On 17/06/2013 at 19:46, bing181 said:

Scott Pendlebury ‏@SP_107h

Mark Neeld is a class Act, he will be snapped up fast. One of the best assitant coaches I've played under

says it all ASSITANT coaches he has played under.

  On 17/06/2013 at 22:56, DemonOX said:

says it all ASSITANT coaches he has played under.

and that is where he'll slot back in again.

Bailey's coping fine I hear.

  On 17/06/2013 at 22:46, billy2803 said:

2. He has a point about being hired to do a job over 3 years and only got half of that time. Regardless of our ladder position, win/loss ratio, etc, etc, if you are told you have 3 years to achieve something, all your planning and preparation is based on that timeframe. If your plan is on track, of course you're not going to have results in half the time. There would've been an expectation that Malthouse would win a flag at Carlton within a certain period - just because it isn't going to be this year doesn't mean he's failing. But, if he had KPI's to meet at carious milestone points and was considerably under achieving, then you have to take responsibility for that.

I believe he did have a 3 year plan and he was still following his 3 year plan.

I can't believe however he honestly believes that it is on track. There is no way he would have been expecting these continue beltings, not just losses but absolute floggings during his second year and that is simply why we had to get rid of him as his plan has failed in every way.

  On 17/06/2013 at 13:27, Ben-Hur said:

Interesting interview.

He's completely delusional, a liar, or thick as a brick.

I know you are a supporter of MN as I read your many previous posts about him.

But can you stop giving him these glowing endorsements as we will all think you have a man crush on him.

LOL

  On 17/06/2013 at 14:10, rjay said:

No, Bailey dumped us right into the tanking saga.

Bailey was told to tank and so he took a honest swipe at the club in defence of his record over a period of time.

There is no defence for Neeld and no reason for him to have sour grapes. He had total control of the club and delivered performances that looked worse than those tanking days.

  On 17/06/2013 at 15:09, Trengove the Magnifique 9 said:

Vitriol towards Garry is pretty unbelievable. I bet the people, hindsight merchants as Lyon called them, who are condemning him for picking Neeld were the ones getting all excited when he came in and appointed the new panel. Garry admitted on the show that he was disappointed the decision he helped make didn't pan out, and said to the Melbourne supporters not to worry he'll stay out. Pretty disgusted in this, that a former champion of our club, the centrepiece of the ****** banner for gods sake gets slandered like this for trying to help the club. He'd be hurting as much as any of us would over the past few years.

I'm not so angry at Gary for his role in appointing Neeld but I am for his role in saving Schwab's job. This was a major blunder from someone who says he has no interest in the political side of football...if only that was true.

Thought Neeld did as well as he could be asked to.

The whole denial thing is just a smart strategy from Neeld (can hardly believe I'm equating Neeld with a smart strategy, but anyway). He's sticking to his position that he was given a three year timeframe in which to make the club competitive, and since he only got half of that afforded to him, we can't judge those decisions. That's fair enough. He's seeking to maintain what reputation/dignity he can out of this, so that he might get hired in the future.

Why would he come out and say 'yep, I got that wrong, and yep, that one too' if he is trying to get re-hired? To me, he's doing the right thing - defend yourself on the (fair) basis that you only got half of a three-year plan that was supposed to be in place, and move on.

The two most interesting parts of the interview were the questions on Grimes/Trengove as captain and Moloney/Rivers leaving. He dealt with Moloney/Rivers perfectly, but I thought he could have conceded that Trengove hadn't dealt with the captaincy as well as we'd expected.

Some people on here need to seriously pull there head in.

Has anyone considered the impact of Neeld making statements like "I shouldn't have appointed Grimes and Trengove as captains, it was a mistake" might actually have on Grimes and Trengove, not to mention how they might be perceived by the playing group if he was to make such a statement. To make such a statement brings into question their position as captains. It would further destabilise the club and the playing group.

Neeld not getting caught up in those questions is a very mature response.

Neeld is well within his rights to focus on the fact that he was given 3 years to transform the club, and feel that he was not given the opportunity to do so after being cut loose after 18 months. I'm not saying it was the wrong decision, but there's nothing wrong with him holding that line.

Neeld is obviously perceived as a very good football guy around the league. That is something that is earned over time and a reputation like that comes about for a reason. He may not be a very good senior coach, but that doesn't mean he is a bad football person, or extremely valuable assistant coach, and that is a brand he needs to maintain for the sake of his and his family's financial future.

