Beamer opens up about Neeld relationship.

[mo64 5,874]

10 hours ago, Farmer said:

Can u name any other club where there had been such a clearing out of ALL senior players?

with great success!

You might need to check your facts. The clearing of senior players was more prevalent under the Bailey tenure.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

11 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

It is difficult not to re-write history when you reflect on it, but the article does seem to bring a sense of clarity. I was a Beamer fan, loved his aggression and uncompromising nature, but he was an extremely flawed leader whose leadership had powerful positives and more powerful negatives. 

However, the train wreck that was Mark Neeld can actually be seen as a huge catalyst for change. The 186 game revealed a dysfunctional, decaying, fossilised club. Mark Neeld was a resopnse to that, and his coaching tenure (I refuse to use the word leadership here) made the club finally implode and collapse. And it needed to. Our playing group being led by Beamer and Sylvia  - what?!?! Our leaders being given an uncompromising and unfair push out of the door - what?!?!  Hard-nosed bullying being seen as tough leadership - what?!?!

All the old gang had to depart, PJ was placed in charge, Roos as coach, Bartlett as president and we started again from ground zero. So although it was the worst period I can remember of 50+ years as a Dees supporter, in reflection, I am glad it all happened. Today we have 40,000 members, sponsors who continue, a women's team, and a list that might finally give us some success.

"The say the darkest hour is right before the dawn"

Dylan,B.

(for the MFC to actually reach the dawn it must win games consistently like Nought at home this Sunday)...

[Skuit 10,031]

21 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

However, the train wreck that was Mark Neeld can actually be seen as a huge catalyst for change. The 186 game revealed a dysfunctional, decaying, fossilised club. Mark Neeld was a resopnse to that, and his coaching tenure (I refuse to use the word leadership here) made the club finally implode and collapse. And it needed to. Our playing group being led by Beamer and Sylvia  - what?!?! Our leaders being given an uncompromising and unfair push out of the door - what?!?!  Hard-nosed bullying being seen as tough leadership - what?!?!

All the old gang had to depart, PJ was placed in charge, Roos as coach, Bartlett as president and we started again from ground zero. So although it was the worst period I can remember of 50+ years as a Dees supporter, in reflection, I am glad it all happened. Today we have 40,000 members, sponsors who continue, a women's team, and a list that might finally give us some success.

One might have thought that 186 would have been enough of a catalyst for serious change.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

2 minutes ago, Skuit said:

One might have thought that 186 would have been enough of a catalyst for serious change.

It would have been had the CEO of the day walked....

[Forest Demon 4,681]

It seems like Bailey had the people skills, but we didn't work hard enough from all reports.

Neeld seemed to be the opposite, as he started to instill some professionalism around the club, but had no people skills.

This gave Roos at least something to work with in terms of a group willing to work, although the list lacked talent and needed serious rebuilding, which was done over the following 3 years.

And here we are with Goodwin, who has inherited an extremely talented young list, seemingly with a good work ethic. Time will tell how we look back on his stint (hopefully era).

 

[Bossdog 2,002]

25 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It would have been had the CEO of the day walked....

Oohh    Not again

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

2 minutes ago, Bossdog said:

Oohh    Not again

Are you disagreeing?

[The Chazz 4,077]

Roosy's rebuild was made a lot easier because of Neeld's tenure.  That's about all we should be thankful of from that time.

[Demons1858 1,760]

Both Neeld and Beamer made significant errors and need to take responsibility for their own actions before blaming others. At least Neeld isn't blaming others for what he inherited.

Beamer was one of our best players with Bailey designing a game plan that suited the cattle we had but wasn't going to develop and propel us forward. The game breaking Jamar-Beamer ruck taps were no longer the focus of the Neeld era that wanted to spread the load and develop a deeper younger midfield. Beamer didn't embrace the new game plan and so he shouldn't be surprised with what happened. An average game plan that everyone follows will always beat a good game plan that no one follows. Beamer was too self absorbed as were others at that time

Neeld identified a problem with the professionalism, work ethic, and leadership in the players and was incorrectly told to use a heavy hand in managing them by the board and the club. It's always difficult when your best players use their leadership and influence poorly. Neeld's execution and game plan was poor at best. Brisbane is in a similar position with Rockliff being removed from the captaincy and their next best options are Beams and Zorko - not exactly perfect leaders. At least Brisbane haven't made the MFC mistake of giving their player group to an inexperienced operator. Chris Fagan is a mature football person with people skills to grow the right culture and leadership.

