deanox

Good points all. I feel like we have an experienced structure supporting an inexperienced head coach (who has significant apprenticeship in coaching), and some inexperienced line coaches. But the 'inexperienced' comment was PJ's, not mine. I'll be surprised if that question is ever asked/answered of CS RE the set up structure. My intention was just to highlight that the may have been a reason. Someone stated earlier that the winners write the history, and it would be fair to argue that the reason the losers don't right the history is because their methods weren't any good, but in our scenario I think we have a whole pile of issues conspiring to cause us to be where we are (poor football resourcing, large debt, poor senior players, poor culture, tanking culture, long time without success, poor previous coaching and fitness staff, poor organisational structure, death of club president and legend, other external factors - racism etc, media campaign). Poor organisational structure is but one of the problems. I will concede that perhaps better organisational structure could have assisted mitigate some of the other issues, but even if it did, we would still have a range of other problem and probably wouldn't be much better than where we are.

I don't like the salary cap idea because it is unsustainable. It may be well and good to give the MFC an extended salary cap now to sort us out, but in two years when the dogs are still in the dump, does the AFL then give them an extended salary cap? And if PA crash this year, finish 14th, then spend the next 4 years in the bottom, do they get one? If the extended salary cap is normalised over 4 years, it is possible that 3-4 teams would need extended salary caps at once. It isn't a solution that can be applied to every team that needs help. The other major problem with it is that it only assists with free agents. Unless you want to say 'extended salary cap and the first two picks in the pre-season draft', we won't get players. You can offer players all the money you want, but unless you trade 2 first round picks and aplayer you don't get a judd or an ablett. Maybe 'extended salary cap' and a PP that can be traded only' is a fair option? The reason the PP 'works' is because you can re-do it every year and help the worst teams. It can also be spent how the team wants to spend it. Obviously, the PP doesn't work for reasons we are all aware of. I bet if we had our way again, we would have recognised the need for leaders and gone out and drafted/traded for some experienced leaders, and not just kids. I still think any equalisation measures need to give the poor club some kind of trade bait to get other clubs interested.

I agree with all except the Andrews report because I do not know anything about it at all so can't comment. The devils advocate question though, which you didn't address, is could that structure have been set up by Schwab (rightly or wrongly) because of the inexperience of the football department and not because Schwab was meddling or micro managing?

He seems to have bought in to the current football departments regime and is having some success on field. If this is the case, given his standing with the playing group I hope he is retained.

Swan and Buckley don't seem to get along. He is an absolute ball magnet, and a gut runner. He is "poor character" but not the type that will train poorly, or take on field short cuts, nor does he appear the type to drag others with him into the partying, more inclined to live his own life away from the football club. I'd take him in a heart beat.

I like this idea a lot, he gets a very good wrap regarding his current role, is well respected by the AFL, is at a successful club, and is definitively a favourite son in many ways. If he is the right person for the job and not just because he has a Melbourne connection, it could assist in bridging the gap between old and new administrations and help bring supporters back on side who are disenchanted with the current football department but loved the good old days. These are only bonuses, if indeed he is the right man for the job.

During the season: Competitive performances, honourable losses and 3 more wins to finish with 4 for the season. Increase our disposal count and uncontested possessions (I.e. chains of possessions) Mitch Clark to return successfully at the 8 week mark and play the last half dozen with Dawes. Sylvia and Watts to re-sign. I'm not as concerned with Frawley and Hogan as we still have a year or two to run on those contracts. Post season: Land a big name, big possession winning midfielder who has at least 5 years left in their career. We can and should be willing to pay significant overs in trade value and in contact value if required. Land a young gun mid, preferably from another club I.e. GCS or GWS, but if not, draft is ok (ie first round pick type gun mid)

Honestly, we have exactly what everyone has called for: an independent CEO with significant football experience, recommended by the AFL. He is now overseeing the club, reviewing the current situation (from inside, with first hand working knowledge over a period of months and hopefully years) and making recommendations for change. This is like haven't a complete business review, from the outside, but with those decisions then being guaranteed to be implemented, unlike previous reviews (Andrews Report?). If anyone is not happy with this scenario, and is not prepared to wait and see what changes are made, then they need to have a good hard think about why not, because it is probably only because PJ is not making recommendations and changes that they want. If we had of appointed another mate in this position, or asked an ex-player to come do a review, I'd understand hesitation. But this is the completely best scenario we could have. I challenge anyone to name a better option (not a better person, I mean suggest a better way for doing things). The only alternatives I see are internal review (bad idea), keep going the way we are (horrible idea) or sack everyone and start again (which I think will be the slowest process, and potentially the most damaging).

This official line was lack of pace. I wonder if the fact that he played only 75% of game time in both those matches had something to do with it?

PJ has stated that he is concerned that the footy department is inexperienced. Schwab has 3 decades of experience in football clubs, both in football departments and admin. Does it not follow that perhaps the structure was set up was with good intentions, so that Schwab could assist and guide the football department as they gained that experience? Also I was interested to mitt that we are all in uproar about 4 direct reports from the FD but also read that Jackson has 3 direct reports from the admin department. We could argue the same thing re too many reports, I would have thought you'd have a GM - FD and a GM - Admin, and that each of those may have 3 or 4 reports? Just a devils advocate thought on this, I certainly don't know anything and have no CEO experience.

