How long do we have to wait for the changes to take place?

The longer it takes the worse position the MFC get in.

The beltings cannot continue for many reason which have been stated previously and it seems like its taking an eternity for change to occurr.

I know I am impatient at the best of times but this is really getting on my nerves.

I will also add that I love this Footy club and its tearing me apart what is happening atm.

The big one has already been made when CS got the flick. Let Jackson do his job, he is not jumping to Lyons call which got us in big trouble last time.

I reckon the Lions will be in the market for a new coach too in a few months time

We can not let them trump us

This thinking also screwed us before.

Gary Lyon should have shut his mouth last night, and sounded like an idiot saying MFC are playing a dangerous game with the decision made to retain Neeld.

His fingerprints are all over this, and the only thing I was to see expressed from Lyon is contrition!

anybody consider the board appointed neeld to do ajob and rebuild from the basement upwards and at every report given to the board agrees that the fd is doing as the boards requirements?

just because the press want a scalp doesnt mean its us to give to them matter of fact if things get better they can lay siege to the lions and eagles

was rapt the board did what they expected to do yesterday and what neeld said they would do

In his press release yesterday, McLardy said: On field performances have not met expectations this year and everyone in the Football Department continues to face ongoing assessment in their roles as do those employed in other areas of the Club.

Coming from the President, that seems pretty unequivocal to me. Jazza, change is coming as it must. However, what is not in dispute is that the changes which will be introduced, need to be managed carefully and with a minimum of fuss.

yep its gonna happen thats a given

but lets play with the cards we have at this MOMENT

yep its gonna happen thats a given

but lets play with the cards we have at this MOMENT

The only cards we have mean we can only play for a lay down misere.

If this is the case, I don't follow the logic. What can we learn from the QB game that we've not had the opportunity to learn already through the rest of this embarrassment of a season? It seems outrageous that we will ignore everything we've seen in two years of train wreck, and base everything on the outcome of one solitary match completely in isolation.

I think Neeld should go, but if it happens immediately after a QB drubbing I'll be seething. It will be a classic case of stumbling upon the right answer via a horribly malformed thought process.

Unless they're waiting for a couple of easier fixtures (St Kilda and the Bulldogs) to hand over the interim reigns.

First time long time. Have felt compelled to write my thoughts as I am stunned the amount of vitriol directed at neeld whilst the board seem to be getting off very lightly.

This board was given a free kick to begin with and started with no debt courtesy of stynes. Now losing millions a year. Crowds, membership and hope are well down. They have overseen a football department structure which has been openly canned by new CEO. Copped $500k fine for tanking. Lied to afl about dank. Gave former CEO 3 yr contract extension before sacking him 6 months later. Got us to the point where it is widely recognized that we need afl intervention so as not to implode. I could go on.

Meanwhile, neeld walked into a fractured playing group who hadn't been within a bulls roar of finals in 5 years because they didn't work hard enough. It is no secret we had a toxic culture and he went about trying to change it. He has been canned for alienating the leaders when he came in. These leaders had got us nowhere in the past 5 years and were the epitome of the lack of work ethic which got us to where we are in the first place. It is not like he walked into Geelong and proceeded to get all the leaders off side. Last year our so called senior footballers in green, davey, sylvia and moloney responded to being made accountable by dropping their bundle and spending time at Casey. I would think this is more of a reflection on the character of these players than it is of neeld. Moloney spends the off season urinating in nightclubs and then sooks for a year when he isn't made captain. Again, reflects more on moloney than it does neeld. Because of this neeld has copped flak for getting some noses out of joint after being given carte blanche to fix the culture at the club. Note that blokes like jones, Howe, grimes, dawes, clarke etc. who are actually prepared to work hard don't seem to have a problem with the neeld's regime. I think the development problems we have had can be attributed to the work ethic of the bulk of our players who are 26 and over. Few if any would get games at a decent club. In the absence of a decent senior group neeld was forced to throw two blokes into the captaincy who ideally wouldn't be captain yet. Again, says more about the quality of senior players we had at the club prior to neeld's arrival than it does about neeld.

The other thing neeld gets canned for is his 'moneyball' recruiting policy. This is absolute garbage, i think his recruiting has been excellent. Let's look at last year:

In

Hogan - pick 3, gun

Toumpas - pick 4, hasn't started well but has obvious talent

Viney - pick 26, gun

Dawes - pick 20, good acquisition

Barry - steak knives with hogan deal, going ok at Casey

Rodan - effectively traded for Morton (pick 88). Was excellent on the weekend and from all reports is a good influence on the group

Byrnes - free agent, has played a couple of good games

Kent - pick 48, forced his way into side, wait and see

M jones - pick 52, great pickup

Terlich - pick 68, great pickup

Gilles - awful

Pedersen - traded for gysberts who has spent 2 years in vfl

How can the above be deemed to be bad recruiting?

