Choko

Obviously extremely concerning if true, however I really would have thought Neeld from the Collingwood system, Craig from Adel and Misson from Sydney and Saints would all know what elite training was, and are credible when they say we have been training hard and well. I heard them on Perth radio at the end of the WC game last night saying McLardy and Schwab were invisible and did no interviews. Both were on the radio a few hours before. So I wouldn't put too much stock in Perth radio when it comes to MFC.

I can tell you that Dawes came to Melbourne because of Neeld. So do not presume to be so smart as to speak for them all.

I didn't see it - I was getting properly prepared for the onslaught to follow (read: drinking!), but I agree with you that this would be unprofessional and sloppy.

YES! That's it! Let's axe them.... then we are cured!

You got it.... that is actually it.... There are a lot of people around here who would not survive 10 minutes if they had the public scrutiny Schwab has.

Surely throwing admin and Board into the same boat is not helpful. The fact is, I don't see a massive groundswell of people putting their hands up to take on the presidency and Board positions at this club. So it's all very well to say the Board should go, but competent and credible alternative volunteers would be needed. In fact not volunteers, every Board members dips into his/her own pocket to support the club. With Admin, the difference is I am confident that credible alternatives could fill paid admin positions - because there are people whose job it is to fill professional positions. That's not to say that I think it should happen, but at least it could happen.

As for Jack Watts, he deserved what he got. Zero sympathy from me. That incident on the half back line where he could have and should have heavily bumped his Essendon opponent, but chose not to, then should have tackled but didn't come close to holding it, spoke volumes about the softness of Watts' mental application. All this in the week after he lamented a lack of on-field leadership. The guy is a pea-hearted footballer, and just so disappointing. He is in year 5.

GREAT post. Last week I booed for the first time in my life. And I have to say, I blame my family, because they wouldn't let me leave for the first time in my life, which meant my only option was to boo. Last week we played an average side in round one, and we did not try enough. This week we are a shell of a team, and sadly in some respects, we tried. I will not boo them when they try.

I value my time too much.

Yeh, I think there's some truth to that. But you can't change a club overnight, and a first time coach in particular may be the wrong fit.

I agree with this. People look back on the Bailey years with revisionism that would make politicians blush. I think that Neeld took the approach that the club is rotten, and he is going to fix it by banking on youth. He has culled the list and will continue to do so. The culture of a club that hasd been perennially unsuccessful does not change overnight. I have some serious reservations about Neeld as a coach - who wouldn't given the results. But I do know that it's not like he has trodden into Heaven with muddy boots and ruined this magnificent thing that was building. We were on a road to nowhere before. Now we are on a new road, destination unknown.

