I am furious.

We are an unprofessional bunch of mugs. But it's worse than that. Our club sells fraudulent hope, and ruins the careers of perfectly good and competent people, whether they be players or coaches.

Make no mistake - Mark Neeld was told to come in and put a rocket up every single senior player. He was given unprecedented scope to do it his way and change the festering wound that is the MFC. Then, he cops it and has his career destroyed based on doing nothing more than executing his plan. Yes, it may have been a flawed execution, but he was given 3 years to do it because it was, and is, the hardest task in football. He didn't get the chance because everyone got spooked.

The biggest mistake that was made is that Neeld was tasked with all of the above and he was an inexperienced coach. To give a 'never-been-a-senior-coach' virtual carte Blanche to achieve this when he's had no training in people management in these circumstances has been the most telling aspect of all.

This is the reason why there will be a seasoned, successful and very well respected coach at the MFC next year. Anything less will be another failure.

There were players in tears at that presser. They wanted him to stay, make no mistake about that. The supposed rift between coach and players was nothing more than a media ghost used to stir up more trouble for the club.

Again, media self-justification. They were never going to report that the playing group were dispirited and flat after having the carpet pulled out from under them yet again.

neeld getting players in tears was how the problems started according to the people I speak to.

Can't remember what premiership he coached. Please enlighten me...

Sorry, my mistake! He coached Adelaide to a Minor premiership in 2005. They went out in the Preliminary Final. Craig had a couple of good seasons with the Crows though. 2005 and 2006 with 35 wins against 14 losses. Got Adelaide into the finals 5 times in a row so he can't be as bad as some are making out. Let's see how he goes for the rest of the season.

The biggest mistake that was made is that Neeld was tasked with all of the above and he was an inexperienced coach. To give a 'never-been-a-senior-coach' virtual carte Blanche to achieve this when he's had no training in people management in these circumstances has been the most telling aspect of all.

This is the reason why there will be a seasoned, successful and very well respected coach at the MFC next year. Anything less will be another failure.

Hold on You pay a coach $450000 a year you would expect him to have people management sklills. Gessus what would you expect

For that money I would expect exceptional people management skills

I do think his relationship was absolutely divisive and played a part in his downfall. You find a good coach that doesn't have his detractors. I know of players at most clubs, and the views on coaches differs vastly.

The senior players, who were taking us precisely nowhere, except Junior (who we sacked), were setting low standards and getting away with it. The club in every way is at its lowest ebb.

The reality is, if Neeld was Malthouse or another senior coach, we would be lauding him for his judgement in churning the bad culture and trying to build. We would be calling for more time. We would be understanding our performance in the context of the list (in particular the midfield) being in disarray. We would understand that the coach was embroiled in a shocking tanking scandal and was left with a bunch of kids to set standards.

This club gave an untried but highly regarded coach a job that required strength of corporate leadership and vision. We lacked both.

In short, Neeld may have been a problem. But in the scheme of things, he is not even close to the problem.

My over-riding feeling is disgust.

If Neeld were Malthouse, I doubt that he would have been sacked because the team would have performed better. Contrary to what has been expressed by some above, Neeld was not sacked because he carried out the job description that he was given. Nor did Bailey get the sack because he did what he was told and managed his team to less than five wins in 2009. He was sacked two years later because he had serious limitations as a coach.

Neeld went because his match day tactics and strategies were complete fails and, in particular, he lacked the flexibility to adapt his game plan to affect the ebb and flow of a game. On the other hand, his old mentor Malthouse is savvy enough to understand the destructive nature of morale sapping blowout defeats and is prepared therefore to ring in changes during a game to turn things around. An example was the round 1 game against Richmond. Carlton trailled by 38 points at half time when Malthouse reorganised his team, went man on man and nearly pulled the game out of the fire. He said after the game that although he compromised his game plan, he would still revert to a more defensive style in the following round. With the exception of the GWS game when the Giants completely lost their run and folded after ¾ time, I saw little signs from Neeld of his capacity to make game changing moves when necessary.

Ultimately, both Bailey and Neeld went, mainly because they were not good coaches. I hope now its going to be a case of third time lucky but this playing group is definitely going to need a seasoned, experienced coach who know what he's doing.

hopeless club - now we have Craig as coach - that guy couldn't inspire a log of wood.

