Neeld's other legacy

[Sir Why You Little 36,983]

Read my post again WYL.

is/was hard done by is what you wrote

No he wasn't.

The members of the club were.

[DemonFrog 1,354]

Oh....and of course Neeld should have had a premonition that Clark would suffer a rare foot injury (after being a the dominant forward to date, one of the best we have had in recent years)....what a moron for not having predicted this.

Gold!

Could not have said it better myself.

Edited December 20, 2013 by DemonFrog

[Guest]

is/was hard done by is what you wrote

No he wasn't.

The members of the club were.

Gawd. It's like you are suffering from Schwab Derangement Syndrome. One mention of his name psyches you into a HULK SMASH!!! style rage.

Before I wrote that sentence that you pointed out, I wrote that it was one version of revisionist history that I despise on this site. Again, I request you read that post in it's entirety.

Just for the record: I don't think he was hard done by and it annoys me when some on here intimate that he was.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Guest

[dazzledavey36 54,285]

Gawd. It's like you are suffering from Schwab Derangement Syndrome. One mention of his name psyches you into a HULK SMASH!!! style rage.

Before I wrote that sentence that you pointed out, I wrote that it was one version of revisionist history that I despise on this site. Again, I request you read that post in it's entirety.

Just for the record: I don't think he was hard done by and it annoys me when some on here intimate that he was.

I seriously reckon anyone does anymore.

[Carrot Top 947]

Geez some people have no sense of proportion. Neeld might have been a crap leader of men, and was promoted Peter Principle style, but his tenure wasn't entirely without positives. The list he left us with wasn't as bad as the ladder position suggests, and for those gushing about how fit we look under Roos should think a bit and wonder if that fitness might not have suddenly appeared in October or maybe... just maybe... it was because Neeld flogged it into them over the previous two pre-seasons.

To me Neeld had a pretty good plan - a plan that it's not very dis-similar to the Roos plan, but he went about it arse about in some ways; didn't have the man management skills or the gravitas to sell the hard work and changes he was playing; his game plan was too much theory and not enough reality (bus, perhaps), and he was trying to do too much too fast at a club that was completely dysfunctional. But he understood that you can tick all the boxes in this game, but without having a hard, fit team you haven't really ticked any boxes at all.

Verdict: a crap coach, but one that tackled some of the harder problems that we had, and who left us with the bare bones of the bigger, tougher team we need.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Carrot Top

[Sir Why You Little 36,983]

Gawd. It's like you are suffering from Schwab Derangement Syndrome. One mention of his name psyches you into a HULK SMASH!!! style rage.

Before I wrote that sentence that you pointed out, I wrote that it was one version of revisionist history that I despise on this site. Again, I request you read that post in it's entirety.

Just for the record: I don't think he was hard done by and it annoys me when some on here intimate that he was.

oh you were being sarcastic. Fair enough. I would have written it a different way....

[Guest]

I seriously reckon anyone does anymore.

Every now and again you get some spruikers on here.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Too often on here, bogus versions of history too often take precedence. The biggest ones that annoy me are:

1) Neale Daniher destroyed the club. (I tend to agree with you that he stayed too long but he was a good, not great, coach)

2) Cameron Schwab is/was hard done by.

3) Tanking really was a great idea and all the journalists who called us out on it are arrogant flogs with barely two brain cells to rub together. (However, I didn't like how Caro pursued us during the investigation as she seemed to take things way too personally and was way too self righteous).

4) The Neeld era really wasn't a rolled gold disaster.

To be fair, pitmaster wasn't suggesting it was a success but as far as I am concerned, the records needs to be kept straight at all times so this bogus history will not take root again. Did Neeld do some good things? Yeah but those good things are like finding the odd curio or antique after a house fire. They help ease the pain but they don't change the fact your house has burnt down

Agree.

Unfortunately some like to pursue their own fantasies.

Read my post again WYL.

Have it as a Christmas wish.....

[Hannibal 5,814]

And Jess Hogan who played Zero games at this time may well become a champion. But he could also not be good enough at AFL level.

I'm staggered that some people have such little clue of talent.

Edited December 20, 2013 by The Myth

[Whispering_Jack 29,801]

If you are referring to me, it's not a case of being negative for negative's sakes.

