It's the old recruitment v development argument. Does anyone doubt that Watts would be a better footballer than he currently is if he was drafted into a team other than Melbourne?

Which statement was that exactly? Do you mean the one where he reiterated the position that was established a couple weeks ago regarding the whole football department continuing to be assessed?? That indicates nothing to me. It just says that they are going to continue along the path they are on with restructuring the football department and continually assessing all the roles and performance of people in the football department.

To me it is all part of the restructuring of any organisation.

It was more to the point this was the second opportunity that has come up to back Neeld and no-one in the administration is prepared to do that. It is my feeling that part of the AFL package is to pay out Neeld's contract. This is my opinion/gut feel if you like.

A few people have already stated they thought Neeld will be gone soon Caro (AFL contacts), Gerard Healy (brother on board).

Another 'Sack Neeld' thread.

Sigh.

There can never be too many of them.

Thanks for the stats. Wasn't having a go at you, I was having a go at those who continually say that we're where we are mainly because we picked the wrong players.

That must mean me TU

I know you are suggesting development plays a part and I agree with that.

However IMO JC could not have developed a high percentage of our picks.

We just picked poorly over 6 - 7 years

It is that simple

It was more to the point this was the second opportunity that has come up to back Neeld and no-one in the administration is prepared to do that. It is my feeling that part of the AFL package is to pay out Neeld's contract. This is my opinion/gut feel if you like.

A few people have already stated they thought Neeld will be gone soon Caro (AFL contacts), Gerard Healy (brother on board).

I understand what you're saying, but I think I look at it a little differently. Less than 2 weeks ago, the club had a board meeting, it was acknowledge that the football department structure needed addressing and that Neeld needed some clean air in order to Coach. It was also stated that all those personnel with football responsibilities would be continually assessed. Since then we have had one game.

This is an organisational change process we are going through, and from my experience, you do not change your view after two weeks. If you say assessments will be undertaken, then assessments will be undertaken.

I see things like this. Jackson says football department needs to be restructured and Neeld needs clean air, while all personnel will be continually assessed. I'm going to approach this from a HR perspective, because that's my expertise, but until you have set up the new structure, identified the roles and responsibilities that you need performed, and provide time for personnel to get used to operating under that structure, you can not properly assess their productivity or effectiveness in the role within the new structure. What Jackson's statements say to me is: We're reviewing the entire football department, including all the roles and responsibilities of those in the department and will assess whether the people within the organisation are able to perform the roles that will exist within the new structure.

Remembering that Jackson has only been around for less than 2 months, and the comments about the list being in a similar state to GWS, I don't believe their is a strong enough body of work that Jackson has witnesses intimately (within the club culture) to make a decision on Neeld, let alone assess whether he fits into the new football department structure given that it obviously hasn't been finalised as it was put to the AFL as a proposal in order to receive the funding.

Remember back to Bomber Thompsons early days at the Cattery. He was on shaky ground regarding the teams performance (who were further advanced than us), and the club decided to free up Thompson from some of his responsibilities, restructured the football department and then all of a sudden things improvement rapidly. Same thing happened with McKenna last season at the Gold Coast, and now they're taking that next step in competitiveness. If we truly are in a similar position to GWS from a list perspective, then it is right that we are on the bottom of the ladder. In assessing Neeld's performance, that also would need to be taken into consideration.

From what we've seen, Jackson won't be swayed by media or public pressure. He will go through this process in the way he knows is right, and won't deviate from that until he's got a solid body of evidence to make the right decision. To me that suggests Neeld will be given until at least the end of the season. This is about long-term stability, not short-term concerns.

So any news from PJ and AFL again we are in the dark

That must mean me TU

I know you are suggesting development plays a part and I agree with that.

However IMO JC could not have developed a high percentage of our picks.

We just picked poorly over 6 - 7 years

It is that simple

Simple but true. Maybe not the only reason we're where we are but certainly a significant one.

How are you going Old Dee? Are things looking any brighter? On a positive note the season will be over in 12 weeks. We can then go back to our off-season optimism.

Go Dees!

Simple but true. Maybe not the only reason we're where we are but certainly a significant one.

How are you going Old Dee? Are things looking any brighter? On a positive note the season will be over in 12 weeks. We can then go back to our off-season optimism.

Go Dees!

