rpfc

This is what defines Neil Craig - not the actions of a head coach he was not responsible for or to. We can sit here and judge based on perception if we want to - that is our right. But it would be foolhardy to eliminate a candidate because of your own failure with your last one.

This is asset destruction. You can't run a club like this. If he is worth more to us than we can get for him - then we keep him. If all he will be is a HBF with a great skills then he is worth more than ND30. List management is an artform in need of some science and shoving Watts out the door for ND 30 is terrible list management. We have managed to turn ND3 into Brock McLean into Jordan Gysberts into Cam Pedersen. That is asset destruction.

If people want to find it they will. There is no need to have so many threads on the one topic. The club should explore it options with regard to a trade but maintain the desire to re-sign him. We need to maintain our assets, we don't have too many.

You didn't get to the part where you explain Craig hasn't built a team. They invented the term 'Crowbots' to describe the way his teams all worked hard back and forth, ran all day, and had 22 competitors on the ground. No-one has given me a decent reason to not want Craig that is simply related to the perception that he would be 'tarred by Neeld.' Craig is a different class of coach to Neeld and should not suffer the ignominy of having his career be overshadowed by the unmitigated failure of another.

9 games. Caretaker is a job no-one should take, the way fans expect the undeliverable. He is a proven coach of men and we will have him or Eade or Williams and I am comfortable with that.

Just because we are still wallowing does not mean we haven't improved after Neeld got the axe... I have no idea what that smiley face is doing there - we are terrible. Just terrible. But we are a better team under Craig than Neeld. There is barely a comparison - if we are Fitroy like now, we were University-like under Neeld. *Melbourne University entered the VFL for 7 years of failure from 1908 - 1914.

This is pretty much it. Communicating to the players that their time is soon coming to an end and treating all players with respect at all times. And this not just for Aaron Davey by the way. This goes for our latest retiree Joel Macdonald - who was played in the Development Squad at Casey a few weeks back. That is just terrible management and I hoped we were past that. I don't know what the reasoning was or is, but the disharmony that crap brings disintegrates whatever attempts are made to improve your culture. Same with Tom Gillies last weekend being picked to play for the Dev Squad. Rookies are treated on a different plane to those on the primary list for reasons that are unbeknownst to me but I would assume are pathetic. I will say that this happens at a lot of clubs and is another great reason to get rid of the rookie list entirely. Treat ALL your players EVERY YEAR as if you want the best for them and YOUR CULTURE will improve. I will write something to Jackson if I hear one more disappointing thing like this in these closing weeks.

If we did that we would have a challenge every three years. Others would be more aware of the constitution but I expect that there will be a simple ratification of the board at the coming AGM. It's not democratic but democracy doesn't work when it comes to footy clubs. The AFL would know what a good board looks like more than the rank and file members of the Demons.

I have read he was a lifelong MFC supporter. Not that it matters when you are a Foundation Hero. That is Level 9000 Demons Supporter.

Couch has already been told he is not required next year. All the easy decisions like that and MacDonald have been made. Not certain of Magner, I would try and trade him for a pick before letting him go. You can trade rookies now.

I don't believe in time-lined transitions of leadership. Get the best around an experienced coach and make a decision to move on to one of those you have recruited at the right time. The coaches you bring in will 'know the score' and realise that there is an opportunity there after a while. Craig, Eade, Williams or Roos must be given more than a couple seasons to fix the culture of the place without having their power usurped by the 'assistant coach in waiting.'

It was getting a little sidetracked but you pick out the meaningless segue if you want. We will have a conversation around you.

We are not selling an effing house, we have a possible 17 other buyers of which about a dozen wouldn't be interested. Watts happens to have a few gifts (height, skills, position) that make him unique, or rare, in the market place. And he also has the added 'benefit' of being from a development program that people look down on as third world "if he was with us, we would make something of him" is an attitude that will make others believe that there is more there than there really is. You ask for more than you are going to get and you hope to get something valuable back. Because if you want to make it a completely emotionally detached decision - Watts is an asset that we cannot lose unless we get a commensurate asset in return. Let's talk about Asset Destruction: Pick 3 Brock McLean Jordan Gysberts Cam Pedersen Try and do a better job than that is what I would say to Viney and co...

