pm24

I wonder if it was part of the deal with the AFL regarding the whole tanking saga: Demetrio: So we haven't got enough to say you tanked, but we've got to make an example of you to discourage others, so how about a negotiated outcome?? McLardy: Well given you don't have a snow flakes chance in hell of convicting us in legal proceedings, you better give us something for slandering our clubs name! Demetrio: How about we fine you a ridiculous amount for bringing the integrity of the game into disrepute, then that will take you into a financial deficit, we'll then bail you out with some additional funding, and that will cover the legal costs and the fine. Sound good? McLardy: Agreed.

Does anyone else find it slightly humorous that if we get funding support from the AFL, they will essentially be funding our payment of the "not tanking but bringing integrity of the sport into disrepute" fine.

The only point from the article that I agree with is about how are list is in a similar position to GWS. I've been trying to make this point for some time in all the sack Neeld/keep Neeld threads (please I don't want to start another one here). If we are truly rebuilding, it makes sense that we would be in a similar position to the expansion clubs development wise. GC started 0-14 last season, in the second year of their existence. GWS has no wins to date in its second year. We have just one in the 2nd year of our rebuilding using the GC and GWS approach.

If that is true, I doubt Jackson would have been happy.

I don't think Walls did much research for this piece. Why he would not list Gawn as one of our top 16 or whatever players that needed to be kept, is beyond me. Also, the fact that he has suggested we basically get rid of any player on the list with 100 plus games of senior experience, except Jamar, is just stupid.

I will laugh so hard if she is proven on wrong on many of those counts. How did Schwab extend Connolly's contract? Schwab may have set things up, but Jackson was began in the role on 1 May 2013, and Connolly's contract extension was announced on 31 May 2013. So Caro, how exactly did Connolly's extension happen under Schwab??? Also, if Jackson didn't want Connolly to continue I doubt he would have allowed an announcement about Connolly's extension to go public. I also don't believe the statement that Neeld will be removed as coach by the end of the month. I think Jackson has a fair bit of integrity from what we've seen to date, and he's not going to say "I'm going to give Neeld some clean air" (or whatever the phrase was), and that the football department needed to be sorted first, and then backflip and get rid of Neeld just 3 weeks later. She's just holding the lines that she has held for some time. Nothing to see here people, unless you want to feel dumber for the experience of reading anything Caroline Wilson writes.

Can someone clarify if Davey would be on the veterans list (or whatever its called) if he was to re-sign next season. I think we need to keep him at the moment as we are desperate for players with his foot skills who can play midfield and crumbing forward. It is a type of player we just do not have an automatic replacement for. His form the last few weeks has also shown that he is turning back the clock and is probably one of our most valuable players at the moment. If he has finally gotten his body right, than we can still two decent years out of him I reckon.

People need to calm down and read the detail in the article. Consider this statement from the article and you will realise that the $500k payments can not be made until his third season: "Players are locked into minimum wages for the first two years of their stay at an AFL club, ranging between $70,000 and $100,000, depending on match payments." (http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/jesse-hogan-in-line-for-big-pay-rise-as-battling-demons-look-to-lock-in-star-in-making/story-fndv8pdq-1226662745291) So Hogan will be paid between $70,000 - $100,000 in years one and two, then up to $500,000 from years 3-5. Now ask yourself, do you consider him possibly a better player than Dawes in three years time, who is currently earning around the $500k per annum mark according to reports? If the answer is yes, then get on board this deal. Its fantastic for the club, and also a fantastic message for the club to send supporters and sponsors that there is some stability and promise ahead for the future.

I think I would have a different best 22 at the moment. And it's going to be controversial to some, but I've made the changes to your best 22 in bold. I think Pedersen and Macdonald offer more than Dunn does at the moment. Pedersen has at least shown a capacity to be able to take some good intercept marks, and is more athletic than Dunn. Macdonald is better at doing real grunt work and effecting turnovers. From all reports his run and kicking out of the back line has also improved. Dunn is just too one dimensional now. Evans is in based on his form as well, particularly ahead of players like Strauss and Tapscott who have just not gotten enough of the ball at AFL level. Byrnes also comes in, as he has shown more and contributed more when playing than Blease. I wish I could put Strauss and Blease in there, but they aren't consistent enough. I've also thrown Rodan is there, as I have liked what he has brought to the team in recent weeks. He would either be a great sub, or player to pinch hit in the midfield and then swing into the forward line. I think the make-up I've suggested also gives us a better balance of experience and talent.

