Ron Burgundy

Not to forget Jimmy Toumpas. Hogan is destined to be a superstar. I don't care that it's only one game in a NAB Cup format - his talent is just so bloody obvious. I hope the club gives him a 10 year contract extension.

Why is it doubtful?

A sensible and practical approach adopted by the club here. All the evidence I have seen to date in relation to the charge of 'tanking' is completely hopeless, but the cost to this club of a bloody knife fight in the courts would've been far worse. As someone I work with often says, "hey, it doesn't always pay to be right". And that's all we would've achieved had we gone to court, and the cost of proving we were "right" would've much, much worse. Congratulations Don - you've nailed it again. This club has officially entered the professional domain. Finally.

She strikes me as an anti intellectual bogon, which unfortunately is probably reflective of most of her readership base. No doubt, she's therefore got wide readership base in this country.

PS. Had a dream/nightmare last night that North pumped us by 96 points in the NAB Cup game this Friday. Woke up - and then thought to myself, even though their midfield's a lot better than ours, it's just not possible to beat us like that anymore. Quite simply, Neeld's defensive focus and systems will not allow it.

I love the bloke. That said, even though everyone will be demanding more wins this year (including me), I think Neeld is still focussed on nailing the underlying fundamentals of building a good team/structure rather than achieving end results this year. He is still all about instilling professionalism, discipline, team oriented behaviours, improving fitness and skill set etc at the moment. Accordingly, I feel we're still very much in a development phase, not a finals phase. Frustrating perhaps, largely because we've been in development phase since 2007, but that's not Neeld's doing. In fact, he's the solution to entering the next phase. IMO this season is about building towards making the finals next year. And then going deeper into September the year after that. And I reckon we will.

It's red hot that we get put through the ringer for going after one priority pick and yet Sydney, the reigning premiers, can simply land Tippett in dodgy circumstances for Jesse White and pick 22 and seem to escape any significant negative press for it. Hope Mitch is back and firing by round 3. We desperately need him to be. Pity we can't play Hogan in his absence.

BH - it seems to me that M Jones has pace, a mature body, reasonable skills and vision etc - ie, a good mature age mid. That said, where do you see him fitting into the structure of the midfield? Would he most likely be on the ball, or more of an outsider?

Perhaps The Age should be found guilty of tanking. Rapidly declining readership base, appallingly low journalistic standards, cost cutting - surely it all points to one thing. They are tanking. I'd like to see Cameron Schwab write an article to this effect and place it on the MFC's official website ...

Thanks. Would be very interested to know your view. He's one in particular that I've been following this pre-season, based largely on your reports.

Obviously it will be interesting to see his NAB Cup form given that you've only seen him at training, but, on what you've observed over the pre-season, is he a decent chance to play in round one?

The club can't sue for defamation, although I expect some of the individuals concerned would be able to. Wilson's articles would've been 'legalled' though, and it's not easy for an individual to commence, and maintain, proceedings against a media outlet for defamation (ie, it's expensive and the ensuing knife fight can be very damaging to the individual concerned even if, ultimately, they obtain judgment in their favour). I'd be interested to see if the club has some other claim against The Age for the economic and reputational loss it has suffered as a consequence of may ultimately turn out to be an entirely baseless and frenzied attack against the club. Novel claim perhaps, but worth exploring IMO. As an aside, the timing of Don's announcement is interesting. Perhaps the club was concerned to ensure that all evidence had been obtained by the 'investigators', and then fully considered, before it issued public denials. It seems to me that the club would now be aware of the evidence obtained as a result of the 'investigation', and it now feels comfortable in issuing such denials. Speculation perhaps, but IMO a good sign nonetheless.

Malthouse is going to love this bloke.

Interesting that the likes of the panel of On The Couch, Caroline Wilson, Adrian Anderson, and the media world generally thought it fit to re-open the MFC tanking debate based on the so-called new evidence raised by this fool. What a joke.

Funny you ask actually. My wife and I agree on the first name, but have been arguing about his likely middle name. So I locked in the middle name I like on his MFC membership. Think I may win this one - at least that'll be one victory for 2013! (It's not Ron by the way.) As an aside, I also sign up the kids of many of my friends, none of whom actually support the MFC. I figure they'll get used to the red and the blue in the cot, and will grow up to support the Demons. This strategy doesn't always work though. I signed up my God-daughter to the club last year and her father, who's a passionate Swans supporter, sold her MFC membership on eBay. Unbelievably, someone actually bought it. For 20 bucks.

Consistent with this, I signed up my kid yesterday. He's not even born yet. Due 6 May.

It's undoubtedly a very important game. Clearly a loss would be extremely bad. Equally, an emphatic victory could be just the shot in the arm (Essendon style circa 2011 rounds 1-8) that this list needs.

Did you get the impression that he wanted to stay at the club beyond this year? I'd absolutely hate to see him leave the MFC.

Any update on how Couch is progressing? I just don't see him getting a game this year, but that could be a pretty harsh view to take. Clearly the club kept him for a reason and, given they axed some more skilled players and generally took a fairly ruthless approach to the list, they must see some upside to him. Interesting to hear from anyone who's observed him at training.

I see the Gysberts trade as one of Neeld's Moneyball plays. We needed Pedersen. He was more important to our needs than Gysberts, and Neeld went for it. I expect Gysberts may ultimately prove to be a pretty good pick up for North. Similarly I have reasonably high hopes for Pedersen at the Dees.

