Yes i know this is well known know but i think this interview was on the SEN Podcast.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/05/15/neeld-and-i-never-got-along-reveals-former-dee/

 

Neeld might have been a crap coach or communicator, but he's entitled to implement a new gameplan for a group of players that had been cellar dwellars for 5 years.

If Moloney thought that the team was on the right track under Bailey, why did he "dog" the game against Geelong that ultimately led to Bailey's demise. Sounds like the inmates were trying to run the asylum.

I thought the article would be worse, but he was rather diplomatic about it all.

When a new coach comes in you need to get behind what they're doing - clearly Beamer couldn't do that and they were never going to get along after that.  Beamer was past his best IMO and we didn't exactly lose much when he was delisted.

"Karma is a *****"

certainly knew the power of instagram..

Oh yer i forgot all about that little jab. It seems so long ago thanks goody.

Neither Neeld nor Moloney came out of 2012 looking good.

Beamer was always a favourite of mine and certainly would have been handy for the re build 

7 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Neither Neeld nor Moloney came out of 2012 looking good.

Neeld felt the need to destroy the leadership  group in order to stop his feelings of inadequacy .

Beta males have to do this when they are put in charge of something .

Alpha males build the confidence of those around them ,even if they don't happen to like them personally.

I opened this with face poised to grimace the whole way, but it was pretty tame.  Just an honest account of what happened without silly embellishments or too much self-victimisation (though there is a little bit).  No particular revelations there.

6 minutes ago, Abe said:

Beamer was always a favourite of mine and certainly would have been handy for the re build 

He was good in his first few years at the club, but by the time 2012 rolled around he was a slow, one dimensional midfielder whose only asset was a booming kick.  He couldn't play anywhere else and he was always horrible in terms of his defensive work and his spread across the ground.  He wouldn't have moved the needle much on, or off, the field in terms of our rebuild.

The only thing this article solidified for me, is that Neeld had no people skills. Can't coach if people won't follow you!

Peter Jackson was on Triple M last week for a pre-game interview (wasnt our game though...) Paul Roos was a part of the regular panel.

They were discussing the point in time where Roos decided that he would take the coaching position. 

Roos had met with the players and a senior player said to him. 'I just want to be treated like a human being'

Neeld was a [censored] stain on this club.

5 minutes ago, Jaded said:

The only thing this article solidified for me, is that Neeld had no people skills. Can't coach if people won't follow you!

It was no doubt a weakness, but then some people are destined to just be great assistant coaches - Neeld must have had some people skills as he was highly regarded by the players at Collingwood, but he just wasn't cut out for the main gig.  Brendan McCartney is a classic case of this as well.

Hindsight tells me that we were in disarray back then ... with no one particular person to blame.  We had issues at board level, with our administration,  the FD & coaching and our playing list was well below par.

What we've seen from early 2013 is a process of a rebuilding of a club from the ground up ... and we've still got a lot of work to do.  The best performed sporting teams (worldwide) never rest up.
 

 

 

Edited May 15, 20178 yr by Macca

Beamer & Col Sylvia would take our new recruits out for dinner and let the know what was required. 

 

That is laughable.

Moloney was the poster boy of the Bailey era. Super talented, but inconsistent and a downhill skier. We all thought these guys needed some 'tough love' in 2011 but Neeld completely butchered that theory. Copying a game plan from two years prior has proven time and time again to be ineffective, removing senior players from leadership group straight off the bat, publicly pouring acid over young players (Jack Watts, late 2011), no people skills at all by the sounds of it. Moloney was right about him setting the club back years.

At the time I liked Beamer, but in hindsight, he was not good for the young list going forward, nor was Neeld (clearly).

What the article fails to mention is that Beamers was stripped of his leadership roles for urinating at a bar.