At the time, I was invited to a supporter Q&A forum at the club (when media were getting stuck into them) and asked Neeld to what degree do you design the game plan to cater for the playing list (with Beamer, Jamar and others in mind). His answer was something to the effect that each player has the opportunity to fit into his game plan. Seemed a bit blunt and clearly wasn't the right answer. You can have a game plan and still be creative to find roles to get the best out of players. At that point I knew for sure he wasn't going to make it.

Players are often a product of their environment and the people instilled to provide leadership and learning. So that brings me to Garry Lyon. Clearly a poor decision maker off the field. Was instrumental in getting both Bailey and Neeld to the club. Given his history he still has the nerve to tea off on one of the youngest teams in the league for apparently not meeting 'winning' expectations recently. Just doesn't get what young players need to develop. Was part of the boys club that managed the club poorly along with Schwab and Connolly. Unfortunately we learnt the hard way that low draft picks and tanking combined with poor player development leads to more rebuilds..

Gee we were poor and naïve back then. Thanks PJ, Roosy, and perhaps a little controversially, the AFL for influencing them to fix the MFC.

 

 

 

.

 

[daisycutter 29,613]

says a lot about nate jones who stood tall all through that period. now we seem to have a lot of nate jones and things are looking up

[binman 42,920]

5 hours ago, Maldonboy38 said:

It is difficult not to re-write history when you reflect on it, but the article does seem to bring a sense of clarity. I was a Beamer fan, loved his aggression and uncompromising nature, but he was an extremely flawed leader whose leadership had powerful positives and more powerful negatives. 

However, the train wreck that was Mark Neeld can actually be seen as a huge catalyst for change. The 186 game revealed a dysfunctional, decaying, fossilised club. Mark Neeld was a resopnse to that, and his coaching tenure (I refuse to use the word leadership here) made the club finally implode and collapse. And it needed to. Our playing group being led by Beamer and Sylvia  - what?!?! Our leaders being given an uncompromising and unfair push out of the door - what?!?!  Hard-nosed bullying being seen as tough leadership - what?!?!

All the old gang had to depart, PJ was placed in charge, Roos as coach, Bartlett as president and we started again from ground zero. So although it was the worst period I can remember of 50+ years as a Dees supporter, in reflection, I am glad it all happened. Today we have 40,000 members, sponsors who continue, a women's team, and a list that might finally give us some success.

Hencefort known ad the Neeld as an enema theory

[Number of the Beast 80]

I had five close connections through five players  families at the club during these years (Bailey-Neeld). 

He proceeded to lose virtually the whole group in one pre-season bar his cronies he brought into the club.

We were lucky Roos came on board because we would have not had a team worth fielding otherwise.

 

 

 

[Pates 9,660]

10 hours ago, billy2803 said:

Roosy's rebuild was made a lot easier because of Neeld's tenure.  That's about all we should be thankful of from that time.

Neelds poor interpersonal skills, and lack of ability to coach almost destroyed our club. But I agree that is the one legacy he left behind, he raised the standard of fitness, training, and professionalism at the club. Roos was able to rebuild better because of that very basic foundation. 

As for Beamer, I liked him but I felt like he didn't reach his full potential. As someone said earlier he appeared to be a bit of a downhill skier but his kicking was usually pretty good. For Neeld to come in and clean house the way he did, it obviously dented a lot of egos and while I get you need to mark your territory as a leader you also need to make sure you've got the right figures backing your play. 

As Brent said, he tried to implement a game plan based off another team. Not try to mould a game plan around the team he had. 

[Redleg 52 1]

It's all well and good to sheet home the blame for the Club's total demise post-Bailey to his successor, Mark Neeld. I'd dearly love to know what 'brief' Neeld was given by the administration of the day which appointed him but I can vividly recall in his opening press conference he made a statement to the effect he wanted to make Melbourne "the hardest team to play against". 

