You said: "Player retention, Performance and on field competitiveness indicate that either Jackson didn't agree with the board and the direction when Neeld was appointed in 2012 or Neeld was lied to by the board - a rebuilding club can not meet the demands Jackson outlined - so either the club has folded to pressure of the rebuild or other factors were at play"

I dispute that Neeld told the Board, "we need a complete rebuild". You argument seems based on this premise and that they weren't strong enough to allow Neeld to see it through.

That line is why I am not going to give your post any further thought - No disrespect intended BH but you don't address the core issues at all

Where is your evidence? I take my opinion from what Neeld has said in the media and the direction of the club in recruiting and player retention. Why would you delist Pettered and other senior players if you weren't rebuilding the club?

Why would you play a team full of players with less then 2 years AFL experience if you weren't rebuilding?

Why would you recrate for the future in Hogan like we did if we weren't rebuilding?

If this wasn't the direction the club wanted to take (rebuild) it was clearly not communicated to Neeld from board level otherwise Neelds actions since he has been at the club were complete opposite/contradiction to what the club wanted. I make this statement as In Jackson press conference Monday - when he communicated why Neeld was sacked they are a complete contradiction of the direction of the club under Neeld

So unless you address my points to the overall argument that the MFC has no direction and has underperformed as a whole entity since at least the early 2000 and the sacking of another coach is another waste of time (2 years) and wasting more money the club clearly does not have and don't just say you disagree I am not going to bother responding

Why don't I have the right to be angry with the Administration of this club? Why do they get to chop and change direction? You don't have to look far to see what direction successful clubs in 2013 took back in the early 2000's to rebuild. No matter what your opinion of the list prior to Neeld and the list post Neeld it's pretty clear this will be a rebuild of a rebuild of a rebuild which indicates the club has no direction and has wasted the Members time, and the pressure on the new coach will be extreme.

I forsee the same crap 2 years down the track and that's why I see us as a weak club

You say you're not going to give my post "further thought" and then proceed to write a book.

He got rid of 15 players, including Petterd, Gysberts, Martin, Moloney, Morton, etc. after year one, not as soon as he got to the club.

You really think he walked into the club and said, "look, I know you've won 8.5 games the last two years in a row, and I know you have a plethora of top 20 draft selections, and I know that senior players, such as McDonald, Bruce and Yze have just departed, and I know that you already have one of the youngest lists in the competition, but I reckon we've got to rebuild the playing list straight away". You really believe he told the Board that a rebuild was required ? And you say you're not going to give my opinion further thought ? No wonder you like Neeld, you're as delusional as him, or at best totally naive and duped by his nonsense.

More likely Neeld said, "I'll change the culture of your playing group, we know they can attack, but I'll make them accountable and defend; you've got great young talent already on your list and I'll develop them into quality senior players and I'll move some on after I've had 12 months to look at them." THAT'S a far more likely scenario.

FFS, Bate wanted to be traded to the Dogs, but Neeld wouldn't have it, because he wanted a look at him. There was ZERO utterance of a rebuild when he was first appointed.

The goal posts moved AFTER his first 12 months when he decided we were [censored]. He rightly knew the midfield was the problem, but he also came from a system that loved big key forwards. I laud the club for getting Hogan, because I recognised he was a once in a generation talent. The targeting of Hogan can be treated as a separate entity and just a really good decision.

I accept that Neeld came to the conclusion he needed to rebuild aspects of the list, such as the midfield, but if you think he sat in on his job interviews with Melbourne and said the list needed to be stripped back again and rebuilt, you're mad.

And you say, "Why don't I have the right to be angry with the Administration of this club?". Who says you don't ? We all know they've been hopeless. Knock yourself out, just don't be sucked in by Neeld's complete spin.

For me it truly goes back to 186. Where the board back flipped on its decision to get rid of Schwab. If Schwab was about to be sacked for meddling in FD matters and proving a divisive figure among the playing group - why then was he key in appointing Neeld and the restructuring of the FD?

