Tricky

Why haven't you got the guts to call yourself Dr Who, Whoey?

Apparently he isn't - some poor bastard on here actually knows them both, in the flesh - can you believe his bad luck?

I think we should begin taking donations to the cover the frontal lobotomy he will no doubt be requiring.

Obviously in dream land by saying this. But imagine a 3 way swap:

1 - frawley to GC.

2 - Ablett to Cats

3 - Harry Taylor to us

Ha!

Let's just do a straight swap for Ablett - I'd be happy with that

Agreed. I dont like seeing any of our players in other club's colours.

Seeing Beamer in the paddle pop lions outfit and Cam Bruce in the poos & wees are up there, but Sylvia in the black and white would be too much!

Disgusting.

Well I got called a Keyboard Warrior for saying what I thought last week.

He's gone at seasons end. He's not planning to hang around. But hey, what do I know

Then we need to change his mind. Can you put in a good word for us?

I would be disappointed in the extreme if Sylvia left this club.

He is an absolute must retain player. A bit of a litmus test for Neeld actually.

Wish I had posted this.

The "rebuild" gets longer and longer every time Melbourne lose talented senior players.

This.

I understand the "not the end of the world" outlook, but anyone who thinks our quality KPP are expendable is delusional.

100% agree , balls deep

Relax, we've got this...

LOL.

The original is still the best!

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/29858-relax-weve-got-this/?hl=relax

Depressing to think the idea is even more comical this time around!

Lol. You're argumentative, aren't you? My point was that it wasn't an enlightening article whatsoever.

No I'm not

If Melbourne don't get a PP, no other club ever will. That's an opinion.

And a pretty sound one based on the facts he presented.

Do you take everything so literally?

What's your point again??

Though it's not a fact. It's an opinion.

Which part is not factual?

Let me lay it out for you. I am a strong supporter for giving MN the time (his contract) to improve, I am long-term orientated and believe the long-term list and cultural change that we need will take a while, which no one said it wouldn't, and that it is more important than short-term results. I don't believe, with our current list, that we will win anymore games this year.

I started out with a similar sentiment - although in my case I could not shake the feeling that backing a second consecutive untried coach, given the magnitude of the mess we were in, was extremely risky...

In the time since then, I believe we have witnessed numerous, serious errors in judgement on Neeld's part and under his reign we have bottomed out beyond all expectation to a W/L record of 5/29. 4 of these 5 wins against expansion clubs - and you can throw in our largest ever loosing margin at the MCG I believe.

Why must the ability to progress on-field in any way, shape or form, be mutually exclusive to the "long-term" plan?

Unless we see some inkling, some glimmer of hope on-field soon, then I see no reason that we should have any confidence that we are moving forward under MN. Enough is enough.

I love mojitos, long walks on the beach, reading poetry - particularly the ballads of churnalism by Caroline Wilson, game of thrones, all things January Jones. I don't like Collingwood, Jeep adds, or anything Koshie.

Cool.

It's incredible to think that he'd be "shocked and dismayed" if he were to be given the sack this year.

iF the club were to back him in, then I think the need to look at getting a high profile experienced coach to be an assistant and mentor for him much like the Hird/Thompson situation.

Like Neil Craig?

He's a horrible writer and probably just had a read over Demonland yesterday. Anyway, it is just a regurgitation of what many have been saying - if we don't get a PP, no club ever will again. I think it was Redleg that was quoted. But ultimately, I concur. And yes, I believe we will qualify for a PP.

Yep, I suppose when people actually state facts, the message will sound similar...

You may be right about boring. but I'd be right into some incredibly boring wins.

An incredibly boring premiership?

Have a look at the ladder. The top 5 teams are all coached by "untried assistants" - and one of those wasn't even an assistant, untried or not.

To this I say what stuie said below...

And how many of those 5 were as bad as us when the "untried assistant" took over? Geelong? Sydney? Hawthorn?

But I guess what you're saying is that ALL untried assistants must be good. Great logic.

So by using the same logic does that mean all experienced coaches will succeed?