This objective was probably embraced by most of us at the time and perhaps goes some way towards explaining the reasons behind his appointment. Sadly, his methods and no doubt many of his decisions failed to attract the buy-in of most if not all of our playing list. The situation was exacerbated by our inept player  and leadership development.

What we have witnessed since has been virtually a total rebuild of the Club - administration, football department and playing list - orchestrated by Glen Bartlett, Peter Jackson, Josh Mahoney & Paul Roos/Simon Goodwin and their support teams.. We are seeing the fruits of their labour  now in our on-field performances not to mention our membership growth and corporate success.

The once maligned Jack Watts is perhaps the best example of what a player can  become with the right leadership, coaching and development coupled, of course, with their own hard work. 

Suffice to say, the job is not done yet but we are clearly on the right path and are indebted to  Roosy and Co for righting the ship and helping to restore our pride in the Grand Old Flag.

 

 

 

[piddz 118]

Well that article filled me with some unwanted nostalgia that i thought i had painstakingly buried a long time ago... 

While i accept Beamer should have accommodated any new game plan put before him, imagine getting behind a bloke with this sort of footy articulation....... 

 

[Farmer 882]

10 hours ago, Demons1858 said:

Both Neeld and Beamer made significant errors and need to take responsibility for their own actions before blaming others. At least Neeld isn't blaming others for what he inherited.

Beamer was one of our best players with Bailey designing a game plan that suited the cattle we had but wasn't going to develop and propel us forward. The game breaking Jamar-Beamer ruck taps were no longer the focus of the Neeld era that wanted to spread the load and develop a deeper younger midfield. Beamer didn't embrace the new game plan and so he shouldn't be surprised with what happened. An average game plan that everyone follows will always beat a good game plan that no one follows. Beamer was too self absorbed as were others at that time

Neeld identified a problem with the professionalism, work ethic, and leadership in the players and was incorrectly told to use a heavy hand in managing them by the board and the club. It's always difficult when your best players use their leadership and influence poorly. Neeld's execution and game plan was poor at best. Brisbane is in a similar position with Rockliff being removed from the captaincy and their next best options are Beams and Zorko - not exactly perfect leaders. At least Brisbane haven't made the MFC mistake of giving their player group to an inexperienced operator. Chris Fagan is a mature football person with people skills to grow the right culture and leadership.

At the time, I was invited to a supporter Q&A forum at the club (when media were getting stuck into them) and asked Neeld to what degree do you design the game plan to cater for the playing list (with Beamer, Jamar and others in mind). His answer was something to the effect that each player has the opportunity to fit into his game plan. Seemed a bit blunt and clearly wasn't the right answer. You can have a game plan and still be creative to find roles to get the best out of players. At that point I knew for sure he wasn't going to make it.

Players are often a product of their environment and the people instilled to provide leadership and learning. So that brings me to Garry Lyon. Clearly a poor decision maker off the field. Was instrumental in getting both Bailey and Neeld to the club. Given his history he still has the nerve to tea off on one of the youngest teams in the league for apparently not meeting 'winning' expectations recently. Just doesn't get what young players need to develop. Was part of the boys club that managed the club poorly along with Schwab and Connolly. Unfortunately we learnt the hard way that low draft picks and tanking combined with poor player development leads to more rebuilds..

Gee we were poor and naïve back then. Thanks PJ, Roosy, and perhaps a little controversially, the AFL for influencing them to fix the MFC.

 

 

 

.

 

I think there is a failure of memory here. We won 8.5 games in 2011.  Moloney was easily our best . He got 19 votes in the Brownlow ( who else from MFC has got 19,Brownlow votes in the past 15 years?). Green was captain, past his best but a decent, respected leader. Moloney was VC, Rivers and Davey DVCs. Jamar and Frawley were good, senior players. Martin was promising. The 2 kids, Trengove and Grimes were playing well until made captains. The loss at Geelong scarred everybody, but it was not the failed club which had to be rescued after 1.5 seasons under Neeld, by which time Green had retired, Rivers and Moloney gone to Geelong and Brisbane, to be followed by Martin who didn't want to go and who has starred since. It was hard on Neeld that Scully quit for a heap of money

i thought Molonet's comments were not bitchy but simply set out what happened. He had come off a great season, he loved the club, he had his faults  ( I agree he was rather one dimensional) but he was very unfairly sidelined as were many others.

and as for Neeld, I feel sorry for him. He tried but failed. He was strongly recommended by many--not just Gary Lyon. In the end he was humiliated  and we endured the worst period the club had experienced.

