timD

I wonder about Craig's comment - that a coach needs the passion to do this. Now, if drive, passion and commitment are key (but not the only) indicators we need - they are necessary but not sufficient - then I'd rule Roos out now and move on. He is Malcolm Blight. Thanks but no thanks.

Robbie, i think spencer meant to hit McEvoy BUT i thought that Spencer thought that McEvoy would have picked up the ball - the intent was to bump but I think he assumed that the saint kilda player would have straightened up after picking up the footy. Instead he fumbled and lurched forward and Spender, who had committed to bumping, kinda followed through without malice

Isn't it a case of changing strategy? We've tried appointing our own a lot. We've had some success doing so but it has been pretty compromised lately. After some years of failure, is it not smart to re-think how we find people for the club if the method we've used does not work?

I think we have been in that position for some time. Now we are like aligned with AD's ego. It is the safest place in footy to be.

I'll be there with Dad and my two eldest kids. Rugged up and ready. Hoping that someone does something. Maybe the shackles will come off. Damn you, witless Hope. Damn you.

Members have no idea. remember the push here for Kennett and Schwartz to go on the board? Both terrible ideas for lots of reasons but willing members are ready to vote them in. I'm fine with being run by the AFL. I know I cannot do the job, I don't know anyone who can do the job and the current group sure as hell cannot either. WE need a benevolent benefactor. It is pathetic, but it is also our position and railing against it is counterproductive. Unless you can do it better.

I think the original premise is flawed: Bailey was, from all reports, liked by the players and the senior group wanted Schwab gone. Second point - Sydney players wanted Roos, not Wallace (foot urban legend...maybe myth). They got what they wanted and it worked alright for them. Third, players have to have a coach who makes them feel like they have a future rather than that they are f__k ups from the start. If that means we select a coach with that dynamic in mind, then that is fine. It is not the players selecting the coach but the player's needs are foremost in mind.

Cute. Name one "expert" who said that nobody would want to take the CEO's job? Then tell me if the AFL's backing, removal of members of the board, the admin and the lure of the priority pick might have changed the landscape. I think it is cute to suggest that somehow people of character were always going to carry the day when in truth the AFL has stepped in to run this club. It's got nothing to do with character, Jack. The features of the club that made it unattractive are being altered by the AFL. Not by the club. Not by us. Those "brave enough" are getting backing. So it isn't bravery, really, is it? And you know all of this. I'm baffled as to why you are writing this stuff. No-one believes it.

Wasn't last monday the Queens birthday match? Would that affect the timing of rehab?

Responding to sarcasm with sarcasm is snide at best. I'll not debate this further. I disagree with you - your figures and logic. But what does it matter? This whole topic makes me miserable. My two older boys (6 and 3) run around singing the Dee's club song and I feel sorry for them. I've learnt the hard way that it matters who runs the joint. For my part, I'll be asking a hell of a lot more questions about our board, ceo etc from now on. I'll not be duped by populist politics again.

I don't mind mistakes - hell I have made enough! What I mind is how you fix them - what responsibility you take. The OX is a great example of a bloke who made every mistake a man can make. He owns that and tried to move on. He earns a lot of respect for that. I don't mind a board or CEO who err, as long as they spot it and fix it. I don't think this board does it - own errors or fix them.

The Board leaves this club is a far worse state than when they found it. The finances are better but the debt will be very similar. The admin is needing reorganisation; the FD needs reorganisation, we have a shattered list, a shattered coach, a dearth of genuine talent and are a laughing stock. Our reputation is worse and this is affecting our finances and ability to retain and attract players. Most of these things were better under the previous board. Now we are in our position for lots of reasons. This board has solved one problem and created several all while burning our reputation and scrambling the club internally. Be honest. they stink and they stink more that any board I can remember and have damaged the club more than any board I can remember. We need to be brutally honest about the many reasons we are where we are and at least one big one is this board. What is more, they have had many chances and burnt almost all of them.