Neeld shouldn't have to deal with players not putting in. These problems go back further than neeld and are problems which grew under the board. I think neeld has gone about trying to fix things up the right way and I hope he stays to see out his rebuild with a competent board in place providing some stability instead of the current circus

I agree with quite a bit of that. The major issue Neeld has is his ability to communicate, for if he had the ability, our players would understand what's expected of them on game day. They have absolutely no idea. And let's be honest, we will be in more debt that prior to Bailey if Neeld is given another year and we dish up what we've dished up in his first two years. 6,000 Melbourne supporters to a home game. I was there and I reckon the 6,000 count is generous. We'll have crowds lower or as low as GWS against Freo and the Swans.

Three big names as mentioned by Ray Biffin...Mark Blake was in there somewhere.

The point needs to be added that these players came to them with low picks, that allowed them to use their higher picks elsewhere.

They have a shrewd recruiter as well.

Would those players have gone earlier in the draft if they weren't F/S? Hawkins absolutely, was well regarded as a potential first round pick. Ablett and Scarlett far from it.

The Geelong success came from more than just luck with a few F/S picks.

In his press release yesterday, McLardy said: On field performances have not met expectations this year and everyone in the Football Department continues to face ongoing assessment in their roles as do those employed in other areas of the Club.

Coming from the President, that seems pretty unequivocal to me. Jazza, change is coming as it must. However, what is not in dispute is that the changes which will be introduced, need to be managed carefully and with a minimum of fuss.

But if you highlight the other words it suggests that last year onfield expectations were met and also that the footy department has met off field expectations.

Given there was a mandate for culture change, meeting off field expectations is a key part of their job.

I interpret the statement as "performance on field aren't good enough and they need to improve. At the next review of the FD this criteria will be looked at more closely. We won't be drawn in to guarantee anyone's jobs publicly, they have a contract but as we know in football that could change, especially if the poor performance continue"

IMO they will restructure the FD before the coach is sacked. If they sacked Neeld today a new coach would be brought in with the same problems as Neeld. Everything else will be right first, then they'll make personnel changes.

All of this counts for nothing if we get a few more 25 goal drubbings.

The only cards we have mean we can only play for a lay down misere.

yep said this before, after watching every game at home this year ive studied the list and what the players are doing at the moment required in a game, against hawks most players did exactly what was required and failed due to lack of hieght speed hard body and a decision making process

this tells me they are just not up to standard and most wouldnt get on the bottom 6 at top 8 clubs

but we support evrything until change occurs

I would hope the message to Neeld was along the lines of: "We understand that you are sticking to a process which is focused on the long-term, but clearly it isn't working. Here is a chance with a better football department structure to show us what you are capable of if you change things now."

I would have thought that's exactly what they said, and exactly what PJ had told the Board.

Jackson knows what he's doing. The biggest problem right now is the administration of the club. With that stable, it gives Neeld nowhere to hide - he'll either show signs of improvement, or he won't. But we can't accurately know that with the current set-up.

yep said this before, after watching every game at home this year ive studied the list and what the players are doing at the moment required in a game, against hawks most players did exactly what was required and failed due to lack of hieght speed hard body and a decision making process

this tells me they are just not up to standard and most wouldnt get on the bottom 6 at top 8 clubs

but we support evrything until change occurs

It is amazing what a quantum change can occur in a person, when they suddenly become imbued with confidence. I have said it before, no-one in their right mind would claim the current list could threaten the 8, but the list is better than what the current performances indicate.

In my opinion, the current performances are so woeful, because so much self belief has gone and a confidence to play intuitive footy has all but evaporated.

Three big names as mentioned by Ray Biffin...Mark Blake was in there somewhere.

The point needs to be added that these players came to them with low picks, that allowed them to use their higher picks elsewhere.

They have a shrewd recruiter as well.

Nathan Ablett was another.. though not as successful

If the current rules where in place they would have had to pick between Ablett and Bartel (assuming someone bid first round) or even Ablett and Steve Johnson (pick 24) in the 2001 draft.

In the 2006 Draft, Hawkins was definetly a first rounder (Won the Larke Medal as MVP in National Champs and was FF in U18 All Australian team) meaning they would have missed out on Selwood at 7.

In another twist of irony, Geelong used their pick 12 and 16 (12 gained in the deal with Melbourne for Moloney) to drag Ottens across, which may or may not have been possible depending on who would have bid for Nathan Ablett

Nathan Ablett was another.. though not as successful

If the current rules where in place they would have had to pick between Ablett and Bartel (assuming someone bid first round) or even Ablett and Steve Johnson (pick 24) in the 2001 draft.

In the 2006 Draft, Hawkins was definetly a first rounder (Won the Larke Medal as MVP in National Champs and was FF in U18 All Australian team) meaning they would have missed out on Selwood at 7.

In another twist of irony, Geelong used their pick 12 and 16 (12 gained in the deal with Melbourne for Moloney) to drag Ottens across, which may or may not have been possible depending on who would have bid for Nathan Ablett

And the famous Jimmy Bartel trade?