Too often on here, bogus versions of history too often take precedence. The biggest ones that annoy me are:

1) Neale Daniher destroyed the club. (I tend to agree with you that he stayed too long but he was a good, not great, coach)

2) Cameron Schwab is/was hard done by.

3) Tanking really was a great idea and all the journalists who called us out on it are arrogant flogs with barely two brain cells to rub together. (However, I didn't like how Caro pursued us during the investigation as she seemed to take things way too personally and was way too self righteous).

4) The Neeld era really wasn't a rolled gold disaster.

To be fair, pitmaster wasn't suggesting it was a success but as far as I am concerned, the records needs to be kept straight at all times so this bogus history will not take root again. Did Neeld do some good things? Yeah but those good things are like finding the odd curio or antique after a house fire. They help ease the pain but they don't change the fact your house has burnt down

Am I referring to you?

No. I'm referring to those who don't understand how history works, how people are entitled to form views and put their our own interpretation on events and how wrong it is to suggest that a view about which you disagree should necessarily be described as a "bogus version" or how arrogant it is to suggest that those who hold those views are fantasizing.

You provide four examples of so called "bogus versions", all of which have been the subject of different interpretations on this board but since there is no absolute truth, who is to say whether they are or are not "bogus" (apart from outright lies, illogical thinking and agenda based propaganda that we do get around here from time to time)?

FWIW, here's my interpretation of your four points of so called "bogus history".

1. Daniher - I've never heard it said before that he destroyed the club but I agree he stayed too long. My view is that during the last three years of his tenure the groundwork for the club's later failures was established. I'm not suggesting that Daniher alone was responsible for this but the club's administration of the time was more focussed on keeping afloat and failed to recognise the impending disaster. (I think most supporters, myself included, didn't see it coming either).

2. Schwab wasn't hard done by in the respect that the success of the football club was his responsibility and he had no other option but to resign in the end. He was however, subjected to many allegations over time which were simply untrue and have never been substantiated. When he resigned, the club was facing short term financial issues (due partly to unsatisfactory fixturing and poor team performance) but the balance sheet was far healthier when he left than when he arrived. I think his overall performance compares favourably to his predecessors Ellis, Harris and McNamee but I accept that's not saying much.

3. "Tanking" - most of us supported the form of "list management" that was often publicly endorsed by the AFL CEO and adopted by half of the AFL clubs during the period. If there was to be an investigation on the basis of integrity, I believe the entire issue of tanking/list management should have been investigated meaning every club that was suspected or accused, not just one club. You're right about Wilson and how she bashed the club over what was the word (slanted in my view) of a handful of disgruntled former employees who had axes to grind and who were possibly urged on by those with political motivations against the incumbent board and Schwab. Ultimately, substantial damage was caused to the club in the process.

4. Neeld wasn't a great coach but didn't deserve the vilification and some of the lies to which he was subjected. After starting off well with the Clark recruiting coup and a promising first up NAB Cup win over Collingwood, he suffered a series of disasters which included a vicious personal smear campaign, the loss of some of his better players to injury (and in one instance to criminal charges) and ultimately, he lost the plot and the players, some of who had already been tainted by club politics by the time Neeld arrived and had lost their value as team members.

My assessment is that overall he gets a bum wrap from many and I doubt whether his predecessor would have lasted five minutes with the crap he had to endure. I rate his 1½ years as no worse than RDB's first 1½ years in 1981/2.

As Carrot Top pointed out above, Neeld did some good things at the club which were necessary after years of neglect and incompetence. Unfortunately for him, the measures he took were unpopular with many in the playing group and led to his downfall.

The good news is that I believe Roos understood this when he took on the job and he's astute enough to adopt those aspects of the Neeld style that are important to maintain and rejected those which simply didn't work.

[The Third Eye 259]

Can we please bring back the like button?

[Moonshadow 17,675]

Geez some people have no sense of proportion. Neeld might have been a crap leader of men, and was promoted Peter Principle style, but his tenure wasn't entirely without positives. The list he left us with wasn't as bad as the ladder position suggests, and for those gushing about how fit we look under Roos should think a bit and wonder if that fitness might not have suddenly appeared in October or maybe... just maybe... it was because Neeld flogged it into them over the previous two pre-seasons.

