Choko

I am not saying I am a supporter of MM, I don't really get what they are trying to do with half a Board anyway.... But, people are being harsh. Saying the lack of "No" vote on their own promotional website is evidence of "my way or the highway" is a bit ridiculous. On the face of it, they are trying to promote a members' driven ticket. Do you expect a political party to have a poll that says "Vote me out"? No. That's what elections are for. At least they are putting themselves forward motivated by taking the club forward.

I don't begrudge any player waiting until a coach is appointed in order to consider his options. The coach is probably the most fundamental single influencer on whether and how the player will develop, and the extent of success the player will likely enjoy. For what it's worth, I don't even begrudge any player wishing to leave the demons for greener pastures. If it were my career, I would.

Agree 100%. The freeing up was an illusion that made us look like we were playing better. In fact, it's no better overall, just different. Craigy is a good football citizen, but he is not the answer. If that became apparent from the North game, then that's one positive.

I'll be there. They will shut level 3, and restrict seating on level 1. It will be joyous.

Yeh, Eddie will be amazing when we kick the ball inside 50 for the 2nd time at the 30 minute mark of a quarter....

I know nothing about Glen... But I do know quite a lot about the law firm at which he is a partner. Let's just say, if he is a good and decent bloke, he is an exception!

We have too many passengers, too many guys who let us down too often, and no midfield. This discussion has been had a few times, but as far as I am concerned, we haven't improved under Craig. For a couple of weeks we played some easier teams and looked a bit better, and we possessed the ball a bit more. Geelong and today were as bad as we have ever been.

Roos will not coach Melbourne, and Melbourne has moved on from Roos. I think Craig is odds on to get the job, although I think it might be a mistake.

Jumbo might have taken this a bit far, but I have to say I agree with him/her fundamentally. Craig has made us easier to watch, not better. Better in ball movement, but not more effective. I don't think he is any more the solution than Neeld was the problem. I think we looked better mainly because of the quality of our opposition. We hung in there against the Swans, which was kind of good, but that game most days was 13 goals. Geelong was as bad as anything. Let's wait until the end of the year. As always, it's the midfield, stupid!

I know 2 Board members from different club who have said that the only Footy bosses worth their salt (compared to the corporate world) are Brian Cook and I think Nisbett from WCE. Having said that, if you can be at Collingwood for so long, you must have some good things going on.

Last week people disagreed with me when I said that the stats flattered us greatly, and that the inside 50, possession and key stats would suggest we weren't much more competitive than under Neeld. This week, I reckon we had almost exactly the same output as last week, and we broke the all time low for I50's and scored 30. Some will say we lost better than we did under Neeld. I say we just lost different.

Just have to demonstrate greater composure when clearing from our back 50. Other than the errors and Geelong's additional class, we are going alright

We are doing ok so far. Frawley, Jones leading the way.

Agree with that. Except to say that it's all very well to let the players play in an unburdened way offensively, but some of that may well be Craig setting himself up to look like the man to lead us. Neeld had a longer term view.

I think a lot of people need to take off the rose coloured glasses. At 3 quarter time, it was 50 inside 50s to 20 and 31 scoring shots to 13. That's Neeld'esqe. We were smashed at the centre clearances. We had about 140 less possessions. Sydney lost Reid very early, and were only just going. I think there were absolutely some positive signs, and I am loving our ball movement and improved foot skills. But that was at least an 80 point loss most days. Neil Craig felt the scoreline flattered us as well.

Goodness me, what are your career prospects once you are made redundant at the MFC, a club that needs list management more than any other club in the history of the AFL?

When I signed up my kid on the first day of his life, the club sent me a membership pack (6 weeks later) with a dog blanket (it had a pets paradise logo sewn in). They were "thoughtful" enough to include a note that they had run out of baby blankets, but don't worry, it's the same blanket only with a pet logo. I thought it was incredibly stupid not to source something else for the membership, or nothing at all, or unsew the logo. On the plus side, my family dog (who was already a member) was warm that winter....!

They are seriously nowhere near the level you would hope they are..... 100% agree. Without this becoming a Neeld thread, this is why I have a strong view that Neeld was the least of the issues.

I was trying to enter into a business relationship with the footy club that was 99% to the benefit of the MFC, and let me tell you, they are impossible to deal with. Our family are Foundation Heroes and we have sponsored players, and dealing with the club is like dealing with an amateur theatre company. I think that we have been so mediocre for so long, it's heard to see a way out. What these sponsors say would not surprise me one bit. I will say, what we are good at is we generally run professional functions and our players are incredible accessible, even relative to other clubs.

I disagree on the effort. I thought it was terrible. Where was the spread? From kick outs, from general play, no-one was running, no-one was supporting. I thought that was as bad as anything we have dished up this year, just against a worse opposition. And have no doubt, they are a terrible opposition.

Hehe. Very true. I was at an event this year when Jade Rawlings talked about the 2 or 3 games where we put men behind the ball, including Clark, Howe and a ruck man!

It does sound like AFL is paying, but there's only so many times you can go to the well, and so it jeopardises our ability to get funding and support from the AFL on other issues. And it also makes us entirely reliant on the AFL, so expect more Darwin, Sunday twilight vs GWS.

Agree Neeld wasn't told not to achieve better results on-field. Of course, I was also concerned about the lack of signs of improvement. I suppose what I am saying is that he was asked to overhaul a list and a culture, and in that context and looking at the tumult at the club more generally, I think going backwards was not an unexpected outcome and that is one reason we gave 3 years. If we went backwards this year under Ross Lyon or Roos, most would point to what I reckon is the most obvious reason... The list.

I disagree. A big part of the reason Malthouse could change tactics and succeed is his list. And as for his game plan, you can always choose selectively. How's the game plan look when they can't hold teams out and lose the close ones? Neeld did change his game plan. Yes, it's a constant dilemma whether to do that with a young list you are trying to teach to play the right way, but at times he threw 1, 2 and 3 behind the ball. He tried different talls up forward and he moved match ups. He tried defensive forwards. He tried Howe in the middle. I'm sure there's more he could have done. At the end of the day, his major problem is the list, and the predominance of the problems with the list he inherited. If you have no midfield, you have a problem. With the way the game is played this year, it's even harder to compensate. And I think it is abundantly clear that both Bailey and Neeld did execute what the club asked of them, and then when the pressure became too hot, the admin/board became impatient. You can't turn culture overhaul into performance on the flick of a switch (of off field turmoil). You can't turn tanking into elite performance in a year and a half (of off field turmoil). The worst part of it all for me is that we promised him three years, which I think is a minimum of what a coach deserves when tasked with the job he faced at Melbourne. We gave him 18 months. We ask the supporters to dip into pockets (as I know you have!) and then we pay out 600k. Yes, it is AFL money, but it's all the same because we could have gone to the AFL for more meritorious reasons rather than because we are a basket case. I don't care how good a coach you are, and I think in fairness it is difficult to say whether Neeld can or can't coach. But I do know you can't polish a turd.