Neeld was asked if he accepted the job even though he had been offered the Adelaide role.

Very interesting. At that point I think his interviewers were trying to trap him into saying Adelaide was his, to turn down.

Because thats what really Pizzes Gaz off so much.

Whether it was to CS or GL on a fateful September morning, Mark had said (my sources told me at the time) you had better confirm me as coach this morning as I would prefer to stay in Melbourne but I will accept Adelaides offer this afternoon.

Of course he wasnt even on the short list. But he was believed. Why wouldnt you?

There is vision of him at Finals training with the pies on the phone. MM is very close at hand.

This in conjunction with believing Ross Lyons manager that RL was not available, has probably left Gary Lyon's faith in fellow man at an all time low.

  On 17/06/2013 at 22:46, billy2803 said:

Thanks for posting this RM, we don't get FC in Queensland so it was good to get an idea of what was said.

Hey, Billie! Actually, we do. It's on GEM around midnight. I recorded last night's show, and will watch it tonight.

  On 18/06/2013 at 02:00, pm24 said:

Some people on here need to seriously pull there head in.

Has anyone considered the impact of Neeld making statements like "I shouldn't have appointed Grimes and Trengove as captains, it was a mistake" might actually have on Grimes and Trengove, not to mention how they might be perceived by the playing group if he was to make such a statement. To make such a statement brings into question their position as captains. It would further destabilise the club and the playing group.

Neeld not getting caught up in those questions is a very mature response.

Neeld is well within his rights to focus on the fact that he was given 3 years to transform the club, and feel that he was not given the opportunity to do so after being cut loose after 18 months. I'm not saying it was the wrong decision, but there's nothing wrong with him holding that line.

Neeld is obviously perceived as a very good football guy around the league. That is something that is earned over time and a reputation like that comes about for a reason. He may not be a very good senior coach, but that doesn't mean he is a bad football

person, or extremely valuable assistant coach, and that is a brand he needs to maintain for the sake of his and his family's financial

future.

Although you have a point about the two Jacks and whoever our new coach is they will have to be very careful about how they appoint a new captain, if they do so, without making them feel like they failed, but I think you are being very charitable about Neeld's motivations here. He justified his choice of Captains again rather than "Not getting caught up in the question." He had his list of ten behaviours and by golly that was the only way to choose a captain, any relevance to matchday performance or other factors be

damned. Again he linked Toumpas having hip surgery to Hogan being unavailable this season. As I mentioned in another thread if he believed Toumpas was so far behind the eightball due to his injuries, why set him up to fail in round 1 by playing him? This kid is one of the key planks of our future so why run the risk of shattering his confidence if you don't believe his body is right, and should be viewed more like Hogan. Yep he was interviewing for another job, but it was also plain to see that he genuinely believes he didn't make any mistakes and that he doesn't know what went wrong. For all the other extenuating circumstances, that blindness is part of why he failed.

  On 17/06/2013 at 15:09, Trengove the Magnifique 9 said:

Vitriol towards Garry is pretty unbelievable. I bet the people, hindsight merchants as Lyon called them, who are condemning him for picking Neeld were the ones getting all excited when he came in and appointed the new panel. Garry admitted on the show that he was disappointed the decision he helped make didn't pan out, and said to the Melbourne supporters not to worry he'll stay out. Pretty disgusted in this, that a former champion of our club, the centrepiece of the ****** banner for gods sake gets slandered like this for trying to help the club. He'd be hurting as much as any of us would over the past few years.

I wasn't. We needed an experienced coach. I was however willing to give Neeld last year to experiment with the list, on the assumption we would be competitive this year.

  On 18/06/2013 at 02:37, Strafford said:

Although you have a point about the two Jacks and whoever our new coach is they will have to be very careful about how they appoint a new captain, if they do so, without making them feel like they failed, but I think you are being very charitable about Neeld's motivations here. He justified his choice of Captains again rather than "Not getting caught up in the question." He had his list of ten behaviours and by golly that was the only way to choose a captain, any relevance to matchday performance or other factors be

damned. Again he linked Toumpas having hip surgery to Hogan being unavailable this season. As I mentioned in another thread if he believed Toumpas was so far behind the eightball due to his injuries, why set him up to fail in round 1 by playing him? This kid is one of the key planks of our future so why run the risk of shattering his confidence if you don't believe his body is right, and should be viewed more like Hogan. Yep he was interviewing for another job, but it was also plain to see that he genuinely believes he didn't make any mistakes and that he doesn't know what went wrong. For all the other extenuating circumstances, that blindness is part of why he failed.