To me Neeld had a pretty good plan - a plan that it's not very dis-similar to the Roos plan, but he went about it arse about in some ways; didn't have the man management skills or the gravitas to sell the hard work and changes he was playing; his game plan was too much theory and not enough reality (bus, perhaps), and he was trying to do too much too fast at a club that was completely dysfunctional. But he understood that you can tick all the boxes in this game, but without having a hard, fit team you haven't really ticked any boxes at all.

Verdict: a crap coach, but one that tackled some of the harder problems that we had, and who left us with the bare bones of the bigger, tougher team we need.

LIKE ^^^^^

[jazza 1,323]

yep, we have our whipping boy for the next 5 years

introduced to the FD.3 preseason training regime,to bring us into the real world

recruited the right big type of big money players,forget the average ones.every club recruits them

put new FD plans into place for the future of the club

but unfortunately couldnt handle the coaching and had no people skills

always after what people term disaster comes the period of enlightenment,the new coach gets the kudos ,the old gets no pats on the back for doing the hard yards.

im ok with some of the things he did

and bear no malice towards him

[dazzledavey36 54,285]

I'm staggered that some people have such little clue of talent.

Bit like yourself

[Elwood 3184 1,298]

I'm staggered that some people have such little clue of talent.

You shouldn't be. There was someone posting around here who thought Dom Barry was going to get plenty of AFL game time in his first season but ended up a fringe player at best in the Casey Seniors who had games in the twos as well.

[Hannibal 5,814]

You shouldn't be. There was someone posting around here who thought Dom Barry was going to get plenty of AFL game time in his first season but ended up a fringe player at best in the Casey Seniors who had games in the twos as well.

There was always a proviso with Barry and if you're referring to me I stated ''if he's not soft''. He is and was.

[Guest]

I will address this point one at a time.

1) 'Am I referring to you?'

I think this was a case of timing. Your post came directly after mine so I assumed you were talking about me in a passive aggressive manner. If this isn't the case, sorry for my misinterpretation of your intentions.

2) 'No. I'm referring to those who don't understand how history works, how people are entitled to form views and put their our own interpretation on events that happened in the past and how wrong it is to suggest that a view about which you disagree should necessarily be described as a "bogus version" or how arrogant it is to suggest that those who hold those views are fantasizing.'

It's fine to have an opinion on certain events on club history. I fully agree with that statement. However, if one's opinion isn't based on logic and the facts on the ground then that opinion fully deserves to be picked apart and scrutinized. I see nothing wrong with calling BS.

3) 'Daniher - I've never heard it said before that he destroyed the club but I agree with you he stayed to long. My view is that during the last three years of his tenure the groundwork for the club's later failures was established. I'm not suggesting that Daniher alone was responsible for this but the club's administration of the time was more focussed at the time on keeping afloat and failed to recognise the impending disaster. (I think most supporters, myself included, didn't see it coming).'

I agree but I view the problems that arose at the end of his tenure as the same as what has happened at many other clubs but those clubs managed their momentary decline ten times better. The Bulldogs, Collingwood, Hawthorn and West Coast over the intervening decade have both gone through troughs but they have managed to rebuild and put a team on the park that has been more than respectable. The end of ND's tenure wasn't the biggest disaster. The attempt at the rebuild was.

4) 'Schwab wasn't hard done by in the respect that the success of the football club was his responsibility and he had no other option but to resign in the end. He was however, subjected to many allegations over time which were simply untrue and have never been substantiated.'

Question: What allegations are these? What are the specific ones (which you can publish without getting the message board into legal trouble)? I've said plenty of things about him but I've only mentioned stuff that has been put on the public record.

'Although the club was facing short term financial issues when he left (due partly to unsatisfactory fixturing and poor team performance), the club's balance sheet was far healthier when he left than when he arrived. I think his overall performance compares favourably to his predecessors Ellis, Harris and McNamee but I accept that's not saying much.'

