deanox

Robbo is also one of the senior players who was pushed out by the previous administration and was possibly disenfranchised with the club, but regardless he has more understanding than what we do. Regarding Moloney, I loved the guy and I wanted him to stay, but anyone who wants to say "if I'm not captain, I'm going to crack the sads" instead of saying, "I love this place I want to work with everyone to make it better" should leave because we will go no where fast with those attitudes and that culture of selfishness.

I'm not sure what Satyriconhome is referring to buy I have heard people from the club say publicly that when the players voted for captains, Grimes and Trengove were the two they chose. They players wanted to follow these guys, not the others.

If your review of the list reveals only 6 good players, 6 ok and 13 not up to it, why is it the coach who is sacked? I'm not following they logic...

Moloney left Demons after 'snub' over captaincy Moloney cracked the sads because he wasn't captain. Sylvia will re-sign. Rodan has had a bigger impact than we see on field. Stef Martin was moved on for good reason. Other senior players were old enough to be moved on. Peter Jackson has given some truths to the club, there will be changes, but we will improve. Great article and interview from ex player Russell Robertson, which touches on some issues we haven't heard about but have discussed ad nauseam. Maybe there is some method to all the madness even if there are some things that are not perfect?

You've just proven my point. You have decided Neeld is the problem based on what you see on tv and you resort to name calling because you are unable to have a rational discussion or actually discuss why you feel that way.I understand the arguments for keeping Neeld. My opinion is that we probably need to move him on because I think when a group is so demoralised it will be difficult to ever get that confidence back. I'm not sure when he should move on, but I do have faith that Peter Jackson will make the correct decision at the correct time. But I'm not willing to make outrageous claims about issues I have no idea about such as players hating him, without any knowledge. And I think that if someone who works there full time hasn't decided to sack Neeld in a full month, there could be no reason why anyone on this forum would know better. And no-one here had that knowledge , which is why instead off having a discussion people resort to name calling. You wouldn't have these sorts of conversations at work, you'd get sacked for bullying, so why talk to people like that online? Try having a reasonable discussion, it will get you further.

HH, the problem with demonland at the moment is that there are two groups: one group who are trying to consider everything in its entirety and all important factors to reach a solution. Typically this group acknowledges that there are lots of points of failing but that we don't know enough about what is really going on to have all the answers. Some think Neeld should go. The other group wants to yell, stamp their feet and call people names if they don't agree with their opinion. Most of the people calling openly for Neeld to be sacked fall in this group. Try to have a reasonable conversation instead of slagging off anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Garland should play on Franklin not Frawley. If Franklin goes into the midfield, a run with role from Dunn might be on the cards.

Gawn needs a rest and a run at Casey where he can implement what he has learnt at AFL. It has been apparent that he has struggled that last two weeks, but I expect him to be back up soon.Fitz and Spencer are different players, both have been in great form this year, Spencer came into the AFL side and was subsequently dropped based on performance. Fizz will come in for gawn, play forward and pinch hit in the ruck. Hamas holds his place because he is a better ruck and stronger even though he does donuts around the ground. Pederson had been BOG for Casey for the last two weeks thus he comes in. Rodan comes in four the injured Byrnes. I am surprised by the Magner omission. One thing I have noticed is that, subs aside, he has played our lowest game time (near 70%) for the last two weeks. That suggests to me his fitness and tank needs work to bring to AFL level. Maybe explains his dropping to Casey. I'm happy with Strauss in as it will release watts to play forward/wing. Blease hasn't performed in the vfl and was concussed before half time last week. Does that answer most of you're questions?

Fair call. We are yet to see how the system works, and I think it nasty play putt different this year. We should have taken Byrnes through the draft for compensation purposes, I think we'll see more of that this year from all clubs, although other clubs may play hard ball and refuse to trade for low picks so that they get the FA compo. The AFLPA wants all players to have equal chance of success. If that is the case then something needs to give somewhere regarding improving bottom teams. I don't think think making trans pay more of the cap helps either, it just means average players get paid more. Maybe instead of increasing the salary cap for lower places teams there could be a sliding scale of cap minimum % payments? I think gradient scales across the board are a good way of avoiding tanking as there is no specific cut off point, but if your cap changes year to year it will be very hard to manage.

