Choko

Your post demonstrates the consequential errors that occur from a faulty premise. You launch by saying our list was ready to cause damage in 2012. That was, and is, incorrect. It follows that everything from that point on is also incorrect. In 2012, we had the worst midfield in the AFL. In 2013, we have the worst midfield in the AFL, but Viney and Toumpas at least. You cannot be successful with the worst midfield in the AFL.

With the ball never getting down there.

I have one positive. We lost by 95. That is a 1 point improvement since the 1988 grand final. And we were good then....

I'm thankfully not there today, bc on family holiday in Malaysia... But listening and looking at stats, it is interesting to see that we are winning clearances, tackles, closer possession count than usual, and yet being smashed. I think it demonstrates that we are a team that is on the whole trying to do the right things, but a lot of dead wood and so little class. I feel for the young players and for Neeld.

He's the type of guy who sells you a car only to later tell you what you already know. Captain Obvious, masquerading as an astute commentator.

I don't have a problem with Robbo's comments, I think they were fine. I know he thinks the MFC is far a more professional FD under Neeld than it was under Bailey. I think there is no doubt Neeld was saddled with a terrible list, culture issues, poor corporate structure and some bad luck. No-one fair minded could say that he can coach, but equally no-one fair minded could say he can't... Yet. The thing I worry about is that as this crap was happening before our eyes since Daniher departed, it was obvious to those who knew how to look... yet most people, and the club itself, continued to believe all was well. When you went to a club function then, you could easily walk away believing we had great development coaches, a really switched on club and all was going well. In short, I think it would be excellent if the club of the past 5 years was as good at doing its job as it was at selling how good it was at doing its job!

Hilarious. On the North site, 100 bucks says they are bagging Scott for failing to get enough men behind the ball or for not making his team mentally strong.

Agree. It was a disgrace. Yet, there will be no accountability.

Physios or drs in the audience... Could this setback have been caused or contributed to by bringing him in too soon?

Firstly, you are falling for the media bulltish that says that the captaincy doesn't work for these two. Maybe it does. Maybe asking them to relinquish the captaincy will make them worse players. You can't just assume that demoting players will improve them. Secondly, and this is what people miss when they bag Neeld, what is the alternative? Who is knocking the door down to captain this footy team? There isn't anyone. We have bred a culture devoid of senior leaders. I presume if Jones had the qualities to be captain, he would have been chosen. Same with other senior players, such as Frawley.

Well I was there so maybe it's a different perspective, but I have to say I thought we were well beaten in the middle, but we defended, spread, ran and tackled well all day. Sylvia kicks that goal, who knows. We lacked class and a bit of poise, and made more mistakes. Call me deluded, but I thought we did ok. Not great, but ok. I thought Gawn, Terlich, Tapscott were real positives. It is an absolute fact that we have the worst midfield in the comp. Until we fix that we can expect more of the same.

I'm there tomorrow and fired up! The loss of Rich and Hanley will help us, so if we come with a switched on mindset, I reckon it might be close.

I love him

I'm gonna be there! Fired up!

I think this is not the first time Don has had a go at the members. And I do interpret the cheap seats to include the members. Except the Chardonnay set. I think once you start playing fast and loose with the members, the very same members that saved this club, the very same members that elected the Board, the very same members that came to the footy today (20,000 is pretty good considering), you have missed the point of being in a leadership position. I am sympathetic to leaders being unfairly treated, absolutely, but there does come a point where criticism is both legitimate and deserved.

Given you're a lawyer, call this an interrogatory: Do you think the club was misleading by commission or omission in its communication with the AFL and the media in relation to this issue?

And I think you're splitting hairs. There may be no lie, but there is communication that is misleading and a clear lack of full disclosure. Whilst the question may have been flawed, the method of engagement of Danks is not what the AFL was concerned about. It is poor media management, and poorer stakeholder management. I don't think that is disputable.