Okay. Just wait for actual success before you 'buy in'. That's an admirable approach to take. Fortunately, it's the opposite of the approach adopted by Aussies in battles such as Kokoda and Long Tan. And that's part of the reason I've convinced 11 new members to sign up thus far this year. Cop a tip, I'm not telling these 'supporters' to wait until 8-10 rounds in to see where the 'reality bus' is taking us before committing to the club - I'm getting them pumped up right now and telling them that the journey to success has well and truly commenced. And I believe it has. Back to Barry. Even though I'm relying on feedback provided by others, I reckon he's going to be a little bewdy.

Actually Baghdad - that's not what I'm saying. Simplistic, albeit distorted, analysis from you once again. I can see it's a convenient approach for you to take, but it's not one founded in a sound methodology. Lazy stuff. In fairness, I accidentally deleted two paragraphs from my original post, which I've since reinserted. But I'll spell it out simply once again. You cannot simply compare the results from 2011 and 2012 because it's not comparing 'like with like'. 2011 was a 'finals' year. 2012 was a 'completely rebuild and wholly transform the entire football department/player group' year. The evidence reflects this. 1. 2011 - (Bailey's fourth year with Bailey's list) objectively speaking, a woeful year, which included some of the worst losses I've ever observed. Despite some big wins against flaky interstate teams, we got absolutely hammered by most decent sides, including suffering the worst loss of any AFL club in almost 30 years. At the commencement of the season, this was a 'finals' year - it was Bailey's fourth year at the helm, it was his list and the blue print was now for finals. We came 13th out of 17 teams. 2. 2012 - (Neeld's first year with Bailey's list) Neeld came into a very weak club which, through no fault of his own, was getting hammered from literally every angle: the 'lack of process' of his appointment was ridiculed, Jim Stynes passed away, he was accused of racism, senior players went feral, the 'tanking' debate (a remnant of the Bailey years, not his) was enlivened etc. He also inherited a bag of rotten fruit to deal with in terms of the list: it was not balanced, it lacked the requisite professionalism and fitness, there was a leadership vacuum, it lacked hardness, and the game plan was, in his view, all wrong - in short, it could not be relied upon to consistently win big games. None of this was his doing. Yet, he stated - I will change all of this - fundamentally, but it will take time. He then sought to turn everything on its head. Notwithstanding this, you seek to compare the results from 2011 against 2012. On any construction, that's completely ridiculous and as unsustainable as Bailey's game plan. 3. 2013 - (Neeld's first year with kind of Neeld's list) The season hasn't yet commenced, but Neeld has been ruthless with the structure of the list, the discipline and approach required of the players, the training regime, the leadership group, the culture of the group. This is obvious and it cannot be seriously contended otherwise. Whether it will work, who knows. But, the signs at this point are far more promising than previously - not necessarily for terrific results in 2013, but for improved performances in 2013 (relative to 2011), followed hopefully by improved ladder positions in 2014 and beyond. Why? Because Neeld has focussed on the underlying fundamentals. So, will I be saying Neeld is a success this year if we consistently get belted by only 12 goals each week, rather than 30 goals as you say? Well, no. It's you that wants to take the '186 benchmark' to a wholly ridiculous end, such is your way. I merely reference the 186 point loss on 30 July 2011 as indicia of a list/player group that was clearly in a hopeless state and, at that point in time, I literally could not see ANY light at the end of the tunnel. As at 1 Feb 2013, I no longer have that feeling - perhaps I'm deluded - but I suspect not. And I blame Neeld for making the much needed changes to get this list into a more decent state. I don't mind if you disagree with this. In fact, I don't really give a stuff if you do. BUT I do mind if you misrepresent my position through, for instance, the inane act of pulling definitions of words off the internet and posting it as some kind of argument in response.

Old dee - thanks. Apologies though - I just got back from work, only to realise that I'd accidentally deleted two paragraphs from my original post, without which I'm not sure it makes perfect sense.

I think such a comparison is brutally unfair on Neeld (ie, comparing the average losing margin between 2011 and 2012). The methodology is wholly wrong. In short, you are not comparing like for like. 2011 represented Bailey's fourth year at the club. By this time, it was essentially his list, he was responsible for the preparation of the players (ie, fitness, strength conditioning, mindset), the game plan, the culture, the professionalism etc. However, Neeld inherited this list at the end of 2011. It was Bailey's list, not his. Neeld immediately assessed the list, and seemingly formed the view that it lacked quality in the senior ranks, it lacked quality leadership, it lacked a decent game plan, it lacked the requisite fitness base, and it was a black hole in terms of culture - in short, it was not sufficiently competitive to consistently win important games. And he then embarked on a strategy to introduce a hard, accountable, professional, disciplined approach to the list and the way it performed. He pretty well sacked the entire leadership group, he flamed the senior players, he changed the game plan etc. He did so, he said, because it would ultimately pay dividends and there were no quick and easy ways to achieve sustained success. This was the blue print. But, importantly, he said this would take time. However, some of you guys, rather simplistically, seem to think he should've been winning games from round 1, 2012, even though everyone who knows anything knows he was committed to fundamentally changing everything about the list and the culture of the team. FCS get real. Edit: I was at work when I posted this, and given that I was in a rush to get to a meeting I accidentally deleted two whole paragraphs, which I've just reinserted, but without which the post doesn't really make sense.

I just can't agree with you on this BB. No decent side gets beaten by 186 points. Anywhere.