rpfc

What rjay means by this is that Schwab had 4 people in the FD reporting to him, which means that there is no clear boss of the FD - leaving Schwab as the man with all the knowledge and decision making powers. I honestly had no idea this was the set-up when we first did it. I thought Craig was the boss and reported to the CEO and Mahoney did the piddley crap Craig didn't want to do, but to have 4 lines of communication upward - while it allows more information upward, not having a clear boss of the FD would not help it function to say the least...

Yes, a frustrated group of supporters going to the club and not the papers. Again, we have plenty of people willing to help - we are just doing it methodically and without the need for public bashings of each other and the club.

As Head of Footy Ops he is the interim boss of the FD and reports to Jackson. Everyone below him reports to him (Craig, Viney, Harrington, Taylor) He used to have a similar title but who TF knows where he was in the structure.

I hope to see it but, from experience, confidence rarely alters in-season - and that is the thing that gets blokes to spread and do team things and win footy games. He's a good coach, but I don't see it happening.

Louis CK?

I don't think it is Peanut Butter Jelly Time just yet, Jaded. Not just yet.

The OP is right. And those that say Neeld had to go are right too. A cacophony of failures and ill-fate of the last 6 years has been bubbling away while the environment of the list has revealed itself to be much worse on reflection than even the most pessimistic person thought. Frankly, the way we have been bickering the toss over which Board, and which Coach, and which Recruiter is responsible for our downfall misses the obvious organisation-wide anemia that has plagued us for a while. Did it begin with Neeld circa Moloney/Rivers? Did it begin with The Tanking Saga (see Schwab/CC)? Did it begin with the unabashed youth policy (Bailey 2008)? Did it begin with Daniher chasing a flag (Pickett, Moorcroft, Holland)? I am not sure, but I am certain that it is irrelevant. The way forward is to try and make decisions, from now on in, with the best interests of the culture of a club that is proud of those decisions. Draft Terlich. Get Hogan. Secure Viney. Trust Jackson & the AFL. Own the Neeld decision. Keep making those decisions.

I wouldn't hold out much hope for the Clarkson/Roos options... But it is good to know that we are looking at Eade as a fallback. I really don't want to go down the untried coach path again. I think it gives this group a lovely place to hide.

So we put him in the 'Possibles' pile?

Now, now. He wore it for those initial sit downs with the vermin (journos) when he took the job on. If his thinking since then has been - 'I am not going to wear that tie while asking for AFL assistance or sacking a coach' I completely understand. It's a semi-novelty tie for a businessman to wear, even if said businessman is the CEO of the organisation. Just my 2 cents on that interesting, albeit trivial, matter...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-17/afl-doesnt-want-me-at-melbourne-kennett Evidently, he has the same view as I do - the AFL doesn't want him at Melbourne. He makes an interesting point but I don't think it aides his cause - he argues that being behoven to the AFL will lead to some decisions that are not in the best interests of the club. But the answer to that isn't a former Hawthorn supporter. Surely it is a Melbourne supporter (or supporters) being in charge. Oh, and he could only find 3 Dees apparently - he wants a 4-man Board to be installed by the AFL (so no member involvement there) and headed by Kennett.

Surely before convening it is a matter of Jackson calling Clarkson and Roos, then getting rebuffed, and then calling Williams and if rebuffed again, then we can convene a panel...

Also has some unrealistic points strewn in there as well. For balance I guess.

lol

Yeah, and you know who the real losers are? You and me.

Kind of deflates any argument to the contrary...

Instragram.

lol You have got to be kidding me? Jeez...

You are right about the Craig scenario. I feared he would not have a job if Rawlings was caretaker so he might need to be absorbed into the coaching department as opposed to the Minister for Sports Performace role that he was in... Otherwise, we are looking at another pay-out. Maybe he can do what Williams does for Richmond. Possibly, ironically, for Williams.

Look, don't like the betting side of it... With that said - go and try to get Roos but when that falls through - Williams would be my choice.

Well the efforts (or lack thereof) of the players is confirmation that Neeld 'didn't have them.' You needn't say more. I am only saying that I am not going to give credence to players actively seeking his dismissal without harder evidence. It's all really moot now.

You just receive Holy Communion?

It turns out that I was on the money with how the new Board will be installed. They will be casual vacancy appointments in the next few weeks as Jackson said in the presser, and while he said the members will have the ultimate say, I am not certain that 'ultimate say' will involve a universal election of the Board at the end of the year.

Still not convinced of that. The ineptness of the club on-field might send players running. That is why this decision was made.

Bumped for HSOGs benefit. Well, I got the year to see whether the FD could get things going. They could not.