Yep, Neeld will lose his job and our coach killing list will continue to party, share Nair and Gillette razors, giggle through time trials and jog to contests.

Fantastic.

He has had that chance, and regardless, isolated results mean little, and it is clear his papers are stamped. The Board are simply ensuring they know exactly what their next will be first.

IMO Neeldy constantly saying "it is what it is" is admiting defeat, the sad thing is the fact he constantly says it. I believe he's heart and mind have not been in it since the round 2 loss.

How can our playing group who he is supposed to be leading and motivating get inspired by a man who admits defeat so easily and NEVER talks about winning.

It seems a little odd that the blokes who took on CS before 186 (bar Jonesy) were all sidelined upon the new man coming in and the game plan of the old coach who was at loggerheads with him was completely scrapped. Also add in the fact that the selection committee was made up of CS, one of his best mates and a chairman who has been less than forceful in his time in the job, then this starts to stink. One of these might just be a coincidence. When it gets to two or more, then I start to no longer believe in coincidences.

You have forgotten the two or three standing on the grassy knoll, I assume you sat in on every meeting , otherwise you know zip

Edited May 29, 201312 yr by Satyriconhome

IMO Neeldy constantly saying "it is what it is" is admiting defeat, the sad thing is the fact he constantly says it. I believe he's heart and mind have not been in it since the round 2 loss.

How can our playing group who he is supposed to be leading and motivating get inspired by a man who admits defeat so easily and NEVER talks about winning.

So what, you think before each game, Neeld and the assistants sit in the change rooms and say to the players, ok today we want you to go out and lose again, try reading his body language at the end of the second qty against Freo

A point, I don't know whether he will be sacked or not, but when he says "it is what it is"...he is correct, we have an inexperienced team so we should expect ups and downs, but we all agree the downs are way too far down, hopefully in the next two games, that can be fixed

Never tell a loyal servant and heart and soul player to retire early, if they want to play on

the James McDonald debacle is stain on the club, Dean Bailey really screwed us.

Great post, I completely agree with what you are saying. When we sacked Bailey I really felt we were capitulating to the media. I'm not saying that supporters weren't angry and the conversation was certainly being had, but it was the media who decided he needed to go after 186 and I felt then - and still feel now - that the board just did what they said. What worries me is that they haven't learnt from this experience, sacking Neeld mid season would only demonstrate that.

Quite apart from everything else, how are we going to hope to attract a quality replacement if we sack our second coach mid season in three seasons?? Who is going to want to step into that role??

i think regardless of if/when Neeld is shown the door it wont have been a knee jerk reaction. Knee jerk raction would have been to sack him straight after the gold coast game.

As for the dignity part of things, this is the MFC, who knows what they'll do.....

So what, you think before each game, Neeld and the assistants sit in the change rooms and say to the players, ok today we want you to go out and lose again, try reading his body language at the end of the second qty against Freo

A point, I don't know whether he will be sacked or not, but when he says "it is what it is"...he is correct, we have an inexperienced team so we should expect ups and downs, but we all agree the downs are way too far down, hopefully in the next two games, that can be fixed

Of course not, but answer me this - when was the last time you've heard Neeld talk about winning.

Yes, we have an inexperianced playing group. Yes, he shouldn't have to teach effort. But, these two issues are caused by Neeld and his approach from the day he walked in the door and got everyone off side. And for that I believe, it is what you have created MN.

It seems a little odd that the blokes who took on CS before 186 (bar Jonesy) were all sidelined upon the new man coming in and the game plan of the old coach who was at loggerheads with him was completely scrapped. Also add in the fact that the selection committee was made up of CS, one of his best mates and a chairman who has been less than forceful in his time in the job, then this starts to stink. One of these might just be a coincidence. When it gets to two or more, then I start to no longer believe in coincidences.

Wow, you really think that?

a) as CEO and president it was their job to appoint the coach, not a coincidence. Who do you think should have done in? A subcommittee of members selected by straw poll? AFL house? The media?

b) I am not defending his record or ability as CEO but I think Schwab is truly a Melbourne person. He has continued to support the club publicly since being sacked, he hasn't slashed anyone off. If anything he is so much a Melbourne person that he shouldn't have been doing the CEO job, which is one position where you need a ruthless business decision maker, rather than a clubman. Remember, it was Stynes who got the boys club together, and he did it in an attempt to unite a fractured club.

That brings us back to the OP. We can't afford to fracture this club again. We aren't big enough or strong enough to turn away help or turn away supporters. We are all Melbourne, even if some haven't achieved what they promised, and its important we are respectful to our own and ruthless externally.

Wow, you really think that?

a) as CEO and president it was their job to appoint the coach, not a coincidence. Who do you think should have done in? A subcommittee of members selected by straw poll? AFL house? The media?