Good point. Part of me doesn't like the salary cap idea because it is hard to organise I.e does it offset over year? Two years? What happens if a team has a sudden rise up the ladder and the contracts are still running? Perhaps there could be an additional "marketing allowance" for free agents or marquee players for clubs in the bottom 6 as well? I.e.an additional $200k signing bonus or something? Also I think any clubs finishing in the top 4 should be prohibited from signing any free agents in that season unless they lose a free agent in the same free agency period. And despite the talk against free agency compensation, I think it needs to stay or be increased, otherwise it will compromise the draft etc as teams won't be able to replace talent as it is picked off.

Sorry to clarify, I intended this for use instead of priority picks when they are awarded (not every year). Priority picks haven't been successful for any one, they don't bring immediate improvement, put pressure on young kids and are no guarantee of being successful. The mini draft option would be more likely to encourage player movement, should have an immediate impact on bottom clubs and should allow top and middle clubs access to elite young talent to help extend their run art the if the current player. A mini draft pick and a first or second round pick could be enough to secure a superstar on the trade table.

That's a disappointing post BB. You are so despondent and so bitter and see the worst case scenario in everything you have mentioned. Earlier today another poster suggested than in reality issues probably sit somewhere between the two extremes, a view you should consider. It is emotionally hard following the club right now but stick at it. Unless you are going to put up your hand you need to trust in the leaders we have elected, or at worst trust in the leadership of Peter Jackson. As a club we'll pull through this but if we fracture we will fall. If you want to see the good times again you need to support the club in whatever ways you can in the bad times.

Could the AFL give picks that have to be traded for established players? I.e. each year the bottom two teams get picks 1 and 2 in a mini draft for that year (similar to the GWS mini drafts). Those picks could be traded to other clubs only for players. If no other clubs offers a suitable trade for the mini draft pick I.e. only duds not solid players, only then can the picks be used by the bottom club. AFL could have a mediator who rules on whether the offers are worthy or not, so clubs can't play ridiculous hard ball on the picks. Basically based on would the traded player be in your best 18? Best 10? Do you already have someone in that position? Realistically we are looking for established players moving to bottom clubs to improve them.

Great discussion CBF, thanks for considering and understanding the issues, debating and acknowledging that the truth is probably somewhere between the extremes! It's unfortunate that this sort of discussion is getting rarer on demonland. Re a) I agree it was amateurish. I think we panicked somewhat and decided we need to get this right and can't be beaten to the punch by other clubs. I don't think Neeld was necessarily the wrong choice but it hasn't worked out and it probably won't. Given the other external factors of the past 18 months I would be surprised if it worked out for anyone as senior coach. Re b) the flash and image thing, I think you are referring to the emblem, the blazers, the signage at the g and the focus on historical aspects of the club. I agree that this is entirely wanky when we are getting smashed on the park however big picture I see done benefits. Media was saying the club stood for nothing, Schwab tried to make it stand fir our distort and the history of the game. We have spent a lot of time positioning ourselves as the oldest football club, with historical style branding and marketing and linking ourselves back with the MCC. Unlike other clubs (such as western bulldog) who have tried to move forward and repent a new generation. This approach has probably been good for securing our future. We have spent a lot of time positioning ourselves as THE foundation club, as an irreplaceable part of AFL history. What do we stand for and why are we relevant? The emblem explains it. It seems redundant when we are getting belted but in recent weeks the media and other football identities have started saying "we need a strong Melbourne football club". They weren't saying that in 96. And I think as a club we have answered the question of what we stand for, but not the question of how we stand for it. I'm glad to hear someone else temper their calls for Neeld to be hung drawn and quartered. Doesn't mean he has to stay, but he needs to not be made a scapegoat.

