Neeld's other legacy

[Whispering_Jack 30,077]

I can only think you're pulling all our collective legs.

Let's see. Racism claim in April 2012 which 2 days after Neeld has said he wants a full investigation he then says he's satisfied. Then follows a 4 win season with a percentage of 67 in which all the "distractions" happen which is then followed by a two win season and a percentage of 54 where Neeld had a pretty good go of it in terms of off field distractions bar the fact that the club's performance was so poor we saw the coach sacked, the president resign, the CEO terminated and the club with a statutory loss of $3 million, the AFL give us a $1.4 million gift to pay for the termination of the coach, the CEO and CC who incidentally was gifted a contract by the now defunct CEO. And lets not mention the T word.

Needless to say the club was at a reasonably low ebb.

Enter and AFL rescue package, Peter Jackson arrives, secures Paul Roos, gains a major sponsor, restructures the footy department, takes trades and recruiting to a professional level not seen in years, retains Jack Watts, has record membership to Christmas and a footy club which is optimistic and happy for the first time in years and now we want to wind back the clock to April 2012 and investigate racism claims against our (now sacked) coach where he has already said he's satisfied with the situation.

There are other things which could be worse but I can see not one benefit in investigating this non issue.

While you're at it why don't we investigate the faceless men, the campaign to undermine Neeld "from the very start of his tenure", the sacking and reappointment of Cameron Schwab, the role of Garry Lyon in selecting Mark Neeld as coach and the signing of Tom Scully to GWS. If we are going to investigate the racism scandal let's do it all "for history".

Move on. Neeld, Schwab, McLardy and Connolly have all left and Roos, Jackson and Bartlett are doing a good job. The last thing this club needs is to revive the recent putrid immediate past with some meaningless enquiry.

Bob. I'm not suggesting for one second that the club undertakes such an investigation. It needs to be completely independent and conducted by investigative journalists because there's a story there and people have things to hide. For sure, it can include "faceless men", a term not of my invention. Anyway, if there's nothing there to see then the story won't go anywhere, will it?

[Slartibartfast 17,272]

Bob. I'm not suggesting for one second that the club undertakes such an investigation. It needs to be completely independent and conducted by investigative journalists because there's a story there and people have things to hide. For sure, it can include "faceless men", a term not of my invention. Anyway, if there's nothing there to see then the story won't go anywhere, will it?

I want the press to concentrate on our footy club's improvement not a grubby past which will achieve nothing and which very few are interested. Wow, can you imagine the scandal "Ian Flack lies to Misfud about Neeld racism".

Paper seller that one. Can't see it happening. Besides you've canned most of the investigative journalists anyway and I don't want Emma dragged into that camp!

Let's move on.

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

Please no more bad press. It is not worth it. We all know what happened....

[Whispering_Jack 30,077]

Bob. There were allegations made about the way Mark Neeld treated our indigenous players and that he did so in a manner different to the other players. Subsequently, those allegations were declared by the AFL to be untrue although they were obviously designed to embarrass Mark Neeld and the club just one week into his term as coach. I'm interested in that from a number of perspectives. I knew from newspaper reports of the time that Melbourne suspected Flack was behind those stories but I know less than you obviously do about the situation. From what you wrote earlier in this thread, Neeld sacked him and you therefore felt that Neeld was to blame for what happened as a consequence.

The suggestion that a former welfare officer at the club charged with looking after our indigenous players would concoct stories and spread them to embarrass a former co-employee or his club is absolutely repugnant.

The truth needs to come out. There are people who need to have their names cleared (including Flack if he wasn't behind the concocted racism story). It's important to me that the club I support and the people who served it are cleared of the stigma of racism.

You're comment about investigative journalists is not only risible but demonstrates a lack of understanding of what they do.

[Slartibartfast 17,272]

The truth needs to come out.

I don't think so, even if there is a "truth". I think few care but I understand that you do. I doubt that Mark Neeld is being disadvantaged by what happened because as you say the AFL said the allegation was untrue and Neeld has been thankfully cleared.

Everyone else has moved on and I think your call for an investigation and the reasons for it will fall on barren ground.