Thank you for such a well reasoned and argued post........

Fair point, but I was just focusing on what I would like to see happen. Dunn is still under contract for next season, so I'm not sure what that means regarding delisting options, so that's why I suggested a trade. Same goes for Spencer. As for Sellar, I'd be happy to retain him for depth purposes only.

I want to see us try and get Gorringe from the Gold Coast. 200cm's and can play ruck or forward. Could be a good option for the future. As for the delist, retain arguments... Retain: Watts, Sylvia, Davey, Taggert, Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Davis, Rodan, Tynan (though not convinced), Gillies (still young and provides depth), Macdonald (I just think he's still got a bit to offer in terms of setting an example for the younger players) from the senior list. Rookie List: Clisby and Stark Delist: Nicholson (just don't think he's up to it skill wise), Couch (he's good, but I don't think he'll be better than our developing young mids from the last draft (Viney, Toumpas, Jones) or what we might get in the next draft. . Trade: Out: Dunn, Sellar, Spencer (I would prefer to see Gorringe on the list over Spencer). In: Gorringe, an established midfielder or developing midfielder with at least 3 preseasons under the belt. A good mid-sized defender with strong foot skills. Uncertain: Jetta, Magner

I'm looking at the jump that GC made from season 2 to season 3 and think it could be what we see happen to our list. We have arguably only had two AFL standard preseasons for the last 6-7 years, and that has been since the current regime took over. Every player interviewed has comment on the massive difference. Neeld and co have also indicated we are only 2/3rds of the way to an AFL level of fitness. So next year, fitness should no longer be an excuse. It'll be our 3rd preseason with the new program, and it could be the one that sees us finally take some positive steps. After 3 or 4 preseasons GC saw the results with their younger bodies finally being able to hold up to the rigours of AFL play. Lets hope it is the same for us.

Toumpas over Wines is too early to tell. Seriously, both kids are only in their first year, which hardly tells you what the finished product for them will be. Toumpas was more highly rated than Wines by most in the lead up to the draft, though Wines was clearly the more ready to play straight away. Have some patience.

Brennan is inconsistent, but is no less accomplished than Howe at this moment. In fact he has proven more at senior level than Howe. Bock has been injured quite regularly, so has Clark. Brown is a premiership player and a proven performer. He may not be elite, but he's an important player for any club. As for the next tier of players. It could be argued that Swallow, O'Meara, Lynch, Bennel, Prestia, McKenzie, Dixon etc are at the same level as Grimes, Dawes and Garland. I don't disagree that we have some talent on our list, but we do not have anywhere near the depth of talent as the Suns. Remember they also brought in players like Warnock, Stanley, Murphy, Broughton all to provide more experienced bodies to help support their younger players. If you look at our recruitment of players since 2011, it is a similar approach to the expansion teams. Get some young talent, and get some older bodies to help them along the way. Yet GC is lauded for their strategy while we are dragged over the coals for applying that same approach. Pedersen helps provide our younger players time to develop, and has some skills and abilities that we need. He could be the perfect swingman for the club as he has shown an ability to play forward and back. I wish we didn't have to part with Gysberts, who could have still shown something, but with Viney, Toumpas, Kent, M Jones coming in, I doubt Gysberts would have been top 22 anyway.

