On 22/12/2013 at 10:47, PaulRB said:

The fact that Roos, an experienced successful coach with little to prove, has taken on the role of coach at Melbourne says several things about Neeld's work...

1. the list turnover and fitness work has laid the foundation for the players to compete at the top level in 2014.

2. the bones of the list were within ONE DRAFT and a preseason of significant improvement

3. Dawes and Clark left only the midfield to complete which is the easiest piece...

Roo's is no fool and would not sully his reputation with taking on a 5 year rebuild of an unfit, ill disciplined and mediocre list.

Neeld did that, to Roos will go the spoils.

Smart man.

that doesn't sit too well with Roos' own comment that the worse it got the more he warmed to the challenge.

Why don't you all give up on Neeld? Thank God he's gone. Thank God we can believe it will be DIFFERENT now.

We need to consider the following...

Imagine for a moment that in some parallel universe that 'list management' was a roaring success and that the hiring of Mark Neeld was just the push we needed to become a serious team and we were pressing for our first premiership after giving it a decent shake in the last few years. Would you think blokes like Cameron Schwab, Mark Neeld and co. would take none of the credit for this state of affairs? Do you think the members of Demonland would just ignore their role in setting up that success? Not at all. You would see the same sycophantic behavior you see directed towards this year's favorite sons, Roos and Jackson. Also as well, they would be well within their rights to claim kudos for said hypothetical success.

I felt really, really sorry for Neeld when he was in charge. Some of the abuse he copped and continues to cop is/was ridiculously over the top. However, him losing his job had to happen. Both for Mark and the club. It was clear he was in over his head and was counting the days until he lost his job. However, the club was going backwards at the rate of knots under his stewardship and as PJ said at his dismissal presser, this was needed by both parties.

That being said, we should not whitewash the fact that both CS, MN and to an extent Dean Bailey left behind a negative impact when they left the club. While we should remain civilized towards each of those men, we should not also say that none of them were blameless for the state of affairs that came to be. I don't like this theory that if you worked for the club and that if you claim your intentions were pure, this absolves you from blame.

I agree with Bob in hindsight it was a poor decision by the club to go with Neeld. I'm not sure what value there is in flogging a dead horse in terms of evaluating his performance given whilst of course there might be some small positives the proof was in the pudding.

One thing though that i would throw into the mix in terms of how the clubs sees his tenure is that in the messages from the President and CEO in Heart beat Neeld is not thanked, indeed he is not even mentioned. The closest either come to even acknowledging him is PJ thanking the coaches fro a difficult year. A number of people are specifically thanked, including Craig who both Bartlett and PJ single out for special thanks.

Perhaps it not the done thing to acknowledge or thank a staff member who has been sacked, i don't know. Perhaps it doesn't indicate or mean anything but it seemed strange to me that that they didn't thank or at the least acknowledge him, given that whatever you think of his performance he gave it his best shot. It felt a bit like they were airbrushing him out of history which if the case is not cool.

  On 22/12/2013 at 23:00, Baghdad Bob said:

Presenting a case and using examples is always difficult because instead of debating the core issue you get sidetracked with the examples. Flack is a perfect example. Suffice to say MFC ignored the old adage of "keeping your friends close and your enemies closer". If Flack had been treated with more care and respect and seen his friends treated better he may never have said a word. He was poorly managed and is an example of why a fish rots from the top.

And whilst you say Neeld inherited an ageing set of senior players (and I agree) that begs the question of his treatment of them and the resulting impact on their performance. We all have a view.

All that is of course down to opinions.

I feel for Mark Neeld. I've never met him nor do I know him as a person but he seems to have been promoted well above his capabilities and into a difficult situation at best. I reckon Malthouse sold us up the river. He knew that Neeld, who he clearly liked, had tried and failed to get a number of senior coaching positions and when asked gave him a glowing endorsement in an effort to help him. Not his fault, not Neelds fault, but our fault. MN was a mistake but sadly he was a mistake easily avoided and that would have been to everyone's benefit including Mark's.

