poor Administration and FD decisions from the past (prior Neeld) coupled with lack of leadership and experience now.

Neeld's had 18 months in to a rebuild -that is unrealistic In anyones language - The board need to stick to the plan or fire Neeld NOW - it's a cop out and a joke that no decision has been made

No decision gives licence to the players to be unaccountable IMO a direct conflict in what we as a club are trying to acheive

Neeld may yet fire himself but the board has really put him in an unrealistic position by not backing him. Just another bad decision by a weak club really - it's going to be an interesting couple of weeks either way, and it's we the supporters, members and club that will continue to suffer

Edited June 4, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[chookrat 4,267]

Yeah but he shouldn't sell it as though he was right all along and that his understanding of where we're at hasn't changed.

We can see through it, we are smart enough to know that and I just think it's the wrong approach to try to sell the message as though everything is on track and is going as expected.

He recently told Damian Barrett that he wouldn't change a thing he has done. Surely that can't be the case. He is either fearful of making himself look bad (the most likely reason) or he is so stubborn that he can't admit or even see the mistakes that have been made.

Damien Barrett is a [censored] bag of he highest order. Needs to be held accountable for his gossip column speculation.

[Deemon 47]

Yeah but he shouldn't sell it as though he was right all along and that his understanding of where we're at hasn't changed.

We can see through it, we are smart enough to know that and I just think it's the wrong approach to try to sell the message as though everything is on track and is going as expected.

He recently told Damian Barrett that he wouldn't change a thing he has done. Surely that can't be the case. He is either fearful of making himself look bad (the most likely reason) or he is so stubborn that he can't admit or even see the mistakes that have been made.

I was at the forum hosted last week with Mark Neeld and Neil Craig and Nathan Jones taking questions from the crowd. The question was asked of Mark Neeld, what would you do differently if you could have your time over?? The answer was an emphatic "nothing". He went on to explain and elaborate further that he had been brought in to do a job, that he knew it was going to be tough and that he was up for the fight. That job, as he said, was not to have won fifteen games of football by now, if it had been then there's a lot of things he would have done differently, but that's not the task he was given, it was to basically take the place back to scratch and instill in the FD a certain level of professionalism that has been missing until now.

The problem with hacks like Damien Barrett is that they are only ever after a cheap headline and taking Mark Neeld's comment of "nothing" and just running with it is a very cheap headline. Barrett also said that Neeld told him it was going to take five years, which (as he explained to the club's website) is not what he said at all.

I would say that after yesterday and his lovely little rant on the AFL website alongside Mr Darcy that Barrett has zero credibility when it comes to the MFC and surely if we learnt nothing else from yesterday we have learnt to not pay much attention to what these hacks say.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Also when talking about Neeld the coach and changes you need to take in to account the poor state the FD and the club was left in when Neeld took over (And why I think Neeld should rebuild)

Failed draft picks one after another have hamstrung the club of leadership. Blokes like Dunn, Davey, Jamar, etc have struggled or refuse to take up the slack of an under developed list

Sylvia, Frawley and Garland we can't be sure where they stand. People bag Neelds recruitment without even mentioning the lack of leaders at the club in the first place. Moloney and Rivers walked to persue own interests no matter what you believe they both dropped their heads when asked to work harder.

The performance to date is a reflection of the Poor Administration and FD decisions from the past (prior Neeld) coupled with lack of leadership and experience now.

Neeld's had 18 months in to a rebuild -that is unrealistic In anyones language - The board need to stick to the plan or fire Neeld NOW - it's a cop out and a joke that no decision has been made

Neeld may yet fire himself but the board has really put him in an unrealistic position by not backing him. Just another bad decision by a weak club really - it's going to be an interesting couple of weeks either way

Once again, this position seems to suggest we are unique within the AFL and that no other team has had to contend with what we have. Rivers had a good year last year. He did not want to leave the Dees and only did when he was told he was marginal at the MFC. You talk of a lack of leaders. Moloney was unceremoniously dumped last year from the leadership group. He was treated very poorly. He loved the MFC and did not want to leave, but felt he was left with no choice.