It will be our best pre season ever. I can't wait

From 2008 - 2012, the Top 20 picks in order are:

• GWS = 16
• Melbourne = 9
• Gold Coast = 8
• Freo = 7
• Port = 7
• Richmond = 6
• Essendon = 5
• North = 5
• Bulldogs= 5
• Brisbane = 5
• West Coast = 5
• Carlton = 4
• Collingwood = 4
• Geelong = 4
• Adelaide = 3
• Sydney = 3
• Hawthorn = 2
• St Kilda = 1

This is very interesting:

From 2010 to 2012, we had 1 top 10 pick... compared to GWS with 11, Gold Coast with 5, Brisbane with 3, Richmond, Port, Bulldogs, Essendon with 2, West Coast with 1 and the rest with 0.

From 2010 to 2012, we had a 2 top 20 picks... compared to GWS with 16, Gold Coast with 8, Brisbane and Freo with 4, Richmond, Essendon, Port, North, Collingwood and Bulldogs with 3, Carlton and Geelong with 2, West Coast, Adelaide and Hawthorn with 1 and Sydney and St Kilda with 0.

Meaning 7 other teams had more top 10 picks than we did and 10 had more top 20 picks than us over the past 3 drafts...

Thanks for the review PJ. Not to knit pick - didn't we have picks 3 & 4 last year - Hogan and Toumpas.

Simple but true. Maybe not the only reason we're where we are but certainly a significant one.

How are you going Old Dee? Are things looking any brighter? On a positive note the season will be over in 12 weeks. We can then go back to our off-season optimism.

Go Dees!

I am fine Rev

The upside for me is we are performed the way I expected in 2013

I started the year with low expectations so I am far from devastated.

What we have now is the result of 5 - 6 years of blunders in selections on the field and poor admin. off the field.

With the appointment of PS, help from the AFL and developments of the last couple of weeks I see a way forward.

Hopefully a changed administration will be able to run with the chance and start the long struggle back to relevance.

This year and next I see my membership as charity donation. I no long hang on the fact the AFL football is my leisure time enjoyment

The joy will come from seeing a few improvements.

Hopefully I can go to matches in 2015/6 and expect to have an even chance of a win most weeks

That must mean me TU

I know you are suggesting development plays a part and I agree with that.

However IMO JC could not have developed a high percentage of our picks.

We just picked poorly over 6 - 7 years

It is that simple

No, it's not that simple, and that's my point.

Our plight is not as simple as saying 'if we'd picked X instead of Y, B instead of A, we'd be much better'. That's not true at all.

Drafting choices are but one of the many things we could have improved over the last 6 years. To me, it's not as important as a lot of the others.

No, it's not that simple, and that's my point.

Our plight is not as simple as saying 'if we'd picked X instead of Y, B instead of A, we'd be much better'. That's not true at all.

Drafting choices are but one of the many things we could have improved over the last 6 years. To me, it's not as important as a lot of the others.

couldn't agree more

what people seem to constantly gloss over is the fact that every single pick we had at the pointy end of the draft was used on a player who was selected exactly where the footy world expected him to be selected. Had we gone with real smokies and they didn't wiork out, that would be another story, but we didn't.

Thanks for the review PJ. Not to knit pick - didn't we have picks 3 & 4 last year - Hogan and Toumpas.

You're right Jman, I had included Toumpas but didn't include Hogan as it was a mini-draft. However I did forget about our Hogan deal which saw us lose a #3/#13 but we gained #20 but then used that for Dawes - last year was a confusing year...

If you get a chance to listen to Mooney on 360 last night have a listen - he was quite adamant the culture comes from within the playing group. The coach, President, CEO etc set the environment for a good culture to prosper but without the leadership and buy-in of the players it would amount to nothing. Hall agreed with him.

couldn't it be agrgued that Neeld also agrees with this position, and in taking over the helm it was clear to him that the carp culture was the result of the poor leaders in the group - so he did the only thing he could do which was to give leadership to two younger blokes who are lauded for their exceptional character and professionalism, in the hope they will begin to generate their own successful culture over the upcoming period. This has now become one of the biggest punches being thrown at Neeld, which I am not sure I agree with

couldn't agree more

what people seem to constantly gloss over is the fact that every single pick we had at the pointy end of the draft was used on a player who was selected exactly where the footy world expected him to be selected. Had we gone with real smokies and they didn't wiork out, that would be another story, but we didn't.

