timD

Poisoned chalice? I reckon you've been staring at my avatar too long!

You are hankerin' for a spankerin'. And not in a good way. Daisycutter, this is your cue...

Yep - we are all going off data that can be interpreted in different ways - all with fair reasoning behind it too. Our only hope is that the Board is competent and well-informed by the right people at FD level.

I think that if Neeld has lost the players, then keeping him is counter-productive.We gain nothing and potentially lose players that we need to keep.

This isn't about you, son.

I'm having a go at you because you've misled me and misled the site. I'll not go thrrough my problems with your behavioiurs in detail. I'll just give you two. In this thread you've implied there have been episodes of faceless men through time. Well, if you know, TELL US. Everyone here wants to know why the club continues to list. But you won't - it suits your position. You've let the implication waft around that member/s of the site are/may be/once were/aspire to faceless men and/or the leak to Caro. You are unable to back it up. And as a finale, you have the gall to become wide-eyed about 'reputations' and 'smears' and 'feelings' - the "worst smear" begin brought against you (well, one of several aliases)! It's a bit late for that routine, Jack.

Binman, the whole situations stinks. It is difficult to make head or tail of it when the information we are getting is so compromised. I think the "poker" idea is fanciful. This from a Board who fired the CEO for "dividing the supporter base" and whose president came out last year bemoaning poor performance and having no idea why it was happening. The poker theory stretches credulity to its breaking point. I reckon that the media fuss after 7.30 made Andy D look bad and he responded by sounding threatening. He had left the media releases up to us in the first instance and we misled everyone and it made us and him look stupid (again). Now, out of frustration at the AFL not backing us up, the MFC has leaked to the Age to try and "right the ship" in the media without directly taking AD on. This further annoys him but he leaves it - he knows that the board is on a clock and time will take care of his problem. Which is more credible - that Don is the greatest poker player ever or that both our media strategy and AFL relations are in the toilet?

Can we pin this post and have it automatically added right after every "gee ollie wines is good and I don't know why we selected Jimmy T..." Please Seriously, please.

Yep, we just misled the supporters and the media. Yipee.

I'd doubt that this team can cope with Byrnes, Rodan, Blease and Davey all in the team at once. I'd have Strauss ahead of davey - improves the team flexibility and we already have enough of the small quick blokes who aren't great defensively. Or does that really shoot my point in the foot?

What has happened to you ? You would reveal what you knew. I know you then changed your mind. I know that you then said that "more was coming" and, well, that isn't looking flash either. Are we putting this in the "he may tarry" basket? And the "positive attitude" CEO debate? What were you thinking? You cannot have it both ways - say that the club should be viewed positively - and then complain about a history of bitterness and nasty politics dating back decades. Revisionist? Really Jack? Either there is a problem that applicants should know or there isn't. So now we know there is a problem and we know that the board struggles to make good decisions frequently, then we know that there are reasons in fact that applicants should be wary of the MFC. You are asking for a CEO who is ignorant to our history (a history you complain is vital to understanding the club!) and ignores a board that has presided over a miserable period. Is ther any other description for your position other than hypocrisy? It isn't consistent. It makes no sense. On the next level, the "worst smear" has nothing to do with you - you are an internet persona. The "worst smear" affects real people, is made about real people and influences real people. Nothing on here goes to any such lengths. Smears about Neeld are real and certainly affected him and Davey, for example. How can you possibly compare yourself to that? As for the shadow conspiracy, well, you are big about the wrongs of whispering campaigns and are indulging in one right now. Standards you hold for others you fail to apply to yourself. There was another poster ON THIS SITE who revealed that a current board member had been talking to and either emailed or SMS'd Caro with information unintentionally. It was several months ago and I was amazed that no-one picked it up. Then Caro threatened to reveal her source inside the club on tele several weeks ago. Coincidence? This has the same level of validity that your information has and you've not bothered to run with it, and you know this information. You are putting forward one view because it suits you. I've not doubt that ex-employees are been talking to the AFL - Connolly named some in the paper I think. But what you are alleging goes beyond grumbles coerced out of disgruntled souls as part of a heavy-handed AFL investigation. What you are talking about is a long-running, systematic vendetta. With no targets beyond chaos and no goals beyond mayhem. Jack, this is not a batman movie. Your argument and lack of evidence/information is simply not credible. What is credible is that all our current misfortune is a result of a transaction between AD's personality, media mechanics and humans with failings like poor judgement and entitlement. You are saying that something is happening, which involves people you will not name, for ends you cannot describe with corroborating evidence you also cannot name and frankly might not have. Get serious Jack.

