Johnny Karate

To be fair, wasn't it Caroline Wilson who labeled us as pathetic and disgusting?

Nice to see not "all" the posters on Demonland are so anti Dunn, that means that we "all" watch the game

What a pretentious load of rot. Dunn has been an average footballer over his career, regardless of Saturday night.

You talk of 'Orc hunting' yet anybody who dares disagree with you is an idiot. The irony is delicious when you openly characterise others as unthinking plebians for reading between the lines and forming their own opinions rather than taking the party line at face value. Total pseud behaviour.

You're the biggest troll on here, ruining the boards with your Mr Peabody positivity, often flying in the face of all logic. Too bad the moniker of 'Baghdad Bob' was already taken.

Allow me to retort. Posters of your ilk were slammed for posting hysterical nonsense in the opening stanza of Neeld's tenure. It was an untenable scenario to sack a first year coach 5 minutes into his reign. Who was going to replace him in 2012 anyway? Malthouse? I'm not going to bother pointing out the obvious reasons why that wouldn't have happened.

I had no problems with posters such as Rhino Richards being skeptical of Neeld because usually it was backed up with more in depth analysis than: "We're crap. It's all Neeld's fault. We should sack him now. Mick is waiting. Herp de derp tee tiddly derp."

I often railed against those who were hijacking every thread with their pointless sack Neeld agenda in 2012.

Just because some wanted to give Neeld more time than half a season to prove himself didn't make them naive idiots who thought he was a lay down misere to take us to a flag. Just because some were calling for his head 5 minutes in to his tenure and he was subsequently gone 18 months later doesn't make them footballing Nostradamuses whom everybody should bow down to.

The Neeld era was a tragedy and a travesty but if headkicking your fellow supporters whose greatest crime was optimism about a new coach while giving yourself the title of football prophet floats your dinghy - carry on!

Again, read in the newspaper so it must be right, can we just wait and see what eventuates, the Club needs assistance, the AFL cannot afford to get the membership offside, so it will be advisory from them, like they advise every club, witht the NRL taking a stand, do you think the AFL didn't say to the Saints to stand Milne down

The AFL is now controlling the appointment of the President (Chairman) and members of the Board as well as the appointment and hand picking of the coach.

As members I think we can forget about voting. It looks as though it has been taken out of our hands.

Is this what members really want? No say?

It's worring to be honest. I always thought it was a very reactionary call for some who were very keen on an AFL 'takeover' - their best interest and Melbourne members best interest aren't mutually inclusive. Thank Christ this isn't the mid nineties!

However, (and I post this with the qualifier that my continuing optimism over our predicament has often proven to be totally wrong) I think it's a case of the AFL wanting to ensure accountability and a return on investment given the large amount of money they've just handed over to us.

Or maybe just DEE-LUDED?

Brad Green mustn't have lived in Elsternwick...

So can't back up your statement, ah well.......

You're right Jones and others were useless hacks with poor attitudes and no hope for improvement before Neeld arrived. The process to hire Neeld as coach was obviously world's best practice with no outside help, 3 administrators & 1 player who had been out of the game since the 90's. We definitely got our man didn't we? Who needed due diligence when we had Cam Schwab writing out essay questions and Garry Lyon had a phone conversation with Mick Malthouse.

For the record I wanted McCartney when it became apparent that we couldn't get Clarkson, R Lyon or Malthouse. Prior to that I was of the view that there was no point in knifing Bailey for yet another untried coach. I backed Neeld in until it became apparent that he wasn't up to it. But who really cares? I'm open minded and can think for myself. I've been wrong before I will be again - I can admit it - can you?

Would Nathan Jones telling me to my face that Mark Neeld had turned his footy around help?....probably not...and back then who would have you preferred, who was available and why?..I await your answer with interest

Thanks for your interest. But no thanks. I'd rather debate the wind. I'll leave you to your big noting, bullying anybody who dares criticise the club and apologies for ineptitude.

Sorry, I can't help myself on this point. I've heard 'Neeld is responsible for Garland's development' a couple of times now and I simply don't subscribe to the notion that to be the case. Bailey and Wellman are responsible for his development. During Neeld's first season, Garland's output dropped off. It is only this year that it has returned. Considering Neeld couldn't get him playing in his first season, I'd give more credit to Garland for his own return to form.