Sorry C and B I don't believe that

No one suggested from my memory that Cook would go first round.

Lots suggested Strauss and Gysberts were taken way earlier than expected.

I understand what you're saying, but I think I look at it a little differently. Less than 2 weeks ago, the club had a board meeting, it was acknowledge that the football department structure needed addressing and that Neeld needed some clean air in order to Coach. It was also stated that all those personnel with football responsibilities would be continually assessed. Since then we have had one game.

This is an organisational change process we are going through, and from my experience, you do not change your view after two weeks. If you say assessments will be undertaken, then assessments will be undertaken.

I see things like this. Jackson says football department needs to be restructured and Neeld needs clean air, while all personnel will be continually assessed. I'm going to approach this from a HR perspective, because that's my expertise, but until you have set up the new structure, identified the roles and responsibilities that you need performed, and provide time for personnel to get used to operating under that structure, you can not properly assess their productivity or effectiveness in the role within the new structure. What Jackson's statements say to me is: We're reviewing the entire football department, including all the roles and responsibilities of those in the department and will assess whether the people within the organisation are able to perform the roles that will exist within the new structure.

Remembering that Jackson has only been around for less than 2 months, and the comments about the list being in a similar state to GWS, I don't believe their is a strong enough body of work that Jackson has witnesses intimately (within the club culture) to make a decision on Neeld, let alone assess whether he fits into the new football department structure given that it obviously hasn't been finalised as it was put to the AFL as a proposal in order to receive the funding.

Remember back to Bomber Thompsons early days at the Cattery. He was on shaky ground regarding the teams performance (who were further advanced than us), and the club decided to free up Thompson from some of his responsibilities, restructured the football department and then all of a sudden things improvement rapidly. Same thing happened with McKenna last season at the Gold Coast, and now they're taking that next step in competitiveness. If we truly are in a similar position to GWS from a list perspective, then it is right that we are on the bottom of the ladder. In assessing Neeld's performance, that also would need to be taken into consideration.

From what we've seen, Jackson won't be swayed by media or public pressure. He will go through this process in the way he knows is right, and won't deviate from that until he's got a solid body of evidence to make the right decision. To me that suggests Neeld will be given until at least the end of the season. This is about long-term stability, not short-term concerns.

What you're saying makes a lot of sense. The only concerning flags for me are : Why haven't the club come out and said that they will back Neeld until at least the end of the season under the new structure? And the fact that people that you would expect to privy to insider information Caro and Gerard Healy have said that Neeld will go.

The other thing to be considered is that this is football and what is said today could change tomorrow.

This was in an age article which PJ has said

"Jackson said the Demons felt their submission to the commission went well and they would eagerly await a response in the coming weeks.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mclardy-to-declare-his-plans-today"

Does this mean that there won't be any changes until the AFL respond or is it possible that they have given the ok to some things and all looks positive on the rest?

This was in an age article which PJ has said

"Jackson said the Demons felt their submission to the commission went well and they would eagerly await a response in the coming weeks.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mclardy-to-declare-his-plans-today"

Does this mean that there won't be any changes until the AFL respond or is it possible that they have given the ok to some things and all looks positive on the rest?

Your guess is as good as anybody's.

If fixing the FD is as expensive as I think it will be - they will need AFL-endorsement.

Has this been confirmed? Anyway, HUN reporting that McLardy has resigned: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-president-don-mclardy-stands-down/story-fni5f91a-1226663852725

McLardy resigns

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-president-don-mclardy-stands-down/story-fni5f91a-1226663852725

What you're saying makes a lot of sense. The only concerning flags for me are : Why haven't the club come out and said that they will back Neeld until at least the end of the season under the new structure? And the fact that people that you would expect to privy to insider information Caro and Gerard Healy have said that Neeld will go.

The other thing to be considered is that this is football and what is said today could change tomorrow.

It could be possible they haven't made a decision either way yet because they are unsure how good he is due to the poorly structured football department and admin etc.

It could be possible they haven't made a decision either way yet because they are unsure how good he is due to the poorly structured football department and admin etc.

you can change all the structure you like, a [censored] coach is still a [censored] coach.

Get him out ASAP and hire someone with a clue and we will start winning games.