Of course not, personally don't care if they are experienced or not, what I do care about is getting the selection process correct, as opposed to the last two.Get that right and we should get the right man, stuff it up and we get the last 6 years continuing.

I'm not against untried coaches per se.

Obviously we want the right person for the job above all and this cannot be guaranteed. However, a proven, experienced, successful coach who remains relevant to the game is, IMHO, far less of a gamble.

While Roos was a great coach, he had a pretty handy side and the advantage of an oversized salary cap. Even if Roos did change his mind he would cost big dollars, which we don’t have.

We would be better off going for someone who has either had a turn elsewhere but is not in high demand (i.e. Ratten, Williams, Voss or Eade etc.) or an untried assistant and then spending the extra money boosting the recruiting department.

You would entertain hiring a third consecutive untried assistant after (what would be) 2 colossal failures?

Seems like absolute lunacy to me FT - might as well get GLyon to pick him for us....

I almost feel sorry for my two week old son reading that, Darbsy.

And then it occurs to me. No, I don't - any kid can choose a Collingwood or a Carlton, whereas no kid gets to choose the Dees these days - it's generally a privilege, it's a family thing, it's inherited.

Accordingly it's more meaningful IMO. And it shows more character if they can stick with the club in the long term.

The kid may get bagged a lot more along the way - but if ultimate success ever comes the way of the MFC, no one will begrudge a long term Demons supporter their time in the sun. No one - with the potential exception of a few Pies supporters of course.

The Demon supporting kids in your classroom are the ones getting the real education now - one day they'll thank you for that.

Great post.

Let's hope however that they don't have to continually repeat the lesson like the rest of us modern day Demons.

Should it really matter that we have wasted previous early picks in regard to the AFL giving us a PP at the end of the year. Surely if anyone is at the bottom for a sustained period it means they have wasted a few early picks up. How will anyone get one?

No it doesn't.

Jon Ralph article puts this kind of comment into perspective (Not a fan, but he is right on this):

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/the-buzz-its-enough-to-make-every-heart-beat-true/story-e6frecjc-1226642434738

Melbourne could yet finish bottom and, if it does, its record since 2007 would read: 14th, 16th, 16th, 12th, 13th, 16th and 18th.

When the AFL brought in its priority pick system, the league made it clear only a club with levels of failure akin to Fitzroy's would receive a pre-draft pick.

Fitzroy finished sixth, 10th and 11th in three of its final eight seasons, figures Melbourne can't boast.

And as Dees great David Schwarz said on Monday: "Melbourne is a bee's whisker from being in the Fitzroy position."

The league's formula for priority pick allocation is based on premiership points won, finals appearances and premierships, as well as injury rates - not the level of incompetence of previous administrators or the volume of the objections from rival clubs."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/paul-roos-denies-links-to-melbourne-coaching-job/story-e6frf9mf-1226642510151

Is the double negative in this article enough to fuel our hope? "Roos, who led the Swans to the 2005 flag, said not even a huge payday wouldn't lure him back into the coach's box."

I assume by the lack of reply that BB was the only attendee at this address, so we have no other views to confirm/counter what was said, normal Demonland then, on with another 10 or so pages of back and forth over nothing

I was there - BB's report is accurate and confirmed by Tricky.

Jackson was very impressive - connected well with a simmeringly hostile audience and I really felt like he was already one of us.

Howcroft was completely the reverse, aloof and extremely disappointing - for someone who is in the communication business, well all I can say is his performance mirrored our on-field performance.

Sat, if i could paint you a picture, it would look like this:

Which is exactly why I think the current Board should go looking but I take the point that a much more likely outcome is the AFL will have to do it for us.

This Board has made us so bad who would want to be on the Board? We are now back to losing money, the once in a generation chance to go to the membership has been squandered and our product "football" is unsaleable. It's a legacy that no Chairman would want.

It's not surprising people aren't lining up to do the job but the positive is that we are so bad that we perhaps have a chance to restructure the Board to (say) a maximum of 6 who understand their role (the primary failing of this Board - it's governance boys, not operations) and are there for their skills and not because they are "connected".

