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.

I like this but add that Neeld was undermined in his efforts as a coach by a number of circumstances beyond his control. The Jurrah incident, the poor attitude of some of the senior players to preseason, Jimmy's death and criticism about the team attending his funeral so close to the start of the season, critical injuries such as losing Mitch Clark (twice) for a season, the racism lie, being the butt of some unwarranted media attention, the background controversies about bad sponsors and the tanking enquiry and lots more. I doubt whether Ken Hinkley or any of the other young coaches would survive that sort of onslaught.

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.

If that's the case we're stuffed because my cousin who's a Bomber fan reckons Peter Jackson is the pits. Jackson was responsible for getting rid of Sheedy and replacing him with Knights. Ask any Bomber fan if they think he was industry best or even near it for most of the journey at Bomberland.

If that's the case we're stuffed because my cousin who's a Bomber fan reckons Peter Jackson is the pits. Jackson was responsible for getting rid of Sheedy and replacing him with Knights. Ask any Bomber fan if they think he was industry best or even near it for most of the journey at Bomberland.

Thank god. If the last year's anything to go by, Essendon wouldn't see a good thing if it hit them in the face. Unless you're the Golden boy don't ever expect appreciation down there.

thanks for this thread it does disclose the extremes of issues and did provide some informative discussion.

While there is obviously a gulf between peoples perceptions as in all evaluations the solution is usually somewhere in the centre.

It was enjoyable to see the comments put with little personal bashing and more argument directed at the detail, but even better was the acknowledgement that opinions while divergent were accepted as just that and goodwill was expressed apparently genuinely

Hope this spirit continues on Dland with the added bonus of discussing how we treat success.

If that's the case we're stuffed because my cousin who's a Bomber fan reckons Peter Jackson is the pits. Jackson was responsible for getting rid of Sheedy and replacing him with Knights. Ask any Bomber fan if they think he was industry best or even near it for most of the journey at Bomberland.

Not wanting to sidetrack from the thread topic, but many Essendon fans believe Sheedy stayed one contract too many and that PJ did a good thing by getting rid of him. IMHO Knights was always pushing the proverbial up a hill simply because he was an outsider that rocked the boat a fair bit. Essendon has loved insiders for the better part of 30 yrs.

Not wanting to sidetrack from the thread topic, but many Essendon fans believe Sheedy stayed one contract too many and that PJ did a good thing by getting rid of him. IMHO Knights was always pushing the proverbial up a hill simply because he was an outsider that rocked the boat a fair bit. Essendon has loved insiders for the better part of 30 yrs.

Not sidetracking mate.

PJ was the CEO who gave Sheedy his last contract and presided over Essendon's slow decline as a power so there are question marks about him on a number of scores from Bomber fans.

thanks for this thread it does disclose the extremes of issues and did provide some informative discussion.

While there is obviously a gulf between peoples perceptions as in all evaluations the solution is usually somewhere in the centre.

It was enjoyable to see the comments put with little personal bashing and more argument directed at the detail, but even better was the acknowledgement that opinions while divergent were accepted as just that and goodwill was expressed apparently genuinely

Hope this spirit continues on Dland with the added bonus of discussing how we treat success.

That is a lovely sentiment dpos.I will try to remember that the next time I am disemboweling somebody for expressing an opinion I disagree with.

Peace and Goodwill to (nearly) all men.

Not sidetracking mate.

PJ was the CEO who gave Sheedy his last contract and presided over Essendon's slow decline as a power so there are question marks about him on a number of scores from Bomber fans.

So how do you think he's gone so far?

Good relationship with AFL.

Attracted Roos.

We have a new major sponsor.

We seem to have some respect in the footy world although I know this is hard to measure.

We have record membership for this time of year.

We have a silent Board.

I (we) have more genuine hope for success than I've had for a decade.

We are tracking for break even financially after a disastrous year and with no budgeted input for the foundation heroes.

Negotiated a survival funding package from AFL.

I'm struggling for negatives but you may be able to find some. I don't know his detailed history at Essendon but in his time they won premierships and became a financial powerhouse. I'd settle for that.

^^^ Bingo!

So how do you think he's gone so far?

Good relationship with AFL.

Attracted Roos.

We have a new major sponsor.

We seem to have some respect in the footy world although I know this is hard to measure.

We have record membership for this time of year.

We have a silent Board.

I (we) have more genuine hope for success than I've had for a decade.

We are tracking for break even financially after a disastrous year and with no budgeted input for the foundation heroes.

Negotiated a survival funding package from AFL.

I'm struggling for negatives but you may be able to find some. I don't know his detailed history at Essendon but in his time they won premierships and became a financial powerhouse. I'd settle for that.

He's doing fine & I'm happy too but that's not the point. I was simply saying that in the end, many Essendon supporters don't believe their club was being run to industry best standards in his final seasons. He appointed a coach who eventually didn't come up to scratch and wasn't up to those standards either. Bailey and Neeld were both in the same boat when they were appointed. You need time to find out how good a coach can be and we found out eventually. I hope it doesn't happen but what do you do if we can't win games under Roos? TAB Sportsbet has us on the last line of betting with the Giants. What if they're right?