I note that you are still trying to peddle the idea that Neeld was the subject of "a campaign to undermine him from the very start of his tenure". Is the extent of "the campaign" Ian Flack's supposed "racist" claim or is there more? One way or the other you've got to admire the campaign managers foresight. Not many saw as early as April 2012 how much damage MN would reap on our club.

[Deeman 1,497]

Please no more bad press. It is not worth it. We all know what happened....

Exactly, every post and every thread should read like a Brothers Grimm fairytale and then we'll all live happy ever after.

[Whispering_Jack 30,077]

I don't think so, even if there is a "truth". I think few care but I understand that you do. I doubt that Mark Neeld is being disadvantaged by what happened because as you say the AFL said the allegation was untrue and Neeld has been thankfully cleared.

Everyone else has moved on and I think your call for an investigation and the reasons for it will fall on barren ground.

I note that you are still trying to peddle the idea that Neeld was the subject of "a campaign to undermine him from the very start of his tenure". Is the extent of "the campaign" Ian Flack's supposed "racist" claim or is there more? One way or the other you've got to admire the campaign managers foresight. Not many saw as early as April 2012 how much damage MN would reap on our club.

Not surprised by your response. As usual you missed/ignored the point about racism and the fact that the need for discovering the truth runs well beyond clearing Neeld.

The idea that Neeld was being undermined is not something I'm peddling - I'm convinced of it and based on what you said about Flack, I reckon you know that as well. Your comments about the campaign management succeeding is off the mark as well. I think Neeld was always going to struggle with the legacy he inherited. It turned out he wasn't very good at the job as well but then, knowing what I know now, I think few could have coached that rabble with much success anyway.

Finally, the idea of an investigation isn't mine but I think that it will come to pass whether you or I like it or not and the club will be all the better for it once the truth or if you like, the facts come out.

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

But WJ if there was more to this story do you not think Aaron Davey would have spoken during the season or once he had retired?

I do not think he would have kept quiet about it.

Maybe there were people out to get Neeld...because they could see what was emerging.

But the fact that Neeld and Davey were able to continue through the season together says to me it wasn't a real issue, more a personal vendetta.

For that reason i believe the club moves forward.

If Aaron was badly treated or Neeld for that matter both are now outside the MFC and are free to speak.

I haven't heard anything...have i missed something?

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

Ah good to see the historical revisionists have fired up to sell us opinion as fact.

We are talking about a bloke who targeted a key forward with big money (Dawes) whom I rate but at a time when we had no functioning midfield and then said in his pressers that he was surprised by how bad we were. No midfield and a list good at running around the tan. That was of course after he came in and immediately subjected two of the clubs leaders to a barrage of abuse and effectively lost them. Not saying these particular players were that important but clearly there was mo one to fill the void when they retired/moved clubs.

Much more went on during the recent history of the club than has been made public or that some of you clearly know.

He had a crack but it is what it is... But we did get Clark,Hogan and mow Roos as a consequence and frankly I'm as interested about reading posts on Neeld's time as I am about Balme's time

[robbiefrom13 887]

Baghdad Bob says "even if there is a truth" - and I am inclined to agree.

WJ, I read your posts with respect, but on this one I think you are off the mark. Here's why -

The concept of "racism" is still a work in progress, and cannot yet be applied as an effective criterion of judgment; any attempt to clarify issues of racism must founder on the definition - or at least end up in irrelevance on account of the poor match between current understanding of the concept and attitudes and behaviours that worry us. In 2001 the United Nations were working on their convention against racism, and they organised three regional conferences to thrash out drafts, before combining them into the document they finally published. One of the three conferences was held at Sydney Uni, with representatives from indigenous peoples all around the Pacific rim, and I was able to get myself a ticket to the conference, as a spectator, on the basis of being a teacher of Aboriginal studies. I learned a lot, from the perspective of the victims of racism. For example, "Structural racism" is forcing Aboriginal kids to attend white-culture school - racism because in traditional Aboriginal culture they educated their kids differently, and in white society Aborigines are legally forced to have their children from the age of 5 raised under something entirely different to their own culture. I don't think you can argue that this is not racism: a dominant culture denying a minority people any respect or dignity in their own culture, and systematically squashing out that minority culture. For the minority culture, this is as serious as any names-calling. For these victims, racism is no simple matter; and it will not be easy for any society with a dominant culture and other subordinated minorities to fully avoid 'racism' unless it has a very strong commitment to pluralism and multi-culturalism on all fronts (obviously not the issue for Demonland...). My point is not to suggest that racism itself is unavoidable, but to highlight the almost inevitability of some people considering it racism when an inflexible mono-culture-minded person deals with racial minorities whose natural way of doing things is not in line with the controlling person's approach. We just haven't thought it through yet. Parallels? "Chastity", and "Honour", and "Sterling" were once positives - today they've pretty much evaporated; while "child abuse" has gained in focus and power. I'm not sure how we will end up looking at "racism". We are currently trying to avoid calling any person "fat" - in time we will either be able to explain exactly why it is so wrong, or we'll drop the scruple.