Watch him now playing with the Lions and see how vocal he is on the ground, directing, encouraging and mentoring the young blokes. If we needed leadership so badly, Moloney and Rivers would still be at the Club, at the expense of Pederson and Gillies.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Go to the source and stop listening to [censored] the reporters make up. What he said was (paraphrasing) that if the target was to have twelve wins by this stage of the year, they wouldn't have used pick three on a guy who can't play this year and pick four on a guy who'd had two hip surgeries and needs to be managed through the year with that in mind. This is all in context of having been at Sandringham on the weekend and marveled at how good a pickup Hogan is, lamenting that he can't play this year and also saying that Jimmy is a great talent, one of the best in the draft, but has to be managed a bit carefully until he's fully recovered from his operations. Obviously, if winning games in the short term were a priority he had been given they would have looked to get players who would have an immediate impact on the team as opposed to players who will be long-term successes.

In other words, possibly trading off our earliest picks, & even a senior players, to get instant Impact,, but sacrificing the longer term list health.

[chookrat 4,267]

Also when talking about Neeld the coach and changes you need to take in to account the poor state the FD and the club was left in when Neeld took over (And why I think Neeld should rebuild)

Failed draft picks one after another have hamstrung the club of leadership. Blokes like Dunn, Davey, Jamar, etc have struggled or refuse to take up the slack of an under developed list

Sylvia, Frawley and Garland we can't be sure where they stand. People bag Neelds recruitment without even mentioning the lack of leaders at the club in the first place. Moloney and Rivers walked to persue own interests no matter what you believe they both dropped their heads when asked to work harder.

The performance to date is a reflection of the Poor Administration and FD decisions from the past (prior Neeld) coupled with lack of leadership and experience now.

Neeld's had 18 months in to a rebuild -that is unrealistic In anyones language - The board need to stick to the plan or fire Neeld NOW - it's a cop out and a joke that no decision has been made

Neeld may yet fire himself but the board has really put him in an unrealistic position by not backing him. Just another bad decision by a weak club really - it's going to be an interesting couple of weeks either way

I agree re the poor state of the FD when Neeld took over, but I think the changes made (which I think are the right ones) are starting to take affect.

The older players are now starting to step up and provide leadership - I thought Jamar really stood up against Hawthorn. I think he is usually a bit timid but really worked hard to assert himself to give us first use of the ball. Davey is getting back some form and really trying hard and I think Dunn is much more focused and playing more accountable footy. Joel Mac also deserves a mention for his combative effort and ability to consistently beat his man.

Garland has been excellent and if we weren't a bottom 4 side would be AA standard. Frawley consistently beats his man and was outstanding on Franklin while Silvia has played his most accountable, consistent football over the past 12 months.

While Mononey spat the dummy I thought Rivers played really well last year. When we play Geelong I think Rivers deserves respect for his service to the MFC.

I think we are probably 3 - 4 senior players and another 3 - 4 AFL standard players away from being a competitive side. For senior players bring back Clark, Grimes, Byrnes and Silvia (add Frawley to this list). Inject Viney into the side and an improved effort and consistency from 3 of Nicolson, Mckenzie, Jetta, Pederson, Strauss and Tapscott should give us a good competitive platform. We then need some time for the team gel and play the way Neeld wants them to.

Our biggest problem is fielding 22 AFL standard players with sufficient leadership and ability to stick to the structures, win the ball and execute. We will probably still be a couple of players short of this until next year, but I think the addition of each AFL standard player, and in particular senior players, will make a noticeable difference.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Once again, this position seems to suggest we are unique within the AFL and that no other team has had to contend with what we have. Rivers had a good year last year. He did not want to leave the Dees and only did when he was told he was marginal at the MFC. You talk of a lack of leaders. Moloney was unceremoniously dumped last year from the leadership group. He was treated very poorly. He loved the MFC and did not want to leave, but felt he was left with no choice.

Watch him now playing with the Lions and see how vocal he is on the ground, directing, encouraging and mentoring the young blokes. If we needed leadership so badly, Moloney and Rivers would still be at the Club, at the expense of Pederson and Gillies.

