I found it interesting watching Neil Craig in the presser with Essendon.

Mark Thompson named Essendon coach as Bombers confirm James Hird won't return to top job in 2014

First, I would like to say I wish him the best success (except against us) and I highly respect him as a coach and teacher of the game.

He talks about his role, as development for coaches of the future at their club.

I find it interesting him saying it is a role that "groundbreaking, a new role. but starting to evolve at afl clubs at the moment" wonder if he is refering to us at the moment.

also find it interesting that there is this role for him at essendon, but not at us. I understand there was no obvious need for him under his former role now that we have Roos with all his experience, but Essendon find space with Thompson as new coach who is just if not more experienced.

We have a succession plan in place, perhaps craig in the role he as now at essendon would have proven valuable for us? and then we also would not have had to pay him out(assuming we will do that???) and it takes some pressure off Roos developing "the sucessor" (not to mention that two heads are better than one, whomever Essendon are grooming for the next head coach role will have Craig and Thompson teaching them, a pretty good apprenticeship ... )

I think he is there as insurance in case it hits the fan with ASADA which would then make Hird, Thompson & Goodwins positions untenable.

Wish I could finish up one job, get paid out for a year, and walk into another position.

Guess I'm stuck with raffle tickets.

Ol Craigy is turning into the afl village bicycle!

Wish I could finish up one job, get paid out for a year, and walk into another position.

Guess I'm stuck with raffle tickets.

If he's as ethical as he makes himself out to be, he won't take the payout.

How can he take the payout, if he has a contract with another club, then its a mutually agreed decision?

I found it interesting watching Neil Craig in the presser with Essendon.

Mark Thompson named Essendon coach as Bombers confirm James Hird won't return to top job in 2014

First, I would like to say I wish him the best success (except against us) and I highly respect him as a coach and teacher of the game.

He talks about his role, as development for coaches of the future at their club.

I find it interesting him saying it is a role that "groundbreaking, a new role. but starting to evolve at afl clubs at the moment" wonder if he is refering to us at the moment.

also find it interesting that there is this role for him at essendon, but not at us. I understand there was no obvious need for him under his former role now that we have Roos with all his experience, but Essendon find space with Thompson as new coach who is just if not more experienced.

We have a succession plan in place, perhaps craig in the role he as now at essendon would have proven valuable for us? and then we also would not have had to pay him out(assuming we will do that???) and it takes some pressure off Roos developing "the sucessor" (not to mention that two heads are better than one, whomever Essendon are grooming for the next head coach role will have Craig and Thompson teaching them, a pretty good apprenticeship ... )

One club wants a stopgap until the golden wonder returns in 12 months. The other club is trying to put the basic foundations together to become competitive and has already appointed an experienced coach to handle that transition. Spot the difference.

If he's as ethical as he makes himself out to be, he won't take the payout.

Rubbish.

He is receiving what he is entitled to under a contract. Had MFC not cut the contract then he would not have had to get another job.

How can he take the payout, if he has a contract with another club, then its a mutually agreed decision?

His decision to accept a job at EFC is a completely separate decision to the one MFC made to cut him

One club wants a stopgap until the golden wonder returns in 12 months. The other club is trying to put the basic foundations together to become competitive and has already appointed an experienced coach to handle that transition. Spot the difference.

Rubbish.

He is receiving what he is entitled to under a contract. Had MFC not cut the contract then he would not have had to get another job.

His decision to accept a job at EFC is a completely separate decision to the one MFC made to cut him

Yessir!

How can he take the payout, if he has a contract with another club, then its a mutually agreed decision?

If you're sacked then find a new job the same day I would presume you wouldn't have to pay the money back just because you found a new job so fast.

Good luck to Craigy - sad to see him go

I'm not as charitable about Craig and his role at Melbourne as are some others. He was a nice enough bloke and diplomatically worked away around the minefield he found himself in, particularly after Mark Neeld's tenure ended so abruptly during the year but he was in charge of "high performance" at the club and was also Neeld's mentor so, in that sense, you'd have to conclude that he was also a failure.

Then, as coach of the club over the last 11 games, his record was hardly any better than that of Neeld in what was arguably the easier half of the draw although I suppose that anyone who took over at that point in time had to be on a hiding to nothing. In the end however, there wasn't much about his coaching that was particularly innovative or impressive. He was merely filling time because it was clear that he was no super coach. In stark contrast, when Roos took over at the Swans after Rodney Eade was sacked, he was so super impressive with his people skills and match day tactics that the Swans were forced to flick the almost anointed new coach Plough.