He was however leaving a looming disaster and not like the one ND supposedly left. If he had stayed on as CEO, he too would have had to tackle the issues facing the club as PJ has but without the goodwill of the AFL (Andrew Demetriou wasn't particularly happy with being made to look like a monkey's uncle after the tanking imbroglio). As was seen by mid year, our attendances were anemic. People were refusing to turn up and if membership and playing stocks weren't to take a further hit Neeld had to go. On top of that, MN bought in an entire cadre of assistant coaches who would need to go if a new coach were to be hired. That is severance pay in the millions.

As was seen at the end of the year, we would have had to have gotten a new sponsor. CS's record in this area was a mixed one. He did get sponsors on board but keeping them on board was another issue altogether. Laurie De La Rue has been scathing about how he was treated as a sponsor (and this coming from a lifetime Melbourne supporter). The club had to send a peace delegation to Kaspersky to smooth over that relationship.

A lot of the clean balance sheet came not from CS's ability to win over corporate Melbourne but from the ability of Jimmy to raise money for the club through Foundation Heroes. As Rhino has said as well (god bless his angry soul) that while this was good for getting us out of the lurch, it was unsustainable as a funding model.

Then there is the football department stuff. Stuey Spencer12 once said on here that the only reason Schwab wasn't given his marching orders was that he had to fill in for Jimmy in the football manager role. It may be true but it seems a bit convenient. Weren't people at Freo saying the same thing about him and his role in the football department there? That he was meddling too much and sticking his nose in where it wasn't wanted? It seems that Freo's upward trajectory started the moment he and Cuddles were shunted off.

5) '"Tanking" - most of us supported the form of "list management" that was often publicly endorsed by the AFL CEO and adopted by half of the AFL clubs during the period. If there was to be an investigation on the basis of integrity, I believe the entire issue of tanking/list management should have been investigated meaning every club that was suspected or accused, not just one club. You're right about Wilson and how she bashed the club over what was the word (slanted in my view) of a handful of disgruntled former employees who had axes to grind and who were possibly urged on by those with political motivations against the incumbent board and Schwab. Ultimately, substantial damage was caused to the club in the process.'

Here's where I am unequivocal. Never again do I want to hear 'other clubs have done it' and 'most of us agreed with it'. It's like those American conservatives/FOX news hosts who talk about the Iraq War and how MI6 and Russian Security also said that Saddam had WMD's so therefore that justified the invasion.

I never agreed on losing games on purpose via tactical manipulation. I was hoping to God, Buddha, Allah or the flying spaghetti monster that the club was doing what they said they were and that was playing kids whilst worrying more about their development and less about the immediate result. If those results came to be positive at that point in time then great but if they didn't, we wouldn't be overly fazed. However, we set out very early in that year to achieve a certain result. There was no way we were as bad as we were. Look at that Freo game at the end of the year or our first half against St. Kilda in round 22. We put a cap on those kids' developments and we have paid the price.

The proof of the pudding is ultimately in the eating. It has divided our club and cast us into a pit that has taken/will take 5 years plus to get out of.

6) 'Neeld wasn't a great coach but didn't deserve the vilification and some of the lies to which he was subjected. After starting off well with the Clark recruiting coup and a promising first up NAB Cup win over Collingwood, he suffered a series of disasters which included a vicious personal smear campaign, the loss of some of his better players to injury (and in one instance to criminal charges) and ultimately, he lost the plot and the players, some of who had already been tainted by club politics by the time Neeld arrived and had lost their value as players.'

Pretty much agree with this and have said so in the past. Neeld was no evil genius and some of the rhetoric concerning him on here was way over the top. However, let's call a spade a spade: I have never been as ashamed of our club as when he was in charge. Not because he is the second coming of the anti-Christ or because he slept with my significant other. It merely was because the club was a shambles. No ifs, buts or maybes. As PJ said, and I believe you have also said this before, that it wasn't all his fault but to pretend none of the blame lie with him is also a delusion. Also to suggest that overall his time wasn't a disaster is spin at best and outright self delusion at worst.

7) 'The good news is that I believe Roos understood this when he took on the job and he's astute enough to adopt those aspects of the Neeld style that are important to maintain and rejected those which simply didn't work.'

Well, on this front, I hope you are right. Neeld did need to get the boys more disciplined but he also needed to tread carefully. He had to remember that he needed to be seen as separate from CS but it seemed to us on the outside he was carrying out CS's mandate to 'discipline' Dean Bailey's soft list.