There use to be a very unproffessional party-like vibe at the club. One only needs to watch an episode of "Beamer's Bumps and Bruises" to gain some insight regarding the once "boys club" as they seem more preoccupied with going out on the weekend while doing "chap-laps". Max Gawn's early years are a fine example (smoking while walking to training, vomiting over Scully while drunk in China). Neeld was trying to stamp these behaviors out as he attempted to implement an "elite" culture. However, he failed as he couldn't communicate, innovate, and unite the team. Quite frankly he was a pr**k, and thus respect was non-existent between him and the players.

Fortunately for us, PJ and Roosey stepped in and rebuilt this once fractured club.

9 minutes ago, Matt Demon said:

Beamer & Col Sylvia would take our new recruits out for dinner and let the know what was required. 

 

That is laughable.

Burst out laughing when i heard that.

Colin Sylvia.. LOL

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

Neeld might have been a crap coach or communicator, but he's entitled to implement a new gameplan for a group of players that had been cellar dwellars for 5 years.

If Moloney thought that the team was on the right track under Bailey, why did he "dog" the game against Geelong that ultimately led to Bailey's demise. Sounds like the inmates were trying to run the asylum.

Beamer was sick that day and should never have played. Apparantly was lying on a massage table hardly able to breath after half time. He didnt pull out because of how it might have looked I think...but he should have. Gawd am I glad those days are over.  

Everything we did back then reeked in some way or other. Neeld was the final nail in the coffin...almost destroyed the club.

Never rated Moloney, but some Melbourne fans loved him. Perhaps, it was because he 'looked' like a footballer, but played dumb footy. Incredibly overrated.

He had one move. Get ball kick high and long (with no sense or direction). 

He also let his ego get the better of him and instead doing what was best for the club, he sooked it up.

30 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Beamer was sick that day and should never have played. Apparantly was lying on a massage table hardly able to breath after half time. He didnt pull out because of how it might have looked I think...but he should have. Gawd am I glad those days are over.  

Everything we did back then reeked in some way or other. Neeld was the final nail in the coffin...almost destroyed the club.

Mate he was well enough to be out at hotel in Prahran that night.. Beamer was no leader of men, no matter how chit Neeld was. 

35 minutes ago, ignition. said:

At the time I liked Beamer, but in hindsight, he was not good for the young list going forward, nor was Neeld (clearly).

What the article fails to mention is that Beamers was stripped of his leadership roles for urinating at a bar.

There use to be a very unproffessional party-like vibe at the club. One only needs to watch an episode of "Beamer's Bumps and Bruises" to gain some insight regarding the once "boys club" as they seem more preoccupied with going out on the weekend while doing "chap-laps". Max Gawn's early years are a fine example (smoking while walking to training, vomiting over Scully while drunk in China). Neeld was trying to stamp these behaviors out as he attempted to implement an "elite" culture. However, he failed as he couldn't communicate, innovate, and unite the team. Quite frankly he was a pr**k, and thus respect was non-existent between him and the players.

Fortunately for us, PJ and Roosey stepped in and rebuilt this once fractured club.

He may not have had so-called 'people skills' but he certainly had a good idea about what was kosher and what was not. It sounds to me that the Demons were not a very kosher outfit when he took over. Most coaches would have failed in that environment.

As for Maloney, he was a one dimensional one long high bomb fits all player who had some basic larrikin habits.  As did Mr Sylvia. The Melbourne Football Club in the end did not need either of them.

In other words, good riddance. 

That may sound harsh, but the fact we treasured these one dimensional and shall we call them 'deviant' players suggests that there was something very rotten in the state of Denmark.

5 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Mate he was well enough to be out at hotel in Prahran that night.. Beamer was no leader of men, no matter how chit Neeld was. 

I always thought he was treated a bit harshly tbh. I wasnt aware about the hotel in prahran the night of THAT game....but agree he was no leader of men. Unfortuately we had none of those at that time. 

Edited May 15, 20178 yr by Wells 11

4 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Mate he was well enough to be out at hotel in Prahran that night.. Beamer was no leader of men, no matter how chit Neeld was. 

Used to see him out regularly, loved a night out

Gee it feels so long ago we had him at our club. Now I look at our current crop of mids and think we are so lucky now. Compare that to our mids we had during the baily/neeld era