B) I am not defending his record or ability as CEO but I think Schwab is truly a Melbourne person. He has continued to support the club publicly since being sacked, he hasn't slashed anyone off. If anything he is so much a Melbourne person that he shouldn't have been doing the CEO job, which is one position where you need a ruthless business decision maker, rather than a clubman. Remember, it was Stynes who got the boys club together, and he did it in an attempt to unite a fractured club.

That brings us back to the OP. We can't afford to fracture this club again. We aren't big enough or strong enough to turn away help or turn away supporters. We are all Melbourne, even if some haven't achieved what they promised, and its important we are respectful to our own and ruthless externally.

Then it would be better for the deadwood to leave before they are sacked to maintain unity.

It appears to be a number of the ways for the MFC to go from here:

1. Death by 1,000 lashes (Slow and Painful Death) Do NOTHING approach
2. Let the Coupe Begin (Quick and merciless) Get rid of the Deadwood

Hell has no furry like a disapointed Supporter!

Personally I seen enough and want change in Leadership both on and off the ground.

Then it would be better for the deadwood to leave before they are sacked to maintain unity.

It appears to be a number of the ways for the MoFC to go from here:

• Death by 1,000 lashes (Slow and Painful Death) Do NOTHING approach
• Let the Coupe Begin (Quick and merciless) Get rid of the Deadwood

Hell has no furry like a disapointed Supporter!

Personally I seen enough and want change in Leadership both on and off the ground.

Which dead wood are you referring?

The board will leave as soon as another option presents itself, mclardy has publicly stated he didn't want the job and that he couldn't find anyone to take it.

The football department aren't going to step aside and quit, nor are the players. The football department, assembled from other external clubs, got rid of the dead wood players already.

You want onfield leadership? So do the coaching staff and players. Why do you think that the players voted a 21 Jack Trengove as their captain and best leader? There are no other options.

We may need change in our organisation but we have gutted the place on and off field in the past couple of years, and need to tread carefully. Any new football department is going to take the same account of time as this one. Short term results due to fresh start may occur, but that will not mean immediate fast tracking to success.

I know that it is very unlikely (from both a club and Mark Neeld view), but I really wish there was some way that if we are to go down the track of employing a new and more experienced coach, we could keep Neeld on board as the mid-field coach. I know it probably can't and won't happen, but I would see that as a real plus.

So what happens if we come back from the bye with Neeld still in charge and beat the Saints and the Dogs? Will you still be screaming for blood? Will it still be absolutely imperative that he be sacked? Would those two wins buy him enough credit for the horror run after them when we get hit by Geelong, Sydney, Brisbane and North? Would that give just enough time for the talk to build up again before we hit GWS and GC again? What happens when we beat GC this time?

My point is that using games against three top 4 sides as the final nails in his coffin is just wrong. Wait and see what happens against teams we have a chance of beating. If we end round 14 without another win I'll shut up about this and admit defeat, but I think he deserves the chance to fight for his job. Let's see if he can get the job done against teams we have a reasonable shot at.

The reason some believe he only has two weeks left is because if the team can't lift after 11 rounds and at the very least be competitive for 4 quarters, what reasoning is there to suggest the team would beat either of those teams?

It's a silly logic.

Yep, Neeld will lose his job and our coach killing list will continue to party, share Nair and Gillette razors, giggle through time trials and jog to contests.

Fantastic.

They're doing that now, though.

I know that it is very unlikely (from both a club and Mark Neeld view), but I really wish there was some way that if we are to go down the track of employing a new and more experienced coach, we could keep Neeld on board as the mid-field coach. I know it probably can't and won't happen, but I would see that as a real plus.

Yeah, won't happen.

And when you think about it, it probably wouldn't work in practice.

Wow, you really think that?

a) as CEO and president it was their job to appoint the coach, not a coincidence. Who do you think should have done in? A subcommittee of members selected by straw poll? AFL house? The media?

B) I am not defending his record or ability as CEO but I think Schwab is truly a Melbourne person. He has continued to support the club publicly since being sacked, he hasn't slashed anyone off. If anything he is so much a Melbourne person that he shouldn't have been doing the CEO job, which is one position where you need a ruthless business decision maker, rather than a clubman. Remember, it was Stynes who got the boys club together, and he did it in an attempt to unite a fractured club.

That brings us back to the OP. We can't afford to fracture this club again. We aren't big enough or strong enough to turn away help or turn away supporters. We are all Melbourne, even if some haven't achieved what they promised, and its important we are respectful to our own and ruthless externally.

a) The question that needs to be asked here is why weren't there any other outside consultant bought in advise and consult along the way? Sure, club officials needed to be involved but for the sake of transparency, why wasn't someone like a David Parkin or Paul Roos bought in to come in as a third party? Or even HRM experts? Other more successful clubs do this as a given. Hell, we even did this when Bailey was appointed (Bob Walls and Nathan Burke). At best, they cobbled that subcomittee together hastily so they wouldn't be beaten to the punch in getting the best available coach. This is amateurish in the extreme. At worst, they deliberately kept the process closed so CS could strengthen his hand in the football department. The truth is somewhere in between those two poles.