If Roos has been lauded for anything it has been people skills and hopefully this will carry through.

[Whispering_Jack 29,801]

^ much of what you say above is not inconsistent with what I've said even if we don't agree on a few points although you seem to see everything in terms of a black and white blame game. With some of the examples, you cited the position of one person as against another. I heard de la Rue had an issue with the placing of the Hankook symbol. FFS the company got great exposure during its time.

On "tanking" you're welcome to that view but it serves to me as an example of the manifestly unjust way in which we were treated. FWIW while I supported the list management, I actually made it clear in what I was writing here at the time, that the practice tested every true supporter's faith in the club.

And finally, on Neeld - where did you get the idea that anyone thinks he was blameless for what happened during his tenure?

[Guest]

^ much of what you say above is not inconsistent with what I've said even if we don't agree on a few points although you seem to see everything in terms of a black and white blame game. With some of the examples, you cited the position of one person as against another. I heard de la Rue had an issue with the placing of the Hankook symbol. FFS the company got great exposure during its time.

On "tanking" you're welcome to that view but it serves to me as an example of the manifestly unjust way in which we were treated. FWIW while I supported the list management, I actually made it clear in what I was writing here at the time, that the practice tested every true supporter's faith in the club.

And finally, on Neeld - where did you get the idea that anyone thinks he was blameless for what happened during his tenure?

1) 1st point: I'm just not prepared to say we're all wrong so let's just moved along and be mates. Facts are there are people there more culpable than others and trying to diffuse responsibility amongst many so no one is responsible is a whitewash and I won't wear it (the point of my original post is/was just that, I'm sick of historical whitewashes that blame all the wrong people for our ills).

2nd point: While I won't say what you said is incorrect, I don't think that the positioning of the Hankook logo was De La Rue's main beef (at least according to the official record).

FoxSports

2) Not naming anyone in particular but using a hypothetical proposition to make my point.

[Whispering_Jack 29,801]

Colin.

No problem with being mates. I don't believe we've abused each other in any way as some do around here to those who hold differing opinions to their own.

You've raised a number of questions about Schwab but nothing that suggests he was as bad as has been painted or that he was the sole cause of the situation we were in after the first two or three rounds. While I did say the situation was his responsibility as CEO, the main problem was that we had a fixture that was a commercial minefield if the team performed badly and in fact, the team stank. Not all entirely, CS's fault IMO - rather a combination of matters over the years, a situation not helped by the politics that has plagued the club on and off for decades. I know for a fact that the politics had a substantial role in us losing a major sponsor who CS put a lot of time into prior to his departure.

I'm not going to repeat the various allegations that were made against him but I often asked the question of those who claimed to know the inner workings and was never given a definitive answer. My conclusion is that he wasn't popular with some people - that's a common thread with many CEO's of big organisations.

The biggest furphy that's thrown up is the one about the balance sheet. We know that going to the members for donations doesn't of itself represent a sustainable blueprint for the future strength of the club. It was never intended to be such and this was made clear by all and sundry at the club. It was however, a measure that had to be taken when it was done and I believe it's churlish to deny the credit for the effort made by Jimmy Stynes, Don McLardy, Cameron Schwab or the supporters who made it happen by their generosity. Without it, the club would have been dead in the water by the beginning of the current decade and with it, we were able to secure the support and assistance of the AFL that allowed us to weather the storm we had in 2013.

I don't have an issue with you or anyone else thinking the problems were all of the making of Schwab. My view happens to differ.

What we do agree upon clearly is that we're both sick of historical whitewashes that blame all the wrong people for our ills.

[Slartibartfast 17,190]

^ much of what you say above is not inconsistent with what I've said even if we don't agree on a few points although you seem to see everything in terms of a black and white blame game. With some of the examples, you cited the position of one person as against another. I heard de la Rue had an issue with the placing of the Hankook symbol. FFS the company got great exposure during its time.

On "tanking" you're welcome to that view but it serves to me as an example of the manifestly unjust way in which we were treated. FWIW while I supported the list management, I actually made it clear in what I was writing here at the time, that the practice tested every true supporter's faith in the club.