I am one who thinks Neeld-style people will always be disrespectful (and prone to at-least-inadvertent "racism"), and ultimately ineffective because of it, through their intolerance of anything divergent.

But is such an idea even practical, in relation to AFL? I'd love to know - not so as to be able to call someone racist, but rather to better understand how my footy team can become successful... My posts on the subject of Neeld were always at least partly motivated by my desire to get clear in my mind whether the approach that Neeld was taking really was as necessary as many posters assured us it was. I never felt we came to any conclusion on that philosophic question. Well then, what is the point of trying to identify racism where we don't know whether mono-culture is necessary or not? "Racism" clearly is a pejorative term, but what if it actually entails more than is realistic - at least, say, in the example of coaching AFL.. After all, Liam Jurrah chose to put himself in the AFL... Then again, if Neeld's sort of cultural inflexibility really is an agreed bad thing (be it racism or any other form of disrespect), how can it be excused in any circumstance?

I didn't like Neeld's bully-boy style, and I felt very strongly that his "game-plan" was disrespectful of the particular way of playing the game that the indigenous players brought with them. I think Neeld's inflexibility and negativity and supposed abusiveness was everything that would be at the base of racism - and if we were now to exonerate him (all over again) from charges of racism, according to some definition of racism that we decided to use, we would be missing the point. I think Neeld's insistence on compliance made it virtually inevitable that he would be racist so long as he had indigenous players in his team. I thought Jurrah's ultimate reluctance to take the field under Neeld spoke volumes. But at the same time I also had the sneaking suspicion that there might be something self-righteous and hypocritical about sitting here in white-feller luxury and calling people racist... I do think that we are not yet clear on the rights and wrongs of all this, the pendulum is still swinging, and my reactions may be as much about my own personality as they are about any sociological established facts.

At this point in time, in our culture, I think if we try to hammer out facts about the who said and thought what, and line them up for measure against some definition we have of "racism" today, it will not be establishing any absolute truth of "history" at all. Firstly because whatever we come up with will only be in terms of our current dominant-culture definitions, which are almost guaranteed to change (think for example of the changes in our attitudes since the 19th Century's concerning what is acceptable/appropriate treatment of your wife or your children or the mentally ill or those found committing crimes, etc - think of our changed attitudes towards colonisation and slavery, etc etc); and secondly, because any conclusions we make based on inquiry under those terms will fail to define the mass of problems that swarmed all over the club or indeed our indigenous players while Neeld was at the helm.

WJ, yes, probably some people did say things against Neeld that were not best practice. But people are always getting away with some stuff. There are times when little good is served by trying to nail it all. As the values our society holds change, some of our investigations will seem wrong-headed. You must have noticed last week the royal pardon awarded to the heroic English code-breaker from the second world war, hounded under the then law for homosexuality, offered castration or prison, who suicided as a result. Sixty years later the pardon came, but with the grudging insult of the pardon being due to come into force not when it was announced (60 years later - bad enough!), but not until first thing next Tuesday! The bullying goes on. From my perspective, bullying is what must eventually be eradicated - and as we finally come to repugnance in one area of life after another, many of the inquiries held under interim definitions and understanding become embarrassing and as shameful as the original behaviours. Look at how the Catholic church used to deal with their pedophile priests.

