pm24

.....the best 95 point loss you've ever seen? Are you fellas extracting the urine?

Ah whatever. I look forward with baited breath to a near record low QB crowd and yet another humiliating scoreline. Maybe this one will be the best 112 point loss you've ever seen.

Although you'd hope Neeld has at least a couple of tricks up his sleeve against his old mob. Here's hoping for the best 70 point loss you've ever seen.

I'm sure it is not your intent, but it sure sounds like you are barracking for the club to have less income and another belting just to satisfy your craving for Neeld to be dismissed.

We are not saying that a 95 point loss is easy to take, but more commenting on the way the players went about it on Sunday.

We saw more effort and attack on the ball, and even taking the game on then was shown against Freo, GC, Essendon and Port which were clearly some of the worst games of the club this year. Those are the signs that we've all been wanting. They may still be struggling with disposal, and structuring up, but with so many core players out and so many inexperienced players in, that's to be expected.

I might be overly optimistic, but I reckon we won't get blown away by Collingwood. I'm not sure why, but I reckon our guys will lift an extra notch, and if Sylvia returns we'll just have that little bit more grunt than we've had recently. I seriously think we can keep it within 6 goals.

Off the field I hear all of the rumours, like most of us. I read the media reports, listen to the radio and watch the telly. Some of it is most certainly scuttlebutt but where there is is such a massive plume of smoke there has got to be a fire. I saw the shabby treatment of the senior players. I see the way mark Neeld speaks to people publicly. I don't like it and I respond instinctively. He may be a very good person, and I have great sympathy for his current situation, but I don't think he is the right one for us at the moment. The damage appears to be worsening by the week.

Which senior players are you referring to? The two that left via Free Agency - Moloney and Rivers? Brad Green, who actually made comments on the radio and in presser's that players need to get on board what was happening at the club?

If all the rumors about Moloney are correct, re his attitude and moping because of not getting the captaincy, do you think he would be a positive influence on the junior players?

Rivers is the only one I was disappointed about losing, but really, who wouldn't want to go and play at Geelong if they had the chance?

A lot of rumors have circulated about the shabby treatment of players, but now we have a player who is come from a successful premiership club in Dawes who is quite clearly saying that the problem lies with the players. Is it that Neeld treated the players poorly, or is it that the culture of the club was so bad, that senior players that could cruise along in the past could no longer do so, and they were unhappy because of it? That's what happens when professional standards are set. The unprofessional ones get found out.

As I keep saying, that was the best 95 point loss I've ever seen. The score really wasn't an indication of how we played. Neeld is on the right track and when it clicks there are going to be some red faces. We are so close to getting this right, and all we need is for the board to back him up, or even keep sitting on the fence like they are, so that they can keep working. It's close to coming together.

We may have been beaten by 95 points, but I agree with RM, the result doesn't reflect the effort of the players. We were competitive in each contest. We were beaten by class, bigger bodies, and greater experience. Remember Hawthorn are the premiership favourites. We fell down with our disposal into the forward fifty and our much maligned Neeld recruits, like Rodan and Dawes stood up big time. Kent, Terlich and Jones again showed up and have proven to be good draft picks by Neeld and Co. Even Pederson played well in the back half, and it looks like maybe he will stick down there, allowing Watts to play that lead up forward role he's a natural at.

I came away from watching that game and actually felt more positive about the clubs situation. I actually enjoyed watching the game, because I could appreciate the effort we were putting in, and the genuine class of the Hawthorn outfit who are just a bloody impressive football club.

If that level of effort can continue, and we can inject Clark, Grimes, McDonald, Sylvia, and even Viney back into the lineup, and I think we will be much better off, to the point where I believe we could beat St Kilda and the Bulldogs, and even Port on recent form. We are finally getting the effort that we were lacking at the start of the season and against GC. That is a positive step.

well, looks like it must have just finished if McLardy has released a statement.

how can they be quoting someone who was at the meeting when supposedly the meeting is still going??

In addition, surely there would be confidentiality agreements in place regarding the discussions of those board meetings, and protocols on how information is to be presented.

If someone has leaked information to the media from the meeting, they should be removed from the club immediately.

I think the club has said that Rodan was recruited with pick 88 (which they weren't going to use anyway) to be a stop gap for the younger players, so that they didn't get overworked during their first year or so. So, don't expect him to play every week as that's not his role within the club.

Yep, you're right 2 games. But the point remains, why was he dropped?

I guess only the club can tell you that, but I actually liked the fact that we had Rodan in the middle. In a couple of stoppages, his pace was key to getting some of those clearances. Something Magner doesn't have.

Results always matter pm. Always. And not just wins but how a team perform when they lose. Which is why the heat has not been on the bullies.

Good point. I agree, that if the results had been closer then there would not be as much focus on Mark Neelds performance. If the Port and Gold Coast games in particular where under 4 goals, the results would probably be looked at as disappointing rather than atrocious like they were.

Exactly. Why was Magner dropped after only one game?