I agree the playing group must GROW the culture yes, But Norm Smith & Jim Cardwell planted all the seeds for our 10 years of Domination

as did John Kennedy for Hawthorn in the Early 60's

& checker Hughes ???

Interesting AFL.COM.AU article on Colless' view of MFC. Link

A quote from it:

"But they just seem to have lost everything and have had so many top-10 picks. It's just extraordinary the way they have collapsed. It almost beggars belief, to be perfectly honest."

Says it all for me.

Well, I'm usually wrong in most things,but i think there is a good deal of player power going on here, not all of them but several players aren't giving it their all. A bit of a protest to force change maybe!!! Just saying is all!!

But going by body language by the several players i think there maybe a bit of truth in that!!

I just can't figure it out any other way, surely, they just can't be that bad. they can't have all contracted ME !!

Its like they have completely forgotten how to play football!!

I quoted top 10 picks because that's what the article was talking about. The number of top 20 picks in the National Draft from 2002 to 2012 are as follows: (ranked)

1. Melbourne = 18
2. Bulldogs = 16
3. Richmond 16
4. GWS = 16
5. Essendon = 15
6. Feo = 13
7. Port = 13
8. Brisbane = 13
9. Carlton = 12
10. West Coast = 12
11. North = 11
12. Hawthorn = 11
13. Collingwood = 11
14. Adelaide = 8
15. Geelong = 8
16. GCS = 8
17. Sydney 7
18. St Kilda = 6

Of note: St Kilda came off the back of several top 20 picks the three years before

Not really an abundance... more yes. But an abundance is a bit of a hyperbole.

I haven't taken into considerations the average games played by the clubs & their picks but it can be assumed ours would be on the lower end, but at first glance it is not too bad - just not skilled.

All clubs make mistakes:

Richmond chose Tambling over Franklin and Jordan Lewis in 2004, Hawthorn had two top 6 draft picks between 2005-2006 whom only played 18 games total, and we join the Top 20 pick players whom never played a single game club from 2002 to 2011 (excluding this years draft obviously) with Cook - other members include North (1), Collingwood (1) and Sydney (2).

Be careful with blanket statements.

I'm very happy to use the term "abundance'. It fits.

Also, I said 10 years, but you've done your analysis over 11 (2002-2012). It doesn't change things by too much, but North drop down to 8, Sydney 6 and the Saints 5. Most other teams drop and we come down to 16.

When North have had 8, Sydney, 6 and the Saints 5 top 20 picks do you think they'd think we'd had "abundant" top 20 picks over the last 10 years ? You know, double the amount and more. Not to mention 2 x pick 1, 1 x 2, 1 x 3, 2 x 4, 1 x 5. That's 7 top 5 picks. How many have North or the Saints had ? Or Collingwood, or Essendon ? Geelong have had only 4 x top 10 picks since 2000 and no top 5. How does "no" compare to "7" ?

Interesting to note that from the 2010 draft there's only one player that was drafted in the top 30 that never played a game. Naturally it was our inspirational pick 12, who's no longer on any AFL list.

This club has had an unbelievable leg up over the last decade and it beggars belief that we could have stuffed up to the level we have. By the 2010 draft we really should have been on our way. But no, our GF is the draft - again - in 2013. Even the laughing stock of the competition, Richmond, have built solid foundations to take them further.

The HS did an analysis of drafting from 2000. Freo had the worst results and we were second. Even then they're on the way to a top 4 finish and we're on the way to a bottom 2 finish. This place has been a shambles. If the MFC sat down and did the exact opposite of what they'd decided was in the best interests of the club it's doubtful we'd be worse off. The opposite could be true.

And you really haven't drawn a distinction with the value of top 5 picks. I accept that you may be lucky enough to get a Selwood at 7, but the superstars are more likely at the pointy end of the draft, or Father-Sons. Franklin, Hodge, Judd, Thomas, Pendlebury, Cotchin, Murphy, Roughead, Pavlich, Riewoldt, Goddard, Cooney (pre knee) are all examples of top 5 picks. Anyway you look at it, we're either the unluckiest club in the land, or the most inept.

Be careful of not being able to see the forest from the trees.

Edited June 14, 201312 yr by Ben-Hur

you can change all the structure you like, a [censored] coach is still a [censored] coach.

Get him out ASAP and hire someone with a clue and we will start winning games.

Agree.

Who are you talking about?