So, I suggest that we are not really in the position to sort out this matter yet. We need to grow, our society needs to grow, and any "history" we write now will embarrass us in the future. The Neeld era is at an end, and that is surely a good thing. Those who applauded it will now see the effectiveness of a very different approach, and they may learn from watching that; we all may. Meantime we can look on as other clubs continue with hard-man approaches. In time we may be able to clarify what went wrong at MFC under Neeld, but most of the answer will be in terms of sports psychology not yet clarified, I think. People's mistakes will be better evaluated when we have principles of sports player management agreed and clearly understood. And racism will if anything be a collateral defect, not the driver, I am sure.

[Whispering_Jack 30,077]

Hear what you say and while you make some good points, you lost me with your claim that we're not ready to deal with racism (FFS we've nearly wiped out a whole race of our indigenous people - when will we ever be ready to deal with racists?) and compounded it when you got to the point about the bullying of homosexuals and the conduct of priests.

You can't deal with such issues with an ostrich like attitude. The bullies, the tormentors and the racists must be exposed because without telling the people the truth about such behaviours, we can't educate them to strive to do better.

I think the Catholic Church (and other religions as well) did themselves an enormous disfavour and caused countless damage to young people whose lives were wrecked by the scandalous cover ups of errant behaviour. Moreover, the acceptance and toleration of by those high up in their respective religions made them accomplices and the consequences when the inevitable disclosure came (as a result in many instances of thorough investigations and the coming out of courageous people) were even greater than they otherwise would have been.

Like it or not, ready or not, the truth will come out sooner or later.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Baghdad Bob says "even if there is a truth" - and I am inclined to agree.

WJ, I read your posts with respect, but on this one I think you are off the mark. Here's why -

The concept of "racism" is still a work in progress, and cannot yet be applied as an effective criterion of judgment; any attempt to clarify issues of racism must founder on the definition - or at least end up in irrelevance on account of the poor match between current understanding of the concept and attitudes and behaviours that worry us. In 2001 the United Nations were working on their convention against racism, and they organised three regional conferences to thrash out drafts, before combining them into the document they finally published. One of the three conferences was held at Sydney Uni, with representatives from indigenous peoples all around the Pacific rim, and I was able to get myself a ticket to the conference, as a spectator, on the basis of being a teacher of Aboriginal studies. I learned a lot, from the perspective of the victims of racism. For example, "Structural racism" is forcing Aboriginal kids to attend white-culture school - racism because in traditional Aboriginal culture they educated their kids differently, and in white society Aborigines are legally forced to have their children from the age of 5 raised under something entirely different to their own culture. I don't think you can argue that this is not racism: a dominant culture denying a minority people any respect or dignity in their own culture, and systematically squashing out that minority culture. For the minority culture, this is as serious as any names-calling. For these victims, racism is no simple matter; and it will not be easy for any society with a dominant culture and other subordinated minorities to fully avoid 'racism' unless it has a very strong commitment to pluralism and multi-culturalism on all fronts (obviously not the issue for Demonland...). My point is not to suggest that racism itself is unavoidable, but to highlight the almost inevitability of some people considering it racism when an inflexible mono-culture-minded person deals with racial minorities whose natural way of doing things is not in line with the controlling person's approach. We just haven't thought it through yet. Parallels? "Chastity", and "Honour", and "Sterling" were once positives - today they've pretty much evaporated; while "child abuse" has gained in focus and power. I'm not sure how we will end up looking at "racism". We are currently trying to avoid calling any person "fat" - in time we will either be able to explain exactly why it is so wrong, or we'll drop the scruple.

I am one who thinks Neeld-style people will always be disrespectful (and prone to at-least-inadvertent "racism"), and ultimately ineffective because of it, through their intolerance of anything divergent.

But is such an idea even practical, in relation to AFL? I'd love to know - not so as to be able to call someone racist, but rather to better understand how my footy team can become successful... My posts on the subject of Neeld were always at least partly motivated by my desire to get clear in my mind whether the approach that Neeld was taking really was as necessary as many posters assured us it was. I never felt we came to any conclusion on that philosophic question. Well then, what is the point of trying to identify racism where we don't know whether mono-culture is necessary or not? "Racism" clearly is a pejorative term, but what if it actually entails more than is realistic - at least, say, in the example of coaching AFL.. After all, Liam Jurrah chose to put himself in the AFL... Then again, if Neeld's sort of cultural inflexibility really is an agreed bad thing (be it racism or any other form of disrespect), how can it be excused in any circumstance?