Of course Schwab was going to favour the most inexperienced yet disciplinarian coach, of course he was going to set up a FD structure where key personnel were under his thumb. I'm furious that that decision lead us to having one of the worst performing teams in living memory and a world's worst practice FD setup.

I am too 'Jimmi', there are still some who supported him on the board and it's time for them to move on.

you must be Blind... brad green was One of the softest players we've had at Melbounren & to make him a leader was Totally Wrong..

he only put his head down over the ball for one & a bit seasons, & even then he couldn't do it well, putting his head in the way, he was so awkward at it.

... as soon as he had the captaincy, this head over the ball leadership vanished... he was hopeless & thats why the bombers sought him out in the 2000 grand final... they new, or Sheedy New he was soft & easily put off his game with intimidation.

Rubbish. An irresponsible rewriting of history. You are a disgrace.

He was a first year player then, fool.

And I suppose Michael Long sniped Troy Simmonds because he was soft too.

And Wellman put the boot into Schwarz for the same reason.

No, they did not discriminate. They were animals and the umpires were MIA.

You say you're not going to give my post "further thought" and then proceed to write a book.

He got rid of 15 players, including Petterd, Gysberts, Martin, Moloney, Morton, etc. after year one, not as soon as he got to the club.

You really think he walked into the club and said, "look, I know you've won 8.5 games the last two years in a row, and I know you have a plethora of top 20 draft selections, and I know that senior players, such as McDonald, Bruce and Yze have just departed, and I know that you already have one of the youngest lists in the competition, but I reckon we've got to rebuild the playing list straight away". You really believe he told the Board that a rebuild was required ? And you say you're not going to give my opinion further thought ? No wonder you like Neeld, you're as delusional as him, or at best totally naive and duped by his nonsense.

More likely Neeld said, "I'll change the culture of your playing group, we know they can attack, but I'll make them accountable and defend; you've got great young talent already on your list and I'll develop them into quality senior players and I'll move some on after I've had 12 months to look at them." THAT'S a far more likely scenario.

FFS, Bate wanted to be traded to the Dogs, but Neeld wouldn't have it, because he wanted a look at him. There was ZERO utterance of a rebuild when he was first appointed.

The goal posts moved AFTER his first 12 months when he decided we were [censored]. He rightly knew the midfield was the problem, but he also came from a system that loved big key forwards. I laud the club for getting Hogan, because I recognised he was a once in a generation talent. The targeting of Hogan can be treated as a separate entity and just a really good decision.

I accept that Neeld came to the conclusion he needed to rebuild aspects of the list, such as the midfield, but if you think he sat in on his job interviews with Melbourne and said the list needed to be stripped back again and rebuilt, you're mad.

And you say, "Why don't I have the right to be angry with the Administration of this club?". Who says you don't ? We all know they've been hopeless. Knock yourself out, just don't be sucked in by Neeld's complete spin.

There seems to be a misconception on here that anybody who defends/likes/accepts whatever........Mark Neeld....... is delusional

It has to be remembered that most posters on this board have either been playing or watching footy for quite a while, so therefore have a good understanding of footy

I was satisfied when we recruited Mark Neeld, because as Gary Lyon said, he was the best candidate available at that time

I had the opportunity to listen/speak to him on quite a few occasions, I understood what he was trying to achieve

I did not agree with everything he did, I am in the camp that Trengove should not have been made captain, as an example, but he was not the complete disaster that everybody now sits righteously typing, agree the onfield performance this season was/is deplorable, but the players must also bear some of the responsiibility for that, but the development of N Jones, Tom McDonald, Garland just to name three under his watch says that in some things he got it right

Everybody seems to think I defend the Club, what I do, I actually listen to what is being said and what action is taken, not rumour, innuendo, hypotheitcals etc etc, that way I can make considered judgements about everything MFC.