And finally, on Neeld - where did you get the idea that anyone thinks he was blameless for what happened during his tenure?

1. Jack did you support at the time, or do you support now, the replacing of Schwab and Neeld with Jackson and Roos?

2. If "YES" to either of these questions (then or now), when did you come to these conclusions?

3.Is it right to say that if the answer is "NO" you would like Schwab and Neeld in their previous positions.

4. What was the "agenda" you continue to refer to? Was this agenda consistent with the removal of Schwab, McLardy and Neeld?

5. Who had this agenda?

6. What is the difference between an "agenda" and the "view" that changes had to happen at the club and voicing that view both publicly and privately with those who could influence outcomes?

You'll note I didn't start this thread and have not until now responded other than to seek your view on these questions that seem to me to go, at least in part, to the heart of your position. Personally I think it's time to move on but you continually raise these issues and as I suspect I'm the target of much of what you say I think I've the right to respond.

[Whispering_Jack 29,801]

1. Jack did you support at the time, or do you support now, the replacing of Schwab and Neeld with Jackson and Roos?

2. If "YES" to either of these questions (then or now), when did you come to these conclusions?

3.Is it right to say that if the answer is "NO" you would like Schwab and Neeld in their previous positions.

4. What was the "agenda" you continue to refer to? Was this agenda consistent with the removal of Schwab, McLardy and Neeld?

5. Who had this agenda?

6. What is the difference between an "agenda" and the "view" that changes had to happen at the club and voicing that view both publicly and privately with those who could influence outcomes?

You'll note I didn't start this thread and have not until now responded other than to seek your view on these questions that seem to me to go, at least in part, to the heart of your position. Personally I think it's time to move on but you continually raise these issues and as I suspect I'm the target of much of what you say I think I've the right to respond.

I don't see any point in your questions which don't merit a response other than that which you're getting from me now.

My attitude is on the record. Schwab did the right thing by resigning when he did. I was critical of Neeld's coaching during the first part of the season and he was replaced at the right time.

[Slartibartfast 17,190]

I don't see any point in your questions which don't merit a response other than that which you're getting from me now.

My attitude is on the record. Schwab did the right thing by resigning when he did. I was critical of Neeld's coaching during the first part of the season and he was replaced at the right time.

Thought I'd get this sort of reply, but thanks anyway. I understand why you don't want to go there.

I presume that if you supported the dismissal of Neeld and Schwab those that were calling for it earlier than you just had more vision and understanding of the situation. That seems to be a logical extension of what you're saying.

Have a good Christmas Jack and thanks for providing such a good site for the exchange of differing views on our Club.

[Whispering_Jack 29,801]

Thought I'd get this sort of reply, but thanks anyway. I understand why you don't want to go there.

I presume that if you supported the dismissal of Neeld and Schwab those that were calling for it earlier than you just had more vision and understanding of the situation. That seems to be a logical extension of what you're saying.

Have a good Christmas Jack and thanks for providing such a good site for the exchange of differing views on our Club.

Bob, now I know why you're always so reluctant to respond to my questions.

Your conclusion doesn't follow at all because my support of Neeld's dismissal was for other reasons than what you were calling for and Schwab's resignation was necessary in my view also for much different reasons than those you had for wanting him gone (ie. mainly because of the circumstances in which they and the club found themselves). These are both good examples of what I referred to above when I alluded to different interpretations of history. I'm sure you're aware I've been consistent on that point for a long time.

Thanks for your kind words about the site and for your contributions to it. Have a joyous Christmas and a happy and healthy 2014 and I look forward to debating our future successes rather than our past failures.

[Slartibartfast 17,190]

Your conclusion doesn't follow at all because my support of Neeld's dismissal was for other reasons than what you were calling for and Schwab's resignation was necessary in my view also for much different reasons than those you had for wanting him gone (ie. mainly because of the circumstances in which they and the club found themselves).

I'm not so sure. I think while I did have issues with certain decisions (which surely we all did even if they were different issues) my position for quite some while was that I didn't think either were industry best standard and that as a small club we needed that to succeed. I hold nothing against either personally, just wrong people in the job.

At least we all seem to be happy with what we've got now, I know I am and I'm optimistic about enjoying the footy again for the first time since Geelong.