From all reports, Roos still has it and I like the idea of him overseeing the transition from his coaching stint to that of his proposed successor. It's not a new idea but it's bold and demonstrates that, unlike Blight when he went to St. Kilda, Roos wants not only to rejuvenate but also to leave a lasting impression on the club and its culture.

I think what they're doing at Essendon is disgraceful and deserves no success going forward. First, they extended Hird when the club should be showing remorse. Second, they appointed one of the offenders in the sorry story as stand-in coach. The players might buy into this but they might not have a choice and they wait while some careers are tenuous at best. Craig, who is a career coach, has walked into this with open eyes and I suspect a heavy heart.

Ol Craigy is turning into the afl village bicycle!

Watt bike?

I reckon old craigy has shares in that company...

Wish I could finish up one job, get paid out for a year, and walk into another position.

Guess I'm stuck with raffle tickets.

How do you know he got paid out? If his pay at Essendon is less than the contract at MFC the we will most likely just pay the difference. If it's more we won't pay anything. He's done the right thing in not just saying "I think I'll take a year off on full pay from MFC and have a holiday".

The slights at Connolly and Craig regarding their payouts are petty. Firstly if we were silly enough to offer contracts that were inappropriate then that's our problem, not the person who receives the contract. Craig specifically had a number of offers when he left Adelaide. Why should he be disadvantaged?

And secondly the AFL is funding it all. That's what the money they are giving us is for so it's not actually costing us anything.

I'm not as charitable about Craig and his role at Melbourne as are some others. He was a nice enough bloke and diplomatically worked away around the minefield he found himself in, particularly after Mark Neeld's tenure ended so abruptly during the year but he was in charge of "high performance" at the club and was also Neeld's mentor so, in that sense, you'd have to conclude that he was also a failure.

Then, as coach of the club over the last 11 games, his record was hardly any better than that of Neeld in what was arguably the easier half of the draw although I suppose that anyone who took over at that point in time had to be on a hiding to nothing. In the end however, there wasn't much about his coaching that was particularly innovative or impressive. He was merely filling time because it was clear that he was no super coach. In stark contrast, when Roos took over at the Swans after Rodney Eade was sacked, he was so super impressive with his people skills and match day tactics that the Swans were forced to flick the almost anointed new coach Plough.

From all reports, Roos still has it and I like the idea of him overseeing the transition from his coaching stint to that of his proposed successor. It's not a new idea but it's bold and demonstrates that, unlike Blight when he went to St. Kilda, Roos wants not only to rejuvenate but also to leave a lasting impression on the club and its culture.

I think what they're doing at Essendon is disgraceful and deserves no success going forward. First, they extended Hird when the club should be showing remorse. Second, they appointed one of the offenders in the sorry story as stand-in coach. The players might buy into this but they might not have a choice and they wait while some careers are tenuous at best. Craig, who is a career coach, has walked into this with open eyes and I suspect a heavy heart.

Agree with most of this. His role as Neeld's mentor appears to have been an unworkable position. It was set up with a complete conflict between his role to support and develop Neeld and his other role which was to act on behalf of the Club in overseeing Neeld. I asked him about his role before the Sydney game last year and he said Neeld had done things he had advised him not to do. He didn't say what that was but I'm guessing appointing Trengove as Captain would have been one. Clearly Neeld's behaviour lost the players, I've been told from day one. What was Craig supposed to do about that. Support and Develop Neeld day to day but go to the Board and say this bloke is not up to it. It obviously didn't work, we know that now. But maybe it was never going to work through no fault of his own.

I'm sure as he has a contract at Essendon now that MFC wouldn't have paid out his full contract. I'd be guessing they would be paying the difference between the contracts if he is getting less at Essendon.

Essendon have limitless amounts of money for Football Dept spending so they can afford to have Craig doing whatever he is doing. We have very limited amounts of money and in order to pay Roos overs have had to cut back on many positions in the FD. We couldn't have afforded to keep Craig and I'm sure they didn't have to pay out his whole contract. Roos will be doing his role anyway. Frankly as much as I think very highly of Craigy I'd rather have Roos mentoring his successor.

Personally I wish Craigy the absolute best. From what I've seen his contribution to all areas of the culture of the club was enormous. Eg I remember photos of him turning up to the dawn ANZAC service with some of the players amongst masses of extra's he contributed to the Club. He deserves to be treated well.