In fairness, it'd actually be pretty hard to pull that off.

If Neeld were Malthouse, I doubt that he would have been sacked because the team would have performed better. Contrary to what has been expressed by some above, Neeld was not sacked because he carried out the job description that he was given. Nor did Bailey get the sack because he did what he was told and managed his team to less than five wins in 2009. He was sacked two years later because he had serious limitations as a coach.

Neeld went because his match day tactics and strategies were complete fails and, in particular, he lacked the flexibility to adapt his game plan to affect the ebb and flow of a game. On the other hand, his old mentor Malthouse is savvy enough to understand the destructive nature of morale sapping blowout defeats and is prepared therefore to ring in changes during a game to turn things around. An example was the round 1 game against Richmond. Carlton trailled by 38 points at half time when Malthouse reorganised his team, went man on man and nearly pulled the game out of the fire. He said after the game that although he compromised his game plan, he would still revert to a more defensive style in the following round. With the exception of the GWS game when the Giants completely lost their run and folded after ¾ time, I saw little signs from Neeld of his capacity to make game changing moves when necessary.

Ultimately, both Bailey and Neeld went, mainly because they were not good coaches. I hope now its going to be a case of third time lucky but this playing group is definitely going to need a seasoned, experienced coach who know what he's doing.

I disagree.

A big part of the reason Malthouse could change tactics and succeed is his list. And as for his game plan, you can always choose selectively. How's the game plan look when they can't hold teams out and lose the close ones?

Neeld did change his game plan. Yes, it's a constant dilemma whether to do that with a young list you are trying to teach to play the right way, but at times he threw 1, 2 and 3 behind the ball. He tried different talls up forward and he moved match ups. He tried defensive forwards. He tried Howe in the middle. I'm sure there's more he could have done. At the end of the day, his major problem is the list, and the predominance of the problems with the list he inherited. If you have no midfield, you have a problem. With the way the game is played this year, it's even harder to compensate.

And I think it is abundantly clear that both Bailey and Neeld did execute what the club asked of them, and then when the pressure became too hot, the admin/board became impatient. You can't turn culture overhaul into performance on the flick of a switch (of off field turmoil). You can't turn tanking into elite performance in a year and a half (of off field turmoil). The worst part of it all for me is that we promised him three years, which I think is a minimum of what a coach deserves when tasked with the job he faced at Melbourne. We gave him 18 months. We ask the supporters to dip into pockets (as I know you have!) and then we pay out 600k. Yes, it is AFL money, but it's all the same because we could have gone to the AFL for more meritorious reasons rather than because we are a basket case.

I don't care how good a coach you are, and I think in fairness it is difficult to say whether Neeld can or can't coach. But I do know you can't polish a turd.

Strange comment.

Are you really that surprised by it?

spot on choko

I feel sick, that we have destroyed the Coaching career of a very good person, who was bright eyed & bushy tailed about the Job ahead, & the Took On the biggest challenge in footy...

the problem largely was timing... If he came in to rebuild this Club from the bootlaces up in 2007, he would have been given 3 Yrs, But after we've already endured 4 Yrs of Sacrificial Pain, the people just didn't have any more patience left, & with the angst of the list prune, it was just too much.

we got rid of most of this crapp Culture under Barassi & Ray Jordan,,, 85% to 95% of it was fixed... it lasted us 10 great years, thru the Northey era, & early Balme...

... we Need the AFL now,,, to take charge of this, and guarantee a Topline Coach his tenure, to get to the Nitty Griity of this rubbish Culture...

.

Worst VFL/AFL Senior Coach ever!!!!!!

Are you really that surprised by it?

Neeld's sacking? Yes.

Judging by the poster, no.

Peter Jackson is a ruthless administrator and showed that yesterday.

Neeld's sacking? Yes.

Judging by the poster, no.

Peter Jackson is a ruthless administrator and showed that yesterday.

I am starting to have a man crush on Peter Jackson.

Finally someone is in charge who knows what the hell they are doing.

Keep up the Excellent work Peter.

I’m with you Choko, I was disgusted by the way we acted yesterday.

