Leaderboard

Notwithstanding that Bailey would not have been coaching us in 2012, the Club handled his sacking very poorly. Particularly when he sacrificed his record for draft picks and blooding youngster. He deserved better treatment. I am glad he has obtained another role. Good on him.

I attended the GWS annual corporate lunch about a month or so ago. I have to say, I was pretty impressed. There were about 850 people there, and it was really well organised. The stadium and the facilities look good, and their membership base appears to be tracking well. Everyone was giving me carp about GWS landing Scully, to which I said to all - you can have him - I just wish the MFC didn't waste our number one pick on him. Left a bad taste though. Amongst other things, Sheedy spoke to the audience about the club's recruiting. Tongue in cheek, he kept saying the recruiters did a great job and they didn't really let him know who they'd recruited. It was 100% clear that the Scully deal was sewn up a very long time before he 'officially' signed the contract. What really p1ssed me off was how smug they were about it all. As an aside, I was in NYC last week and had several beers with Andrew Mackie (Geelong player). Good bloke. He said that, in his opinion, it was not such a bad result for the MFC in losing Scully, as the Dees would've had to have paid stupid money to keep him and that would've stuffed up our list management completely. He seemed to suggest that a lot of players were offered ridiculous money to go to GWS (as you'd expect), but he didn't think it would be good form to take the dough, leave your team mates and your club. A future leader of the club wouldn't do that - unsurprisingly, he really rated Jack Trengove. He also said that Mitch Clark is the one of the hardest players to match up against - hates playing on him. Rated him very highly, but said he's still a bit inconsistent. In short, reckons he was a top get for the club and that his best years are still ahead of him. Also said that he's close to Ken Hinkley, and the feeling amongst the coaches was that of all the clubs looking for a new coach this year, the MFC was the club to land. It has a young talented list with an enormous upside that hasn't been realised yet. Thought there was a big leadership vacuum at the club though - but, given the relative youth of the list, it's a very malleable list that can be moulded really well. Reckons Neeld will be a really good coach, and we could see a very different team in the next few years. Need to change the club culture, and he should be able to influence that. All pretty obvious stuff I suppose, but thought some of you may be interested nonetheless.

It wasn't so much the sacking but rather, they way in which it was done that was problematic. Bailey should have been told to his face that the club had no confidence in his ability to continue as coach. It should have been relayed to him personally and there should have been scope for discussion on the proper way to handle the announcement. I got the impression that the situation was almost forced by the presence and pressure of the baying media. Whatever the case, it didn't look good that Bailey wasn't told by someone face to face. Other than that, he would have been a lame duck coach had he carried on after 186, a position that was untenable for all concerned.

Should of / could of / would of should be ditched in favour of should have / could have / would have.

In my opinion, the team's poor performances last season, including the smashing by Geelong, were as much a result of internal divisions and friction between sections of the administration and football departments. Regardless of who the coach is, a club which is divided will always be doomed to failure.

It isn't so much about defending the club it is more about understanding how fractured the club was leading up to the Bailey sacking. This discussion has been in the context of the Bailey sacking and text book operations but, if we are honest with our selves, we would acknowledge that the club had many more problems than just the coach and, leading up to the Bailey sacking, text book operations had been evidently absent. Every aspect of 186 presented a crisis to our board from the game itself to the factions within the club to the state of our players. In an ideal world we would have sent the VP around to Dean's place to keep things above board but the club was in crisis for multiple reasons and arguably did not function under ideal circumstances and this is without making consideration for Jim's health. A phone call is not appropriate on paper (no arguement) but our president acted in the way he thought best given the circumstances which I think many are underestimating. The moral of the story is that due process is not just 1 individual thing it is how a club functions in perpetuity and the sad reality is that by the time 186 occured we were bereft of a system. If anyone wants to judge Jim Stynes in the heat of the moment and in the health he was in then so be it. You can argue until the cows come home whether others should have ensured due process ensued but Jim was and is our president and acted how he saw fit during a very dark time of the MFC. Jim Stynes did what he did within his own constraints and anyone who wants to judge him on that can go ahead. Isolating this incident to express a bugbear about how the club functions is pointless.

It wasn't just the 186 match that stuffed him. It was a series of bad performances this year. We were 28 points up against the Hawks in rd 2 and got done by 46 odd pts. We played arguably the worst 1st quarter of football this year against West Coast and got done. We were leading Nth by 4 goals early in the second. They came back and doubled that margin in 2 quarters. We were terrible against Carlton in our first friday night match of the year. We let Collingwood kick the last 10 goals against us in our marquee match on Queens Birthday. And in a match we started favourites, we got overrun by the Bulldogs to lose by 60 points. Robert Walls is wrong. Bailey wasn't dismissed just because of one bad game. The 186 game was simply the final straw in Deans tenure at the MFC.

Indeed Good summary. Your regard for him as a Coach does mitigate the need to do things properly especially when the behaviour of Board members in the lead up to the game help disstabilise the side. Bailey had to go either post 186 or at season's end. He deserved better than a phone call.