Was G Ablett considered a high pick?

Wow, I'd love some foresight every now and then....

Nathan Ablett was another.. though not as successful

If the current rules where in place they would have had to pick between Ablett and Bartel (assuming someone bid first round) or even Ablett and Steve Johnson (pick 24) in the 2001 draft.

In the 2006 Draft, Hawkins was definetly a first rounder (Won the Larke Medal as MVP in National Champs and was FF in U18 All Australian team) meaning they would have missed out on Selwood at 7.

In another twist of irony, Geelong used their pick 12 and 16 (12 gained in the deal with Melbourne for Moloney) to drag Ottens across, which may or may not have been possible depending on who would have bid for Nathan Ablett

Nathan Ablett was not ranked in the top 50. No other club would've bid anything earlier than a 2nd round pick for NA.

Gary Ablett wasn't ranked in the top 25, so they would've still ended up with Bartel, and MAYBE they would've had to choose between SJ and GA.

The only thing you can honestly say is that if they had to take Hawkins with their first round pick, it meant they would've chosen between he and Selwood. My money would be on them picking Selwood and letting Hawkins go. Did Hawkins win the GF for them in 2011? It could be argued that he did, and I will say he played bloody well in a half.

It's all good to look back in hindsight, but let's be realistic about things.

Relax guys, not suggesting their success is a fluke. Agree the Ablett name would have turned "bidders" off, but it is interesting to note some of this stuff.

Definetly got lucky with the Selwood/Hawkins thing...Who knows what they would have done, Hawkins was touted as the best player the Vic Metro Coach had seen since Chris Judd!

Can't fault their other recruiting and/or development, been spot on 3 flags the result.

In any event, here is hoping that other people are debating the MFC's Luck at landing Toumpas and Viney!

Gary Lyon should have shut his mouth last night, and sounded like an [censored] saying MFC are playing a dangerous game with the decision made to retain Neeld.

His fingerprints are all over this, and the only thing I was to see expressed from Lyon is contrition!

Any new appointment is made with information which is not available with the benefit of hindsight. Garry has the right to change his mind in light of new evidence.

I would have thought that's exactly what they said, and exactly what PJ had told the Board.

Jackson knows what he's doing. The biggest problem right now is the administration of the club. With that stable, it gives Neeld nowhere to hide - he'll either show signs of improvement, or he won't. But we can't accurately know that with the current set-up.

Im excited we have a CEO thats going to sort out our strictures of the FD and front office

I bet its been a shambles for 50 years

Greg Baum in today's Aged has got it so wrong. (Page 51) he has not taken into account at all that the new CEO is still working out how the restructure will be modelled.

I think Neeld will go. But i also took a lot of notice of what he said on Sunday night.

The Board are responsible for hiring this man who as a rookie coach is not ready to be given "carte blanche to change the culture of the MFC".

That's what Sheedy should have been given instructions to do in 2007.

I blame the previous board for that clanger.

Neeld should be from now on totally honest with supporters & Members.

He must back himself. Jackson has thrown you some slack. Use it. You might win.

Greg Baum is just surly because a story did not happen.

Actually the story was there. Peter Jackson committed to next season. He must see worth in the MFC.

Can someone explain who then is bloody responsible for this mess other than Neeld? Names please

Can someone explain who then is bloody responsible for this mess other than Neeld? Names please

gary hardeman

left us and set the tone

does that answer your question

Can someone explain who then is bloody responsible for this mess other than Neeld? Names please

barry Prendergast.

your right big fella the beltings have to stop, sooner rather than later

being impatient is a major problem for you, so take up smoking or pretend you barrack for brizzy and this should relieve your impatience, if not take 2 bex and call the doctor in the morning

Thanks jazza but Bundy BEAR has been keeping me company but need to move to the OP stuff for more affect!

gary hardeman

left us and set the tone

does that answer your question

Geez the list must be long. Actually I am talking about those currently holding down official positions.

Can someone explain who then is bloody responsible for this mess other than Neeld? Names please

• CS for an overcomplicated FD department
• FD (needs to take responsibility for structure too)
• Board for electing CS
• Players being lazy (a cultural issue during and since DB)
• Previous rececrutment (Prendergast)
• The sacking of Norm Smith
• The water boys/girls
• The runners
• The Freys... god damn them
• Batman
• Spiderman
• Uncorodinated people
• The bird that keeps relieveing itself on my car on a daily basis
• The Age
• Collingwood/Hawthorn supporters
• Caroline Wilson
• Car hoons
• Today Tonight
• Celebrity Splash

... You get the picture.

We are in this situation because of a combination of factors (FD, players, MN, previous recruiting from Pendergast ect.); focusing on one or several parties but excluding others doesn't really do it justice. The same approach must be taken to fix it too.

(I was being serious up until Spiderman...)

Edited June 4, 201312 yr by PJ_12345