I continually express how I feel as a member/supporter to people inside the Club

I don't think the right thing to do at this moment was sack Neeld, but I understand why the Club had to do it, I would have preferred watiing until season end. I applaud the placing of Neil Craig as an interim coach, and I hope we get both the Board and Footy Dept restructure right

But I also know this is going to take time, and there is no Messiah waiting in the wings to drag us kicking and screaming into finals next year, so again I will listen to facts, not rumour, innuendo, badmouthing, the rewriting of history, hindsight pundits etc etc

There seems to be a misconception on here that anybody who defends/likes/accepts whatever........Mark Neeld....... is delusional

It has to be remembered that most posters on this board have either been playing or watching footy for quite a while, so therefore have a good understanding of footy

I was satisfied when we recruited Mark Neeld, because as Gary Lyon said, he was the best candidate available at that time

I had the opportunity to listen/speak to him on quite a few occasions, I understood what he was trying to achieve

I did not agree with everything he did, I am in the camp that Trengove should not have been made captain, as an example, but he was not the complete disaster that everybody now sits righteously typing, agree the onfield performance this season was/is deplorable, but the players must also bear some of the responsiibility for that, but the development of N Jones, Tom McDonald, Garland just to name three under his watch says that in some things he got it right

Everybody seems to think I defend the Club, what I do, I actually listen to what is being said and what action is taken, not rumour, innuendo, hypotheitcals etc etc, that way I can make considered judgements about everything MFC.

I continually express how I feel as a member/supporter to people inside the Club

I don't think the right thing to do at this moment was sack Neeld, but I understand why the Club had to do it, I would have preferred watiing until season end. I applaud the placing of Neil Craig as an interim coach, and I hope we get both the Board and Footy Dept restructure right

But I also know this is going to take time, and there is no Messiah waiting in the wings to drag us kicking and screaming into finals next year, so again I will listen to facts, not rumour, innuendo, badmouthing, the rewriting of history, hindsight pundits etc etc

Thanks for sharing.

No, really.

There seems to be a misconception on here that anybody who defends/likes/accepts whatever........Mark Neeld....... is delusional

It has to be remembered that most posters on this board have either been playing or watching footy for quite a while, so therefore have a good understanding of footy

I was satisfied when we recruited Mark Neeld, because as Gary Lyon said, he was the best candidate available at that time

I had the opportunity to listen/speak to him on quite a few occasions, I understood what he was trying to achieve

I did not agree with everything he did, I am in the camp that Trengove should not have been made captain, as an example, but he was not the complete disaster that everybody now sits righteously typing, agree the onfield performance this season was/is deplorable, but the players must also bear some of the responsiibility for that, but the development of N Jones, Tom McDonald, Garland just to name three under his watch says that in some things he got it right

Everybody seems to think I defend the Club, what I do, I actually listen to what is being said and what action is taken, not rumour, innuendo, hypotheitcals etc etc, that way I can make considered judgements about everything MFC.

I continually express how I feel as a member/supporter to people inside the Club

I don't think the right thing to do at this moment was sack Neeld, but I understand why the Club had to do it, I would have preferred watiing until season end. I applaud the placing of Neil Craig as an interim coach, and I hope we get both the Board and Footy Dept restructure right

But I also know this is going to take time, and there is no Messiah waiting in the wings to drag us kicking and screaming into finals next year, so again I will listen to facts, not rumour, innuendo, badmouthing, the rewriting of history, hindsight pundits etc etc

Sorry, I can't help myself on this point. I've heard 'Neeld is responsible for Garland's development' a couple of times now and I simply don't subscribe to the notion. Bailey and Wellman are responsible for his development. During Neeld's first season, Garland's output dropped off. It is only this year that it has returned. Considering Neeld couldn't get him playing in his first season, I'd give more credit to Garland for his own return to form.

Sorry, I can't help myself on this point. I've heard 'Neeld is responsible for Garland's development' a couple of times now and I simply don't subscribe to the notion that to be the case. Bailey and Wellman are responsible for his development. During Neeld's first season, Garland's output dropped off. It is only this year that it has returned. Considering Neeld couldn't get him playing in his first season, I'd give more credit to Garland for his own return to form.