I didn't like Neeld's bully-boy style, and I felt very strongly that his "game-plan" was disrespectful of the particular way of playing the game that the indigenous players brought with them. I think Neeld's inflexibility and negativity and supposed abusiveness was everything that would be at the base of racism - and if we were now to exonerate him (all over again) from charges of racism, according to some definition of racism that we decided to use, we would be missing the point. I think Neeld's insistence on compliance made it virtually inevitable that he would be racist so long as he had indigenous players in his team. I thought Jurrah's ultimate reluctance to take the field under Neeld spoke volumes. But at the same time I also had the sneaking suspicion that there might be something self-righteous and hypocritical about sitting here in white-feller luxury and calling people racist... I do think that we are not yet clear on the rights and wrongs of all this, the pendulum is still swinging, and my reactions may be as much about my own personality as they are about any sociological established facts.

At this point in time, in our culture, I think if we try to hammer out facts about the who said and thought what, and line them up for measure against some definition we have of "racism" today, it will not be establishing any absolute truth of "history" at all. Firstly because whatever we come up with will only be in terms of our current dominant-culture definitions, which are almost guaranteed to change (think for example of the changes in our attitudes since the 19th Century's concerning what is acceptable/appropriate treatment of your wife or your children or the mentally ill or those found committing crimes, etc - think of our changed attitudes towards colonisation and slavery, etc etc); and secondly, because any conclusions we make based on inquiry under those terms will fail to define the mass of problems that swarmed all over the club or indeed our indigenous players while Neeld was at the helm.

WJ, yes, probably some people did say things against Neeld that were not best practice. But people are always getting away with some stuff. There are times when little good is served by trying to nail it all. As the values our society holds change, some of our investigations will seem wrong-headed. You must have noticed last week the royal pardon awarded to the heroic English code-breaker from the second world war, hounded under the then law for homosexuality, offered castration or prison, who suicided as a result. Sixty years later the pardon came, but with the grudging insult of the pardon being due to come into force not when it was announced (60 years later - bad enough!), but not until first thing next Tuesday! The bullying goes on. From my perspective, bullying is what must eventually be eradicated - and as we finally come to repugnance in one area of life after another, many of the inquiries held under interim definitions and understanding become embarrassing and as shameful as the original behaviours. Look at how the Catholic church used to deal with their pedophile priests.

So, I suggest that we are not really in the position to sort out this matter yet. We need to grow, our society needs to grow, and any "history" we write now will embarrass us in the future. The Neeld era is at an end, and that is surely a good thing. Those who applauded it will now see the effectiveness of a very different approach, and they may learn from watching that; we all may. Meantime we can look on as other clubs continue with hard-man approaches. In time we may be able to clarify what went wrong at MFC under Neeld, but most of the answer will be in terms of sports psychology not yet clarified, I think. People's mistakes will be better evaluated when we have principles of sports player management agreed and clearly understood. And racism will if anything be a collateral defect, not the driver, I am sure.

Most here know that I thought Neeld was a bit of a nut-job, but you make broad assumptions of his treatment of indigenous players even down to his game-plan. It was originally stated that he met with the indigenous players in a different format to others on the list, but this was later refuted.

It's an annoying post full of self-indulgent generalisations when it appears you're not in a position to know. Far too much guess work and assumptions.

[Elusive Tunbridge 795]

Exactly, every post and every thread should read like a Brothers Grimm fairytale and then we'll all live happy ever after.

You obviously don't know your Grimm's Fairytales. Happyish endings come at a hellish price.

[Elusive Tunbridge 795]

Most here know that I thought Neeld was a bit of a nut-job, but you make broad assumptions of his treatment of indigenous players even down to his game-plan. It was originally stated that he met with the indigenous players in a different format to others on the list, but this was later refuted.

It's an annoying post full of self-indulgent generalisations when it appears you're not in a position to know. Far too much guess work and assumptions.

You are cursorily dismissive of a lengthy, well-argued and thoughtful post. Unsurprisingly.

[Hannibal 5,814]

You are cursorily dismissive of a lengthy, well-argued and thoughtful post. Unsurprisingly.