The key point seems to be that he Neeld a three year plan and he hasn’t been given the three years to see it through. I know I’m fighting an uphill battle here, but I think this is a great shame. I went and listened to Mark Neeld and Neil Craig several times over the last couple of years and I always walked away impressed by what Neeldy had to say. No one is happy with where the team is at, least of all him, but the cold hard truth of it is that it’s going to take time to turn this thing around. That’s something that the board should have been straight up with us about from the beginning, there are no quick fixes, we were starting from a very low base and it was going to be a long battle back. Already there is talk in the media about how the new coach needs to be given a five year deal and allowed to work that out. So we need to give the new guy time but somehow Mark Neeld was meant to fix it all in 18 months?? I don’t see any advantage in sacking him now, especially not when we have to pay him out anyway and we’re broke and there are some seemingly winnable games coming up. And don’t try and tell me that the players will walk. Walk where exactly, there’s only a handful of them that would be wanted at another club??

The real questions I want answered are about the board and it’s all been glossed over quite neatly by the hacks who just wanted their nice easy headline. What I want to know is:

· This is meant to be an interim president, leading a board that is currently (according to their own statements) going through a comprehensive review of their current, past and future operations. How can they be making a call like this at this time??

· This decision was made on Friday at an emergency board meeting where Don McLardy stood down. So McLardy stands down as president and the rest of the board go “awesome, great time to sack the coach!!”

· The board made the decision on Friday and then let Mark Neeld go away, for what he thought was his one weekend off for the year before telling him Monday morning he’s out the door. This is a dog act, I don’t care if you liked the coach or not

· Instead of our esteemed leader Spargo having the guts to actually tell Neeld he’s fired he sent in Jackson to do the dirty work for him. Great leadership from the top right there

· Why are we sacking him now?? Why not two weeks ago or in two weeks time?? Why now on the back of the bye??

Every day we, as Melbourne people, open the paper or turn on the radio or TV or whatever and we hear hacks going on about what a complete shambles our club is. Did we not just demonstrate yesterday how right they are about that?? The current board needs to go, they have demonstrated that comprehensively now. There is no way they should be allowed anywhere near the appointment of the new coach. Our club has become an utter laughing stock and it’s been on their watch. About the only thing I agree with Jeff Kennett on is that this cannot wait for the end of the season, it needs to happen now. The season is a write off regardless of what happens, we need a new and competent board to come in, work with Jacko and appoint the new coach. Then maybe we might actually get somewhere.

The biggest mistake that was made is that Neeld was tasked with all of the above and he was an inexperienced coach. To give a 'never-been-a-senior-coach' virtual carte Blanche to achieve this when he's had no training in people management in these circumstances has been the most telling aspect of all.

This is the reason why there will be a seasoned, successful and very well respected coach at the MFC next year. Anything less will be another failure.

You know I feel that this was the big mistake as well. I feel a lot of the players would've seen Neeld come in and say who is this guy to tell us the club culture is no good. If you get Paul Roos, Ross Lyon, Clarko, Choco etc coming in and saying the same thing and do sweeping changes the would fall into line because they know that they've got the runs on the board.

I'm not ecstatic about Neeld getting the chop, in fact I would've preferred them to give him until the end of the year with an ongoing review, but what's done is done and I can't see anything less than an experienced coach getting us back on track.

The only positive for me on this was that the board was able to keep the decision under wraps for the whole weekend, must be a new MFC record.

Hold on You pay a coach $450000 a year you would expect him to have people management sklills. Gessus what would you expect

For that money I would expect exceptional people management skills

Of course he had them but not at a level to effectively manage our paltry list and circumstances.

Get it?

said it before , the last 6 games of 2011 set an unbelievable trend for our administration at this club

CEO has got it right, start at the top and weed out good well liked people that know nufffffink about footy and have made shocking decisions for this club and have wasted the time and effort of this FD

didnt like or care about neeld, BUT the poor bugger was crucified and somebody must take responsibility for this

what a disgrace to the handling of good human beings

.....

I agree with pretty much all your points. But I also think it's pretty safe to say that while on the surface the board has sacked Neeld, Peter Jackson has been the one that pulled the trigger. That's not to say that the board didn't want it but he was the one that was always going to decide when and how it happened.