I here what you are saying, but while everyone wanted Neeld to fall on his sword, he obviously believes in the processes that were put in place and an argument to appoint players as captains who the players didn't even rate as the best leaders in the club (based on their actions) would obviously seem as illogical. Can you imagine if the results of the survey's were released to the players and then the coach said "Well it's nice to see that Grimesy and Trenners were identified as the best leaders in the club, but instead I'm going to select "Beamer" or "Greeny" as captain, despite the fact that he is listed as the 13th best leader in the club (made up ranking)".

How do you think that would have made the playing group feel. If I was Peter Jackson and asked everyone on demonland to identify who the best coach would be for us based on certain behaviours or attributes, and then selected the person published as being 5th best candidate how would that look.

There's no use in just expecting him to apologise for a process which in any other club would have resulted in a Luke Hodge, or an Adam Goodes, or Jobe Watson being identified as the best leader. The problem was with the lack of true leaders in the playing group, rather than the process. So I see no reason why Neeld should apologise for the process.

I also see nothing wrong with what he said about Toumpas and Hogan. I think they have managed Toumpas well. If the footy department though he was fit enough to play round one, I'll trust the judgement of guys like Misson. They've made sure not to overload him this season, thus why he's only played about 5 games this season so they haven't been overworking him.

I can see what you are saying PM24, but do you think it was a good idea not to have a matchday element? Do you think that perhaps it would have been better to use that list as a guide, as most clubs who use it do, rather than back yourself into a corner by saying it is the be all and end all? From a number of sources N.Jones was making up a lot of ground, so perhaps if they had waited and had that matchday element N.Jones may have been the man with the youngsters vice captains. Hopefully they didn't show them the results as it just adds to the picture of humilating the senior players for all that many of them to needed a wakeup call. How many people really think our process came up with the right outcome? Do you think being Captain has helped either of the Jacks? Luke Hodge has never been a training junkie although he has got better, but he is an onfield leader. I'm not sure our process would have picked him?

If Toumpas was fit enough to play round one then any mention of his hip injuries was irrelevant and he was just like any other kid playing his first game coming out of the draft rather than an example of us being extra focused on the future. The fact that under Neeld half of our new recruits have been mature aged guys complicates Neelds assertion on our youth policy. I would have thought Toupas was dropped due to not getting near it rather than any thought to managing his workload.

One of the most boring interviews seen on FC. Totally scripted responses and absolutely no ownership of any mistakes. Unlike many on here, I do not wish MN well for his future footy endeavours, as befits someone that had to be disciplined about his manner with players (how was this not reported!)

Only good part was Gary Lyon admitting he's not that popular with Dee supporters.

  On 18/06/2013 at 02:00, Franky_31 said:

Neeld was asked if he accepted the job even though he had been offered the Adelaide role.

Very interesting. At that point I think his interviewers were trying to trap him into saying Adelaide was his, to turn down.

Because thats what really Pizzes Gaz off so much.

Whether it was to CS or GL on a fateful September morning, Mark had said (my sources told me at the time) you had better confirm me as coach this morning as I would prefer to stay in Melbourne but I will accept Adelaides offer this afternoon.

Of course he wasnt even on the short list. But he was believed. Why wouldnt you?

There is vision of him at Finals training with the pies on the phone. MM is very close at hand.

This in conjunction with believing Ross Lyons manager that RL was not available, has probably left Gary Lyon's faith in fellow man at an all time low.

Truly interesting Franky. I hadn't heard that story and when I finally got around to watching FC on the IQ I was surprised when Adelaide was mentioned. Hutchy sounded pretty convincing from his questioning when he raised it that he believed Neeld had the Crows job at the time. I wonder if the real story will ever come out?

  On 18/06/2013 at 09:02, nrc73 said:

One of the most boring interviews seen on FC. Totally scripted responses and absolutely no ownership of any mistakes. Unlike many on here, I do not wish MN well for his future footy endeavours, as befits someone that had to be disciplined about his manner with players (how was this not reported!)

Only good part was Gary Lyon admitting he's not that popular with Dee supporters.

I tend to agree

Neeld walks away with what? about a million smackers ? for 21 months of complete failure

cry me a Jared Rivers

What went wrong? Neeld: don't know.

Would you do anything different? Neeld: no.

Do you have any regrets? Neeld: no.

Delusional. The wheels had fallen off, and Neeld was in denial.

Delusional.