There is actually little suggesting that the likes of Jones, McDonald & Howe aren't actually developing naturally or in spite of Neeld. 5 wins (4 against expansion sides), ritual thrashings, pathetic communication and rumblings of discontent at every turn. I'm glad Neeld's gone and furious he was hired in the first place.

Rubbish. An irresponsible rewriting of history. You are a disgrace.

He was a first year player then, fool.

And I suppose Michael Long sniped Troy Simmonds because he was soft too.

And Wellman put the boot into Schwarz for the same reason.

No, they did not discriminate. They were animals and the umpires were MIA.

No, the players are known for their character traits from before they get on an afl list. their strengths & their weaknesses are known within the system.

Sheedy teams will go for the oppositions weakest chinks in their armour, everytime... green was a skilled but frail type, in the hurly burly of AFL finals footy.

the simmonds incident I think was an opportunity for Long to get him in a vulnerable moment, and he did... he would not get off lightly in todays footy.

# back to the topic of retiring green, I would have traded him 3 or 4 years earlier, along with Davey, & kept Jnr Mac at the club & looked to get someone in like a Brad Sewell back then...

& a couple of seasons back I would have targeted Jarred Roughhead... when he was struggling... but their buy the byes. as I would have gone after Patrick Dangerfield about 2 or 3 years ago. I remember debating this with someone on here back then.

There is actually little suggesting that the likes of Jones, McDonald & Howe aren't actually developing naturally or in spite of Neeld. 5 wins (4 against expansion sides), ritual thrashings, pathetic communication and rumblings of discontent at every turn. I'm glad Neeld's gone and furious he was hired in the first place.

Would Nathan Jones telling me to my face that Mark Neeld had turned his footy around help?....probably not...and back then who would have you preferred, who was available and why?..I await your answer with interest

Rubbish. An irresponsible rewriting of history. You are a disgrace.

He was a first year player then, fool.

And I suppose Michael Long sniped Troy Simmonds because he was soft too.

And Wellman put the boot into Schwarz for the same reason.

No, they did not discriminate. They were animals and the umpires were MIA.

At the end of the day, no team was going to beat the Bombers in 2000. They were animals and brutal.

The Blues of 1995 were not dissimilar, but more surgical.

Let's not forget that Greeny was whacked in the larynx in the opening 5 minutes and could hardly breathe....

Would Nathan Jones telling me to my face that Mark Neeld had turned his footy around help?....probably not...and back then who would have you preferred, who was available and why?..I await your answer with interest

Thanks for your interest. But no thanks. I'd rather debate the wind. I'll leave you to your big noting, bullying anybody who dares criticise the club and apologies for ineptitude.

Sorry, I can't help myself on this point. I've heard 'Neeld is responsible for Garland's development' a couple of times now and I simply don't subscribe to the notion. Bailey and Wellman are responsible for his development. During Neeld's first season, Garland's output dropped off. It is only this year that it has returned. Considering Neeld couldn't get him playing in his first season, I'd give more credit to Garland for his own return to form.

Part of the problem with Col's season last year was that he had to play forward after Clarke's injury. It worked in the win over Essendon but he struggled otherwise.

But you're right - it's a nonsense to suggest Neeld is responsible for his good form.

He was v. good in 2010, and backed it up in 2011.

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/28756-2011-player-review-20-colin-garland/

Thanks for your interest. But no thanks. I'd rather debate the wind. I'll leave you to your big noting, bullying anybody who dares criticise the club and apologies for ineptitude.

So can't back up your statement, ah well.......

You say you're not going to give my post "further thought" and then proceed to write a book.

He got rid of 15 players, including Petterd, Gysberts, Martin, Moloney, Morton, etc. after year one, not as soon as he got to the club.

