Dr. Gonzo

Haha yeah but constantly trying to snipe and white-ant the coach isn't negative at all... Get a grip mate, you turn every thread into an anti-Neeld diatribe, this has nothing to do with Neeld it's a thread about Moloney yet you manage to find a way to snipe the coach again. We can respect a former player at the same time as acknowledging his deficiencies but you seem to think every player who left us since Neeld came on was the second coming of Barassi. There's no logic to your arguments at all other than you hate Neeld so any decision he makes is by default incorrect. There's a reason the club didn't care if Moloney left, doesn't mean he didn't have some redeeming qualities.

I don't think your right about that - AOD-9604 was not OK for Trengove to use regardless of whether it was a cream or injected. It was a drug not approved for human use and therefore automatically prohibited for use. If the article is true and we met with the AFL and divulged the clubs relationship to Dank then the AFL has severely misrepresented this over the last week and our club needs to be vocal about taking issue with this publicly. The AFL has intimated we told them we had no dealing with Dank whatsoever whereas this is simply not true - we told them basically everthing except for the fact he recommended a cream for Trengove's foot which had the prohibited substance, something the club alleges Bates failed to reveal to them when queried. I find it far more plausible Bates either hid this knowledge or flat out failed to realise it may be an issue than he simply misled the club altogether about his relationship with Danks yet the AFL (and their lap dogs in the media) have made out we covered up and lied about any relationship. It is a disgrace and I would expect nothing less than McLardy coming out to publicly state so and demand the AFL publicly clarify this.

It's clear you've got an anti-Neeld agenda (like your mates Hardnut and Tonatopia) so there's no point trying to point out the obvious to you. Whether he left under FA or not is irrelevant as the club did nothing to try and keep him and relegated him to Casey last year, that should tell you something. I wasn't comparing Moloney to those other players (it was Jones), I was pointing out that while Jones had a good year which got him a B&F at the end of the day B&F's in poor teams mean next to nothing because neither Jones or Moloney can stack up against the best midfielders in the league. Fact is, you've got no idea about this or any other topic I've seen you post on. Moloney was a lazy front runner before Neeld got to the club and I already had an opinion on that while Bailey was still coach. He's not the only one, our club has been full of lazy front runners for years. Yze, Johnstone, Bruce, White, Robertson all of them afflicted with the same bruise-free laziness. I guess I've been "sucked in" by Neeld about them too huh? What about Stef Martin, now that he's gone I guess he was the second coming of Polly Farmer but that dastardly Neeld just wouldn't give him a go. Lucas Cook could've been the next Carey and Gysberts the next Pendlebury if only Neeld wasn't such a mean old bully. Go ahead and post some stupid pic though that seems to be the only way you have to compensate for your utter lack of basic football knowledge.

Jones had a good year but I wouldn't go comparing him to Hodge or Selwood or Pendlebury or Bartel or Mitchell etc etc Fact is the MFC saw what I saw which is why they got rid of him, but I guess you know better than the MFC. There's a difference between output and mindset. Why do you guys think Moloney was sent back to Casey last year? Yeah so many weren't "buying in" because for the most part they're a bunch of overpaid prima donnas who crack the sads when someone comes along and gives them some home truths. Ablett, Mooney and Steve Johnson took the criticism on board and turned into consistent premiership players. Moloney had a hissy fit and refused to lead the club by example. Neeld would have loved to have had him as a big experienced player leading the younger kids but I guess you think he just likes sacrificing senior players for the sake of it because he is some evil egomaniac or something. Neeld's fate is tied to the players, if he thought Moloney would have helped him improve the teams performance, don't you think he would have kept him? Jesus we're talking about a guy who as a supposedly senior player and grown adult got so drunk he couldn't remember if he [censored] on the bar or not.

B&F in a crap team means nothing.

Mate I was fed up with Moloney long before Neeld was even on the horizon so you can take your smart-arse [censored] and cram it. He was a selfish player who refused to do the hard yards and for a front-runner didn't even hurt the opposition on the scoreboard averaging 1 goal every 4 games. He had no ability to lower his eyes and hit up a target, he played footy like I played in the under 13's just get it and bash it forward as far and high as you can. Look at his game against North last year, 3 times he kicked it into the forward line without looking directly to the opposition when on at least two of those occasions he could have hit up a shorter option.

Maybe it wasn't all about what happened on the field. The view from outside seemed like he didn't want to "buy-in" to Neeld as coach.

He may have got possessions but I'm more interested in what he did with the footy once he got it, how damaging he was to the opposition and how hard he was willing to run back to pressure and defend space.