I totally get where you are coming from. I have always been on the side of the argument that protects the volunteers who give, often selflessly, of their time to the club. I do not buy into the "I'm a supporter so I have equal say" argument. However, the one rider I would put on that is that when people in positions of trust put truth to the side and act so recklessly, they need to move on. At the AGM, those in power had neither said they would not move to sack anyone, followed immediately by exactly that (after signing CS for 3 years), and then misleading the AFL on Danks. Perhaps there might have been an alternative ticket in that case. I agree that there is no point saying move on if there is no-one to take up the mantle, but equally, it's not that easy for those who are so inclined to just form a credible ticket.

I have to say I am 100% with W_J on this one. Until now I have been largely supportive of the Board. But when the Board starts thinking it's OK to omit or mislead to the point of lying to its constituents, enough is enough. The day before asking CS to resign, Don said that there will not be sackings and that strong clubs do not react by getting rid of people. That was plainly misleading. He did not need to say it. Whether it was the right decision is up for debate, but the method of communication with members was simply bad. By saying that we did not employ Danks, it is clear that this is an answer to the wrong question. Maybe someone who thinks they are clever decided to answer in that manner because they naively thought that we would never get found out for having an association, but it is absolutely obvious that whether we employed him or entered into some other supply agreement with him, it is our association with him that is potentially an issue. Our statement at the time now appears to be misleading and deceptive. Worse, it appears that, despite the briefings with the AFL and our recent experience with the AFL integrity team, we failed to even brief them on the extent of our relationship with Danks. That is just incompetent. It is not that we have done anything wrong with Danks. On the contrary, from early reports, we have done everything right by managing it with approved drugs and through our Dr. But the way we have handled it is a disgrace, and those who knew or ought to have known have to go.

I think you will find McLardy stepping down from the Presidency in the very near future.

Hahaha. That logic is like saying Collingwood trined at Goschs Paddock... Melbourne trains at Goschs Paddock. Melbourne is Collingwood. So....... Neeld's response to a journo when he was accosted at a private camp by vultures gunning for his livelihood to be curtailed is going to be the method of judging his coaching? See if Champion Data will run that stat. Mick Malthouse made a career of bring sarcastic, cutting, aggressive and rude to journos. You DEFINITELY wouldn't want him then.....

Agree with that. There's a lot of people that have been taking pot-shots and cheap shots at the club over the past few years. Granted, we make it easy sometimes, but it would be good if those at the club could have a "bugger you, we are Melbourne and you're a fool" attitude!

Neil Mitchell? Total [censored]. Plus, loves the MFC as much as I love Brussels spouts.

It is clearly not simple, and part of my point is that any person who purports to know the answers is over-stating their intelligence. I see no point in bagging volunteers such as Board unless and until there is an alternative. I suggest that the prospect of alternatives is getting harder and harder with the vitriol and personalisation of the discussion targeting these volunteers. Have a look at the Board. They are mainly picked by Jimmy, and they are well-credentialed (which isn't the same as successful). I can see fault everywhere. Board, admin, coaches, players. But fundamentally, when you strip it all away, we have a shocking playing list, devoid of leaders and we have the worst midfield in the comp at a time that the game requires 9 midfielders to rotate. I would like to see more accountability, and I think the club is in many ways still amateur, so I would like to see some really professional people come in. Everyone is to blame, and no-one is to blame... If you know what I mean. I personally think each supporter can think about their level of responsibility. Have they helped? Volunteered? Attended home games? I have thought about what I can do to help. It's very hard to think if things that can make a massive difference on a meaningful scale, and I get that supporters have the right to be apathetic or angry. Hell, I am!

For a small supporter base, we appear to have copped our fair share of peanuts. Targeting volunteers with vitriol, spamming the media, publicly posting private letters, holding yourself out to actually know the solutions... All posts of sheer stupidity that cost me 10 minutes I can never get back. The biggest joke is, if McLardy listened to most of you peanuts, he would have 16 contradictory things to do.... And all would be wrong.