When I heard about it yesterday (I got a text from my brother) I too was very surprised by the time of it. Why on this side of the bye after he's had a week off (which there is no such thing as a senior coach)? He went on his break thinking he was senior coach and came back thinking it until 8am yesterday morning, for me I thought that was wrong. I also felt if they were going to pull the trigger it would've been better to do it straight after the bye, now the players preparation for this weeks game has been really disrupted, a game that is not outside the realm of winning.

The only justification I can see is that they went to the AFL with the plan to sack Neeld and they needed permission and the cash to pay him out.

I said it earlier in the year that if you were an experienced coach looking to take on the role you wouldn't want anything less than total guarantee of 5 years, and as you pointed out why is it fair that they get all that time when Mark isn't given his 3 years?

I too will look forward to a total board overhaul, they are 100x more culpable than Neeld IMO.

The biggest mistake that was made is that Neeld was tasked with all of the above and he was an inexperienced coach. To give a 'never-been-a-senior-coach' virtual carte Blanche to achieve this when he's had no training in people management in these circumstances has been the most telling aspect of all.

This is the reason why there will be a seasoned, successful and very well respected coach at the MFC next year. Anything less will be another failure.

This is a really good point. I think that Neeld's role was much bigger than coaching because of the magnitude of change. He lacked the support of a Head of FD or CEO with the right experience that could support and help drive the change at an organisation level.

I dont think we will ever know if he can coach or not. I also think a decision had to be made because of the need to sell hope to uncontracted players like Silvia, Gawn and Watts, and supporters.

We must land a credentialed premiership coach - Roos, Williams, Matthews.

And I think it is abundantly clear that both Bailey and Neeld did execute what the club asked of them, and then when the pressure became too hot, the admin/board became impatient. You can't turn culture overhaul into performance on the flick of a switch (of off field turmoil). You can't turn tanking into elite performance in a year and a half (of off field turmoil). The worst part of it all for me is that we promised him three years, which I think is a minimum of what a coach deserves when tasked with the job he faced at Melbourne. We gave him 18 months. We ask the supporters to dip into pockets (as I know you have!) and then we pay out 600k. Yes, it is AFL money, but it's all the same because we could have gone to the AFL for more meritorious reasons rather than because we are a basket case.

Choko I don't know how you can say it's abundantly clear that Neeld executed what the club asked of him.

Do you really think that on-field performance was not part of Neeld's brief?

I understand that part of the brief would have been to improve standards and change the culture and things like that, but at the same time there's no excuse for what we have dished up this year.

I even gave Neeld the benefit of the doubt during the 2012 season as it always takes time to adjust to a new style and a new coach.

But to then take the team so far backwards in your second year in the job to the point of them being (currently) the least competitive team in the league, including the babies from GWS, is completely unacceptable.

In all aspects of the game we have gone completely backwards under Neeld and there were no signs of improvement. Our game plan, our ability to defend and attack, our effort, etc. have been shambolic this year. The stats support how far we have regressed since 2011.

Other than our on-field performances, throw in questionable man-management skills, some really poor recruiting decisions, a lack of improvement in many of the players on the list and a failure to accurately assess where the list is at.

But above all, it was evident from the team's performances that they didn't believe in the message and the game plan. If a coach cannot achieve this then they are always going to struggle to implement their game style and tactics.

It's all very well and good to have a plan, and I am a big believer in sticking to plans because impulsive decisions are no way to run a footy club, but when it is absolutely clear that the plan is not working and change is required, it would be foolish just to "stick to the plan" for the sake of seeing the plan through.

I think if you wanted to have a go at the board, a stronger criticism would be the plan itself rather than the (justified in my opinion) deviation from the plan.

FWIW I agree that the Bailey sacking was terribly handled but that is another matter.

Choko I don't know how you can say it's abundantly clear that Neeld executed what the club asked of him.

Do you really think that on-field performance was not part of Neeld's brief?

I understand that part of the brief would have been to improve standards and change the culture and things like that, but at the same time there's no excuse for what we have dished up this year.

I even gave Neeld the benefit of the doubt during the 2012 season as it always takes time to adjust to a new style and a new coach.