I don't have an ill will towards him but I can't say I miss him - he was the epitome of the Bailey years. Could look a million bucks against horrible opposition and went completely missing against any team that was half competent. Admire his passion for the club though he always struck me as the type who would wear a pink polo shirt with a popped collar.

Not only that but it's the same stuff we heard under Bailey about just having to "get games into the players".

Correct - he is our lynchpin.

WJ, on the one hand I appreciate that you don't wish to reveal the identities of people who may have told you things in confidence; however on the other I can't help but feel that as supporters who care deeply about the club and want to see it on the right track we are helpless to do so unless we are provided with all the information about specific people who only wish to be involved with the MFC to carry out personal vendettas. You allude to the Mifsud/Davey affair and I agree it stinks but I don't think reading back through old news articles is going to enlighten me as to the reason why it occurred as I may not be familiar with the personalities involved especially if they are only hinted at. How can we keep the destabilisers out of the club if we don't know who they are? On a similar note to the Mifsud/Davey issue I've always found the Polis/EnergyWatch story to be interesting as well. Who discovered the rants on his FB page and leaked it to the media? Was it just a coincidence that it all occurred around the same time as the Mifsud/Davey situation? Were his comments known about prior to this but only made the news at an opportune time? No-one in the media ever revealed how they came to know about the comments made by Polis which had been sitting on FB for some time prior to it blowing up in the media. I guess what it all comes down to is a sense of helplessness that all this politicking/vendettas are going on in the background of my club yet due to a lack of information about who is involved there is really no recourse for me to do anything about it as things are only whispered about and never fully disclosed and I have no idea whether what is being said about certain people (Neeld and McLardy for instance) is only half the story and/or being used to run an agenda. It's all very well to say the members should vote out the board at the AGM if they feel aggrieved with how they run the club but without the FACTS laid bare it is very difficult to make an informed decision. I guess I just find it astounding that people who purport to love the club would rather hurt it than work together with people they may have issues with to get along for the greater good. I sincerely believe this is the biggest issue facing our club and the reason we have been a rabble for so long. We have no chance of being successful on or off-field while this type of petty bickering goes on behind the scenes (and this has turned into a more general rant and not necessarily directed at you WJ).

I have created this thread as I was interested in the discussion in the "New CEO" thread which was closed as it strayed off topic. Well here is the topic for the discussion to continue. I must say some of the things being hinted at in that thread (and its always only "hinted at") made me feel very poorly about the club. I think the time is now to clear the air and stop with all the innuendo about faceless men who some say were involved in fracturing the club in one way or another. It's time for the club to wipe the slate clean and there is NO WAY this can happen and the can club can ever move forward let alone BE SUCCESSFUL if the club is allowed to be dominated by backstage politics. Reading that thread felt more like an ALP Caucus meeting than discussion about a FOOTBALL club. It seems the same types who Smith had issues with and ended up sacking him still permeate the club. So here it is - this thread is to get it all out in the open so that us "common folk" who are the backbone of the club and pay hundreds or thousands of dollars each and every year to support the team and club are given the opportunity to assess all the facts and make our own minds up about how this club should best be managed/run. Specific posters seem to be recurring themes around these discussions and they know who they are so here it is, this is your chance to clear the air.

You tell me, as far as I'm aware it's been geared towards this. Whatever it was geared towards under Bailey they were incapable of putting it into practice.

It would be an indictment on the club if we are unable to retain Frawley. He's contracted for another year, back ourselves in to prove to him that he should stay over the next 2 seasons rather than just resign ourselves that he is gone.

It used to be endurance however now it is the ability to burst for 5-7 minutes, recover for 1-2 minutes and then go again for the whole 2 hours which is key. This is what Geelong do which is why they have so many players rotating through the midfield.

Anyone hear the mention of Frawley on FoxFooty after the Sydney/Saints game? Sounded like they mentioned a trade rumour "despite being contracted to the end of 2014". Wouldn't surprise but would be absolutely [censored] off if we lose him. We're forced to pay 95% of the cap yet are losing all our senior players? Tapscott and Jetta will be on $400k each next year if this keeps up.

Yep - lucky me I chose the Jets to complement my wintertime MFC tragedy with some J-E-T-S soap opera. Both sides going through a rebuild at the moment so I get no relief even during summer. Also is it just me or is Sanchez the Hispanic-American QB version of Jack Watts?? Well Sanchez has won playoff games at least I guess.

