deanox

Attack his actions, name calling isn't appropriate on a published forum (which is what this is) and you can discuss his action and display your disappointment in the situation and his actions without calling names, which doesn't actually add any information. Discussing their failings is one thing, but I still maintain that denigrating fellow Melbourne supporters won't get us anywhere.

If it's too long to read just tread the first paragraph, the rest was just additional commentary probably not relevant to this thread anyway.

Funny because the kid at the front with his hand up is normally also the one who achieves well and who ends up successful, while the one at the back sitting out and calling people names thinks he is the coolest and winning the race at the time but quickly realises he is going no where after school finishes.

In Jesse's case this could be particularly different too. He will have 23 years here, finish his schooling here, and will turn 18 here, so he will get to go through the 'have a few beers at the pubs and clubs' etc with new friends he has made in Melbourne, both from the club or others, not with his high school mates. He won't be doing schoolies trips etc with those sorts of guys. I know you make lots of friends, but those sorts of bonds can be what drags someone back. 3 years is a long time to be away from your friendship group and pick it back up as well. Family will be the big calling I reckon.

I'm not sure what you're laughing at, I suggested that it would be interesting to hear the testimony of those players as a more balanced view, not that they would definitely vote for Neeld. Green played for 4 years under Bailey and one under Neeld, The 'old dog new tricks' saying springs to mind - not saying its true, but its unlikely Green would be saying he loved his one year under any coach at the end of his career when he is being asked to learn new things, work harder than before etc. The players I suggested would have a more balanced view. RE the other players - Morton has stated that the WCE players work much harder than we ever did in the Bailey era and that he thought Melbourne was now on the right track. That indicates that to me, while he might get on with bailey better, or have a better relationship, he also recognises that Bailey was not getting the best out of his players nor training them appropriately. It isn't hard to imagine him saying 'I enjoyed playing under Bailey better, but I think Neeld is a better coach'. Blease and Neelds relationship is well documented and I don't believe Blease has any problems with the current selection, he will get games when he deserves them - he is aware of the requirements and has worked hard on his deficiencies to improve them. Howe has improved under Neeld, and his increased aerobic capacity has allowed him to be used on the ball. RE Howe being utilised in the backline: he is a player who needs space, his biggest weapon - his aerial ability - is suited to space where he can move and jump, not one on one physical scraps where he lacks in strength. He is also a beautiful user of the ball and a sound reader of the play. Why wouldn't you get him involved at times? Gawn I included because he is an interesting one, has probably played equal under both coaches, both coaches have stuck by him despite injuries, Neeld gave him an extended run before sending him back where he dominated. To bring him back to AFL Fitzpatrick would have been dropped, and if that was the case everyone would be calling for Neelds head because he dropped Fitzpatrick after only 1 game. He hasn't resigned, but also hasn't stated that he is putting off contract talks. Given he will be quite popular with other clubs, I don't blame him for negotiating his contract closely. His view would be more interesting than many others.

Send like a fair question, the coach who made you captain or the coach who over saw your retirement? I wonder what the answer would be if you ask Evans, who just resigned, or Cale Morton who said already that the training standards under Bailey were way too low, or other younger players who have developed like Max Gawn or Sam Blease or Jeremy Howe?

I don't quite understand what you're implying. A proxy has to be signed by a member, so if the members in question have been bothered to sign a proxy and send it in, they will be the members are are represented. If not enough members turn up and vote the other way they either don't actually care, despite posting their rage on demonland OR it is just a case of a minority group yelling they loudest and therefore being considered the majority. Given how many people on here are calling for change, if be surprised if there isn't a big turnout of members and members with proxies at the agm.

RE not trading draft picks, you need to give if you want to get in trades. If we have two first round picks due to a PP(probably an end of first round, I can't see then giving us another pick 1) I'd be happy to trade one for a good player (say the end of first round pick for Adams). We would have Hogan and the other first round pick also coming through the draft at the end of the year.

For an extra 10k I doubt it but for 100k or more, more than hee would get elsewhere he would have to think strongly about it. Personally I'd rather us land a player like Adams who will impact next year and still have a 10 year career than a draftee we need to develop who won't help us improve next year.

