deanox

There won't be a challenge, and anyone who decides to challenge is unlikely to be the person to vote for. If an alternative board was available, a group of people who together wanted to do this and who collectively have the capability to do this, the board will step aside. Everyone slagging Don McC needs too realise he doesn't want to be there but there is noone else. His comments a few weeks ago about the public treatment of volunteers on club boards discourages people from wanting to do it wasn't a whinge, it was highlighting the fact that everyone he has approached has refused to help out. Remember, the board is vote and elected from the members into unpaid positions. If we want to Fiji down the paid director path we will kill everything we love about footy. There will be no clubs trying to win footy games, there will be only businesses worrying about making money.

If Neeld doesn't back his players to play with dash and flair, how come we play on more after marks than any other than in the AFL? Logically either Neeld backs them but the players aren't executing well enough or Neeld doesn't back them but the players aren't listening and are playing their own way! If we play slow people blame Neeld, if we play too quick people blame Neeld. I'm not convinced Neeld is the right coach nor that he is any good but the arguments being used to demonstrate how bad he is are so stupid that it is just pathetic Neeld bashing for the sake of it.

Based on what? After a poor showing when Neeld arrived her was told to pull his head in. He did, and has trained hard since, was promoted to the leadership group last year I think (May be wrong) but Neeld has been full of praise for him. Under Neeld Col has played his best and most consistent footy. What knowledge do you base your comments on other than the current "sack Neeld or the players will walk" hyperbole?

If we get our house in order to the AFL's satisfaction (that doesn't mean demonland's satisfaction), I think the AFL will bee more inclined to give us a pick. We are a youth side with minimal on field leaders our experience. The pick might not help us immediately but I'm sure the AFL will ask what we plan on doing with it, if we show how we'll use it for immediate improvement (say, trade for a star) I reckon they'll come to the party. If we say more kids, 3 more years of pain, they'll tell us to get stuffed. They want us off the bottom and out of the news.

Any idea what started and happened in the melee?

Anyone threatening to cancel membership on the back of club business decisions needs to take their toys and go home. Seriously, We are Melbourne. The members, the players, everyone. The board are just members volunteering to run our club. Your membership gives you the right to question, review and vote. It gives you the right to stand for election if you think you're a better option. But if you are no longer a member, particular in protest, you're a no one. You've resigned as a part of the club. Suck it up and support you club, vote for people to run the club and support people who are in the know to make the correct decisions.

Completely agree, and I'm very happy to pay covers, in terms of salary, to bring in the right types of players (very good players, with a knack for high possessions, good culture and work ethic, etc). Salary is a no brainer, we have to pay it to someone regardless, so we may as well use it to buy what we need, with the draft and salary cap etc, there aren't many situations where you can actively just buy things. We may as well do it. In actual fact I'd even be willing to pay slightly covers in trade terms if it secures us players. Pick 3 who may be amazing in 3 years and a leader in 6 isn't what we need now. Actual value of commodities is different for each club. What I wouldn't do is pay silly covers for Col. Very handy player to have but doesn't give the club what it really needs right now.

We should offer Sylvia a reasonable offer for someone of his ilk, equivalent of what he'd get elsewhere maybe with a small loyalty bonus. I wouldn't pay excessive overs just to keep him, as I'd rather spend that on the open market and add value to the club that way.

For anyone questioning the selection of toumpas and jetta (which I am), have a think about the reasons a and alternatives. With 5 outs, are there two players who deserve to be in more? Particularly when people are calling for 3 or 4 other players to be dropped. Also, we were horrible last week. Really horrible. Would anyone have been happy if we only made forced changes (injuries and suspensions) and didn't drop anyone?

I think you could excuse the auto correct on my smartphone...

As devils advocate, is neeld of the opinion that he is on track because he was set the tasks of: -Bringing our fitness up to AFL levels -Removing the tail wagging the dog culture -Developing young leaders It is not unreasonable to expect a 2 or 3 year turn around on a problem like that, given the list can only be turned over so many at a time, and only so many experienced and quality additions can be added due to availability. Also, such a gutting of the club to change inherent problems is bound to have a short term detrimental affect on performance due to removal of so many key on field people for off field reasons. If this is truly the task he was set - rebuild from the ground up - would we expect better results?

We all are Rhino, we all are...

I don't think he will score us a good player without other enticements, but he is one of the best we can offer. And as a sweetener he isn't bad. Much better than Jetter or Bail as a sweetener, which has no value. He is highly skilled and has potential. A lot of other clubs would expect to utilise him, and in a strong team I would expect he would be able to do what he does best - use the ball well. Imagine his kick to a player actually leading to him?

Any prematch game would be great, and would be a financial winner for the AFL. I get to the game 10 minutes before the bounce. Why? Because there is nothing to watch, there is loud music that is annoying, and at Melbourne games I always get a seat. If there was a reserves game, or a womens game or an under 18s game (with this years draftees playing) which finished 30 minutes before the game, I would get there 90 minutes early and watch the second half, and potentially id get there and watch the whole game, if it was Casey v someone. If I did that I would buy lunch and a drink or two. Thats $20 extra they'd make off me every week. I never buy food at the footy, because at 320pm on a Sunday I've eaten lunch and I don't want dinner. At 730 on a Saturday night I have dinner first. Even if they wanted to change an additional $5 entry to get there more than an hour before the game I'd be willing to pay to cover costs.

