bing181

There is no report in the sense it has been put here. We have a new, albeit acting, CEO, doing what any new CEO would do. Obviously, part of that is reviewing what has been happening, proposing a way forward, and implementing whatever changes he sees as appropriate. Also, he's not answerable to the AFL, he made that clear in his first press conference. He's employed by Melbourne and answerable to the board.

No, they had 2 players with more than 7 tackles (Barlow and De Boer). We had more tackles overall (74 to 68), and thus, more players with more tackles than them. Perhaps recheck the stats and correct your post?

Not disagreeing, but don't believe any "real coaches" will be available before the season ends.

Was thinking of the Disney character ... perhaps appropriate.

Jetta to Ballantyne?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's only been one case where a caretaker coach went on to win a premiership. So perhaps that should be "other club".

Actually, democracy is a system of government, as opposed to theocracy, plotocracy, oligarchy, monarchy etc.

Have you no idea why it's so very very hard to get a club up to where it needs to be to be playing (regular) finals footy. A few around here cite Richmond. Here they are, what, 4 or 5 years in under Hardwick, have a fair number of decent draft picks and some good trade-ins, well-managed club, an assistant coach that a few here think would be a great get as head coach, plenty of supporters and presumably the money to do what they need off-field. Will they make finals this year? Maybe. Even next year? Perhaps. There's a reason every club doesn't win the premiership every year.

The feeding frenzy continues.

Because playing under an interim coach and a stand-in CEO will give them a clear picture of where we headed and fill them with security.

Utter BS. Where has anyone in the FD, Neeld, coaches, players, said that they "accept" a loss? Don't make claims you can't back up.

Would be remiss not to explore this over the coming months, though not sure how PJ gets on with his successor at Essendon. Robson has an excellent track record, and lots of experience at two successful (well ... Essendon ... successful?) clubs. Let's say two of the bigger clubs. He's had to go because this happened on his watch, but don't believe he'll be compromised by it in the longer term (much like the Rendell situation).

Well, if I may, we don't actually know. His grandfather died, and along with a few other players at the club, he'd been sick with some gastro thing. Quite how much the two affected him, only those on the inside would know.

Nothing gives you the right to highjack every thread. Make your point. Make your point once. Then drop it. You're getting really really tedious, and I for skip your posts because you just say exactly the same thing (player manager, blah blah, Watts, blah blah, Neeld, blah blah) over and over. You are not doing your argument one iota of good. As for being desperate, it's a football club. Desperate is when you don't have enough money to feed your kids or pay your rent.

You use every thread, regardless of the topic, as a way to slip in a snide remark about Neeld. Tiresome. And repetitive.

Does he? Where does he indicate that he "seems happy"? As Craig said in his report: "We lost by over 5 goals, and we can never be pleased with that".

Agree with your post, but I don't know that we should hold our breath. We'll obviously have to wait till the end of the year, but not so sure how many will be available that fit that description.

I didn't say that Sunday's result was a positive, I was commenting on ... oh forget it.

Hard to see how changing a coach is going to help us if one of our problems is continually changing coaches.

I was responding to a post that said: "A 6 goal loss is considered a positive because we at least showed effort". Here "positive" is used in the general sense of "contributing toward or characterized by increase or progression e.g. "take some positive action"". As opposed to your narrow and out-of-context use of positive in its mathematical sense of "real and numerically greater than zero".

Because inexperienced coaches don't win premierships. Well, except last year. And the year before. And not the year before, but for the 6 years before that. etc.

Last week we didn't show any effort. This week we showed effort. Therefore, there has been an improvement (given that "showing effort" when previously there was none, is an improvement) Therefore, it's a positive. Q.E.D.

Why oh why ... His point is that if the players are going to do what they need to do to and at least perform to a minimal level, then he and the rest of the FD can concentrating on what they should be concentrating on, which is ... "coaching". As opposed to going back to square one and having to spend their time focusing on the (very) basics. This is the point that Dawes backed him up on, that the coach shouldn't have to be spending his time on the basics like "effort" etc. There was some great info over on a Richmond board last week, discussing Melb v Richmond, as to where we are, they were etc. etc. Someone commented that early in Hardwick's term, he'd been at a kind of "inner-circle" presentation, where Hardwick had said that with the backs, he was just concentrating on teaching them to punch effectively - and that perhaps in the second year, they'd be able to look at marking.

Just to say, if you quote within a quote, then those replying with a quote only get what you see above. And ... you completely undermine your arguments, such as they are, with factual inaccuracies such as "Everyone knows the main problem is our mid-field. So why did Neeld waste so many picks on KP rather than mid-fielders. " We turned over 14 players. How many of the players that came in were KP players. Two. Dawes and Pedersen. Perhaps Gillies (depth defender). The vast majority of the players who came in are out and out midfielders, or "run through the middle" types. The other great fallacy in the above is the idea that we somehow have to tread water with an interim coach for the majority of the season to "allow the greatest possible opportunity to nail the best coach available" a) There's nothing to stop us speaking (discretely) now or at any point to potential coaches b) Interim coaches basically NEVER go on to be successful permanent coaches, Roos being the exception that establishes the rule. The "extended interview" idea is just a furphy. c) If you, like so many around here, think that we should be going for an experienced coach, all of the available experienced coaches are employed up until the end of the season, and there will be no movement from then until then. d) Teams do not benefit or gain in any way from mid-season coach changes. Never have, never will, and back at page whatever-it-was on this thread, information from a study was posted to that effect. I for one believe that Neeld should be given the support he needs, at least till the latter part of the season. There's nothing in any of what you say that convinces me otherwise.

Chris Dawes went into bat for him at yesterday's Press Conference.