You are absolutely right, pantaloons. And the side point to this is how loyalty is a spigot that we have no trouble turning off, but when players see an end to their contract and a choice to be made on their future - we demand what we shouldn't demand.

Board members are volunteers. Volunteers do what they do because of the passion they have for the cause. A Demons Board should, and will, be predominantly, if not dominantly, filled by Demons.

I don't know if his heart is in it. I know he was filthy about having to play Casey 2nds a few weeks back. I wouldn't ask him about his perception of the club right now. I don't think he has a had a happy last season of footy.

And if they lose your case you get a free pizza.

I cannot believe any of you would actually believe that the President would not be a Demon. He has been a lifelong fan and more recently a Foundation Hero. He is a Demon. As if we would give the reins to any AFL lackey. Your Board has to be full of loyal Demons. That way Jackson can be as ruthless as we want him to be. With the emphasis on 'we.'

A great number of you might do an about face if he re-signs... Look, we were all worried about the stories emanating from the club about Neeld's effect on the players and the fact that there were players who were keen to leave if Neeld was still in charge. It was a driving force, for many, behind the desire to remove Neeld. Now it comes to light that, yes, the players were not happy and that Watts was a player whose desire to remain at the club was shaken by a head coach we selected to coach the club in Spetember 2011. Now it is August 2013 and we have another decision to make. And we have no coach, no President, no head of footy, and no midfield (which will effect Watts as one of our prized assets...er players). Frankly, I would trade him if a suitable mid came along but I am not about to burn an asset just because he has the level headed belief to make sure the club pulls its finger out before he signs on for another few years of being the clubs lightning rod. You do not build a list by being 'hurt' by remarks in the media and making ambit claims and blanket statements about the future of players. You coax him back to the fold and if the right trade comes in you pull the trigger. Some of you are making this very personal.

Who Dares Puts Themselves In A Position To Win. It's less catchy... Mike Whitney nixed it at the first meeting.

Ok, there is a fundamental disconnect here because I think most of us sit in the following camp: We want all our players to want to stay but there would be only a handful of players we wouldn't trade to get a better player back. Now with that mindset - how can we damn someone, who has had issues with our previous coach, to wait on who will be our next coach and what direction we will move in? I want to keep him but I would move him if the right trade came in.

UPs are attacks. They involve a man in space who was willing to run and risk that his opposite number will get it instead. When a team gets 60 or more UPs than us, it means they have attacked the game more than we have, and that we have not dared to the same extent to win enough footy to win the game. The old axiom is true... Who Dares Wins.

The GWS and NM has hurt the perception of him but if those on the inside see him as a good option to fix our culture in the next 3 or 4 years I would completely understand. For me, it has always been Roos, Eade, Williams, or Craig. I just want a coach that knows how to instil some belief, and install a good culture. Maybe Craig is more suited to exactly that.

I really don't know where to start... Footy is a numbers game, if you walk into any midfield session during the week at any club they will rattle off 10 different categories that they are tracking. A graph is just an illustration of stats. And, lastly, in no way is the above particularly complex: Winners usually win the uncontested footy count by a comparable margin. Craig has got the team to do much better than Neeld.

Ok, I got a graph that show the correlation between winning and uncontested possessions: The margin correlates to the 'margin' of uncontested possessions quite clearly I think. This next graph shows the dramatic improvement in the first 8 games of Craig's tenure over the last 11 of Neeld's. This graph shows the average margin and the average UP margin of the two tenures. There is no comparison really, the lines don't even cross... The players simply did not want to run and be bold and take the game on during the first 11 games of the season. I don't put these up to illustrate a desire for Craig to stay on, although I can see the argument for that, I say it because I want people to know that there is hope and that improvement so marked like above can come in such a dark season then imagine what a good coach would be able to do with a summer to work with.