There is actually little suggesting that the likes of Jones, McDonald & Howe aren't actually developing naturally or in spite of Neeld. 5 wins (4 against expansion sides), ritual thrashings, pathetic communication and rumblings of discontent at every turn. I'm glad Neeld's gone and furious he was hired in the first place.

For me it truly goes back to 186. Where the board back flipped on its decision to get rid of Schwab. If Schwab was about to be sacked for meddling in FD matters and proving a divisive figure among the playing group - why then was he key in appointing Neeld and the restructuring of the FD?

Of course Schwab was going to favour the most inexperienced yet disciplinarian coach, of course he was going to set up a FD structure where key personnel were under his thumb. I'm furious that that decision lead us to having one of the worst performing teams in living memory and a world's worst practice FD setup.

As has been stated it's hardly in depth or compelling analysis but he's pretty much on the money.

The best teams have players that have talent, leadership and experience to burn. As our list currently stands it is a struggle to pick an MFC player that possesses more than one of these qualities, indeed the three categories are almost mutually exclusive. It goes without saying that this is why we're in such an appalling state.

You have to love Melbourne supporters. The club is a basket case. It's seen no success for 50 years. It has an opportunity to have an achiever take over and give it a chance to become relevant. But no, it seems some don't like his personality. Some of you lot deserve the crap you witness each week.

As for merging ? He's already stated that Melbourne is a strong brand and I believe he retracted those comments years ago. CLEARLY, if he wants to become Chairman it's to have the club become a success in its own right. Even his ego would love that challenge.

It's bloody great scenario.

I don't like his politics but I'm happy to leave that for others to debate.

I'm open minded about him as Chairman. As has been noted; he's a high achiever, he has a track record of good governance and he is passionate & visionary. He ticks a lot of boxes for a prospective Melbourne Chairman.

That said I have concerns with his personality - does he have the emotional intelligence to be our chairman? Our club is in a fragile state - do we need another massive ego to come in (ala Neeld) with a my way or the highway attitude? Our current lot is that we are relying on the AFL - can he resist the temptation to run his mouth at city hall? Our next coaching appointment could be the defining moment in the club's history we must get the best coach available (or not) -will prospective coaches look at the JK/AC relationship and find a chairman who so openly and reactively bags his coach a turn off?

Our club is at a critical juncture in its history - we're virtually playing Russian Roulette with only one empty round in the chamber. We can't afford to be closed minded about anything in ensuring our survival.

I went today and stayed til the end. I don't really blame anybody who had work, family or financial reasons for not going as I haven't attended in the past on that basis.

That said, anybody who is choosing not to go because "it's all too hard" cannot truly claim to love the club. If you want to support this club into the future now is the time to stand strong.

I don't have a truckload of disposable income, free time nor the corporate nous or connections to run the footy club. I don't have much love for the people or decisions that have lead us down this path. I love the club, it is bigger than all of us and the most I can contribute at this juncture is to turn up win, lose or draw and stay til the end.

We all want cultural change and most of us don't have the power to make key appointments within the club. Often, all we can do is hope (sometimes foolishly) that the admin-of-the-day make the right moves and in time judge them based on results.

Over time the MFC has acquired the unflattering cultural stereotype of being a soft club. Soft downhill skiing passionless players and soft downhill skiing passionless supporters. Perhaps the greatest cultural change we can affect as supporters is to turn up en masse - loud and proud even if we are the worst team in the league. I always had admiration for the way the Barmy Army supported the horrible English cricket teams of the 90's in passion and numbers.

I'm not suggesting we should applaud everything the club does but if we want the players to turn up and fight til the bitter end, we should too.

I've made my views on Neeld clear.

I agree that any decision should be made based on what is best for the club, not external pressure. But that cuts both ways, in that we really shouldn't extend Neeld's contract on the basis of standing firm in the face of media criticism.

If he is to retain his position/get an extension it should be because he is meeting/exceeding KPI's put in place by his employers. At a guess I'd guess that his performance isn't meeting them at this stage.

Obviously a Roos type would be the preferred candidate, unless the situation shows no improvement whatsoever or (heaven forbid) gets worse I wouldn't be jumping at the opportunity to replace MN with an inexperienced coach.