[Skuit 10,031]

1 hour ago, piddz said:

Well that article filled me with some unwanted nostalgia that i thought i had painstakingly buried a long time ago... 

While i accept Beamer should have accommodated any new game plan put before him, imagine getting behind a bloke with this sort of footy articulation....... 

 

Pedo mentioned it used to feel like a funeral after losses (which, it should be pointed out, were every week). Even the pressers have that atmosphere. The 'I'm not angry, just disappointed routine' with a big dose of patronising school-teacher.

[Guest]

On 5/16/2017 at 8:44 PM, piddz said:

Well that article filled me with some unwanted nostalgia that i thought i had painstakingly buried a long time ago... 

While i accept Beamer should have accommodated any new game plan put before him, imagine getting behind a bloke with this sort of footy articulation....... 

 

I remember this night well. It was the night I realized that Neeld had not burnt down the village to save it. He had simply burnt down the village.

I have been on a roll with cliches recently but I will throw out another one...

The fish rots from the head. The head however was not Mark Neeld. In this case, it was Cameron Schwab, Don McLardy and sad to say it, Jim Stynes (prior to his illness though it could be argued that he should have given the presidency up a lot earlier after he had been diagnosed).

The reality is that Neeld, had he been put through a more rigorous process, would not have made it past the first set of interviews. However, as stated in a previous thread, as CS needed someone to validate his criticisms of Dean Bailey (the players didn't work hard enough, the game plan wasn't the same as those at the pointy end of the ladder, progress wasn't fast enough) as well as someone who would owe their position to him, Neeldy was chosen quick smart. This was demonstrated by the fact that no outside consultants were bought in; it was a selection panel of Don, CS, Garry and Guy Jalland.

The fact that Neeld was carrying Hollywood Boulevarde's water was shown again when he sacked ALL of the previous leadership group and replaced them with green kids; kids whose careers have basically been ruined by that decision. I'm sure that it was no coincidence 5 months earlier that those previous leaders had gone on record that they wanted CS to be sacked (James Comey and Donald Trump come to mind here). Also don't given me any talk of how 'the players chose the captains'. The voting criteria insured that Neeld got the boys he wanted.

The fact that a bloke like Schwab could be hired, proceed to do a woeful job and then not get sacked until the place had absolutely cratered showed that we were a boys' club. Ego, connections and standing among the playing group of 1994 were the ideal prerequisites for a job. rather than demonstrated ability or aptitude for the job you were doing. That sadly lays at Jim's and Don's door. I believe Jim was a great uniting figure during the days of Debt Demolition and Don needs to be given credit for finally calling time on that fiasco but that is the truth.

Neeld unfortunately was the patsy. He paid a high price but if the club had been run like a professional organization, then Mark would have been spared a LOT of pain (besides the initial dejection of not having been selected which would not have been as great as what he may have felt after he had been mercifully sacked).

Onto the other half of this equation....

Beamer was a victim of a culture where he could get away with too much. I felt sorry for Bails in that the people who should have been supporting him (the CEO and the football manager) seemed to be pizzed off that he wasn't able to succeed on the artificial timeline they had set. They also weren't overly happy they he seemed resentful that he was asked to take a hit for the club (tanking) but now didn't want to cop criticism for not keeping to their timetable for premiership success.  As such, I felt Bails needed a power base in the club and the players were it. He was always a 'player's coach' but he had to be more so as the higher up's didn't have his back.

At the end of the day, it should also be said that we all choose our own path and Beamer chose his. Had we had stronger leaders around the joint he and Col could have been decent foot soldiers instead of leading lights in our party boy set. 

Edited May 17, 2017 by Colin B. Flaubert
General clean up