Sentiments that stuck in my mind after last night that should give us hope:

I’ve been asked numerous times today “How will we entice anyone here?”. Easy. It’s the biggest and best challenge in football at the moment and there are a lot of people out there who like those sort of challenges. Fundamentally that’s why I am here. I can’t say no to a challenge. So there will be others who will say the same thing.

I think it's somewhat unfair to call Howcroft out on his perceived lack of football knowledge. I'm sure there are many board members at other clubs whose experience is not in AFL, and I'm sure Howcroft does bring other things to the table.

Having said that, if his response to criticism is 'you can always just vote me out', I do not respect him as a board member. That is a terrible attitude to hold, totally disrespectful of the position.

Change at the board level is imminent, and I'm sure will bring positive change to the club. It is but one of a myriad number of steps that need to be taken, and, in essence, is one of the minor ones with regards to improving our on field position.

Perhaps it was unfair, a room full of premium members despairing after a first half of football from our team that was reminiscent of your local under 9's side, but he certainly came across very detached and smart ass-like...

Peter Jackson on the other hand addressed the room with respect and even stated that he marveled at the loyalty of the members given the predicament of the club.

I'm not sure if it's been referred to here but Russell Howcroft introduced Peter Jackson to a group of members yesterday in the Ryder (?) room. I never expected to attend a MFC meeting where the depth of feeling from the membership base was as ugly, aggressive and in a sense disrespectful to our appointed officers as at the Dallas Brooks Hall in 1996, but in its own way it was even worse. This was not a meeting that was organized with well drawn battle lines but a regular event where a Board member informally addresses the members.

Jackson said nothing different in this meeting to what he'd said all day in his media blitz and while the members welcomed his honesty and common sense they turned on an inept Howcroft. It started with Jackson telling us of a dysfunctional Football Department with no clear lines of responsibility or reporting and an administration which was similar. These comments, while not mentioning Schwab or the Board, were scathing as he outlined that the clear principles of Governance and operations had been ignored, misunderstood and abused.

A member of the audience turned to Howcroft and asked how this Board had allowed all this to happen in the 4 or 5 years of their watch. Howcroft dodged the question saying as a member based organization we could all stand for election. He has an unfortunate manner and his smugness and lack of empathy with the mood of the audience led to interjection and abuse being hurled at him and the rest of the Board.

Jackson clearly understands footy. He immediately engaged the members. He knows what a good footy club looks like. He understands Boards, Administration and corporate structure. He knows this Board is a failure.

In 2008 Jim Stynes and Don McLardy approached the Gardner Board and told them they were out of ideas and needed to move on for the betterment of the MFC. To the Gardner Board's eternal credit they recognized a better Board, read the tea leaves and saved the Club from a battle that would achieve nothing.

It's time for Don and his merry men to look in the mirror, remember history and now identify a better Board and stand aside. They have reduced this club to its lowest ebb in history and made it the most unattractive of propositions. They can do one good thing - find a better alternative and move on.

What makes this absolutely painful is that some of us have recognized the clear failings of Don, Schwabby and his merry men for ages. Anyone with any training or experience in how business work could see this. And yet this Board who have so much individual talent couldn't.

I'll never understand that. There is no doubt their hearts were in the right place but the damage they've done is incalculable.

I was there too BB and you have summed up the atmosphere very well.

I might be wrong but didn't Peter Jackson say that there were no less than 4 lines of reporting all coming back to the CEO from the football dept, and that the CEO shouldn't be so close to football operations. That suggests more a deficiency with CS structures than Neil Craig.

Exactly what he said and was clearly an indictment on CS.

Unfortunately for him his 2 years are being added to Bailey's 4. Whilst this is not fair, the fair question is should we persevere with a coach if he is not the right man for the job. We did with Bailey and many on here are still a bit gun-shy. I know the answer to the question is we most certainly shouldn't and I couldn't see anyone disagreeing with that, the bit I don't know and where we get the argument is, is Mark Neeld the right man for the job.

Spot on rjay.

How the decision was made to hand this tragic mess to an untried coach beggars belief.