Perhaps you can enlighten me how Neeld's game-plan was racist and provide further insight how his interaction with our indigenous players was also racist ?

I expect a well-considered response with tangible arguments.

[Elusive Tunbridge 795]

I believe Neeld's game plan was unsuited to our players and inflexible, and this was obvious to me from the beginning. I'm not convinced that it was racist, but I understand robbiefrom13's argument and I don't dismiss it. I don't know the facts about Neeld's dealings with our indigenous players, and so i am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. So I regret that I can't enlighten you.

I note the bullying tone of your response to robbiefrom13. Your response to me is in the same vein. This is my well-considered response. I don't propose to argue for something that is self-evident.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I believe Neeld's game plan was unsuited to our players and inflexible, and this was obvious to me from the beginning. I'm not convinced that it was racist, but I understand robbiefrom13's argument and I don't dismiss it. I don't know the facts about Neeld's dealings with our indigenous players, and so i am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. So I regret that I can't enlighten you.

Let's get this straight. You compliment Robbie's post and then proceed to state that you don't agree with its main tenet, because you don't know the facts and will therefore give Neeld the benefit of the doubt.

I don't like his post because he's inferring someone is a racist without being privy to the internal machinations of the club. I also thought his comment that Neeld's game-plan was racist to be pathetic.

Interestingly you take umbrage with me, but not with the poster who made such trite remarks.

You also mention ''bullying'' in my response to you and Robbie. It seems one can't call anyone's view into question these days without such banal retorts. More-so, it's a oft used response when one can't clarify their viewpoint. So what do they do ? Use the bullying card.

Pathetic.

Edited December 29, 2013 by The Myth

[DeeSpencer 25,691]

Most here know that I thought Neeld was a bit of a nut-job, but you make broad assumptions of his treatment of indigenous players even down to his game-plan. It was originally stated that he met with the indigenous players in a different format to others on the list, but this was later refuted.

It's an annoying post full of self-indulgent generalisations when it appears you're not in a position to know. Far too much guess work and assumptions.

LIKE

To suggest Indigenous players can't play a certain game plan or shouldn't have to because it will stymie there natural talent (compared to naturally talented players from other races) is actually racist. It's what Adam Goodes and others are upset with when they here than Indigenous players can't play in the AFL as they don't have the endurance.

As for Neeld. Remember meeting with the indigenous players as a group (whether it happened or not) wasn't the problem. That was probably a good idea. But what was reported was meeting with the indigenous players as a group whilst meeting every other player individually and that of course isn't correct.

Either way Aaron Davey played much better in 2013 than 2012 and spoke well of Neeld in 2013. That's enough for me. I'm not getting all upset about an old issue if Aaron Davey is happy to move on and if the majority of the main people involved are gone.

We've got Nev Jetta, Dom Barry and JKH now. They are all training well. They are all high class people as far as I know with no doubts over any character, work rate or off field problems. I'm hoping they all have great seasons.

A lot of all this Neeld and Indigenous talk probably comes from frustration over the Liam Jurrah situation going bad. But I don't put any of that on Neeld or the MFC. We simply took a gamble on a guy from a situation that was going to take a miracle to work out and we didn't quite get the miracle.

[Slartibartfast 17,272]

Hear what you say and while you make some good points, you lost me with your claim that we're not ready to deal with racism (FFS we've nearly wiped out a whole race of our indigenous people - when will we ever be ready to deal with racists?) and compounded it when you got to the point about the bullying of homosexuals and the conduct of priests.

You can't deal with such issues with an ostrich like attitude. The bullies, the tormentors and the racists must be exposed because without telling the people the truth about such behaviours, we can't educate them to strive to do better.

I think the Catholic Church (and other religions as well) did themselves an enormous disfavour and caused countless damage to young people whose lives were wrecked by the scandalous cover ups of errant behaviour. Moreover, the acceptance and toleration of by those high up in their respective religions made them accomplices and the consequences when the inevitable disclosure came (as a result in many instances of thorough investigations and the coming out of courageous people) were even greater than they otherwise would have been.

Like it or not, ready or not, the truth will come out sooner or later.

Jack I've completely misread you here and whilst The Myth and others have taken this discussion beyond my contention I feel the need to clarify my position.