B) I don't believe anyone at the club is a Machiavellian genius, aiming to put certain people on the scrap heap. Cameron had passion for the club but his passion was misplaced. He probably did want what was best for the club but his philosophy was more one of flash and image over real substance.

He is also by and large a human being with a survival instinct. Before 186, he was staring down the barrel. In a perverse kind of way, 186 saved him and by extension won him the political battle. After a leadership challenge, what usually happens to the supporters of the opposition candidate? Whether he called it himself or Neeld did it by proxy, dissenters were cleaned out.

On the last point, I dead agree. We need to be respectful to those whose time is coming to an end. That last press conference Dean Baily had was painful to watch on both ends. The fact that Jimmy was clearly struggling was heartbreaking to watch on a human level. For Dean Bailey to sit in front of a white wall with no sponsors backdrop in a non club issue suit must have been galling. For him then to leave so he wouldn't run into either Cuddles or CS after the conference was a sign of how nasty things were and how brutally he was treated. I won't go into how we treated Junior. Neeld, for all his faults, needs to be shown some respect on the way out.

Edited May 30, 201312 yr by Guest

If you are implying that MN was picked with the purest of intentions, I would think you have missed the mark a bit. I get the feeling that he was bought in to strengthen CS's hand. Schwab was whinging that the boys were too loose and attacking and that made an enemy of Bailey. To validate his own position, he needed to find the anti-Bailey, both tactically and temperamentally. He had a bunch of players who had him in the crossfires for his meddling and to sideline them, he needed to get a coach who would supposedly rid the group of their lazy ways. He got what he wanted on both fronts. The sad thing is that it's been a f***ing disaster.

Yep, I think Neeld said the right things and Lyon and Schwab salivated at the prospect. One is not there now and the other has deserted him in the media.

A senior coach wouldn't have worn what Neeld has and that's why we didn't get one.

a) ... why weren't there any other outside consultant bought in advise and consult along the way? ... The truth is somewhere in between those two poles.

B) ..his philosophy was more one of flash and image over real substance...

On the last point, I dead agree...Neeld, for all his faults, needs to be shown some respect on the way out.

Great discussion CBF, thanks for considering and understanding the issues, debating and acknowledging that the truth is probably somewhere between the extremes! It's unfortunate that this sort of discussion is getting rarer on demonland.

Re a) I agree it was amateurish. I think we panicked somewhat and decided we need to get this right and can't be beaten to the punch by other clubs. I don't think Neeld was necessarily the wrong choice but it hasn't worked out and it probably won't. Given the other external factors of the past 18 months I would be surprised if it worked out for anyone as senior coach.

Re b) the flash and image thing, I think you are referring to the emblem, the blazers, the signage at the g and the focus on historical aspects of the club. I agree that this is entirely wanky when we are getting smashed on the park however big picture I see done benefits. Media was saying the club stood for nothing, Schwab tried to make it stand fir our distort and the history of the game. We have spent a lot of time positioning ourselves as the oldest football club, with historical style branding and marketing and linking ourselves back with the MCC. Unlike other clubs (such as western bulldog) who have tried to move forward and repent a new generation.

This approach has probably been good for securing our future. We have spent a lot of time positioning ourselves as THE foundation club, as an irreplaceable part of AFL history. What do we stand for and why are we relevant? The emblem explains it. It seems redundant when we are getting belted but in recent weeks the media and other football identities have started saying "we need a strong Melbourne football club". They weren't saying that in 96. And I think as a club we have answered the question of what we stand for, but not the question of how we stand for it.

I'm glad to hear someone else temper their calls for Neeld to be hung drawn and quartered. Doesn't mean he has to stay, but he needs to not be made a scapegoat.

Yep, I think Neeld said the right things and Lyon and Schwab salivated at the prospect. One is not there now and the other has deserted him in the media.

A senior coach wouldn't have worn what Neeld has and that's why we didn't get one.

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that at the time, Mark Neeld was considered to be one of, if not the best of what was available. When the MFC got his signature, it was generally considered by most media pundits and many (obviously not all) here, to be a bit of a coup.

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that at the time, Mark Neeld was considered to be one of, if not the best of what was available. When the MFC got his signature, it was generally considered by most media pundits and many (obviously not all) here, to be a bit of a coup.