There was something to be gained: a jump start on getting Neeld.

Jimmy could have phoned him after, but Vice President, CEO or Footy Manager should have gone and told him in person. Should have said his contract would not be renewed and given him the opportunity to stand aside, be paid out and let him and us begin to prepare for the future. There was probably no point in him going on, as others have said, he would have been a dead man walking and that would involve a total loss of respect from the football public and probably an insipid attitude from the players, much like his last game as coach.

Agree. Not discussing it face to face was weak by the club.

I don't understand coroporate behavioiur or decision making processes. 31 goals is 31 goals. You cannot ritually [censored] the players but christ knows they deserved it. So you ritually [censored] one bloke. Immagine week after week the joke we would ahve been made out to be in the media: Melbourne, the only team to tolerate 31-goal losses. Imagine the atmosphere at training with the dead coach walking. Cauterise the wound.

So the order is Jones, Bail, and Nicholson and then no-one knows and it is just speculation, extrapolation, and postulation? Glad we cleared this up for everyone.

What about the stress he put us under?

Yeah, on form, there's so many teams you just can't see losing, like the Packers, but history suggests they have to drop one SOMEWHERE. As for tanking, and Vlad. I think it comes down to semantics. I absolutely agree that, by it's definition, tanking doesn't exist. The 22 try their guts out no matter who's in there. But if your team is awful, and they're 1-7, or 0-8 in the AFL... then that's your season right there, and you play your players to develop and to get picks. There's nothing WRONG with that, and anyone who thinks there is is a dinosaur and completely out of touch. What frustrates me is when fans of teams like the Dons, Blues and Pies give s a hard time for tanking... if they had it their way, the lesser clubs, with awful lists and no money to keep players like Scully would perpetually exist ONLY to lose to the richer clubs... Having a team like the dees always in the basement is bad for footy. The NFL at least has this worked out VERY well. The way their draft works, the way the distribution works, any team is only a few years away, or one daring draft selection away from jumping into contention. Take the Eagles. They're supposed to be rebuilding... but they recruit Vick to run wildcats, with a view to trade him the following year... 12 months later he's battling Brady for MVP honours, and is now on a $100 contract. The NFL is different every year, and there's always teams making dramatic ups (49ers, Bills, Bengals, Lions) and dramatic downs (Colts, Vikings) within a 12 month period. If the powerbrokers like Eddie have their way, the powerful will STY powerful and site "tradition" as the cause. I hate to say it, cos I hate the country for the most part, but they are so far ahead with the way they arrange their football it's not funny. And the best part... it costs no money to implement a lottery draft, or conferences... both of which will fix a lot of problems. Question... I'm having trouble debating with a couple of othersthe top 5 QBs this season, and also overall in current-day players. This season: 1: Rodgers (easily... rating is 20+ higher than next best) 2: Brady (form is waning, but amazing start to season) 3: Brees (Huge yardage) 4: E. Manning (Hasn't put a foot wrong. Rating 100+ all year, lots of big games, hardly any picks... still think he's barely in the top ten overall, but going on this season, hard to argue) 5: Vick (This one is a bit of bias. Purely on quarterbacking, he's probably behind a few others, but you HAVE to add in his rushing yards. If you do, he's in the top 5 for ypg. Has played very few bad games, only his turnovers have hurt him) Hard to go past Newton (just needs a few more wins, also needs to hold it together for the rest of the year), Ryan, and Rothlisberger who's a champ. As for Romo, don't make me laugh. And Rivers is as good as anyone, but is having a patchy year. Current day: 1: Brady 2: Manning 3: Rodgers (give it a year or two, it'll be him and Newton) 4: Brees 5: Rivers Vick would be 6th, just ahead of Rothlisberger.

The Scully family from Neigbours were better actors.

This is what I heard: PART A: "Getting a good 3k result doesn't mean you'll have a good year." PART B: "Cale Morton didn't get a good 3k result, therefore he must not have any good qualities at all."

That's it ! He's off to Richmond ! 007 style.

In the wider world of footy I'd like to ban Craig Hutchison (could just end there) from using the term old mate incorrectly. Old mate is meant to replace somebody's name but this idiot loves saying Old Mate Pickers, Old Mate Doctor Turf etc.. If you're going to turn the Aussiemeter up to 5000 at least get it right.

Sorry to be really pedantic, but it is not grammer, but grammar.

Melbourne Cricket Club and Melbourne Football Club - 1st April , 2009. The relationship between the Melbourne Cricket Club and the Melbourne Football Club is as old as the game itself. Our clubs share both heritage and heroes, sparked by the spirit of Tom Wills in 1858 as he sought a means of keeping his Melbourne cricketers fit during the winter months. A game was born, and so was the Melbourne Football Club. If the MCG is 'the paddock that grew', we cultivated it together, through hope and hardship, with characters and colour, and with a shared heart that always beats true. Let it be known that, on this day, the clubs again unite for the greater good, and with a spirit of mutuality and reciprocity. Reference: Melbourne Football Club and Melbourne Cricket Club together again