I'm not as charitable about Craig and his role at Melbourne as are some others. He was a nice enough bloke and diplomatically worked away around the minefield he found himself in, particularly after Mark Neeld's tenure ended so abruptly during the year but he was in charge of "high performance" at the club and was also Neeld's mentor so, in that sense, you'd have to conclude that he was also a failure.

Then, as coach of the club over the last 11 games, his record was hardly any better than that of Neeld in what was arguably the easier half of the draw although I suppose that anyone who took over at that point in time had to be on a hiding to nothing. In the end however, there wasn't much about his coaching that was particularly innovative or impressive. He was merely filling time because it was clear that he was no super coach. In stark contrast, when Roos took over at the Swans after Rodney Eade was sacked, he was so super impressive with his people skills and match day tactics that the Swans were forced to flick the almost anointed new coach Plough.

From all reports, Roos still has it and I like the idea of him overseeing the transition from his coaching stint to that of his proposed successor. It's not a new idea but it's bold and demonstrates that, unlike Blight when he went to St. Kilda, Roos wants not only to rejuvenate but also to leave a lasting impression on the club and its culture.

I think what they're doing at Essendon is disgraceful and deserves no success going forward. First, they extended Hird when the club should be showing remorse. Second, they appointed one of the offenders in the sorry story as stand-in coach. The players might buy into this but they might not have a choice and they wait while some careers are tenuous at best. Craig, who is a career coach, has walked into this with open eyes and I suspect a heavy heart.

I'm with you Jack.

I dont disrespect any employees of the club. I will offer a critique of their performance and Craig has been given leeway on his failure because he comes across as a good bloke as opposed to Neeld who has been blamed for absolutely everything including the sinking of the titanic. (don't get me started on Brian Royal, the worst coach of all time who apparently coached the last two best and fairest winners ?)

He didn't say what that was but I'm guessing appointing Trengove as Captain would have been one.

This has been mentioned many times and I just dont get it.

For those to suggest that Neeld appointed the captains - this means then that all of part of the following documented process was a lie.

- did the players and staff vote for the captains and leadership group ? ( this was process that was announced)

If that is the case - did Trengove and Grimes get the nod as captains or conversely did Neeld pick them even though others had higher votes ( says Jones) and then get in front of the camera and lie through his teeth that the players and staff voted them in.

You may want to criticise Neeld for not overturning his process but he may have looked mighty silly for setting up a protocol and then not following it.

I hope everybody noted Jackson's comment in regard to Connolly and Craig's positions:

"This is a business decision based on the best management structure for the Melbourne Football Club moving forward. This is not a performance based decision, but reflects the need to reduce the overall cost of our management structure."

In other words, the football department and club administration have been bloated and we're tightening the ship. Jackson's new structure cuts out some of the crap like 'high-performance manager' and 'general manager of club performance', in particular reducing the previous inclination to create jobs for the boys.

We've also got to be able to afford Roos somehow.

I can't understand how anyone can complain about pay outs.

If I had a 3 year contract and my company decided to make my job redundant half way through the contract, I'd expect a pay out.

These people have families and bills like the rest of us and their contract means just as much legally as any pleb's contract.

I hope everybody noted Jackson's comment in regard to Connolly and Craig's positions:

"This is a business decision based on the best management structure for the Melbourne Football Club moving forward. This is not a performance based decision, but reflects the need to reduce the overall cost of our management structure."

In other words, the football department and club administration have been bloated and we're tightening the ship. Jackson's new structure cuts out some of the crap like 'high-performance manager' and 'general manager of club performance', in particular reducing the previous inclination to create jobs for the boys.

We've also got to be able to afford Roos somehow.

Well said maurie , ahem, sorry mauriesy.

I'm with you Jack.

I dont disrespect any employees of the club. I will offer a critique of their performance and Craig has been given leeway on his failure because he comes across as a good bloke as opposed to Neeld who has been blamed for absolutely everything including the sinking of the titanic. (don't get me started on Brian Royal, the worst coach of all time who apparently coached the last two best and fairest winners ?)

Which is exactly why Craig is a good fit at Essendon, because he is a good bloke who can ease parental concern in regards to players families, etc.

There is no doubt that reading between the lines, Craig will be taking care of any questions regarding player welfare, etc.

This has been mentioned many times and I just dont get it.

For those to suggest that Neeld appointed the captains - this means then that all of part of the following documented process was a lie.