Jack, I hope that I don't have to remind anyone that it has been YOU that has talked about the shadow conspiracy at the club - the one that is suppossedly undermining the club. That - your own understanding of the political state of the MFC - is an enormous disincentive for every applicant. Or does the conspiracy only exist when you want it to? I've been waiting for the evidence to come out and there has been none so far. You won't show your hand either. Every applicant also knows this board that flip-flops on decisions, cannot make coherent statements to the media and has presided over the worst on-field performances in decades while stating that they don;t know why any of that is happening. How could that possibly be regarded as a non-issue for applicants? Every applicant would go in knowing that they could be scape-goated and undermined. Exactly how do you frame that positively?

Ron, who needs the whispering campaigns ( or is that a very clever allusions to WJ's campaign - cudos if it is!). We know Neeld came in to the club with a drive to get people fit. He named underperformers in the media before he knew them (Davey and Watts). He instituted a change in the leadership team and players did not "buy in" to neeld and what he was doing. All this is on public record; none of it relies on whispering campaigns. The rest we construct and quite reasonably too. It is reasonable to see an entire team play god-awful footy for 26 rounds and come to the conclusion that they are scared and not playing for the coach. It is possible and reality-based. Hard to confirm, but reasonable to conclude. Might be right, might be wrong. Who needs a whispering campaign?

Redleg, he doesn't like being deceived and when he is and the public knows about it, smart clubs fall on their knees and beg for forgiveness. And it works. Look at how Adelaide escaped serous censure about draft cheating by appealing for clemency. so he is more angry about things that make him look bad. AND EVERYONE KNOWS THIS. I wonder what smart management would do if they knew about this and then found out that we'd talked to danks...

Haven't seen it.

I think a lot of people - me included - did too. The utter void of leadership also caught me out. I assumed that blokes would step up and I assumed that there would be people ready for the job. So wrong.

A mate of mine wrote a message some years ago and its core stays with me still. He said that the club is yours. It is not the players, or the administrators or the boards'. It is yours. And you - the supporter - mark with your unconditional support for the club - a continuation of 155 years of the existence of this remarkable creation. WE form the fabric of the club, though we may not feel it or know it. IT IS US, FOR [censored]'S SAKE. So when I take my kids tomorrow (why, jesus, why?), and I sit with my dad, my brothers and their children, I am at MY club, with my family and that I will support despite their fault and failings. Players come and go. Officials come and go. The supporters are the club - we are the permanent feature - renewed our kids and grandkids in perpetuity. So when I am disappointed, feel helpless, feel utterly furious, I try to remember this. Am my favorite stanzs of my favorite poem: Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho' We are not now that strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,-- One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Who didn't? Who shouldn't have? The truth, from my point of view, Neeld has failed to manage the people - the most vital, fundamental aspect of coaching.. Now, maybe that was always a big ask given the group, but he has not succeeded. I have no doubt the admin and selection process have a huge role to play in this. But what to do? Sack him now, appoint a caretaker who won't be there long term and hope that inspired the players? Keep him and hope that the damage can be mitigated? What I am sure about is that the current board will have NFI and they are in charge. I've followed the Dees for a bit; my three kids are all signed on. Christ, my five year old is telling me how they'll be ok when he gets older (I am guilt of the worst brainwashing and will go to hell despite it not existing). I've never felt worse about the club and I cannot see how this board is going to make any of the right calls under pressure that they need to given their\ track record is sewage.

AFAIK, the only incorrect thing done was the failure to just be effing clear about it from the start. Do that and there is no problem. But noooooooooooooooooooo. This club has to find a situation and then think "what is the one way I can guarantee to [censored] this right up - I KNOW - lie to the AFL and make AD look stupid!" Don must resign now. The rest of the board need to concentrate on the new CEO, replacing Neeld and then replacing themselves.

Classy - in one post you manage to play the man and shirk the issue. Are you Dunny?

Now that makes me [censored] mad. Why didn't the halfwits come out with that statement at the start and neuter this event then! Who is running the show? Seriously, WYL would have been a better media manager that the club on this issue.

It is a failure to reveal the actual involvement - it might not be a lie but it is not open and honest...and that makes it look deceitful.

They avoided a full disclosure but they did not lie about dank not being involved. The problem is that it looks deceitful. Like tanking. Like firing schwab because he "divides the supporter base"; like saying that the coach does not know why they players aren't playing well. LIke saying we had a "rigorous process" about recruiting Neeld; like saying "High performance with high integrity". Like firing the CEO and then re-hiring him and firing the coach after the players tell the pres-in-waiting that they cannot stand the ceo. Lies, deceit, half-truths, betrayals of trust. Again and again and again. And to think that when this Board or the club processes have been questioned by posters on this site for several years, the questioners have been smeared and derided as "splitters" or informants to the media.

The only thing to lift my spirits tonight!

That only works as a justification if we play hard...or has the start of the year not made that point abundantly clear? I give you Dunn as a prime symptom of the principle problem.