Big difference with us and Brisbane too. They tried to roll the dice while they had brown and black still playing and thought they could snare another one on the back of those champions. . We would need bringing in skills and leadership to mentor the youth we already have and to ensure our base efforts are competitive. A question for everyone who has said "youth, not trade" for our top picks: are you happy with us getting belted every week next year as well while we wait for the kids to develop or do you expect us to improve on field?

If we go the youth route at the point end of the draft like many are suggesting, then we will see a bunch of old nqr's also recruited, more rodans and byrnes. These players will be required to mentor the young draftees and provided seasoned bodies to train against and to advise and to play when the kids need a rest and to provide onfield leadership and example etc.

The problem is discerning if they in fact have a clear vision and plan our if they are just playing on the heart strings under a campaign of "we need change because the results are unacceptable". It is always difficult to tell the difference between the different tickets at such an election because they both promise the same thing and we have no way of knowing which team is actually more capable.

Thanks KC, hope it went well

In a heart beat. We should be offering lots of coin on a front ended contract. I don't care if we pay overs the kid can play and would be in our starting mids. Given he can walk, I'd encourage that (ie psd), but id also be willing to offer trade bait to secure him. It may help get GWS to push him towards us rather than other suitors.

the best part about Hogan is that we have two years left on this contract. It would be nice to get his signature on an extension but not important. If we're still crap in two years well have bigger problems than Hogan leaving. If in 24 months wee are starting to put it together he won't want to leave, same as the GWS and GCS players.

If love to draft a kid to set us up in the midfield for 10 years but unfortunately this club, regardless of the coach, needs don't immediate results. We already have some good young midfield Tashkent but none of it is developed. A senior midfielder is the absolute priority, and our second choice would be a young mid with 2-4 years development already. We need players who will impact for us next year, the best 2 kids in the land won't do that.

There should be a depends vote on both questions. If a completely new ticket turned up and said wee wasn't to spill blood I'm not sure if need keen on voting for them. I don't think the current board are the right people but I do think they are smart enough to help identify and nominate the right people too move us forward. The last thing we need is more factions, and anyone who can't see that probably shouldn't be on the board.

KC, any chance of an update on the debt demolition as part of your match report?

I don't expect Neeld will be there next year, but if we sack him this week, one week after having an opportunity to sack him and discussing his future art a board meeting we are a disgrace. We could not have possibly learnt anything in those 8 days, the decision would be incomprehensible. After the season, perhaps. With a few rounds to go, quite possibly. This week? I doubt it, it doesn't make sense.

Devils advocate question: Players may not sign because they are waiting to see if we sack Neeld. What if they want to play under Neeld and think that the club will be going backwards by saving the FD and start again? If this is the case, the club would be aware of this but the supporters won't.

Happy for him to stay a second round pick, because he will hopefully come as a later pick with a better understanding of the requirements of AFL than most, which may make the step up easier. That frees up our first round pick to spend on the best. Can someone confirm, is he eligible for draft end of 2014? If so we may even snare him with a third round pick of he isn't rated in the top 20.

Oh, there it is!

Rhino, we need unity, which means anyone who is sorting outside their organisation refusing to help our refusing to get involved our refusing to support the club publicly needs to pull their head in. Anyone who wants to be part of a faction needs to pull their heads in. Everyone wants the best fit the club, everyone wants us to succeed. Knifing the current people because they are doing a shout job doesn't help. That dirt of politics can be left to the back room and openly discussed there, while still having bets with each other and not running to media to bag other members off the club. Anyone who isn't willing to put aside personal differences, or past problems for the sake of our club can gagf, because right now the club is in trouble and there is no time for people to hold grudges.

Can you post a link? Tim Harrington I thought was list manager and CCs role was in fundraising and community relations...

See my post above re this issue, I think this is what they'll try, and what Collingwood will try. It will be a good test of coaching. If Collingwood try to leave cloke one out in the 50 how would we defend? A spare man 20 meters in front of cloke? Would he be a spare from out forward line? I think we'll start man on man in defence but encourage all defenders to drop back quickly and assist. I would strongly consider a spare man if we start to see a repeat of last year where rivers was isolated and no one could get back and help him.