In the end you have to look at his tenure and say "on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is very poor and 10 is very good where do you score his performance as a coach of the MFC".

I score him a 1. Where do you score him?

Bob, regrettably over the years I've followed the club we've had some real shockers and Bailey and Neeld are up there with the worst of them. Denis Jones was an absolute stinker in 1978 and Ron Barassi, one of the doyens of modern day coaching had an abysmal year in 1981 - the worst I think I've experienced and that includes this year. Incidentally, I think Neil Craig's half season was as miserable as Neeld's first half which I suppose says something about the playing group and their mindset which I put down as the responsibility of the three coaches we've had in the past three years. I don't get any joy from spending too much time on them but circumstances ...

I'm still intrigued about Flack and why he was sacked. Based on what you're saying, it was him who was responsible. FWIW, I think no matter what the reason for his dismissal, if he lagged on the club and his former fellow employees it was a low act for which there is no excuse. It deserves the strongest condemnation, not excuses or apologies.

^^^^ I think there was a lot of bad blood flying around Bin. Neeld would have known he was a dead man the moment PJ walked in.

On that level i feel sympathy for Mark. But he had walked the path that he chose.

I knew in my own head at half time Round 1 2012 against Brisbane that this excercise was going to fail.

Here is another legacy from Mr. Neeld.

$1.8 million in staff pay outs report today in the HUN for a total loss of $3.1 million!

  On 24/12/2013 at 03:47, old dee said:

Here is another legacy from Mr. Neeld.

$1.8 million in staff pay outs report today in the HUN for a total loss of $3.1 million!

Money well spent.

Merry Christmas!

  On 24/12/2013 at 08:42, rpfc said:

Money well spent.

Merry Christmas!

Collateral Damage one could say in the main!!

Grant Thomas was right, when he said that needs might be the first coach to lose the players before his first game. I remember a week or two before round one Simon black said that they had already worked out neeld's game plan. Now i can give neeld a little break in his first season learning a new game plan, inherited bad list etc, but coming into second season he told the board that now that he has stamped his game plan and new players he had brought in, that now he would show that he can coach, instead the team went even further back which now became of his own doing. So neeld's down fall was his game plan which Brisbane had worked out before neeld's first game, so neeld stack with his game plan that was broken, the what is insanity? Doing the samething over and over again expecting a different result.

  On 24/12/2013 at 23:48, angrydemons said:

Grant Thomas was right, when he said that needs might be the first coach to lose the players before his first game. I remember a week or two before round one Simon black said that they had already worked out neeld's game plan. Now i can give neeld a little break in his first season learning a new game plan, inherited bad list etc, but coming into second season he told the board that now that he has stamped his game plan and new players he had brought in, that now he would show that he can coach, instead the team went even further back which now became of his own doing. So neeld's down fall was his game plan which Brisbane had worked out before neeld's first game, so neeld stack with his game plan that was broken, the what is insanity? Doing the samething over and over again expecting a different result.

Is there a link to either of those statements from Thomas or Black?

  On 24/12/2013 at 03:47, old dee said:

Here is another legacy from Mr. Neeld.

$1.8 million in staff pay outs report today in the HUN for a total loss of $3.1 million!

That is hardly Neeld's legacy... that is the legacy of the committee that selected Neeld.

  On 25/12/2013 at 07:32, hardtack said:

That is hardly Neeld's legacy... that is the legacy of the committee that selected Neeld.

These days it's a fact of life when you sack a coach you also get rid of his support staff which means a massive payout as St. Kilda also found out recently. Since the decision was made by PJ you could also say it was PJ's legacy but the good news is that the club negotiated a package with the AFL so it's hardly a legacy on anybody's part.

Footy politics is fun so let's thank Neeld & co for the fun we've just had!!!

