hardtack

The key Roos comments are: "I don't have a problem with that. My mindset is it would want to be a significant change ... to where I am at the moment." "In some ways it's the great coaching challenge, but you have got to be thinking like a coach to take it on if you are going to do that role." To me that reads as him being very non-committal and I would take very little that is positive out of that. He has a very solid media job that probably affords him a very comfortable lifestyle free of the stresses related to coaching and he has stated in then past that he does not have the requisite desire to coach at the moment... and as he claims to not be motivated by money, I would assume that is pretty much key to him returning to coaching. Would be nice to get him, but the way I read that article, it says nothing beyond what he has pretty much consistently stated on On the Couch in the past when questioned on the subject of coaching the MFC.

Wouldn't it be easier if you went and took out a Brisbane Lions membership?

Yawn

Look up http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/34227-beamer-shows-a-bit-of-class/?p=773174

How's the weather up there in Brisbane by the way?

Could be worth watching On the Couch tonight, just to see whether Roos is put under the spotlight and what his body language is like.

I think you might find there was a lot more to it than that and that it's likely bad blood exists between them.

We lost a lazy, self centred, petulant player who thought that team was spelt te(i)am. The fact that you are so enamoured with him probably says more about you than it does about Neeld. Neeld at least tried and failed... Moloney didn't try and failed - he took exception to the fact that Neeld wanted him to work.

Funny if Neeld was to wind up as an assistant at the Lions... then Beamer might learn a bit about karma.

It's there alright (on Instagram) and Ricky Petterd has added a high 5 icon as a comment.

Just shows why he had no place in the leadership group.

You state Roos is no chance to coach, so your first choice is really Clarkson... then you want Kennett on board? Just how exactly do you see that working given their recent history?

I think that rumour was born out of this article.

There was a thread on Demonology that was supposedly citing a source at the hospital where Clark was treated as saying there is an extremely high chance that Clark will never play again. As usual, being bad news, the majority seemed to accept this as being gospel... however, that thread is no longer appearing on the forum there, so I imagine it has been removed under the "shenanigans" rule. Anyone know what happened there?

OD, I didn't say anyone said he was safe, but the fact that he met with the board, they discussed the result and he appeared to be safe is why I made that comment; it was my take on things.

Well, that depends on how you interpret "the last time" ;-)

Yes I can tell by your use of exclamation marks... Seinfeld would be pleased.

Perhaps not to give him the impression he was safe on Monday and vote to sack him on the Friday? I know it's brutal, but people tend to forget that we are dealing with real people and real emotions.

I was out of the country when the Bailey sacking occurred and did not know about it until I returned. As for this sacking, I still cannot see that telling someone they are safe for the present on the Monday, and then voting to sack him on the Friday is a particularly good way of doing things.

Seriously? Do you really think that telling a coach he is safe for the time being after the round before the bye and then telling him he is no longer required before the next game has been played, is handling this graciously? I agree that he was gone one way or another... but I beg to differ when it comes to your assessment of how the club has handled this.

Do you seriously believe that we will win those games simply because Neeld has been shown the door? I seriously hope I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that this season from hell will continue unabated.

Yes, quite possibly part of the "highly conditional" provisos for lending the money: "Jackson only last Friday went to the AFL for a $3 million bail out package to save the club’s finances. The AFL gave him positive feedback, allowing him to finance the payout of Neeld which will cost the club $600,000."

And replaced by who, may I ask?

f true, this does concern me a little as having declared him safe for the time being just the other week, and with no games having been played since, to do a U turn like this? What kind of message is this sending to the playing group, and particularly those in the pro-Neeld camp?

Based on exactly what qualifications?