So, it's only round 1. Yes, it was disgraceful, but I was at Etihad on Saturday, and you would have thought that Voss, into I think his 5th year as coach, was going backwards at a great rate. A few things are swimming through my head about accountability at the MFC and whether things have to be shaken up, but I will hold fire today. What's left for me is an analysis of what we are trying to do (the plan), whether we think that what we are trying to do is sensible and correct, and being executed properly and ruthlessly, and what difference any of it would make with the list we have. Arguments for So, Neeld clearly came in with a view that the place is amateur, with amateur work ethic and a bad leadership culture. He has savaged the list over the 2 opportunities he has had, and made life very difficult for those players who he perceived fell into the category of poor examples and sub-standard leaders. In fairness to Neeld, who could disagree? This is exactly what most supporters were thinking under Bailey. With one or two exceptions, it's pretty hard to argue with almost all the players culled by Neeld. And one suspects he has a 3rd year of culling to go, and on the chopping block will be at least Sellar, Dunn, Joel Mac, Tapscott, Davey. On the leadership front, Neeld took the only real decision available to him given that his view is that the place was devoid of leaders - youth. The consequence of Neeld's approach to the list he inherited is that there are a whole lot of (a now diminishing list of) disenfranchised senior players, and young players who are being required to learn whilst being battered from pillar to post. So, because Neeld has recognised this, he has tried to recruit senior and big bodies, and in particular, blokes with good character, so as to try to protect and teach the kids for the future. No fair minded person thinks that Rodan or really any of the tried players are the solution to winning a premiership. They are clearly an attempt at a step toward building the foundation players. Therefore, the most generous reading is that Neeld is ruthlessly pursuing the only angle he can - which is to discard the dead wood and empower the youth. On that reading, the pain is inevitable. Against Going against Neeld is the lack of improvement in the players who are absolutely required under his plan. I speak of Frawley, Grimes, Trengove, Tapscott, Watts, Garland. Other than Howe, who was improving anyway, there has been little improvement, except maybe to fitness metrics. Further, there is no discernible game plan under Neeld. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to be accountable and defensive? How are we trying to move the ball? When we do win a clearance in the middle, what are we actually trying to do? When we have 15 players behind the ball, what is the plan to move the ball and score? If there is a plan, then the players cannot execute at all. Under Bailey, there was a plan, it was an outdated attack plan, but at least we knew what it was and when it worked, you could see where success might come. It seems the only discernible change in plan this year is Dunn kicking out. Almost all supporters know that Dunn has zero footy nous. The worst option for kicking out. Another potential problem with Neeld is that coming in with all guns blazing and being ruthless is great if the club is ready for it, but in a club with as little backbone and leadership as ours (and I am referring to Board, administration and players here), there is not the ticker for the approach. With a coach in his first gig, it could well mean he lacks the support or loses confidence in his approach. That would create a clear lack of morale. Anyone who speaks to current or recently departed players would see evidence of this. Further, by taking the club further backwards, there is the chance we will never survive it - especially with free agency. I also wonder whether Neeld misses the point. We have the worst midfield in the comp. Yet, I know that last year we felt it was the forward line letting us down, and that's why we tried so hard to pick up a power forward. Maybe Neeld and his crew are far superior to most supporters in their analysis, but I just reckon it is obvious that it's the midfield. You need elite midfielders and you need 8 - 9 rotating blokes. Who on our current list is becoming a midfielder? Tapscott? No. Howe? No. Grimes? No. Watts? No. Gysberts? Gone. Sylvia - sometimes. Another concern is the number of guys we are bringing into the club who cannot kick, where the game clearly is moving in the direction of elite kicks only. Pedersen, Gillies, Sellar, McKenzie, Nicholson, Bail, McDonald, MacDonald, Jamar all cannot kick. Our backline yesterday had no elite kicks in it, and we have not brought in blokes that can kick (of course I leave out high draft picks). What difference anyway? With all that said, one wonders what difference anyone or anything would make at this point. Would an elite experienced coach even be interested in us? Sheedy, who is past it, said he would have given us the heave ho if he had a chance (maybe true, maybe face-saving). No-one else was knocking down the door - and we will never know about Ross Lyon because we never asked him. Surely, not even Norm Smith can turn turd to gold. Our midfield is disgracefully bad. Our list management and drafting has been bottom of the ladder. At least Neeld (and Craig) are from the outside looking in, both having come from good cultures. Are they fighting together with our admin and culture or despite it? Are they getting the mandate they require? I heard Craig speak recently, and we do not want for footy resources. I think one of the problems for supporters is we are unclear what is acceptable and unacceptable performance from the club's perspective. We get vagaries like "improvement". If it is the case that what we need is patience, and maybe it is because maybe we are re-building from scratch again, then tell us, own it, and those who were responsible for the last rebuild should fall or be removed - again Board down. That's it from me. Happy for contributions!

I actually also think it is hugely worrying that Jack Viney was speaking out at the team meeting post-match. Good on the kid, not a dig on him - he's a little legend. But the very fact that a first gamer is not in awe of his senior teammates, and there is clearly such a leadership void that a first gamer feels he can fill it, is embarrassing and imo concerning.

Well I was there for the turd soup that was dished up, and I stayed to the end, and I boo'ed. And I would do it again. I see absolutely no reason why boo'ing is inappropriate or unwarranted. I went to the Dogs' game yesterday, and they chased, spread and ran. We did nothing. We are nothing, going nowhere.

Nope. Go beyond that. Numbness.

It's not a joke

Firstly, it's hilarious that anyone is giving any significance to the NAB Cup. The only thing that would be more of a p!sstake than us losing is us winning today! Secondly, I am not sure how much proof people need that we are a revolting footy side? We have no midfield. We will finish 17th this year, with only GWS behind us.