TAB Sportsbet has us on the last line of betting with the Giants. What if they're right?

That's not because of Roos. It's because they don't rate our list.

He's doing fine & I'm happy too but that's not the point. I was simply saying that in the end, many Essendon supporters don't believe their club was being run to industry best standards in his final seasons. He appointed a coach who eventually didn't come up to scratch and wasn't up to those standards either. Bailey and Neeld were both in the same boat when they were appointed. You need time to find out how good a coach can be and we found out eventually. I hope it doesn't happen but what do you do if we can't win games under Roos? TAB Sportsbet has us on the last line of betting with the Giants. What if they're right?

When we appointed Neeld I was critical because I thought we needed a proven AFL coach because if we got an untried coach and failed (which of course we did) we wouldn't know if it was the coach or players. We now have Roos and I think I'm happy to conclude that if we fail it won't be the coach.

Choosing the coach is clearly a critical decision of a club and the CEO is ultimately responsible but his other primary tasks are to ensure financial stability and a sustainable business model. Jackson did that at Essendon and in reality it could be argued that Knights laid the foundation for what is now a pretty good team.

Edited December 21, 201311 yr by Baghdad Bob

That's not because of Roos. It's because they don't rate our list.

They don't rate our list but they mustn't rate Roos' chances of improving us either.

What does that mean in terms of the topic of this thread?

A playing list is put together and developed over a period of years. Neeld only coached for two years so what were we expecting from him when he got the job. He took on a club with disgruntled players after 186, he had a third world midfield, his best forward ran amok with a machete and the only decent recruit in his first year busted his foot.

What if that happens to Roos?

They don't rate our list but they mustn't rate Roos' chances of improving us either.

So ?

They're only going to go off past history, which is understandable. They may think we'll improve, but not enough to move too far up the ladder.

Where did they have Port this time last year ?

Btw, the odds are determined by the punters to a large degree and I can't blame punters for placing us where they do.

It all has little to do with Roos.

They don't rate our list but they mustn't rate Roos' chances of improving us either.

What does that mean in terms of the topic of this thread?

A playing list is put together and developed over a period of years. Neeld only coached for two years so what were we expecting from him when he got the job. He took on a club with disgruntled players after 186, he had a third world midfield, his best forward ran amok with a machete and the only decent recruit in his first year busted his foot.

What if that happens to Roos?

Is this a new strain of MFCSS we are seeing here...MFCSS Extremis?

The reason we are on the last line of betting is because of where we are coming from. Roos has not coached a single game yet and the team as it now is, has not played a single game yet. Why on earth would anyone rate us until they have seen us play? Roos is a very good coach, but I doubt he is a miracle worker and I very much doubt we will get any higher than 10th to 12th in 2014...betting agencies by nature will be fairly conservative in their approach, so not rating a team simply because it is coached by Roos, is not really surprising.

I think that by round three after which we will have had three games preseason against strong opposition and a couple of "real" games against teams we are rated closer to, you might find our odds will start to shorten.

When we appointed Neeld I was critical because I thought we needed a proven AFL coach because if we got an untried coach and failed (which of course we did) we wouldn't know if it was the coach or players. We now have Roos and I think I'm happy to conclude that if we fail it won't be the coach.

Choosing the coach is clearly a critical decision of a club and the CEO is ultimately responsible but his other primary tasks are to ensure financial stability and a sustainable business model. Jackson did that at Essendon and in reality it could be argued that Knights laid the foundation for what is now a pretty good team.

I agree with you that an experienced coach would have been an ideal replacement for Bailey, particularly in view of the "bruise-free" allegations, the 186 episode and it's implications but IIRC, uncontracted experienced coaches were pretty thin on the ground. My recollection is that we did make unsuccessful approaches to the managements of Clarkson and Ross Lyon while Collingwood refused to release Malthouse from his contract with them.

Perhaps could have gone with Garry Ayres, the last experienced coach left standing but a number of other clubs could have taken him as well and they chose not to do so which suggests he wasn't really considered a viable option at the time.

That left us with the untried coaches and given Neeld's role in planning the Collingwood heavy press strategy that won it the flag in 2010, I thought he came across as a highly likely candidate.

In the end I think most of us overestimated the quality of the list and none of us could predicted the combination of what was aptly described as "calamities" that the coach and the club faced in his time at the helm. It's easy to say with hindsight that he wasn't up to best standards as a coach but the reality is, as many have pointed out, the list he coached was close to rock bottom standard as well. He might easily have gone on to a successful career elsewhere as Clarkson did at Hawthorn when things fell nicely into place after a similarly rocky start to his career.

I also think that together with Dave Misson, he has laid the foundation for lifting the team's physical fitness standards, a project both always said would take three pre seasons.

Finally, I'm confident that Roos will prove the bookies wrong because he has assembled a much better list, it will be fitter and with some of those better players on the park more regularly, we will surprise.

And yes, Roos is a bloody good coach.