Guys, you need to settle down. Express disappoinment, discuss how you think hee wasn't up to it. But name calling and abuse isn't appropriate. Regardless of how he performed as CEO, Schwab has been a big Melbourne person over the past 30 years, holding various roles. He is a true Melbourne person, like us, and while he may not have done well, I'm sure he did what he thought was right. His poor management wasn't malicious and want for personal gain, it was because rightly or wrongly he thought he was doing what was best. The same goes for Don McC, Stynes, Garry Lyon, Paul Gardener, Joe Gutnik and the others who have tried to help this club but failed. Discuss their failures but don't attack them personally. We don't need the club to be fractured, we need it to be united. We don't have so many supporters that we can choose to kick out some of them because of their mistakes or performance. NB I an not defending his performance.

But if you highlight the other words it suggests that last year onfield expectations were met and also that the footy department has met off field expectations. Given there was a mandate for culture change, meeting off field expectations is a key part of their job. I interpret the statement as "performance on field aren't good enough and they need to improve. At the next review of the FD this criteria will be looked at more closely. We won't be drawn in to guarantee anyone's jobs publicly, they have a contract but as we know in football that could change, especially if the poor performance continue" IMO they will restructure the FD before the coach is sacked. If they sacked Neeld today a new coach would be brought in with the same problems as Neeld. Everything else will be right first, then they'll make personnel changes. All of this counts for nothing if we get a few more 25 goal drubbings.

I'm not quite following your post, sorry. However regarding your comment that the board should have given him a set period or set games, all that would give us it's another scenario Luke today, vultures circling, looking for a sacking. I interpret the comment to mean, "no further comment still be made". I.e. football department will be restructured, Neeld is the coach, nothing has changed. If it changes, we'll let you know. RE Neeld being in their so long, it may have been a grilling or extra review etc, and that is most likely. But it could be that the board, the FD (including Neeld) and PJ had a longer discussion about the structure of the footy department and other issues. Also, given this is PJs first board meeting, it may be that there was a pile of background discussions that Neeld to be had regarding the FD presentation.

So a decision not to sack Neeld is poor leadership?

Perhaps not a disconnect: what if we are on track with off field kpis and failing on field kpis. Neeld is of the opinion that on field will follow when off field are right, so isn't as concerned with on field kpis. The board have told him today, the onfield kpis just got a while lot more important.

Wouldn't it be great if they held a press conference, and stood there and said "Hi all, we noticed you assembled today and thought you must have some questions, go ahead." and then gave them blank answers on everything, no elaboration, nothing. "no, today was a regular board meeting" "the future of the coach was not discussed" "we discussed the footy department KPIs" "No the KPIs will not be made public" "I'm not sure where you heard that speculation, did you or your colleague make it up?" "we discussed some general restructures which will be implemented in the coming weeks, nothing to do with the media" "yesterdays game? there was a press conference last night, you should have asked that question then.". It won't happen but it would be grand. Genuine straight bat ignoring the fact that anything is going on.

Because the radio is guessing as the board meeting hasn't finished yet so no decision has been made?

Yep a simple "no comment" would have been much more professional. A "you'll have to wait and see" amounts to the same thing but could be pressed better to avoid scrutiny. I wonder if this is a symptom of the pressure being felt by the football department.

Wishing for a simpler time!

If agree what you've said about those players. But they were recruited for a different reason. Those players represented poor attitudes or training with ethics or ability to perform in key areas the coach wanted. The players brought in represent work ethic, hard training, good attitude, competitive etc. They were brought in to help set an example, to hemp lift the standards. Yes some were expected to play well and some were expected to pay occasionally. But performance isn't everything, it was about blokes who embodied the minimum requirements of an elite footballer. Agree re uncompetitiveness, and that will be what costs him his job, either today, next week, end of year or later. But his legacy will be setting us on the right path of the field.

Yes it is. This didn't happen 15 years ago. Media is different from journalism. There is virtually no such thing as journalism these days, it's about sound bites, quick scoops, headlines, and advertising revenue. To make money they need as many web site hits as possible. To get web site hits they need to whip up a storm about everything whether it needs one or not. There are so many media outlets competing they need to our do each other to get the hits etc. It isn't the way it's always been.

Actually a great balanced article. It didn't offer solutions, it only offers questions, but it provides context to those questions. It is not pro or anti Neeld. Everyone should read it. http://m.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-02/five-big-questions-for-the-melbourne-board

The above few posts from media are an indictment on the football media. If Melbourne call a press conference there will be news. But waiting outside all entrances since before sunrise outside a regular board meeting based on nothing but speculation he could be sacked, speculation made by a member of the football media, is a joke. Seriously, nothing will be said until a press conference is called. Why harass people? This is only a story because they media want it to be a story.

Are you suggesting that they only discuss important issues like football department structure or performance at some meetings? Or that they had one big meeting in 2011, made all the decisions and since then have just been listening to reports regarding kpis?Every board meeting would consider issues like structure and performance and decisions and changes would be made whenever they are felt they are needed. PJ is reporting so more decisions may be made than usual, but it is all standard at a board meeting. The don't sit around and discuss how to make more money from the weekly cheersquad raffle.

Really? That sounds to me like a normal board meeting.