I like Don, but this release reads like a club under siege. No encouragement at all really. I would have liked a repeat of the "we will defend the integrity of the club". Also, a proper invitation to the AGM and some general excitement when looking forward. But I suppose that is not so easy when/if things aren't so up.

I 100% agree about Jones, but I think you are highly over-rating our 'unknown' factor. I think we are very known, and won't be all that unpredictable. Hope you're right though!

Yes..... refer to my previous post!

If I was Bailey's lawyer, I would only be asking for the tape if I knew it didn't exist....

Yeh, and if he said those sorts of things, even though he is a joker and may well have been tongue in cheek, he honestly should be sacked well before the AFL have to move him on because it's amateur hour. But I think the "skating close to the edge" is what I was getting at there. It's all interpretation, but I don't reckon the AFL will want to lynch him for two reasons. Firstly, he is well connected and liked. Secondly, if they do, what choice does he have but to fight it... and then where does that all end....

Totally agree. An experienced and sophisticated administrator (and the AFL has those) does not conduct an investigation such as this without first knowing the result. The leaks are absolutely strategic and designed to give the micro-message that everything is being looked at (800 pages!!!!!!) and the macro-message that the AFL has integrity. The fact is, the AFL has an integrity problem to fix. They tried the "head in the sand", they tried changing the system at times, but the issue would not go away. The next best option was an investigation. Further, if what we read in the papers about the substance of the allegations in the report are true, it appears that the case is largely circumstantial. I have been involved in many investigations, and I suggest that the length of time taken and the number of people interviewed and re-interveiwed very much supports a circumstantial case. I have read the relevant rules, and I believe that they are shockingly drafted and ambiguous. That makes them hard to enforce. I further think that the rules have to be interpreted in such a way as to only allow a charge to stick if there is direct evidence, and I can't see how they would have enough direct evidence. If they do, then we are idiots and we deserve what we get. My reading of how this will pan out is that there is too much at stake for tanking claims to be made out. The AFL is complicit, the persons involved would have no choice but to go to court, and the odds that one of Bailey, Connolly, Schwab or the MFC would challenge the process in the Supreme Court are too high for the AFL to gamble with. There is too big a chance that the AFL would lose in Court, and the consequences of that would be potentially catastrophic for the AFL from an interity, publicity and legal viewpoint. Therefore, this is the AFL press conference: "The AFL takes the integrity of the game extremely seriously and considers integrity of our sport to be the most important asset we have. As a result of various comments made by players and coaches, as you are aware, the AFL commenced an investigation into allegations that the Melbourne Football Club breached the AFL's integrity rules. We have thoroughly and painstakingly investigated this issue, and we make no apology for the amount of time that this investigation has taken, because it is fundamental that we get this right. The AFL, through its independent intergity officers Haddad and Clothier, who I congratulate for doing an outstanding job, presented the Melbourne Football Club conducted over X interviews with current and former players, coaches and administrators. As a result of this thorough and robust process, the AFL presented the Melbourne Football Club with a report that was over 1,000 pages long. The report contained circumstances arising from the investigation relating to the 2009 Toyota AFL Premiership season in particular. The Melbourne Football Club formally responded to the matters contained in the report. The AFL has taken the report, together with the response of the Melbourne Football Club, to our Commission for consideration. Following this comprehensive investigation, the AFL has found that the Melbourne Football Club did not breach the AFL integrity rules. I will say that the AFL was concerned that some of the conduct of Officers of the Melbourne Football Club skated very close to the edge, and the Melbourne Football Club should very seriously consider the type of culture it wishes to create in order to be successful on-field. The AFL further notes that we have made substantial changes to the draft system between 2009 and today, including most importantly to compensation picks to ensure that incentives align with the integrity of the same. I would like to again congratulate all parties, in particular Haddad and Clothier, for this exhaustive investigation. The integrity of the AFL draft and system is the single most important priority, and the AFL remains absolutely steadfast to ensure the continued protection of the integrity of the game." There.... how did I go?!

Spot on I reckon

I actually think that it's one of the sad and unfortunate things about internet/social media. Some clown is in a photo with some footballers, and it makes the news. It only puts further distance between players and the general public. Just quietly, I am happy Col appears to have a water on him!!!!