You really think he walked into the club and said, "look, I know you've won 8.5 games the last two years in a row, and I know you have a plethora of top 20 draft selections, and I know that senior players, such as McDonald, Bruce and Yze have just departed, and I know that you already have one of the youngest lists in the competition, but I reckon we've got to rebuild the playing list straight away". You really believe he told the Board that a rebuild was required ? And you say you're not going to give my opinion further thought ? No wonder you like Neeld, you're as delusional as him, or at best totally naive and duped by his nonsense.

More likely Neeld said, "I'll change the culture of your playing group, we know they can attack, but I'll make them accountable and defend; you've got great young talent already on your list and I'll develop them into quality senior players and I'll move some on after I've had 12 months to look at them." THAT'S a far more likely scenario.

FFS, Bate wanted to be traded to the Dogs, but Neeld wouldn't have it, because he wanted a look at him. There was ZERO utterance of a rebuild when he was first appointed.

The goal posts moved AFTER his first 12 months when he decided we were [censored]. He rightly knew the midfield was the problem, but he also came from a system that loved big key forwards. I laud the club for getting Hogan, because I recognised he was a once in a generation talent. The targeting of Hogan can be treated as a separate entity and just a really good decision.

I accept that Neeld came to the conclusion he needed to rebuild aspects of the list, such as the midfield, but if you think he sat in on his job interviews with Melbourne and said the list needed to be stripped back again and rebuilt, you're mad.

And you say, "Why don't I have the right to be angry with the Administration of this club?". Who says you don't ? We all know they've been hopeless. Knock yourself out, just don't be sucked in by Neeld's complete spin.

Once again a nice little rant BH but at no stage do you address the key fundamentals of why I am furious at this club...

Why do you feel the need to defend the Neeld decision in islolation when it's not even the only decision I am questioning? Who are you trying to convince me or yourself? You say it yourself in your own argument 'The goal posts moved'

That to me sums up my whole argument - this club has no idea how to handle employees and continues to be directionless - Why are you so offended that I am furious at this club? Why do you keep accepting decisoin made by people who have continually gotten things wrong?

Part of the problem with Col's season last year was that he had to play forward after Clarke's injury. It worked in the win over Essendon but he struggled otherwise.

But you're right - it's a nonsense to suggest Neeld is responsible for his good form.

He was v. good in 2010, and backed it up in 2011.

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/28756-2011-player-review-20-colin-garland/

If you or other posters can't see Garland has taken another step, including into leadership, well who am I to argue, let's get back to trashing everything about the last 2 years..........Neil Craig is right, that's what happens now

Once again a nice little rant BH but at no stage do you address the key fundamentals of why I am furious at this club...

Why do you feel the need to defend the Neeld decision alone when it's not even the only decision I am questioning? Who are you trying to convince me or yourself? You say it yourself in your own argument 'The goal posts moved'

That to me sums up my who argument - this club has no idea how to handle employees and continues to be directionless - Why are you so offended that I am furious at this club? Why do you keep accepting decisoin made by people who have continually gotten things wrong?

coz like me he questions where you get the idea about the way the Club handles employees, does it do something different to other large organisations, if you have someone on contract and you sack before end of contract, you have to pay out...or are there other things, how many Club employees do you know?

You can be as furious as you want to be but if it is based on rumour/innuendo etc, we need to ask why?

Big noting...actually being able to talk to employees and players of the Club I support....anybody can do it, they don't bite, well some of them anyway

coz like me he questions where you get the idea about the way the Club handles employees, does it do something different to other large organisations, if you have someone on contract and you sack before end of contract, you have to pay out...or are there other things, how many Club employees do you know?

You can be as furious as you want to be but if it is based on rumour/innuendo etc, we need to ask why?