In reference to earlier posts about Peter Schwab:

Peter Schwab applied for and was an MFC's subcommitee's preferred candidate to take over as Football boss at the Dees in 07. This recommendation was ignored by the then CEO Steve Harris parachuted Cuddles into the role, presumably as some kind of consolation prize for missing out on the coaching gig. Gardner sacked Harris for this amongst other things and appointed McNamee as CEO which indirectly lead to Cam Scwab assuming the position in late 2008.

They lack goal kicking midfielders and there is a gulf in the list between their ageing core and youngsters with potential. McCartney will rightly start to cop some heat for the 1/18 stat.

That said, they'd pound us at the moment, their kids are as good as any of ours and despite the scoreboard they actually have a crack. McCartney may or may not last and the Dogs W/L ratio is no better than ours but he will leave something better than a smoldering ruin for his successor. That is more than can be said for our own nutty professor.

David King was right then. He's right now!

On a personal level a few apologies would be nice directed at myself and Tona? B (19)and RR very quiet.

No. Neeld needs to go for a multitude of reasons now but it was completely stupid to call for a first year coach's head 6 games into his contract - some peanuts may claim some sort of divine foresight now but most of them wanted MN sacked because it didnt look likely he would win a flag in 2012.

President: An high profile person that has a voice and is respected in the community,must attract attention to club, with a positive spin.

How bout Johnny Farnham for Pres

An infinitely more sensible option than Kevin Sheedy as CEO.

We've also scored 100 points or more in 6 out of 34 matches. 3 of those were in Viney's 5 game stint as caretaker. Just saying...

I get that there's a lot of crap on the list. I get that we desperately need to get some quality players into the club.

However, I believe that part of what has got us into this mess is breaking up a group of mates which creates a poisoness culture.

Fair enough, I understand you're angry and hurting - so am I.

But we have potentially 10 - 12 players who are not up to AFL standard.

You need to acknowledge that, surely?

I dare say that many of those 10-12 would've been recruited under Neeld's watch. Surely you must acknowledge that.

Awesome idea.

Clearly I'm just a knuckle dragging reactionary but are any Neeld backers having some doubts with the collosal porking that we're getting by an expansion side on our own dungheap? Presumably this is all part of a bigger picture? Was I expecting too much in thinking the team would turn up, ready to play and not be held goalless again in Q1?

Enlighten me as to why Neeld deserves his position until next year let alone the end of this year.

You should swap #7 & #8. McDonald will go to North via FS.

We need James Aish. Our key position stocks are ok. We shouldn't recruit specialised flankers. Midfielders, midfielders and more midfielders. Maybe a small forward or two through trade/FA/state leagues.

Why would Jones be such a better captain than Grimes?

I would defend Grimesgove but clearly there are those on the inner sanctum such as the thread starter who know all about the inner workings of their leadership around the club. Who are we to question such educated opinions on the topic matter?

It's getting to be like some kind of competition, where posters try to outdo each other with the ridiculousness of their claims.

You don't kick 14 goals in a match without some semblance of discipline, structure and competitive effort. Our 14.10 is a higher score than Collingwood, St Kilda, Sydney, Fremantle, Richmond, Adelaide, The Bulldogs, Port, and West Coast could manage last round, and only a goal less than North and Hawthorn. Guess all those teams will have to sack their coaches as well.

We have a new champion of ridiculous claims - I dip my lid to you.

We still couldnt score over 100 points in a bruise free shoot out against a team stacked with teenagers. Fremantle, Sydney & Port actually managed escape with 4 points despite their 'low scores' because their structures and competitive effort managed to keep the opposition to a lower score than themselves - something Neeld's sides have managed to do in 5 out 27 matches (x4 against the expansion sides). Maybe if our structures & competitive effort allowed us to keep a team to under 100 points in a game we might have a hope in hell but we've managed that 7 out of 27 times (on 3 of those occasions we lost). If our structures and competitiveness allowed us to score over 100 points we might have a hope in hell - expansion teams aside (x3) a Mark Neeld coached team has NEVER scored more than 100 points against any opposition ever.

I wanted Mark Neeld to succeed, he had a really tough first year and there were mitigating factors but this year we have actually been worse. I take no pleasure in calling for his head - those that argue for him will say it's debatable whether anybody else could've done better given our list. At the end of the day could anybody have done any worse? I guess we'll find out with our next coach - I'd wager "no".

So you'll forgive me if I indulge in a little bit of hyperbole about our lack of structures and competitiveness when the scoreboard suggests they're shite and my eyes tell me they're worse.