When we began this discussion I thought we were discussing the Misfud/Neeld/Davey/Thomas petty squabble. I thought we were looking at Neeld's performance as coach of the MFC and the obstacles he faced and how he dealt with them. I even imagined we were looking at what role, if any, Ian Flack played in instigating a campaign to undermine Mark from the very start of his tenure and whether this was the "whole campaign" or just part of it.

I didn't realise you thought the Misfud/Neeld/Davey/Thomas affair was part of the institutional failure of some body (I don't know which one) on a scale of the Catholic Church by the "cover ups of errant behaviour". Nor did I realise this affair was part of the social failure which was part of the "wipe out... of our indigenous people".

Given that this is your position I'm surprised you think that we should leave the investigation to "investigative journalists". I thought perhaps a parliamentary enquiry might be called for or even a Royal Commission. But I'll bow to your judgement.

Anyway I'll leave this conversation now as we delve the parallels of the Misfud/Neeld/Davey/Thomas affair and the Catholic Church's institutional failures towards children in its care.

I'm going to move on and put my mind to whether The Toump will be better than Wines, whether Pedersen was a squib and ducked his head and whether party boy Bernie Vince was sacrificed by Adelaide to gain a pick in the early 20's or whether he was pushed out because of behavioural issues.

Happy New Year!

[Elusive Tunbridge 795]

Let's get this straight. You compliment Robbie's post and then proceed to state that you don't agree with its main tenet, because you don't know the facts and will therefore give Neeld the benefit of the doubt.

I don't like his post because he's inferring someone is a racist without being privy to the internal machinations of the club. I also thought his comment that Neeld's game-plan was racist to be pathetic.

Interestingly you take umbrage with me, but not with the poster who made such trite remarks.

You also mention ''bullying'' in my response to you and Robbie. It seems one can't call anyone's view into question these days without such banal retorts. More-so, it's a oft used response when one can't clarify their viewpoint. So what do they do ? Use the bullying card.

Pathetic.

Let's get this straight. You compliment Robbie's post and then proceed to state that you don't agree with its main tenet, because you don't know the facts and will therefore give Neeld the benefit of the doubt.

I don't like his post because he's inferring someone is a racist without being privy to the internal machinations of the club. I also thought his comment that Neeld's game-plan was racist to be pathetic.

You're conflating two points here, possibly because you don't understand the nature of structural racism, although robbie explains it clearly enough. I give him credit for making an interesting argument, although it doesn't convince me. Note that I didn't reject it.

On the issue of his treatment of the indigenous players, robbie has already pointed out the impossibility of establishing the "truth" there, and though he may not be inclined to give Neeld the benefit of the doubt, I am. May no-one comment on club issues without being "privy to the internal machinations of the club"? Give over.

Interestingly you take umbrage with me, but not with the poster who made such trite remarks.

You also mention ''bullying'' in my response to you and Robbie. It seems one can't call anyone's view into question these days without such banal retorts. More-so, it's a oft used response when one can't clarify their viewpoint. So what do they do ? Use the bullying card.

Pathetic.

You cherry-pick robbie's post for points you can characterise as trite, while ignoring (misunderstanding? not even reading?) the bulk of his post.

Who refers to playing the feminist card, the racism card, the bullying card? Misogynists, racists, bullies, that's who.

You don't "call views into question" - you aggressively dismiss them.

When someone ends a post with "pathetic", I'm never sure whether it's a final judgement or a signature.

[Guest]

I'm guessing that Mark Neeld will be one of the last blokes who would want any more investigations into his time at Melbourne conducted. The bloke wants an AFL assistant coaching job again. Unless the inquiry (which I'm led to believe will run by investigative journalists whose main concern is to turn a buck for their papers) comes to the conclusion that Neeld was a visionary and brilliant coach who was unfairly knobbled at Melbourne by spiteful forces out to get him, this can only work against him. Any inquiry, unless it was run by the Soviet Politburo, would try to be as even handed as possible and give both sides a fair shake. While it may come up with some stuff that showed Neeld was undermined to a degree, I would say a lot of the criticisms that were made of Neeld at the time would come out too. For a bloke wanting to get back into the system, retreading that old ground will just be a reminder of how big a disaster his time at Melbourne was.
As for the club, do we really want to reopen those old wounds? The main players are all gone and have said they were satisfied with the original outcome.
Oh and as for Grant Thomas, he really did know more than most of us here. He turned out to be dead on the money regarding Neeld's temperament (though he was incorrect on the indigenous players).

