PJ_12345

I've been to the last 2 heroes foundation events, and the past 4 b&f's - I know how generous supporters, and players, are. Raising money through supporters is an activity done by every club, the most successful has been Richmond. Credit has to be given to those at the MFC who held those events, got sponsors/gifts/raffles and who made it possible to get those generous donations. If people hold the board responsible for the debt this year, they also have to give credit to them getting rid of the $5m. Credit where credit is due (for the good and the bad). As to the sustainability of it I agree with you. But no one said they were going to rely on donations as a long-term strategy, the donations were used to get rid of our $5m debt and get us self-sufficient... the tanking has clearly ruined any hope at that

Rubbish. Been the only thing that has been under control. Inherited a debt of $5 million, wiped off in 2 years during the GFC, managed to free up finances for both Casey/Aami park and increase FD expenditure and posted a small profit for the first time in how long last year.

Apparently if we win the Spread Eagle Hotel in Richmond is giving away free beers until it closes... dont know if its true or not but if we win god help them

$1.5m is a big hole. Simplifying the structure should reduce administration costs, but it all rests on if we get another Future Fund grant from the AFL... Glad to see Jackson said Neeld needs longer to be accurately judged.

Getting rid of the dead weight, good draft picks, got experienced players from other clubs including two premiership players, developed rookies... He has gone backwards in many aspects (such as performance), and he has done some wrong things (see approach to seniors) but come on stuie to say he hasnt done something is a crock.

is it me you're looking for?

Spot on old dee. Will be good to see how Dawes goes on Sunday. Might be one to add to the list

Probably only 1 that would be in any other team's 22 - Nathan Jones

That is correct - my mistake.

17,000

Sorry about that, I got a bit too defensive. I share your sentiment!

So what, you would rather axe a coach with a long-term strategy? Since 1965 no coach (apart from Daniher) has lasted more than 5 years. Bailey lasted 2, and now people are calling for Neeld to go after less than 2 - we are eating through coaches like an American at a all you can eat buffet A great reflection on our demand for short-term performance than long-term...

Thats my biggest fear: there is no certaintly a new coach will continue with it, or change it the way it needs to be changed. Are you better off getting a new coach for short-term results and sacrifice long-term change, or keeping the Neeld who is sacrifcing short-term results for long-term change?

What do you think the club is doing? Do you think they want us to get flogged, do you think they are trying to run it into the ground, do you think they are not trying to change? Neeld has a strategy to change this club and its not producing short-term results because its long-term orientated. He has chopped off the fat, developed some young rookies and brought in some great staff such as Misson and Craig. Sure he has made some mistakes, particularly with his approach to the leadership group but he is actively trying to change the club so we dont have to be in this same place for a while. Patience is a virtue, and no one has more patience than a Melbourne supporter. But I would much rather not win a game for the rest of the season and for once have a long term strategy to get us out of here than be in the exact same spot in 2 years complaining about the exact same thing. Changing coach wont get us anywhere. We will waste another season with a caretaker, the list will be subjected to another rebuild to fit the new coach, and we will have to go down the exact same road in letting the coach see his strategy through... most likely they will be subjected to the same short term criticism and then we will have to get a new coach 2 years later, and waste another season with a caretaker coach, the list will be subjected to another rebuild to fit the new coach, and we will have to go down the exact same road in letting the coach see his strategy through Long term performance > short term performance.

They would. Not really something you could go over their heads about and they would have given their view/choices

Good on them both - they have played well and deserve it. Will take alot of pressure of Trengrove and also means if he needs to rest his foot Nugget is still co-captain. Good move.

Sorry McQueen - I dont understand nothing

Having a stadium in the Docklands was a great idea, but the stadium they built was shocking.

Isnt that a double negative?

Case in point: this weekends game against Gold Coast.

Ps, intended typo?

He is from the country; was boarding from high school at Melbourne Grammar. Not that soft.

Liked your analysis. You're right, some of it was painful but the truth hurts. RE Magner and Couch I think there might be more to the issue then just breaking in. They would have been in this years 22, but issues with rookie list (Evans either dropped or promoted) and some quesitonables who got into the 22 instead. Such is life. Potential to be in top 22 - Im hopefull but it all depends who is culled at the end of this year. In short - they are this years 22 standard. But didn't get in. Maybe some possibility with LTL. Dont bother - saw condemned's post - exactly the same point Hope you get better