Sorry but that is just not right. Read Caro's article. Neeld would probably never have got a senior coaching role if he hadn't fallen in at Melbourne. We missed Hinkley, Sanderson and Lyon who would all have looked very seriously at the job.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/deecision-on-the-run-20120521-1z1di.html

In part

Despite the perceived competition, Neeld did not reach the last stage of the Bulldogs' coaching search, which went to Brendan McCartney. At the end of 2010, Neeld was interviewed for the Port Adelaide job, but after profiling did not reach the final stage of that process in which Matthew Primus was chosen ahead of Chris Scott.

The Adelaide final four was made up of Sanderson, Neeld, Scott Burns and Rodney Eade. When the Crows conducted their final interview with Neeld he had not yet met the Melbourne panel, which offered him the job 72 hours later.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/deecision-on-the-run-20120521-1z1di.html#ixzz2UjyzqlWH

Edited May 30, 201312 yr by Baghdad Bob

Sorry but that is just not right. Read Caro's article. Neeld would probably never have got a senior coaching role if he hadn't fallen in at Melbourne. We missed Hinkley, Sanderson and Lyon who would all have looked very seriously at the job.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/deecision-on-the-run-20120521-1z1di.html

In part

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/deecision-on-the-run-20120521-1z1di.html#ixzz2UjyzqlWH

That article was written a week ago and by one of our greatest detractors. I am saying that at the time we were being lauded for our decision to sign up Neeld and the supporters were for the most part, in raptures.

Sorry but that is just not right. Read Caro's article. Neeld would probably never have got a senior coaching role if he hadn't fallen in at Melbourne. We missed Hinkley, Sanderson and Lyon who would all have looked very seriously at the job.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/deecision-on-the-run-20120521-1z1di.html

In part

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/deecision-on-the-run-20120521-1z1di.html#ixzz2UjyzqlWH

Jeez that's shits me reading that..

Good post.

Sacking three consecutive coaches mid season - was that a mistake? If so, what can we learn from that? Sack a fourth mid season? How successful has that been in our history? Would that be likely to attract a top rank candidate?

Sure, I am as frustrated as anyone here by our failure to progress in the last several years, but is another midseason sacking going to really rectify things? Really? Has it in the past?

I don't know the answer by the way, but if learning from past errors is going to be a factor, maybe we should let Neeld do what he thinks he can and rethink at season's end, despite him still being in contract, even if that involves doing "secret" assessments of alternatives over the remainder of the season.

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that at the time, Mark Neeld was considered to be one of, if not the best of what was available. When the MFC got his signature, it was generally considered by most media pundits and many (obviously not all) here, to be a bit of a coup.

Sorry but that is just not right. Read Caro's article. Neeld would probably never have got a senior coaching role if he hadn't fallen in at Melbourne. We missed Hinkley, Sanderson and Lyon who would all have looked very seriously at the job.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/deecision-on-the-run-20120521-1z1di.html

In part

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/deecision-on-the-run-20120521-1z1di.html#ixzz2UjyzqlWH

Caro's article was not "at the time" it was May 2012.

Great discussion CBF, thanks for considering and understanding the issues, debating and acknowledging that the truth is probably somewhere between the extremes! It's unfortunate that this sort of discussion is getting rarer on demonland.

Re a) I agree it was amateurish. I think we panicked somewhat and decided we need to get this right and can't be beaten to the punch by other clubs. I don't think Neeld was necessarily the wrong choice but it hasn't worked out and it probably won't. Given the other external factors of the past 18 months I would be surprised if it worked out for anyone as senior coach.

Re B) the flash and image thing, I think you are referring to the emblem, the blazers, the signage at the g and the focus on historical aspects of the club. I agree that this is entirely wanky when we are getting smashed on the park however big picture I see done benefits. Media was saying the club stood for nothing, Schwab tried to make it stand fir our distort and the history of the game. We have spent a lot of time positioning ourselves as the oldest football club, with historical style branding and marketing and linking ourselves back with the MCC. Unlike other clubs (such as western bulldog) who have tried to move forward and repent a new generation.

This approach has probably been good for securing our future. We have spent a lot of time positioning ourselves as THE foundation club, as an irreplaceable part of AFL history. What do we stand for and why are we relevant? The emblem explains it. It seems redundant when we are getting belted but in recent weeks the media and other football identities have started saying "we need a strong Melbourne football club". They weren't saying that in 96. And I think as a club we have answered the question of what we stand for, but not the question of how we stand for it.

I'm glad to hear someone else temper their calls for Neeld to be hung drawn and quartered. Doesn't mean he has to stay, but he needs to not be made a scapegoat.

Make no bones about it though Deanox. I truly believe that once CS got into that process, he did find someone who ticked all his boxes (i.e. a bloke who would lay down the 'law', play more defensively etc). As Rjay said, Neeld said everything Gaz and CS wanted to hear.

Let's not also forget the role Garry played in a lot of this. I would suggest that he single handedly saved CS's job (at least that's the way Jimmy put it in his book).