They don't rate our list but they mustn't rate Roos' chances of improving us either.

What does that mean in terms of the topic of this thread?

A playing list is put together and developed over a period of years. Neeld only coached for two years so what were we expecting from him when he got the job. He took on a club with disgruntled players after 186, he had a third world midfield, his best forward ran amok with a machete and the only decent recruit in his first year busted his foot.

What if that happens to Roos?

MFCSS. No one knows if this will happen to Roos. PJ and Roos have shown nothing but positive influences on the club so far. I am going to enjoy the small progress made so far in the last couple of months. Then, mid season, we will have a clearer picture.

Roos definitely has the runs on the board, and despite what you commented upon earlier Elwood, most of the AFL community thinks very highly of PJ and his history.

Oh, and on the subject of bookies odds, could someone please remind me of Australia's odds of winning the Ashes when the series began exactly one month ago today?

(Yes - I do realise the Ashes is a 2 horse race)

Neeld did plenty for the club. Our training and fitness standards improved markedly and his efforts to get in hard-bodied players and let go others was a step in the right direction.

The guy was essentially sold down the river, inheriting a list with no leadership.

I get that he didn't get the best out of the players and that is incredibly frustrating but there are a few areas he deserves credit for and Roos will benefit from those areas.

We haven't seen what our new coach can deliver yet, but he has a much easier job than his predecessor and I give at least a small amount of credit to Neeld for that.

They don't rate our list but they mustn't rate Roos' chances of improving us either.

What does that mean in terms of the topic of this thread?

A playing list is put together and developed over a period of years. Neeld only coached for two years so what were we expecting from him when he got the job. He took on a club with disgruntled players after 186, he had a third world midfield, his best forward ran amok with a machete and the only decent recruit in his first year busted his foot.

What if that happens to Roos?

3184 you are almost saying on this thread that you want Roos to fail...almost.

Jump on board mate. What this club does need is positive energy from members and supporters.

The club has got to believe it can play in september before it will start to rise.

Neeld was in survival mode, maybe he had no choice. But it didn't work.

Do not underestimate PJ as a CEO. His appointment of Knights had much merit just ask anyone down at the Cattery

Essendon didn't want him. They chose the blonde psychopath instead.

Look at the result.

Hey Elwood, I am supposed to be a one eyed supporter of the Cub no matter what, I heard the same opinion of Jackson from at least 5 or 6 died in the wool Bombers fans, but haven't mentioned it, I always prefer to wait and see...............and Dazzle, sorry I tend to skip your posts, reread one of the early ones, can't I have an opinion on Hogan, you seem to have

Edited December 22, 201311 yr by Satyriconhome

Didn't Knights take the bombers to the finals in his 2nd season? They love him at the Geelong VFL team. Took them to a VFL flag in 2012. Tough to make it work at Bomberland when you are an outsider.

Any truth to the rumour that Essendon are moving their offices down Mt Alexander Rd into the Scientology HQ?

3184 you are almost saying on this thread that you want Roos to fail...almost.

Jump on board mate. What this club does need is positive energy from members and supporters.

The club has got to believe it can play in september before it will start to rise.

Neeld was in survival mode, maybe he had no choice. But it didn't work.

Do not underestimate PJ as a CEO. His appointment of Knights had much merit just ask anyone down at the Cattery

Essendon didn't want him. They chose the blonde psychopath instead.

Look at the result.

WYL, I'm guessing that you didn't quite make it to the top of the class in comprehension or clear thinking but I'm not even close to wishing Roos anything but well.

I am asking the question what if Roos does no better than coach the team to where the bookies think it will finish? Will he cop 99.9% of the blame like Neeld or will people acknowledge that it was a tough gig for a young coach to take on. Some of the baying and accusations made against him were pretty shameful and reminded me of Richmond in the way that club and its supporters treated their coaches before the current admin came into power. My record on here since day one has been to support the club and I would never wish any coach badly for any reason whatsoever.

Elwood - Roos will escape blame and as he should - we know he can coach.

The players have always been able to hide behind something at this club. Coaches, admin, turmoil - now they have nothing to hide behind.

I still see a large amount of players to be moved on next year and a bit of pain still to come, but don't think that 2014 defines Roos.

Roos defines what comes after.

WYL, I'm guessing that you didn't quite make it to the top of the class in comprehension or clear thinking but I'm not even close to wishing Roos anything but well.

I am asking the question what if Roos does no better than coach the team to where the bookies think it will finish? Will he cop 99.9% of the blame like Neeld or will people acknowledge that it was a tough gig for a young coach to take on. Some of the baying and accusations made against him were pretty shameful and reminded me of Richmond in the way that club and its supporters treated their coaches before the current admin came into power. My record on here since day one has been to support the club and I would never wish any coach badly for any reason whatsoever.

Roos will be judged on his achievements as he should be.

It is a tough gig.

Neeld couldn't handle the pressure. That was plainly evedent from his press conferences.

Roos and Neeld should not be judged in the same way.

One has serious credentials. The other never got out of neutral.

My comprehension skills are fine. You need to be more specific.