- did the players and staff vote for the captains and leadership group ? ( this was process that was announced)

If that is the case - did Trengove and Grimes get the nod as captains or conversely did Neeld pick them even though others had higher votes ( says Jones) and then get in front of the camera and lie through his teeth that the players and staff voted them in.

You may want to criticise Neeld for not overturning his process but he may have looked mighty silly for setting up a protocol and then not following it.

As I understand it, Neeld etc created a questionnaire with something like 15 criteria for a Captain and everyone had to give a score out of 10. They then added up the scores and the two Jack's ended up with the equal amount of most scores. On that basis he appointed them. I'm not disputing that was the process or anyone lied about it. The point is, he created that process and has to take responsibility for it. What he should have done IMHO is done that as one part of the process and then had the coaches make the decision. This is what Roos and the Swans do with Leading Teams. The Jack's clearly tick all the boxes personality wise etc but you couldn't say that either of them had earnt the role at that stage on the basis of their playing careers and surely that should have been one of the main criteria. Trengove was clearly too young and inexperienced and didn't have nearly enough playing experience. Grimes might have been old enough but also didn't have enough playing runs on the board for the role at that time. No reflection on either of them. It clearly effected both of them adversely and they were both put in an impossible position trying to lead by example in a team in a complete melt down mode while still learning how to play themselves. They just didn't have the experience for it and Neeld has to take the blame for that squarely on his shoulders.

I've got no problem with the payout, except if I know you'd rather be doing something else anyway (and it's in the bag) I'd discuss terms.

In terms of Craig as a coach at the MFC, and whether he did or didn't do his job with Neeld, I reckon he'd have a good argument about the club management.

As I understand it, Neeld etc created a questionnaire with something like 15 criteria for a Captain and everyone had to give a score out of 10. They then added up the scores and the two Jack's ended up with the equal amount of most scores. On that basis he appointed them. I'm not disputing that was the process or anyone lied about it. The point is, he created that process and has to take responsibility for it. What he should have done IMHO is done that as one part of the process and then had the coaches make the decision. This is what Roos and the Swans do with Leading Teams. The Jack's clearly tick all the boxes personality wise etc but you couldn't say that either of them had earnt the role at that stage on the basis of their playing careers and surely that should have been one of the main criteria. Trengove was clearly too young and inexperienced and didn't have nearly enough playing experience. Grimes might have been old enough but also didn't have enough playing runs on the board for the role at that time. No reflection on either of them. It clearly effected both of them adversely and they were both put in an impossible position trying to lead by example in a team in a complete melt down mode while still learning how to play themselves. They just didn't have the experience for it and Neeld has to take the blame for that squarely on his shoulders.

So where do I start....

Firstly - your earlier assumption that Neeld selected Trengove therefore is not correct - what he did was implement a process that chose Trengove as captain and he didnt over-rule it. As an aside it is a Neeld/Malthouse failing as this is the Collingwood process brought to the MFC - it is not exactly ground breaking)

Secondly - from your comments about Roos and leading teams you obviously havent had leading teams through your company . The leading teams process is heavily into transparency and 360 degree feedback of which no one in the organisation is immune to - (we had them through our company and it is uncomfortable to say the least). The idea that a leading teams process would throw up Trengove and Grimes but then the coaches would pick differently is the antithesis of what leading teams is about. Wouldn't happen.

Thirdly - I think there was mostly consensus on Demonland once the announcement was made that trengove/Grimes wasnt a bad decision as the previous leaders of the club had failed us ( there was some conjecture over joint captains). We are looking at failure through a rear vision mirror.

RE captains

Neeld created the process although I imagine there was input from other choosing staff. I seen to recall him saying that they had identified the qualities that a leader should have and then all players and footy dept staff ranked the players.

Yes, Neeld could have rigged the system to get what he wanted but that seems ridiculous. Grimes had constantly been awarded the clubs leadership award under multiple coaches and is widely recognised for his leadership qualities, particularly during his injuries.

If the process selected Grimes as a captain and identified Trengove as his equal, the system probably isn't flawed is it?

Also, this system doesn't seem to be much different than the leading teams system Roos is bringing in.

Note re captains next year, I think Dawes, Jones and Garland will be in the mix with Grimes and Trengove. From the outside none of us know enough about personality or behaviour to make an accurate comment but those 5 clearly have, or have grown into, leadership qualities.

Note 2: Frawley, Clark, McKenzie and Byrnes were the other members of our leadership group this year.