This is why Neeld is delusional:

(From the HUN)

GOING LOW
Worst percentages since World War II

1955 St Kilda 45.4% (one win)
1996 Fitzroy 49.5 (one win)
2013 Melbourne 49.8 (one win) - after 11 games
1950 Hawthorn 49.8 (zero wins)
1966 Fitzroy 53.8 (one win)
1963 Fitzroy 57.5 (one win)
1995 Fitzroy 58.2 (two wins)
1947 St Kilda 58.7 (1.5 wins)
1964 Fitzroy 59.7 (no wins)
1948 St Kilda 59.9 (two wins)
*excluding first-year expansion teams

DISPOSALS DIFFERENTIAL PER GAME (2013)

+41.8 Essendon
+39.8 Hawthorn
+28.9 Collingwood
+22.5 North Melbourne
+19.2 Richmond
+18.0 Carlton
+15.0 Port Adelaide
+14.5 Sydney
+11.5 Geelong
+10.1 Fremantle
+2.9 Adelaide
-1.5 Western Bulldogs
-8.5 West Coast
-12.4 Gold Coast
-17.0 St Kilda
-25.9 Brisbane
-58.4 GWS
-102.5 Melbourne

WORST EVER
Worst disposal differentials since statistics kept (1999)

-103 Melbourne (2013)
-62 GWS (2013)
-60 Gold Coast (2011)
-59 Brisbane (2003)
-57 Carlton (2003)
-54 GWS (2012)
-52 Port Adelaide (2011)
-52 Melbourne (2012)
-51 Gold Coast (2012)
-25 Fitzroy (1996)

INDIFFERENT STATS
Melbourne is ranked last in differentials in the following key statistical categories:

Short kicks, effective kicks, total kicks, total handballs, total marks, uncontested marks, contested possession, uncontested possession, clearances, inside-50s, percentage of scores once inside 50

Strangely enough, Melbourne has the greatest average winning margin in the AFL this year.

I love statistics.

  On 18/06/2013 at 12:59, Whispering_Jack said:

Truly interesting Franky. I hadn't heard that story and when I finally got around to watching FC on the IQ I was surprised when Adelaide was mentioned. Hutchy sounded pretty convincing from his questioning when he raised it that he believed Neeld had the Crows job at the time. I wonder if the real story will ever come out?

See I reckon he was testing Neeld hoping he'd drop a lie that then Adelaide could later refute.

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/footyclassified/video

Honestly what are people expecting him to say, yeah I did a [censored] job, the players all hated me, nothing i did was right and they should never have given me the job. And some poster talk about Mark Neeld being in denial and being delusional.

If you listen to the questions being asked you will realise that the answers were always going to be the ones provided. If you ask someone a hypothetical or about their perceptions or on what they believe then don't expect factual interview.

Good Bye Mark Neeld and Good Luck in your future endeavours.

Next...

  On 18/06/2013 at 12:59, Whispering_Jack said:

.... I was surprised when Adelaide was mentioned. Hutchy sounded pretty convincing from his questioning when he raised it that he believed Neeld had the Crows job at the time. I wonder if the real story will ever come out?

Probably not. But this article confirms what most Adelaide supporters were saying at the time, that Neeld was on the short list:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/inside-story-of-how-the-adelaide-crows-got-their-new-coach/story-e6frecoc-1226144965873

"Trigg had taken a game-changing call 48 hours earlier from Collingwood assistant Mark Neeld. A name on the four-man short-list at Adelaide, Neeld had telephoned Trigg to say he had been offered the Melbourne job and he needed to reply to Demons chief executive Cameron Schwab within 24 hours. The tone of the call was obvious. Were the Crows prepared to offer Neeld their job? Adelaide passed on Neeld."

There's nothing in that that says that the Crows wanted Neeld per se, and another article from the same paper confirms that by that Friday morning, they'd decided on Sanderson. But Neeld was on their shortlist.

It will come out one day, but not in the short term. Clarkson's outright denial that he was approached - followed by the outright confirmation from his manager that an offer was indeed made - probably sums up where we all are with it.

  On 17/06/2013 at 13:22, hogans_heroes said:

Neeld is in denial and thinks he did everything right.

Thank christ he is gone, what a nightmare 18 months that was.

He was sent by the GODS to punish the MFC for past sins.

  On 18/06/2013 at 14:12, Whispering_Jack said:

Strangely enough, Melbourne has the greatest average winning margin in the AFL this year.

I love statistics.

Jack, you have been in Mum's sherry again!

LOL