Which dead wood are you referring? The board will leave as soon as another option presents itself, mclardy has publicly stated he didn't want the job and that he couldn't find anyone to take it. The football department aren't going to step aside and quit, nor are the players. The football department, assembled from other external clubs, got rid of the dead wood players already. You want onfield leadership? So do the coaching staff and players. Why do you think that the players voted a 21 Jack Trengove as their captain and best leader? There are no other options. We may need change in our organisation but we have gutted the place on and off field in the past couple of years, and need to tread carefully. Any new football department is going to take the same account of time as this one. Short term results due to fresh start may occur, but that will not mean immediate fast tracking to success.

WYL what would have satisfied you during the Richmond game? I don't think anyone thought that it was the result they wanted nor was it an acceptable example of what we are aiming at but it was certainly a large step in the right direction, and for a team devoid of confidence there were promising signs. Was I happy with the Richmond game? In terms of this season to date, yes. And I'll be happy to see similar effort and result the next two weeks.

Wow, you really think that? a) as CEO and president it was their job to appoint the coach, not a coincidence. Who do you think should have done in? A subcommittee of members selected by straw poll? AFL house? The media? b) I am not defending his record or ability as CEO but I think Schwab is truly a Melbourne person. He has continued to support the club publicly since being sacked, he hasn't slashed anyone off. If anything he is so much a Melbourne person that he shouldn't have been doing the CEO job, which is one position where you need a ruthless business decision maker, rather than a clubman. Remember, it was Stynes who got the boys club together, and he did it in an attempt to unite a fractured club. That brings us back to the OP. We can't afford to fracture this club again. We aren't big enough or strong enough to turn away help or turn away supporters. We are all Melbourne, even if some haven't achieved what they promised, and its important we are respectful to our own and ruthless externally.

I think he will come good. I'm worried that he is injured and could have troubles long term but I love that he loves the club. If he can get fitness and form, he will be the type of player to drag the rest of the club up with him. He does the team thing first and foremost when he is on field, and we don't have many players who know who to play that smart team football. He leads by example, even if he does it through tackling, positioning etc rather than getting 35 disposals. We're lucky to have him imo.

General consensus seems to be a couple of good mids plus upgrading some of our poorer depth players will give us a decent list. I agree but think we need caution on our expectations, the list will still be very young and inexperienced and it will probably take 3 seasons for toupas, blease, viney, Jones m, terlich et al to develop into a top grade midfield. At that point most listed will just be hitting 50 games. Bringing in senior mids will help fast track the young guys, hopefully we can land some big fish with the help of the AFL (priority picks, marketing budget etc). Neeld has been saying a similar thing the last couple of weeks "these are the guys to take us forward". The bulk of the list ifs there, we need some cream, some experience and leadership, and we need to pull through the current confidence crisis with minimal scarring.

Board members and employees are different. The board members are volunteer elected positions from amongst the members. The president needs to be a Melbourne man. The board can hire whoever they want to run the place based on expertise. We already did that though: Neeld, misson, Craig, rawlings, Taylor, all other assistance except royal (who is actually a doggies man originally?). I agree that Schwab was probably party off a bird club which caused problems in the way things were administered however he has proven in his actions this year that he is more of a Melbourne man that many on this forum. His actions and words despite his sacking (which was probably justified although purely handled) have been gracious and shown the man to have the club as his first priority. The disgusting personal attacks and that's to abandon all support of the club unless a particular action is taken, made on this forum on the other hand, are indicative of selfish behaviour where personal gratification appears to be more important that the long term survival of the club. Despite the owner of such comments usually claiming to have the club's beast interests at heart, a "my way is the only way" approach, combined with the derogatory personal attacks, will only serve to fracture the club in ways that are not sustainable. Is action needed? Yes. But we need to support together, not marginalize sooner people who are great Melbourne people and are willing to give off themselves to see the club survives. Just because they haven't been successful doesn't mean they don't care or haven't tried their best.

