pitmaster

Just want to make the point that those who toss around claims like "we have had a shocking culture FOR DECADES" are so wrong. Culture is not fixed. I saw at close quarters what Neale Daniher did when he first took over and there was no bad culture there. He reinvented the place, asking the players stuff so basic as 'who do you play for?' He encouraged them to think about things like pride, mateship, loyalty, family, supporters - all stuff you might take for granted but if you are a 20-something kid you've never thought about. Neale IMO stayed two years too long and became too close to a handful of his senior players, but there is no way he allowed a bad culture in the way it is spoken of here. Northey gave us a temendously gritty team that got everything possible out of itself. So let's ease up on the 'we've been a disgrace since forever malarkey'. It is not true, and we of all people should not be talking ourselves down. Plenty of others do that.

Let me endorse those comments. This is the best thread started all week so keep it coming if there's more to give.

Fundamentally the issue is can we afford not to sack Neeld? If the team improves or shows something in the first couple of weeks after the bye against a couple of the lesser sides, as I have said elsewhere, maybe the issue dies. But the team at the moment look worse than coach killers: they could be club killers. If he goes I'd cop T Viney as coach. Passionate and learnt under Clarkson. Would have a Northey like red hot go I suspect.

Peter Jackson yesterday: "I do know that we are looking at an operating loss of $1 million. If crowds do continue to decline, then the consequences of that might be a little bit north of that," WHAT DID I TELL YOU BUMS? Now stop sooking and GET TO THE BLOODY GAME. And take a mate. If it's too tough stay in the bar.

You're right - not an earner which reinforces my point - but it was the game MFC members could use as compo for Darwin. I have corrected the OP accordingly.

Sorry, you misunderstood my post. It was a summary of the key points made on OTC and FC. The reference to Watts and others readying to go came from FC as in end of year. Is it right? I don't know but there's lots of talk about it.

For those who couldn't or wouldn't see it all my take on OTC and FC. IF Board meeting next week decides it is financially feasible to replace Neeld; AND IF there is no discernible improvement before the bye he will be let go. IF he remains players (read Watts) will walk. G Healy actually gives a rats' about MFC. The team has the nucleus - about 12 players - that potentially gives us a strong future. P Jackson to become CEO at the end of his six months. Asked if Neeld should go G Lyon said not necessarily but he could understand why people would want it done. I'd have preferred MN get the chance to coach against some of the other strugglers with Clarke and Dawes on board. Looks like that won't happen.

The board is less relevant now with Peter J running the place. McLardy set to go end of the year anyway. To turn the lot out at once is overkill. Change has to be managed and I refer back to point one.

Customary slag off with no argument or attempted logic. Pity you appropriated the name of a ripper player.

Makes no sense, just like most of the sack Neeld lines. Look at it this way: he was told to pull the joint down and start again. His first real go at that was last Nov-Dec recruiting period. He even gave Bate a year to prove himself not good enough. The job is only half done. No one could have predicted the place would fall apart as it has but I think MN has realised he went in too hard at first. Anyone notice how his language has changed? He now talks about Evans, M Jones, Kent as the blokes who will carry the club forward. He has flipped the switch to positive reinforcement. I say he gets to the bye in two weeks and declares the season to start anew from from round 12 when we face the Aints followed by fellow strugglers the Dogs. Remember, that's when Clark and Dawes play together for the first time and Sylvia and soon after Grimes comes in. If using the bye as a freshener and taking on equally battling clubs results in what we have seen yesterday or even against the Tigers then it will be a major problem for him, but we have to see how we go against these clubs and see if the second half of the year starts to yield results. But so far his preferred side has not even been out on the park. In practical terms, who is going to come to us in this state anyway? No coach with a reputation to protect would take us on. Face it, whether you like it or not we're stuck with him. Face it too, that he was given one hell of a job to do, bigger than probably anyone realised.

The next two weeks are our last chance for a decent earner so all those disenchanted supporters of ours must roll up to face the Hawks and Pies. Our home games this year are a disgrace. Only these next two weeks offered any prospect of a windfall. Look at the rest of them: Port Adelaide, GWS, Gold Coast, Eagles, Saints, Dogs, Swans, Freo and Norf (at Etihad!). Of those, only the Saints offers a break even prospect unless Demon fans stick fat. Tough as it is, get there this week and for QB for our club's sake.

Grow up.

QUOTING gnf "Let me remind you in late 2011 when we were looking for a new coach, so were 3 other teams. It was widely considered that of the four, Melbourne had the best young list and was the most advanced in any rebuild" So what? We were widely seen as the best young list? And that would be by the same people - the football media - who regarded us as the best positioned Victorian team to succeed in the 2007 season. That is right old boy. They really rated us after the '06 finals series and we were the next big thing. And that's your authority. As far as I am concerned widely seen means sfa. (Apologies for weird presentation but the quote did not show up accurately)

Mentally weak and prone to sooking.

Yeah that was weird but the howling mob cowed the umps all arvo.

Magner showed today with his aggression and run - he actually roved successfully to the opposition (!) - that Neeld's biggest list error was putting this bloke down to the rookie list.

Bail was awful. Caught out of position a few times so he simply failed to compete or put any pressure on his opponent. Scouted on goal, which was ok, but when he lined up for that deliberate shot in the last quarter I just knew he would miss. Just not good enough. And rpfc if you don't get how McKenzie kicking into the man on the mark killed us as we were pushing then you seriously underestimate the damage he did. A+ for effort but the skills just are not there and miskicks killed us today.

Every so often there is a post on this site that shows the poster knows next to nothing about the game. Congrats deefella...you are today's winner.

Lighten up folks. It's a bit of a history lesson that happens to reflect badly on us. So what. The bloke can't be on top of his game every day. Just like us. There actually is not any gratuitous shots at us. Just the facts ma'am. Unlike c(o)w.

I think you're referring to salary cap matters as the first screwing. Your history is lacking RJ. The CEO who instituted the salary cap breaches was none other than old 29, Hassa Mann, who was Schwab's predecessor in his first incarnation. Mann was following standard practice at the time, Schwab's role became one of closing out deals as they expired but intervention for reasons not entirely clear, by Joe Gutnick saw CS holding the bag.

Very generous of you BBP to credit this thread with that much thought.

The point no-one considers in all this speculation is that R Lyon knew the Melbourne gig was in the offing and yet he chose to speak on the quiet to Freo, keeping even his manager out of the loop. G Lyon thought he sussed it out but R Lyon was on a mission of his own, his management notwithstanding. From this it is fair to conclude he had no interest in us, and figured the Freo list was a better option, so let's stop the hyperventilating over would he wouldn't he have joined us.

Healy did not say Dawes selection was poor. His point was that with Hogan in the wings and Clark in the bag we should have gone for another midfielder. Interesting to me was that Healy was off our backs and said there was more talent there than people recognised or admitted. I am in the not-convinced camp about Roos too. Boring football and so far up himself he would need to be told the sun was up. If he came I would not be outraged but I would not be upset if Neeld stayed either. He is learning on the job and as PJ said, has not had the chance to sail in clear air at any point. That twitch worries me, though, about his capacity to handle pressure.

Not exactly a surprise given results and the draw but very sobering anyway. Football spending will need to be protected though.

Permissable but often undesirable, even ugly. All rules can be broken but only if you know what you're doing so for all our sakes keep it to a minimum. And can we do likewise with the sack Neeld posts? It's been done to death. If the incremental improvements seen so far continue the second half of the season might actually see some consistent footy from our blokes.