I'm sorry Iv'a it's well documented that Moloney dropped his bundle - from inside and outside the club sources. That is not leadership. Rivers contrary to belief left to pursue success in what little time he has left of his career

That's the debate I guess in a nut shell. What standards do we want at the MFC - elite hard working or one way traffic?

Neeld was told to bring in ELITE performance to this club as a requirement - players who refused to take it on (Moloney) or weren't good enough (Cook etc) were told to pack their bags or decided to pack their bags

Regardless if you support Neeld or not - Are we as a club willing to make the tough calls to bring in ELITE standards or do we accept being mediocre?? If bring elite standards means a full re-build do you accept it?

I support Neeld & Craig demanding elite performance and moving on those who choose not to take on the challenge. Others won't and you don't have to... Neeld was brought in to do this and it would be hypocritical now of the board to fire him for bringing in changes they demanded.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

I agree re the poor state of the FD when Neeld took over, but I think the changes made (which I think are the right ones) are starting to take affect.

The older players are now starting to step up and provide leadership - I thought Jamar really stood up against Hawthorn. I think he is usually a bit timid but really worked hard to assert himself to give us first use of the ball. Davey is getting back some form and really trying hard and I think Dunn is much more focused and playing more accountable footy. Joel Mac also deserves a mention for his combative effort and ability to consistently beat his man.

Garland has been excellent and if we weren't a bottom 4 side would be AA standard. Frawley consistently beats his man and was outstanding on Franklin while Silvia has played his most accountable, consistent football over the past 12 months.

While Mononey spat the dummy I thought Rivers played really well last year. When we play Geelong I think Rivers deserves respect for his service to the MFC.

I think we are probably 3 - 4 senior players and another 3 - 4 AFL standard players away from being a competitive side. For senior players bring back Clark, Grimes, Byrnes and Silvia (add Frawley to this list). Inject Viney into the side and an improved effort and consistency from 3 of Nicolson, Mckenzie, Jetta, Pederson, Strauss and Tapscott should give us a good competitive platform. We then need some time for the team gel and play the way Neeld wants them to.

Our biggest problem is fielding 22 AFL standard players with sufficient leadership and ability to stick to the structures, win the ball and execute. We will probably still be a couple of players short of this until next year, but I think the addition of each AFL standard player, and in particular senior players, will make a noticeable difference.

Good post chookrat - and I agree with what you've said

I know we've sacrificed a lot trying to bring in this new culture - but to go back on it now would be another BIG mistake by the club.

Performance is important but short term it's not the biggest problem that had to be fixed - I strongly beivle on field will improve when we get everything else that is wrong in the club right first that was broken under the last reign

FD

Board

Recruiting/Drafting

erc etc

It will come people we need strong leadership NOW - thank god for Peter Jackson, I don't think our board can make a correct decision

Edited June 4, 2013 by Unleash Hell

[jazza 1,323]

I'm sorry Iv'a it's well documented that Moloney dropped his bundle - from inside and outside the club sources. That is not leadership. Rivers contrary to belief left to pursue success in what little time he has left of his career

That's the debate I guess in a nut shell. What standards do we want at the MFC - elite hard working or one way traffic?

Neeld was told to bring in ELITE performance to this club as a requirement - players who refused to take it on (Moloney) or weren't good enough (Cook etc) were told to pack their bags or decided to pack their bags

Regardless if you support Neeld or not - Are we as a club willing to make the tough calls to bring in ELITE standards or do we accept being mediocre?? If bring elite standards means a full re-build do you accept it?

I support Neeld & Craig demanding elite performance and moving on those who choose not to take on the challenge. Others won't and you don't have to... Neeld was brought in to do this and it would be hypocritical now of the board to fire him for bringing in changes they demanded.

i keep repeating this

parameters were set and neeld keeps saying he has hit those and the board knows hes hitting them

the press are dissapointed they didnt get thier story of the week and now are saying the board got it wrong because thier story wasnt right.