sue

Agree. Regardless of how much he bled red & blue (when it suited him) imagine if he had been made captain and showed this level of idiocy when speaking in public. Shudder....

Come on bing, fancy proposing that the club pursued a cunning strategy - enough to make you a considered a weirdo around here. I suspect the plan was just tied to the mid-year bye, but PJ may well have realized the benefits you point to.

I agree, But OldDee, you're nit-picking a bit. Our right to vote is not being taken away. If we hate the Board put in and we don't come up with an alternative to vote for, then we deserve what we get,

Well he's added to my interest in watching Brisbane play on TV. But not in a nice way.

This might be interesting for discussion by those not immediately pro-Kennett, maybe even by those who are. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-17/afl-doesnt-want-me-at-melbourne-kennett Kennett says it would be a disaster if the AFL ran the MFC (instead of him) though he doesn't elaborate why it would be a disaster. I wonder how many of us really care who runs the MFC as long as we are competitive and the rules of our association don't change (such that we can't vote against a merger for example)?

Gosh, that's a very rose-coloured glasses view of his statements over the last few years. I wish I had your confidence. If he does get the job I hope you are right, but I see no evidence that when he made those statements that he was actually trying to help us. Seems most unlikely in view of the circumstances of the time from the Hawks perspective (expansion clubs etc). I agree in the absence of any alternatives, he may be a gamble worth taking. But I'll wait to see what he proposes and what alternatives there are before grasping his feet as the next Messiah as some seem to be doing. We've had enough of that as many posters have said.

I think I got the point. I don't see any real effort so far, but then I only read the papers etc (yes I do). Maybe he has done something substantial behind the scenes. I have no way of knowing yet. I too want to see deeds not words. As to the members voting at some stage which you express some doubt will happen: Of course we will vote at the next AGM where the Board that is being constructed behind the scenes will be up for endorsement or replacement.

Sorry but that comment by PJ could equally be directed at players like Dawes, Jack's etc who might want to quit the club because Neeld is gone. Or just the very obvious one that keeping good players at a basket-case club is difficult. I have no idea which interpretation is correct. Only PJ, the players and those close to the club know the truth.

I got your ironic point, but I think it is a pretty silly observation (which I guess you may have acknowledged with your 'just saying'). There will always be supporters of varying level of commitment and they will all have an opinion regardless of their level of financial support. So what. But in case your remark was intended to be pro-Kennett in some way, the fact that he recently forked out the financial equivalent to him of me buying a coffee is nothing in his favour as a presidential candidate as I'm sure you would agree. What precisely are the 'efforts' he has made anyway? I (as a paid-up member) won't belittle Kennett's efforts until I see him actually make some. Then I might become pro-Kennett, though as I've posted elsewhere, currently I feel he is not worth the risk (mergers etc).

Very true. As I've posted before, if it's the latter we will be merged or relocated or both. And that's likely even if he isn't particularly bad, just if he is not a clear success and spits the dummy. However much he may turn out to be very good, I don't like the risk. Depressing as the last few years have been, we are not in such a terminal state that we need to have a last throw of the dice (yet). Someone else may emerge and unless they and their team look absolutely hopeless I'd rather vote for them since we'd be more likely to survive to fight another decade if the coming president/board isn't a big success.

Predicting disaster is almost a win-win bet. If it doesn't happen, no one takes much notice because we are all so happy about how well we are going. If it does, then the predictor of disaster can puff out his chest as a wise expert. So if you are in the prediction business, make the majority of your 500 predictions negative and you will be a success.

Has Kennett given any explanation as to why things have to happen immediately or all is lost, including any future involvement by him? Doubtless that urgency will appeal to some on this forum, but personally I'd like a well-considered process with all options evaluated, not a headlong rush.

I'm not going to argue with you as to what position I took during the tanking, whether it was right, wrong or in between or varying. But to dismiss an argument just because the proponent in your view got something wrong in the past is pretty weak. You'd never apply it to yourself I presume.

It is also pretty obvious that there are a number of people who support him because they support his politics. As I've said, I don't give a damn about his politics if he is the right man for the MFC (it's footy, not the future of the society). But I sure do worry about what will happen if he decides he can't fix Melbourne after a couple of years. His personality suggests he will conclude that the problem is unsolvable, not that he just didn't do things right. He would then revert to his earlier merge/relocate position. If we find someone who is not quite as good as some claim he will be, but who is a Demon through and through, this danger is averted. To me the enthusiasm for Kennett sounds like the usual MFC supporter problem that many on this forum have complained of - seeking a short-term fix and faith in a Messiah.

I wasn't arguing we needed Buddy. Agree we need midfielders. And you are right, my quoting was a bit selective, must be becoming a journalist. But I still say I'd have been more impressed with Kennett if he used the opportunity to say that if Buddy was what the MFC needed, then he'd leave no stone unturned to get him to the Demons.

An indication of that is his last paragraph - perhaps a real journalist would have bothered to find out the status of those contracts before publishing.

Kennett seems to have proven his allegiance to Hawthorn would be a negative factor at the MFC. The article announcing he has paid for a MFC membership makes it clear that if it was in our interest to poach Buddy, it would be against his 'hopes' for us to do so. "I hope Buddy stays at Hawthorn as he has always said he is going to be a one-club man," Kennett told 3AW. " I'd have been more impressed if he used the opportunity to say that if Buddy was what the MFC needed, he'd leave no stone unturned to get him to the Demons.

As what you would term a 'leftie' (ie anyone to the left of Andrew Bolt), I wouldn't care if Attilla the Hun ran the MFC if it leads to success. It's footy, not the future of our society. Stockdale sounds a better bet than Kennett. My objections to Kennett are entirely that he is a Hawk's supporter and especially his previous calls for MFC to merge/relocate.

Positive: Jamar took a few marks around the ground and did things. Also the last couple of weeks he has not always been tapping the ball to hsi feet.

I'm deluded enough to know that several of your points are just off-beam regardless of whether Neeld is a disaster or not. There may be plenty of reasons to criticise MN, but you have let off a few squibs. For example: There is nothing inconsistent about sacking older players and then stating (not complaining) as a reason for poor performance that the team is young. One may disagree with the policy of sacking the older players, but it's not the inconsistency you are trying to make out. "I don't want you to like me" is classic coach speak. Of course it's good if this is later followed by 'love', so criticise him for failing to develop that, not for the standard coach-speak statement. The Captain's were chosen by the players - would you want him to ruin their buy-in by overruling them? Personally I think it was a mistake on his part not to do so. If he had done that you'd be able to add to your list that "failure to listen to the players". In PJ's review I trust, and not on what I read here.

Sad how few posts there have been in response to this article compared to the endless sack everybody calls in other threads. (This may be wrong as I've given up reading the other repetitive threads and maybe the article has been quoted there.)

I doubt many of us would give our usual good performance if TV cameras were recording what we said. So I wouldn't judge his ability to address players on that. In PJ's review I trust.

well said.

No I'm not. I have no idea if he is the coach to lead us to the promised land or down the tube. I want to see a careful measured process in determining what to do to fix the club. I don't see much of that on Demonland or in your comment, but fortunately for the club decisions will be taken elsewhere. Where are all those complaints about group-think that I recall some of the anti-Neeld posters were so fond of making earlier? Not group-think when they agree with it perhaps.

Precisely. So in despair after patiently waiting so long, some members are prepared to endorse rash actions and the coming of a saviour. Some of us see that when you really are at rock bottom a time of deep reflection and care is required rather than the sort of reaction I was criticising. I'm hoping PJ is doing the deep reflection - he has or is getting the information, unlike us.