Fat Tony

A lot has been written about our fitness/training having improved since Neeld took over. Here are some of the facts: Neeld and Misson have been with the club for two pre-seasons. 45% of our list has been turned over since Bailey departed. We have been outscored 44 to 271 in second halves this year.

After topping up with readymade recruits in the off season, our average losing margin this year is 107 points. Add to that, some of our most talented players appear want out of the club at a time when the competition has embraced free agency. Neeld has been a huge mistake whichever way you look at it. Every minute he is there is hurting the club.

Why didn't the club hire a helicopter?

186 was part of it, but I think the divide between Schwab and the players began earlier than that. I think the CEO of a footy club has to be in a position to make strategic calls about the football side. Giving the coaches etc. carte blanche say about the playing list can result in a conflict of interest between the coach (who wants to be a premiership coach in the short term) and the club (which has to look at the long-term future as well). The decision to trade away of early draft picks is an example of this conflict. However, with this position there is the potential for the CEO to get himself into trouble, as has been the case here.

Schwab carried too much baggage from the tanking episode and was a lame duck. While he was not found guilty by the AFL investigation, most don’t believe he was entirely innocent and he had lost the trust of many of the players and supporters. IMO the club did the right thing at the time in securing the priority pick in 2009, however the key people linked to the club at the time should have departed sooner as they became divisive and resulted in bad press. While Schwab is obviously skilled as a CEO, he was just an administrator and should be easily replaceable. Moreover, as with any organisation, a change in leadership is often a good thing after a long period.

The findings of the tanking investigation were announced two weeks after the AGM. What do you think would have happened at the AGM if they were announced two weeks before?

I don’t agree with AFL administrators coming in for any lengthy period of time. We need a strong voice to point out that it is no accident that the clubs towards the bottom end of the AFL ladder are also generally the poorest. The AFL needs to look at the way it handles issues like the fixture, TV rights, the introduction of the new expansion teams, allowing extra payments outside the salary cap (i.e. Judd/Visy), free agency, gate revenue distribution, selling home games interstate, allowing uncontracted players to enter the national draft etc. The current approach is significantly impacting the evenness of the competition as a whole. While the ineptitude of the current administration is all on show, we can’t have the AFL running the club for very long as it won’t be possible to get this point across and this (along with good player recruiting) is the key to our long-term survival.

Brian is just working under Neeld’s game plan with minimal talent. Talk about a rock and a hard place.

What a surprise to see you pop up on this thread Titan. This thread shouldn’t be about Lynden Dunn. It should be about what Sue Dunn knows about the administration and how it is impacting the club’s short and long-term performance.

MFC's Paradox: Neeld needs to go, but those with the power to sack him won’t do it because that would turn the microscope on their own ineptitude.

HG thanks for you input. It is obvious the club is still divided over Bailey's sacking and the manner in which Neeld has come in has only opened up old sores.

Off field the club needs a voice to push for a better fixture and wealth redistribution. On field the team is badly lacking confidence and a caretaker coach may end up becoming our long-term replacement. October is too long to wait for change. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Garland is being played out of position as a small defender. He should be played on KPF where he has an advantage in agility. While he doesn’t provide the run required from a small defender, his run is an advantage on larger opponents.

I agree that they are seperate issues. But to say that this view has just sprung up due to a poor performance on the weekend is rubbish.

The napkin story, every White Board Wednesday and Caro's article after 186 are all evidence that Schwab's finger prints were all over the footy department under Bailey. He then became divisive when his youth strategy wasn't panning out and we got a new coach and embarked on a completely different approach. Anyway, the key problem with Schwab is that he is the invisible man because he has no credibility. We need a voice at a time when the rich clubs are getting richer and the poor are going the way of Fitzroy.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. We all want a successful MFC. Some think we should persevere with the status quo. Others think the current lot are tried and failed leaders and don’t deserve a third attempt to rebuild the club.

Schwab is a divisive figure both within the club and the media. This is untenable in a role where hundreds of suitably qualified people have the skills to replace him. Moreover, as a small club, the MFC needs its CEO to put the case to the AFL for greater equalisation measures. We have no Friday night games this year and our fixture is horrible from a marketing and sponsorship point of view. Schwab can’t do that while donning Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak. And he has no credibility to do so in light of the recent history of the club.

There is no inconsistency. Our list is poor but we should have continued with a youth strategy. Mature agers will only ever get us to mediocrity at best.

We have recruited very poorly. That is the reason Bailey failed. Where would we be if our recruits were replaced with Nic Nat, Dangerfield, Shuey, Fyfe, Reid and Jetta? Jones looks a likely type, but striving to finish 12th with a team of mature players with limited time in the game is not the best strategy for us in the age of free agency IMO.

We would have been better off drafting kids than going for mature age journeymen to try and save a failed coach.

We just signed or re-signed most of that list. It speaks to the competency of those in charge.

In your opinion. Add Pederson 2 years

Dawes 4 years McKenzie 3 years Jamar 3 years Byrnes 2 years Dunn 2 years Tapscott 2 years Bail 2 years Dear oh dear

How right you are. The history of the current administration leaves us without credibility in pushing the case for greater equalisation measures in the AFL. A fresh administration would give us a voice again.

Firstly, there is a massive difference between going down the youth road and tanking. Secondly, I think the club made the right call in 2009 in securing the priority pick. But the club still needs clear air from the issue and the best way for that to happen is for fresh leadership to come in. It is not about personalities or how fiscally successful the current administration has been. It is about what is best for the club going forward. My only ‘agenda’ here is to see the MFC succeed. There are plenty of people out there who can do Schwab’s role who are not divisive and who do not carry his baggage.