2 good comments it'd like to discuss HP. RE the first bit, I think you are shot on chasing game styles, and I think that has hurt us. There was a significant shift from the full run and carry style of 6 years ago to the forward press of the Collingwood style. That Collingwood style relied heavily on being able to win stoppages, being the fittest and best drilled team and also, one of keys it was a low risk low reward approach. By kicking around the boundary it adopted an "if we can't have it neither will you" approach. The advent of the forward press changed the game completely. All new tactics current rely on the ability to understand and implement one. If a team can't do it they will lose. Geelong have come along and worked out a fantastic counter which was described really well by above. But to do this, Geelong need to be able to run hard enough to defend correctly. They also need to be able to attack on other ways, as the opposition isn't always set up in their attaching structure to exploit. I don't think our current plan is the Collingwood plan from 5 years ago. Our highlights have been fast movements and fast breaks behind the opposition. We are (or were) leading the competition for playing on after marks/free kicks, which doesn't correspond to the Collingwood plan. There are aspects of it in our plan but that is not its entity. I think one of the reasons our players are struggling is because lack of fitness combined with being one of the last playing list to adopt and understand modern defensive football tactics means we had a long way to go to understand the fundamentals prior to getting the fancy bit. Even geelongs plan is built on those fundamentals, despite it being completely different. In a way it would be like playing footy now but not understanding flooding, our pushing back. Imagine if all out players insisted on standing in their set positions ala mid 90s instead of pushing up the ground? It would look bizarre and we'd get belted. That's an easier to see version. The second point is really interesting because I think it is amazingly relevant to where we are. I don't think Neeld will last, and I'm not convinced he can turn it around even if given time, however the performance of the two playing groups is worth contrasting. They belted us round 1. Both teams had horrible seasons last year, we arguably have better KPPs they have a better mids. Both playing groups went into round one with confidence absolutely sky high, certain they had done the right with and were on the right track. I don't know why we were belted round one. I'm not sure anyone could ever tell you. Better quality mids? Better execution? Old wounds? Lack of mental toughness, confidence and self belief caused by lack of cohesion and bonding due to such a new playing group? Who knows. What happened subsequently was that the team lost all belief. We stick at it for a quarter against essendon, a team with massive self belief and a team that had just been galvanised together and had a point to prove but weight of numbers is against us, heads start to drop, the team cohesion fractures and we get flogged again. At this point we are the opposite to PA, and it is probably nothing to do with the coach. While they may be factors, it isn't the game, the recruiting, the fitness, the injuries or anything else that is our big problem now, it is the complete absence of confidence. What do other teams have that we don't that affects on field confidence and effort? On field leaders. Gut runners who grab team mates by the jumper and drag them along. This lack of onfield, midfield leaders is one of the main reasons we haven't been able to turn it around. Neelds job should be to teach them defensive structures and our game plan. At the moment he is trying to coach morale into a shell shocked, confidence stricken group. In our current condition I don't think the incumbent is up to out. In fact in these circumstances I don't think the incumbent could get us out regardless of who he was. PA had the benefit of that outrageous win first up which sent the confidence sky high and got them on a roll. I'm not exonerating Neeld but I think we should consider that it may not be his doing and that part off this is circumstances out of his direct control. We, as a club, need to fix it, and that may cost some people their jobs, including Neeld, but I think Neeld had brought heart and hope to the playing last before round one that we haven't been able to regain.

Please run with a "Rebuildind server, rebuild expected to last a further 3 to 5 years" gag or similar. That screenshot would make my day. (And I'm currently in hospital - ding my best to get a Jack Viney sympathetic moon boot - so cheering up is a good thing!)

I imagine I'll need to raise my profile if I want to be elected! Edit: and stop the auto correct typos!

I've had no problems using the mobile skin.

I truly hope we have put out a generic statement to all player managers: Would you like to earn double your current salary AND get an extra month off in September every year?