I really don't understand so many people 'don't pay overs' and I also don't understand people (often the media) saying we paid overs for Dawes and Clark. We are terrible beyond comparison. Our players don't perform. We have salary cap room. Go out and spend what ever it takes to get two a-grade mids to the club. Requirements of one is that they average 25+ disposals. We need someone who can win their own ball. I don't care if we overspend on the free agent market (offer Daisy $900 k a year, damn if Scully is worth it, Daisy is worth it to us), or overspend with draft picks (I would entertain pick 2 and Watts for Prestia and a second round pick if it got him here). Add two mids to the team who can win the ball and we look very different, and we are winning ball and we are streaming forward. Average players look like great players when they have other great players around them.

Garland is the perfect match up for buddy because buddy is the tallest forward locket in the game. Overhead marking is not his strength, its his agility and speed. I'm not sure this makes garland suitable for playing on reiwoldt. Frawley on Reiwoldt Seller on Vickery Garland on McGuane Id try and get frawley out of the last line of defense a little to see if he can generate some run and attack, so happy to swap him and Seller as required for this.

Dawes and Clark on the park together will be good for this. They will control what others around them are doing and where they need to go. A clear advantage of bringing in an experienced midfielder into the team through FA or through aggressive trading, or both, is that we will add this direction to the midfield as well. Jones is a good player but he isn't a director of traffic.

Not exactly Suzanna, the GPS data shown on chan 7 or on a run keeper ap might just show distanca but the software on the GPS the players and coaches use would track speed and distance with time. It would give info like top speed, acceleration rates, number of "efforts" over a predetermined threshold (which may be max speed, or acceleration rate, or length at a certain speed). The whole running game of each player will be there to see. The reason the players get this is because it is very illustrative: you only hit top speed 4 times or in the last quarter your acceleration is noticeably slower, or you ran at top speed for a total of 10 sprints in the first, 8 in the second, 6 in the third and 3 in the last. They get very useful and detailed information. I can't believe that Need, Mission, Craig, the assistant coaches or the players are so unintelligent that they would equate distance with performance. Whatever we think of them as coaches at the MFC they are expert sport scientists and coaches, they have a basic understanding of this sort of stuff! I do however agree with both Pates and you in your suggestions that it doesn't feel like we are running hard enough, into space for our teammates. Given we can't we see the running, either the coaches are lying to the players (and us), the coaches are wrong in their assessment that our running numbers are the same as other teams, or we are running in the wrong areas at the wrong times. My suggestion is that we must be running and exhibiting efforts at the wrong times. Is it because we are late to the ball? I'm not sure but an explanation of this would go a long way to assisting supporters understand what is going on.

WJ, I thought Grimes was already put on the LTI. We just haven't promoted anyone yet. And from the CBA my reading is 8 weeks, not 8 rounds, same as Gawn was at the start of the season.

I like the article and am happy these things are coming out of the club. While I think players always stick up for the coaching staff when asked during interviews regardless of their actual position, writing it in an article and putting your name on it is different. What interested me most was the GPS numbers comment. Neeld referred to our running and GPS numbers in the press conference last Sunday too. Personally from watching I don't think we run hard enough when we don't have the ball, and possibly don't chase hard enough either. If others have the same observations as me, but the GPS numbers say we are on par, I'm wondering if we're running hard at the wrong times? Are we doing more work in another part of the game than we should? This may be the zone many people are complaining about, or something else. What do people think? I certainly don't think our forward lead and double back and lead against. Etc as hard as other teams, and I certainly don't think our mids spread as fast or as far as other teams.

I thought How crofts answer about "people wanting to challenge for the board" was fine on paper. The question was "you were abysmal, I hope you know people will challenge" and he said that a challange was fair and within the rights of the member...what's the problem?

I hope the board isn't challenged, I hope that the potential candidates talk to the current board and everyone works out a succession plan like typically happens at local level. No need for more turmoil, and instability. No need for more fighting. I'm pretty sure a lot of the current board would stand down if there were genuine alternatives.

I wish there was a love button.

You could also claim that they don't like Neil Craig because he is in the footy dept, or perhaps they don't like Don McC, or maybe they had a disagreement with their line coach? Or maybe they don't like the bloke lining up next to them in the forward pocket so they didn't bother trying. Lack of effort on the field does not reflect whether the players like the coach or not. Also, how come you can't take Jackson at face value when he says he doesn't know whether Neeld can coach or not? It seems like everyone just wants Jackson to come in and find a solution that involves proving their opinion correct. If Jackson doesn't do what any particularl person wants they'll just argue Jackson is making a mistake. Let Jackson do his thing and trust in it. Or put your hand up for the board at the next election. Or call a SGM and put your hand up there. If you are a paid member you have the right.

Look after today I couldn't care whether he stays or goes (provided we have a replacement and a plan ready to take over), however I don't think he was deflecting or blaming the players, he was saying "everyone talks about how much pressure im under, but don't make it about me, make it about the players" - he is saying, don't worry about saying 'how are you coping mark?' think about the fact that the players have had to suffer the same distractions etc. He was actually sticking up for the players and saying 'remember that they are still human and are affected by all this stuff'.. I think Mark has backed the players by saying 'these are the group to take us forward' and 'these guys have talent, they just don't have experience'. What was he meant to say? 'Yeah the boys were crap today because i coached them poorly?'