But to then take the team so far backwards in your second year in the job to the point of them being (currently) the least competitive team in the league, including the babies from GWS, is completely unacceptable.

In all aspects of the game we have gone completely backwards under Neeld and there were no signs of improvement. Our game plan, our ability to defend and attack, our effort, etc. have been shambolic this year. The stats support how far we have regressed since 2011.

Other than our on-field performances, throw in questionable man-management skills, some really poor recruiting decisions, a lack of improvement in many of the players on the list and a failure to accurately assess where the list is at.

But above all, it was evident from the team's performances that they didn't believe in the message and the game plan. If a coach cannot achieve this then they are always going to struggle to implement their game style and tactics.

It's all very well and good to have a plan, and I am a big believer in sticking to plans because impulsive decisions are no way to run a footy club, but when it is absolutely clear that the plan is not working and change is required, it would be foolish just to "stick to the plan" for the sake of seeing the plan through.

I think if you wanted to have a go at the board, a stronger criticism would be the plan itself rather than the (justified in my opinion) deviation from the plan.

FWIW I agree that the Bailey sacking was terribly handled but that is another matter.

Agree Neeld wasn't told not to achieve better results on-field. Of course, I was also concerned about the lack of signs of improvement. I suppose what I am saying is that he was asked to overhaul a list and a culture, and in that context and looking at the tumult at the club more generally, I think going backwards was not an unexpected outcome and that is one reason we gave 3 years.

If we went backwards this year under Ross Lyon or Roos, most would point to what I reckon is the most obvious reason... The list.

The thing that every has to remember is that essentially the same playing group has now been through 4 Senior Coaches.

I remember when Viney was interim coach, everyone was saying that at least the players will be playing, tough accountable football, well it didn't happen then and I have a feeling that it will not easily happen with any future coach. This player group is rotten to the core, once again they threaten the club (e.g: we will leave) if you don't sack the coach. They have too much influence in the operation of the club, if I disagreed with the way my boss did things, I may loath it privately, but in the workplace I would get on with the job, because I'm an adult and I am getting paid to do the said job. Honestly.....

We turned over 14 players last year and I'm guessing 8 or 9 the year before and 8 or 9 the year before that. Its not really the same playing group.

With Neeld gone we now have a better

chance at retaining some players that would have otherwise left at the end of the season

I disagree.

A big part of the reason Malthouse could change tactics and succeed is his list. And as for his game plan, you can always choose selectively. How's the game plan look when they can't hold teams out and lose the close ones?

Neeld did change his game plan. Yes, it's a constant dilemma whether to do that with a young list you are trying to teach to play the right way, but at times he threw 1, 2 and 3 behind the ball. He tried different talls up forward and he moved match ups. He tried defensive forwards. He tried Howe in the middle. I'm sure there's more he could have done. At the end of the day, his major problem is the list, and the predominance of the problems with the list he inherited. If you have no midfield, you have a problem. With the way the game is played this year, it's even harder to compensate.

And I think it is abundantly clear that both Bailey and Neeld did execute what the club asked of them, and then when the pressure became too hot, the admin/board became impatient. You can't turn culture overhaul into performance on the flick of a switch (of off field turmoil). You can't turn tanking into elite performance in a year and a half (of off field turmoil). The worst part of it all for me is that we promised him three years, which I think is a minimum of what a coach deserves when tasked with the job he faced at Melbourne. We gave him 18 months. We ask the supporters to dip into pockets (as I know you have!) and then we pay out 600k. Yes, it is AFL money, but it's all the same because we could have gone to the AFL for more meritorious reasons rather than because we are a basket case.

I don't care how good a coach you are, and I think in fairness it is difficult to say whether Neeld can or can't coach. But I do know you can't polish a turd.

In summary, I agree that he was called upon to undertake a monumental task in relation to cultural changes within the playing group and changing the way they play and their defensive mindset but he also had to coach the players he had to play better football on a weekly basis. He wasn't achieving that and they decided he had to go.

I'm not sure what financial arrangements Jackson is getting from the AFL and what Neeld's pay out was but from the sound of it it's not "we" who are paying the 600k or whatever out of "our pockets'. It's the AFL that's shelling that money out and that's why I'm not as mad about things as you are.