Is there any other industry that is so over paid for what it does at all levels from CEO to assistant coach? An industry that is so competitive and churns through staff on an annual basis or poaches seemingly good staff for even better pay but then finds out they are incompetent but has to pay them out anyway. Does anyone work for less than $200K these days?

We fans and members are the mugs in so many ways. We cough up our hard earned cash for it to be largely churned though the redundancy pay out machine to see out second rate officials and coaching staff who have never met the fan's KPI s.

Who knows In MFC's case CS probably met his targets year after year but they were never our targets! On field success is that important or secondary these days?

So where is Neeld at these says. I must admit i feel for him a bit. Was very confident in getting another assistant coaching gig but looks like he wilk have to look at a VFA gig...

  On 26/12/2013 at 13:11, dazzledavey36 said:

So where is Neeld at these says. I must admit i feel for him a bit. Was very confident in getting another assistant coaching gig but looks like he wilk have to look at a VFA gig...

As I said in previous threads, it would be hard for him to emerge from his time at the MFC unscathed. Bails could get a job as he was viewed as a good soldier whose winning percentage was sullied by list management and whose end came about due to club politics. Neeldy is viewed as a bloke who was all tip and no iceberg and someone who talked big but lost the plot in the end (if he even had found the plot to start off with).

  On 25/12/2013 at 06:09, Whispering_Jack said:

Is there a link to either of those statements from Thomas or Black?

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/29752-grant-thomas-on-mark-neeld/

The positives of Neelds legacy is the bar for Roos is set so stupidly low we will be patient as long as their is improvement.

The other positive is no bad/mediocre apples. Sylvia, Moloney, Rivers, Davey all gone. No big calls for Roos to make he just plays the best 22 as he sees fit.

  On 28/12/2013 at 04:47, Bonkers said:

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/29752-grant-thomas-on-mark-neeld/

Nice get and interesting that the comment was paired with the discredited allegation about Neeld and the club's indigenous players. I always thought there was something contrived behind this story and there's prizes for guessing who was behind all this.

That whole sorry saga needs to be independently and properly investigated.

Now the posters who attacked Thomas look a bit gunho, the only thing he got wrong was the meeting of the brothers, but everything else was spot on.

Thanks for the heads up Bonkers. It's interesting that the reference to Neeld and the indigenous players has since been redacted and that Thomas gave his views after the flogging in round 1. As it happens, he had a fair bit of perception about him and he spared no time for the leadership group.

Blistering's point is interesting as well. Given what we know now, Neeld was the subject of a campaign to undermine him from the very start of his tenure. Reports at the time suggested that Melbourne suspected it was Flack and, as Baghdad Bob said it was Neeld who was responsible for sacking Flack. As I've already stated, now that so many of the personnel have left the club, it's time for this episode which Robbo of the Herald Sun describes as a "cover up", to be investigated.

Investigated for what purpose wj, i know u think neeld was the one and everyone else is to blame, the guy was a dud, let sleeping dogs lie, time to let tread dead.

A man gets accused of racism. There's an apparent cover up and people aren't interested in uncovering the truth?

I'm a student of history and I'm interested in finding out what really happened and why so many have been eager not to.

Who cares really, Matt randell did nothing wrong, he just was saying how all recruiters are thinking,, why do u think no one from NT was picked up in last ND?. But almost everyone is racist i am we all are at some level.

  On 29/12/2013 at 02:33, angrydemons said:

Who cares really, Matt randell did nothing wrong, he just was saying how all recruiters are thinking,, why do u think no one from NT was picked up in last ND?. But almost everyone is racist i am we all are at some level.

You obviously don't care.

I think WJ was referring to Mark Neeld being accused of racism and the fact that the accusation was a lie.

Why was the reference removed from Grant Thomas' article?

  On 28/12/2013 at 22:47, Whispering_Jack said:

now that so many of the personnel have left the club, it's time for this episode which Robbo of the Herald Sun describes as a "cover up", to be investigated.

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.