To Maldon and Pennent, I think this issue is a really difficult one - particularly in the graceless and nasty world of anonymous internet debate. FWIW, I think it is well worth discussing and the tone and grace of the participants is as important, if not more so, than the content and topic. So go for it - you two would do it well.

No he wasn't - not by a long shot. I'm not sure you realise just how bad we are and how many decisions the board has made that has directly contributed to it. Not indirectly. Not incidentally. Worst board in our history.

At least you and Canplay were evaluating something useful - his actual performance in roles, rather than partisan politics. Now, combine that with personality assessment and we'll have a mature discussion. holding breath

I have an article by a couple of sports psychologists about organisational culture change - it was a really good read. It began by saying that little is known about this topic in the sports psych literature BUT increasingly sports psychs are being called on to give their opinions on it. I'll dig it up and get some edited highlights. One point I do remember (I think) was that culture change without board level involvement was either inefficient or impossible. I think it also said that functional teams are born from within strong cultures but that the cultures were dependent on the make up of the leaders within the playing group. I'll see if I can find it over the weekend.

I saw them chatting at a cafe about 2 weeks ago.

My bet is Tom Harley.

I think his time is done with us. Much as I'd love him to show me wrong. We should trade him out at the end of the year and get a mid or improve a pick. Next year, with a forward line of clark, dawes and hogan he does not fit. He lacks the spirit to play back and the willingness to run to play midfield. He has it all except the desire.Pity.

I think the idea that we are getting the results we expected is utterly dishonest. What a pile - who before the year started thought that the bombers was a 148 point loss? Or port was a 13 goal loss-to-be? You are re-writing history to substantiate a position that is untenable. Try not making things up. And the club is a failure. After 7 years we are still pathetic on-field and disorganised off-field. Which bit is a "success"? I'd like to think that the case to retain Neeld must, by default, recognise the horror the club had become - otherwise there is no excuse for his shocking record.

Or it means that Junior was shafted by Connolls and abandoned by the coach, CEO and board and won't return while blokes with shocking judgement and poor skills run roughshod over the club - potentially compromising his role again. Why go to work to have your effort shat on, lied about or ignored? Just a theory.

Kennett deserves serious consideration. He is a divisive arse who does not know how to not interfere with things outside his purview, he alienates people, creates feuds and bathes in emnity. It says bucketloads about the current board that anyone would consider him. I'd caution EVERYONE to consider the personality of the applicant well before their experience. Personality is a better predictor of job performance than anything other than IQ. Think of it like an accelerator or brake on talent - it can act as both. Jeff's personality is toxic. Our consideration of him should conclude at this first hurdle.

He also acknowledged that we've been told all the positive spin before and that all he can ask us to do is believe... We are paying for the sins of the past. He wants us to keep paying on a hope - a hope that the MFC have already borrowed, stolen, drawn against, used the equity in and sold to third parties. We as a supporter group needed to be more critical - we need to demand success, to be ruthless and to expect elite performance. Jackson wants that for us and we need to reflect that. Well guess what, what comes with that is the withdrawal of my support when I think you've sold me a pup. I'll support my club in times of difficulty - I'll withdraw my support when it gets abused and the integrity of the club is clearly absent. We are just about at that point now. And when that's gone, it doesn't come back.

Cut it out Jack. If you are going to say something, then at least be yourself. I assumed that Jackson would only have done this after consulting with the footy dept. Given that Jackson himself came out and was pretty clear about the divisions he sees between CEO and FD, it is kinda obvious what would have gone on.

When I saw how brittle the team was on the field I thought "How can they play that badly...they aren't that bad!" They completely lack on-field leadership and in 18/12, Neeld has not built it - a team - nor does he appear to have a single plan to do so. The players look like they do not want to be there. It is easy to see. Neeld missed the players and that means he is not the right bloke to coach. Maybe some other position, but not senior coach.