In summary, I agree that he was called upon to undertake a monumental task in relation to cultural changes within the playing group and changing the way they play and their defensive mindset but he also had to coach the players he had to play better football on a weekly basis. He wasn't achieving that and they decided he had to go.

I'm not sure what financial arrangements Jackson is getting from the AFL and what Neeld's pay out was but from the sound of it it's not "we" who are paying the 600k or whatever out of "our pockets'. It's the AFL that's shelling that money out and that's why I'm not as mad about things as you are.

It does sound like AFL is paying, but there's only so many times you can go to the well, and so it jeopardises our ability to get funding and support from the AFL on other issues. And it also makes us entirely reliant on the AFL, so expect more Darwin, Sunday twilight vs GWS.

We certainly told Bailey what to do and then binned him for it.

We told Neeld to go hard and binned him for it when he lost the players.

We are culpable in the whole thing but Neeld could not make us competitive and that was his downfall.

I’m with you Choko, I was disgusted by the way we acted yesterday.

The key point seems to be that he Neeld a three year plan and he hasn’t been given the three years to see it through. I know I’m fighting an uphill battle here, but I think this is a great shame. I went and listened to Mark Neeld and Neil Craig several times over the last couple of years and I always walked away impressed by what Neeldy had to say. No one is happy with where the team is at, least of all him, but the cold hard truth of it is that it’s going to take time to turn this thing around. That’s something that the board should have been straight up with us about from the beginning, there are no quick fixes, we were starting from a very low base and it was going to be a long battle back. Already there is talk in the media about how the new coach needs to be given a five year deal and allowed to work that out. So we need to give the new guy time but somehow Mark Neeld was meant to fix it all in 18 months?? I don’t see any advantage in sacking him now, especially not when we have to pay him out anyway and we’re broke and there are some seemingly winnable games coming up. And don’t try and tell me that the players will walk. Walk where exactly, there’s only a handful of them that would be wanted at another club??

The real questions I want answered are about the board and it’s all been glossed over quite neatly by the hacks who just wanted their nice easy headline. What I want to know is:

· This is meant to be an interim president, leading a board that is currently (according to their own statements) going through a comprehensive review of their current, past and future operations. How can they be making a call like this at this time??

· This decision was made on Friday at an emergency board meeting where Don McLardy stood down. So McLardy stands down as president and the rest of the board go “awesome, great time to sack the coach!!”

· The board made the decision on Friday and then let Mark Neeld go away, for what he thought was his one weekend off for the year before telling him Monday morning he’s out the door. This is a dog act, I don’t care if you liked the coach or not

· Instead of our esteemed leader Spargo having the guts to actually tell Neeld he’s fired he sent in Jackson to do the dirty work for him. Great leadership from the top right there

· Why are we sacking him now?? Why not two weeks ago or in two weeks time?? Why now on the back of the bye??

Every day we, as Melbourne people, open the paper or turn on the radio or TV or whatever and we hear hacks going on about what a complete shambles our club is. Did we not just demonstrate yesterday how right they are about that?? The current board needs to go, they have demonstrated that comprehensively now. There is no way they should be allowed anywhere near the appointment of the new coach. Our club has become an utter laughing stock and it’s been on their watch. About the only thing I agree with Jeff Kennett on is that this cannot wait for the end of the season, it needs to happen now. The season is a write off regardless of what happens, we need a new and competent board to come in, work with Jacko and appoint the new coach. Then maybe we might actually get somewhere.

I couldn't agree more. If you went to a builder halfway through construction and complained that the house wasn't livable yet, what response would you get? As for the timing, this screams "self-preservation" to me. What are the odds that the AFL told them exactly what they wanted to happen for the club to get more funding and that McLardy and Neeld's heads were at the top of the list. This is a board who are desperately trying to save themselves and sacrificing anything that can possibly help them to do that.

We turned over 14 players last year and I'm guessing 8 or 9 the year before and 8 or 9 the year before that. Its not really the same playing group.

Six including Rookies. Robbie Campbell, Addem Maric, Michael Newton, Cameron Johnston, Tom McNamara and Austin Wonaeamirri. I'm not sure which of those were rookies and which regular list.