[robbiefrom13 887]

When someone ends a post with "pathetic", I'm never sure whether it's a final judgement or a signature.

like.

My whole post was opposing Whispering Jack's idea that the racism or otherwise of Neeld should be investigated and determined. At the outset I aligned myself with Baghdad Bob's doubt that there can be any truth about this issue. My whole post was intended, so it appears to me, re-reading it, as a case in support of Baghdad Bob's contention. What I hoped to do was to suggest that our use of the term "racism" has not yet been properly thought-out, and that where we may be tempted to use it, we may be uttering nonsense in that current use of the term is quite likely unrealistic - expecting what is impossible, while at the same time ignoring what is really serious. My speculation was that what was concerning in Neeld's attitudes were not targeting race so much as diversity.

I am tempted to say "but what would I know?"

It's never my intention when posting to put up "an annoying post full of self-indulgent generalisations when it appears you're not in a position to know. Far too much guess work and assumptions" - in writing the post I supposed that thoughts about racism derived from a conference of indigenous leaders from a third of the planet, meeting for three days to discuss racism, were sort of relevant and with some basis. Not so, though, eh?

Anyway, thanks, Elusive T. It's nice to feel you have been read - even defended, by somebody who wasn't even persuaded by my argument. Thankyou.

Happy New Year.

[Hannibal 5,814]

You're conflating two points here, possibly because you don't understand the nature of structural racism, although robbie explains it clearly enough. I give him credit for making an interesting argument, although it doesn't convince me. Note that I didn't reject it.

On the issue of his treatment of the indigenous players, robbie has already pointed out the impossibility of establishing the "truth" there, and though he may not be inclined to give Neeld the benefit of the doubt, I am. May no-one comment on club issues without being "privy to the internal machinations of the club"? Give over.

You cherry-pick robbie's post for points you can characterise as trite, while ignoring (misunderstanding? not even reading?) the bulk of his post.

Who refers to playing the feminist card, the racism card, the bullying card? Misogynists, racists, bullies, that's who.

You don't "call views into question" - you aggressively dismiss them.

When someone ends a post with "pathetic", I'm never sure whether it's a final judgement or a signature.

I understood what he was saying, but thought it patent nonsense. Football clubs are about the team, not individuals.

There's no greater example of structural racism than multi-culturism, which promotes and rewards differences. It even finances groups to highlight and encourage their differences. That's structural racism. Bringing up racism with regards to a coach and his game-plan was fetching in the extreme in order to be self-indulgent.

A racist game-plan ? Good God. I've read some stupid posts on here, but that takes the cake.

And you'll note that you engaged me, not the other way around. You engaged me with a derogatory aside, but then rail when I challenge you to offer something that resembled an opinion. And you call that bullying ? You don't know what bullying is.

Edited December 30, 2013 by The Myth

[dpositive 1,665]

I have enjoyed reading the posts but am still uncertain what action should be taken.

I do support strenuously transparency for open and informed decision making, but I also appreciate, (if I interpret it correctly), Robbies view that we may not be prepared for the truth.

This is supported by some of the alternative points that raking over these coals may reignite some different perspectives given the passing of time.

I watched the Nixon Frost movie the other day and it provided a remarkable insight into the frailties of perception revisited. Like many issues (some already mentioned) analysis and reflection is probably better than trying to achieve some tribunal of panel decision. There are so many shades of grey and we will all make an individual decision onthe information available, hence I am back to my informed decision making requirement of transparency and disclosure.

I think I, as mentioned by someone else will concentrate again on the future and potential of the demons and retain only a slight passing interest in any revelations .

[Elusive Tunbridge 795]

And you'll note that you engaged me, not the other way around. You engaged me with a derogatory aside, but then rail when I challenge you to offer something that resembled an opinion. And you call that bullying ? You don't know what bullying is.

Thanks, ben. All the fun in baiting bullies lies in the thunderbolts they hurl from their meagre dunghills. Encore, please.