I think the focus of many of these discussions are misplaced. Rather than focusing on whether we should keep or sack Neeld, I think the question should be, do we allow the current football department more time to work on this rebuild of the playing list and the club given all the cultural and structural issues that have been highlighted within the football department. I'm neither for or against Neeld. I'm for this club rebuilding, and sticking to it's guns and showing some integrity to let a group of people appointed for 3 years to rebuild the club, to be given 3 years to rebuild the club. However, given what we know about the structural and cultural issues now, it would seem that the task was possibly greater and harder than originally envisioned. I'm for allowing Peter Jackson to put in place the new structures that are required to help drive this club towards success. I'm for a revamp of the Board to provide real leadership for this club. I'm for giving the young playing list time to develop. Are the results, or more to the point, the manner in which we are losing acceptable??? No But I believe our clubs list has been destroyed by the mismanagement of the past administrations and football departments. Spuds cannot just suddenly be turned into stars. My only argument regarding the Neeld debate is that even if he has negatively affected some within the club (or previously with the club) that the overall direction with regard to the new standards and expectations being placed on players, and the improved and more consistent form of guys like Garland, Davey, Jones, Sylvia show that some things are working. So, for me, time is needed in order to properly review and assess the performance of the coaching group, and this cannot be done properly until the other issues are sorted out. If Neeld is identified as the problem at that time, then see you later Mark. Thanks for your efforts, it just didn't work out. But, I think, for the sake of the clubs reputation that call should not be made until either the end of this season, or preferably the end of next season. Otherwise it doesn't send a good message to prospective coaching appointments.

About 3 cm's in height???? I'm clutching at straws.

"Hit the Road Jack" is an option, but probably not wise given Jack Watts' current contract status. However, should he leave, I think we will have a theme song for him.

It's Rodan's creativity and ability to get through traffic that I really think we need. At a couple of centre bounces he was able to still get the handball to a player while being tackled. To many of our players fail to do this. Remembering that he cost us a pick that we weren't going to use (pick 88), he's been a good contributor.

Just thought I'd quote a statement from Steven Stretch in the recent HUN article regarding Billy Stretch. I've no idea how much Steven has had to do with the club of late, but he suggests that he's been in contact with those who have: Steven Stretch believed the Demons had the nucleus of a strong side but questioned some "cultural'' issues which had hampered his former club. Neeld said he was charged with changing the culture when he took over as coach last year. "I'm not so sure the player development has been inferior, perhaps more so the culture or environment at the club (is an issue),'' he said. "I have had an insight into the inner sanctum and I know a few people there and the players can't speak highly enough of how they are treated and looked after. "But a good culture is paramount and maybe that is something they need to address.'' http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/youngster-billy-stretch-still-dreams-of-playing-for-melbourne/story-fndv8pdq-1226662053615 A lot of people have made comment about the poor player management by Neeld or as you put it his "man management skills", I just find it interesting that these comments from Stretch, coupled with the recent comments from Grimes and Frawley seem to suggest otherwise....

I think you are underestimating who Gold Coast picked up. They would have more than the 4 top line players you listed for us. Think Ablett Jr, Brennan, Rischitelli, Nathan Bock, Campbell Brown, Jarrod Harbrow. I However, I kind of agree that we may be better off playing the kids, if looking for the long term success. My patience has warn thin with some of the guys who've been around for a while, but I see Pederson being able to contribute, and I can't see who we should bring in to take his place. I'd like to see Dunn dropped before Pederson.

Who are those few top line senior players you are referring to?? And I mean actual top line AFL senior players, not perceived Melbourne FC top line players?

I agree. When something positive happen (like Blease goal) he was right in think of that chain of position, creating space and delivering to players in an advantageous position. He may not have played as well as last week, and didn't get the same amount of positions, but he still performed well when he got it. I would have loved him to have gotten more of it though.

I was going by what the club website said? What are you basing it on?

That's true, and most of those good teams have had plenty of games playing with each other, and therefore are able to predict the movements of their team mates better. Unfortunately this is where we are lacking. Garland wasn't the only problem though. Dunn didn't even see guys like Terlich, Kent and M Jones leading in to open space multiple times (and they were metres ahead of their opponents), instead he waited and then bombed it long to a contest, rather than kicking to a player in an advantageous position. We need better decision makers and readers of the play in our back line. Unfortunately, I could say that will come with experience, but the problem is that it's the more experienced players making those mistakes. We are in an impossible position with our list. The better leaders in our team, and core senior players are out injured (Frawley, Grimes, Clark and now Dawes), while many of those that remain just aren't cutting it (Dunn, Jamar to an extent, Sylvia at times). The newer recruits are showing more than some of those guys. Rodan has been good two weeks in a row now, Pedersen showed a bit. The youngsters are certainly showing more than many of those guys.