rpfc

One has been incredibly solid and the other has hardly been on the park. If we had Jones and Clark I would say this about the new captaincy dynamic: One has been incredibly solid and the other has hardly been on the park.

I can see the players are bereft of confidence in themselves and each other. And while that is the burden of the coach it doesn't mean he that 'the players aren't playing for him.' You can dial back the dramaticism - I have said since the Essendon game that Neeld is to be removed should our performances continue the way they have. I just put forward the notion that removing Neeld will not solve our personnel issues simply for the fact that it will not solve our personnel issues.

It's amazing how Hird has fallen though. I can't imagine he can continue on once this is over and his club is fined heavily and half a dozen players are suspended. Tried to deflect from the start, was using the 'gear' himself and misled the board. That should add up to a firing.

or funny...

Don't know enough yet.

That's a big 'if' and I am not saying that we keep him till October. If in August we are certain of his fate then we can do it then and reconcile it with any players that were disillusioned. I just don't think it is as simple as 'the players hate the coach' - some will fight for him and will think we are a rabble for firing him before he even makes it to the half way mark of his contract. 1 month of a caretaker is fine, 2 months if you are sure the decision is made. But 3 or 4 months of jogging on the spot doesn't help us retain those oh-so-disillusioned players.

At this point he is gone at season's end. I don't know why we are dancing on graves here. It isn't working out and should what we see continue - at the end of the year we will move on to (hopefully) an established coach. But I see very little reason to have 4 months (!) of caretaker. It would be akin to a marathon of running on the spot. (Yes, I know what we have now with a seemingly lame duck isn't much better but I would take a dynamic of blokes trying to save a coach than a coach everyone knows is there until the end of the year.)

The inference is that I haven't considered anything I have read as particularly compelling...

Can those that want immediate removal of Neeld please tell me why we would be so set back by not giving him another, say, three months?

Ok, well, of all the 2 month lay offs, I guess having a screw removed because the old injury is going well is a good one...

If Trengove wants to concentrate on his footy and give up the captaincy then that is his decision. I am not about to applaud the removal of an impressive young Demon from the captaincy - on the surface it will look like we have ANOTHER scapegoat for our problems. Trengove is underdone and is showing it. But that is not reason enough to demote a captain. There is more to leadership than being the best midfielder in the team. Which, I am sorry to say, I feel is the driving force of some of the 'Jones for Trengove' proponents.

So you are trolling us? Charming.

If you are going to get a sure thing for 7+ years then of course you give up that pick. We need to continue targetting players from other clubs who have played 60/70/80 games and we think can make the next step. We are not going to get stars in any other way than the draft - but we can short circuit the process somewhat if you get blokes who have already had 3 or 4 seasons of preparation.

I have learnt that making an 'Best 22 capable of winning a flag' is a hiding to nothing. You can have a great forward line and it might be starved of opportunities, you may have a great backline and it may be over worked and bombarded. It all comes down to the middle of the ground: we are talented in there but not tested or experienced. Midfielders in their PRIME (Age: 22+ , Games: 70+): Jones, Sylvia, and Rodan. Where does the improvement come from? Magner 25, 17 games Jones 25, 5 games Couch 24, 3 games Bail 24, 39 games Grimes 23, 58 games McKenzie 22, 59 games Howe 22, 40 games Nicholson 22, 22 games Blease 22, 24 games Tapscott 21, 33 games Trengove 21, 63 games Evans 20, 7 games Taggert 19, 0 games Tynan 19, 2 games Toumpas 19, 3 games Kent 19, 0 games Barry 19, 0 games Viney 19, 0 games Stark 18, 0 games That is every midfielder on the list that may make it to their prime, whatever that prime may be. Years away from prime 1: Grimes, McKenzie, and Trengove. 2: Bail, Howe, and Tapscott. 3: Magner, M Jones, Nicholson, Blease, and Evans. 4: Couch, Taggert, Tynan, Toumpas, Kent, Barry, Viney, and Stark. Now this is not an exact science, far from it. But you can see where our talent is and how far they are from being able to shoulder the load for us to be good team.

lol I thought the meme was that Neeld was TOO hard on the players?!

Would we still losing a f___load of games? People are reading this Jackson installation as something akin to dose of penicillin for the whole club. He is just going to come in and give us an idea of best practice when it comes to the Board's role in governance of the FD - make sure that the finances are what we say they are, push for the club to make a sane decision (and a proper process should he make way) on the coach at the end of the season, and take Schwab's commercial duties. But Neeld's fate will be decided the way all coaches fate is decided - results and performance.

I thought that Davey denied the whole thing. I also had 'word' (I know that people hate that) that the club believe Davey was not the spark of that story.

How about this for a scenario: If Magner was on the list this year, Dean Terlich would not be. He was the last live pick at the draft for us, and if one of you says "we may have got him in the Rookie Draft!" then you are an idiot because it would mean he wasn't on the list and in the same place as Magner.

No lynch mobs, RR. No flash mobs, no mobs with torches. Not even a flash dance mob. Of all the emotive chest beating on this site, you would have to be the most derogatory, confrontation-loving, auger of dismissiveness on this site. Now I know this will lead to superficial self-reflection and a dismissive response but nothing is as simple as you make it out to be. Wilson didn't do her job properly, she gets criticised, that's the crux of it and no-one gets lynched.

He is underdone and fighting through it. I told you people not to expect much. You just don't listen...

Firstly, those 'rubbish facts' are a two-way street are they not? I can tell you there was no code named meeting to discuss tanking - even though she wrote that 'fact.' Threats and 'ashen faced Schwab' were thrown out into the ether by this woman and we ask for more from journalists who hold so much sway? If you stopped for a moment and not try to just explain away criticisms as 'mob mentality' and 'group think' you would come to the same conclusions as most of us. She had a terrible 2012 that affected your club in an extremely negative fashion - she didn't get stories correct and she never corrected herself. Certainly wasn't a lynch mob... PS. F___ing Lynch Mob? This is the kind of reference you would arc up about from any poor d!ck that mentioned it. No-one is dragging her over to a tree and stringing her up and hanging her for the colour of her skin, RR.

We have no leaders, and this is why we struggle. If Brent was at the club I would say this about the club: We have no leaders, and this is why we struggle.

No-one has a bad injury.

You have been defending the administration from any and all critical observations, hence your 'governance' snark. You shouldn't be so dismissive if you don't won't to be easily dismissed yourself. And your misdirection over McLardy length of tenure and involvement is reminiscent of the misdirection from our club to the AFL and from Dr Bates to our club. Tell the truth but not the whole truth.

Cute. McLardy has been effectively running things since the day Jimmy heard his terrible news. Neeld has done nothing for our onfield fortunes as yet, but don't sit there and tell me that the off field has been nothing short of a disaster, and don't sit there and tell me some of it isn't of our own making. When Dank was supervising injections of players - did anyone other than our Dr know? If yes, I hope they did their due diligence on what they were allowing their investments to ingest/be injected with/smear on their f___ing feet. If no, then we have a major issue with how the FD is run and why so much latitude is given to a part time employee who was given incredibly important decisions to make that may determine the future of the club and its players. That is just one question that those that are running the club have to face, or fess, up to.