Can you expand on this? Because it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Fair enough. I think Neeld is clearly on the back foot, frankly I don't know if he is the right man nor whether he has been given enough time to make an accurate judgment. I think the list was in poor shape when he took over despite all our high picks. I think our side had a pathetic fitness base. I think the culture of the club and playing group was very poor. The club agreed which is why they gave him a mandate to change the culture of the club. I don't think its fair to expect he would achieve that in 18 months. The loss to Essendon was clearly horrible but not without precedent in our game. Essendon lost by 160 points to Hawthorn in 1992 and won the flag the next year. I am willing to give Neeld this year to see whether he can make improvements and another draft to see if he can improve our midfield clearly our biggest weakness. The only thing I will say is that if the rumours of rifts between Neeld and certain players are true they need to be sorted out yesterday. That may mean Neeld goes or maybe the players in question but if it is the whole playing group (which I sincerely doubt) then his position is untenable. I also would be reluctant to sack Neeld and go with another rookie coach. If we have an experienced coach lined up then you can start thinking about replacing him. But at this stage I'd rather see Harrington, Royal, Rawlings, Mahoney and even Viney and McLardy go before Neeld does.

They are. Bailey had no idea about, or didn't care about them. You dont think Geelong implements any of the tactics of the modern game (both offensive and defensive) which require top level fitness? If you believe that you've got no idea about how footy is played these days. Fitness is not open to interpretation, it is cut & dry. You said as much initially when you said "stats show we were fitter under Bailey and have gone backwards under Neeld." Just admit you were wrong and get over it, it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong about Neeld being the right man as coach only that you're wrong about this particular aspect.

Elite skills and elite fitness are clearly not just desirable but required to be successful in the modern game. One without the other is pointless. If I referred to "game plan" earlier I was wrong - as I said in my last post think more about Neeld trying to implement modern tactics requiring greater fitness. Of course the Geelong side has great skills but they also have and require top level fitness to succeed. All of this is a bit of a sidetrack to the initial point though, which was that you said "stats show we were clearly fitter under Bailey and have gone backwards under Neeld". I disputed this and still do. Our fitness under Bailey was atrocious.

So that's the sum of your "proof" that we were fitter under Bailey than under Neeld? That we averaged higher last quarter scores? Its laughable, of course I dismiss it unless you're willing to consider other factors then it is irrelevant. I already outlined what some of those other factors are for you but you appear incapable of applying reason to this subject as it may contradict some of your pre-conceived beliefs. I don't necessarily believe Neeld is the right man for the job (though I would argue for giving him more time) but if he goes down it should at least be on his own merits and not due to false accusations backed by no evidence.

You compared the fitness levels under Bailey to those under Neeld. You stated that "stats clearly showed we were fitter under Bailey an went backwards under Neeld". I have no desire to go sifting through pages of posts to look for something that may not exist. You made the assertion, you back it up or I'll just assume you're being deceitful. The only post I read in this thread which indicated this may be the case used a simplistic method of comparing our average last quarter scores which is ridiculous considering so many other factors would be impacting this. If you have data relating to training time trials or game day GPS data you may have some evidence but short of this I fail to see what specific "stats" you could be referring to. The conversation was all about fitness - it was simplistic because that's all it required. I was t talking about game plans but rather tactics such as the forward press, spreading from contests, defensive zones, getting to stoppages and outnumbering opponents around the ball etc. eivery team tries to do this but due to our poor fitness base when Neeld took over we are behind the 8 ball and will be until Misson has completed his program to get us up to speed. The lack of fitness of our players is self-evident particularly in Baileys last two years when the players could not or would not run hard to create options for their teammates, spread from contests, could not go with their opponents running back to defend or chasing etc All I want you to provide in response to this is the "stats" you referred to in your original post which stated "stats clearly showed we were fitter under Bailey and went backwards under Neeld."

The post of yours I responded to was comparing the players fitness under Bailey to the players under fitness Neeld so there's no point saying don't bring up Bailey - you're the one that did so in the first place. I already explained how he's trying to implement a modern game style - at its very basic it's having every player on the ground able to run hard in 5 minute bursts up and down the field, coming off for a minute or two, then going back out to do the same again. Yes every team is doing it but as our fitness base was so poor when Neeld inherited the side we are finding it difficult to maintain/keep up. The rest of your post indicates either you have no idea or you're being purposefully obtuse (I'll give you the benfit of the doubt and assume it's the latter). Now, you previously said "stats clearly showed the players were fitter under Bailey and went backwards under Neeld" - what stats were you referring to?