I don't want to get in a long argument - no offense, i just wanted to vent and clarify my position

If you need further examples of mishandling of employees - i give you Gardner (although not a technical employee still a prime example) Gutnick (See Gardner) Bailey, Neeld, Jnr Mac, Brick McLean - i can keep going if you like but hopefully you get my point

Directionless - unprofessional club and we deserve to be where we are - now an AFL franchise

The club as far back as I can remember - and i've stated i haven't followed closely since mid 00's has mishandled situations (tanking) and employees and has no clear direction , wastes the members and supporters goodwill and time and patience- a failure of the highest calibre - Why shouldn't I Be furiosus

I finially understand what Rhino was on about around 8 months ago

you must be Blind... brad green was One of the softest players we've had at Melbounren & to make him a leader was Totally Wrong..

he only put his head down over the ball for one & a bit seasons, & even then he couldn't do it well, putting his head in the way, he was so awkward at it.

... as soon as he had the captaincy, this head over the ball leadership vanished... he was hopeless & thats why the bombers sought him out in the 2000 grand final... they new, or Sheedy New he was soft & easily put off his game with intimidation.

...all these well spoken postors who have less than 400 posts to their avatars, well at least their alter ego avatars... whats your day avatar SS12? one of Fans merry men. one of the factions who would want to bring back danners, with jeff.

Neeld was doing a dirty job cutting the rotten eggs out, that started under danihers reign, & that of the board at the time which included that advertising junkee?

That Is where this all started, & many of those players who got their cheap kicks with No Bruises where the forerunners to the Mortons & Bennells... those kids just took the lead of their senior role models. ... and this is why we could never develop any of our Kids.

Oh I did not say he shouldn't have been sacked... the results, indeed the size of the results determined that... I have no problem with the list pruning that neeld was undertaking, but we had to bring in some mature top line players who were near the end.. Players of class like a Chapman, not a Rodan. Dawes is fine as is I think will be Pederson, but gillies not sure.

we had to pull out the old players who were the bearers of the old culture... this is the way to stop the handdown of the viral rot. including the hard at it but not so smart beamer. interesting that the Cats chose him as a trade, re for the Ottens/Thompson trade.

... and a game plan unsuited??? so you want to run ahead of the ball still after all these years since daniher. stuie, the game is a contested game. if it doesn't suit us, we better start a soccer club.

Worst post of the year.

So can't back up your statement, ah well.......

You're right Jones and others were useless hacks with poor attitudes and no hope for improvement before Neeld arrived. The process to hire Neeld as coach was obviously world's best practice with no outside help, 3 administrators & 1 player who had been out of the game since the 90's. We definitely got our man didn't we? Who needed due diligence when we had Cam Schwab writing out essay questions and Garry Lyon had a phone conversation with Mick Malthouse.

For the record I wanted McCartney when it became apparent that we couldn't get Clarkson, R Lyon or Malthouse. Prior to that I was of the view that there was no point in knifing Bailey for yet another untried coach. I backed Neeld in until it became apparent that he wasn't up to it. But who really cares? I'm open minded and can think for myself. I've been wrong before I will be again - I can admit it - can you?

Would Nathan Jones telling me to my face that Mark Neeld had turned his footy around help?....probably not...and back then who would have you preferred, who was available and why?..I await your answer with interest

Saty....: "Nathan, do you reckon Mark Neeld has helped your footy ?"

Jones: "Yeah mate"

Saty....:"What do you put it down to ?"

Jones: "Due for a rub mate, cheers."

Worst post of the year.

Couldnt agree more, the guys a fruit loop.

Why are you so offended that I am furious at this club? Why do you keep accepting decisoin made by people who have continually gotten things wrong?

If you or other posters can't see Garland has taken another step, including into leadership, well who am I to argue, let's get back to trashing everything about the last 2 years..........Neil Craig is right, that's what happens now

As others have said, there's such a thing as natural progression.

If you open the thread to which I linked, you will see posters anticipated that not only would he get better, but he would be elevated to the leadership group.

Not rocket science.

Perhaps we should applaud the fact that he hasn't stalled like most of the rest of the list.

Couldnt agree more, the guys a fruit loop.

Or maybe just DEE-LUDED?