You mean after two games right. Richmond + Freo.

I'm just going to reword this a little so it's a bit more accurate:

4pm: Still waiting to hear the outcome of the board meeting, if any.

Earlier today Damian "i think I know something about football, but I'm really a tool" Barrett told AFL.com.au's 'Access All Areas' that Melbourne's board had already decided Neeld would not coach next season, and his exit was now just a matter of timing. Watch the video here.

Barrett also said Demons president Don McLardy may soon be replaced, and that interim CEO Peter Jackson was facing pressure to take the job on a permanent basis.

Barrett also stated that he felt that Melbourne took a scattergun approach to it's recruiting during the offseason, but acknowledged that he does not have the intelligence to understand anything more complex than 1 + 1 = Window.

Simple question for all.

If the club appointed Mark Neeld to rebuild the football department and the playing list, are results actually important during the first year that the reshaping of the list has taken place? And if results are still important, is Neeld to blame if he was given a mandate by the club to conduct this rebuild?

I'm not trying to further my arguments or anything else. Just genuinely interest in peoples response and thoughts?

I'm not going to believe anything until I hear an official announcement from the club. Given so many in the media have almost guaranteed Neeld will be gone, I think the only reliable source will be the club itself.

who is josh kleine??

Didn't he claim that in the presser last night?? Are you sure that's a recent statement and not the one from last night?

Not only is our team less experienced in games played, but also in games played together. This is massive when it comes to the players working well together.

Very good point. Even those who were recruited in the Bailey re-build have had little time playing together due to injuries etc.

Look we're going around in circles clearly but you said ' Please explain how you know that Neeld cut the players, and I'll reconsider my position.' I pointed out that Neeld did in fact cut experienced players.

The second point (ie do i think we'd be better placed if they were here) is a bit of weird question. You were the one who was arguing that our woeful performance this year (and apparent regression from the previous year, which was pretty bad anyway) should be seen context that we had a less experienced side than 2012. Using your logic if we had kept our expereinced players rather than cutting them we would be a better team. It is your contention not mine.

Fair points mate. I was probably referring more to Riv and Moloney as that's what most of the focus has been on. Given both of them were Free Agents

However, with that said, I believe Neeld would have been involved in the list discussions about Morton, Gysberts, Petterd, Martin etc, but I don't think there loss has hurt as greatly. Yes, I take your point regarding my argument about losing experience meaning we are now more inexperienced as a list as one of the main reasons for our current form. But if we start comparing what we are now with what we might have been with Morton, Gysberts, Petterd etc, we are just going to be dealing with hypotheticals. However, from what has been shown on the field by Terlich, M Jones, Kent, Viney and Toumpas, I'd rather have them at the moment instead of Morton, Gysberts, Petterd. Though I think Morton, Gysberts and Petterd are talented, I think that Terlich, Jones, Kent and particularly Viney have more grunt than any of the other three, and are better building blocks than the others.

Is that inconsistent with my previous statements. It could be seen that way, it is the loss of players with the level of experience of Rivers and Moloney that I more had in mind. Both had established themselves as AFL players. None of Morton, Gysberts or Petterd have done that.

I'm not sure if anyone else has seen the article on the AFL website titled "Five big questions for the Melbourne board" but it is a great read, and one of the most sensible articles I've read on everything that is happening.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-02/five-big-questions-for-the-melbourne-board

I 100% agree with this article. It takes the emotion out of it all, and asks some bloody good questions.

I would have preferred Neeld found a way to engage Moloney and have him as an ally. We have the worst mid field in the competition and we simply could not afford to lose our second best mid. As i said who knows if what you say about Moloney is true ie he refused to mentor young players, sooked because he wasn't named captain etc etc. Are we going by what Robbo said or just rumours? Even if it was true a really good person manager would have found the key and got Moloney on board. But lets leave him aside.

Rivers, yes a free agent so it was his call. I still would have loved it if he had felt so confident of where Neeld was taking the club that he felt compelled to stay (and i recall a few years ago he was adamant he wanted to be a one club player) and to be honest i don't get the feeling they put up much of a fight to keep him. Perhpas they could have made him captain or more realistically vice captain. perhaps they could have offered him a really big contract, one that another club couldn't match. But ok lets leave Rivers aside.

You can't argue that he cut Morton, Martin and Pettard. All players up with more than 50 games experience (or close, not sure how many Martin played but must be up around 50). There's 160 games for you. Petard seems to be in the tigers (a side pushing for the top 8) best 22 so it is hard to see how he couldn't have been in ours. Martin was being selected at the lions before his injury. Morton hasn't yet but i reckon he'll get a crack but even so he would have added depth. He also cut Gysberts who has been in the system for a few years so had some experience.

How do we know that Neeld didn't try to do this already? With communication, sometimes a message can be conveyed in a hundred different ways, but if they listener/receiver of that message is not willing to listen, then it will make no difference to what is said, or how it is said. You question whether we can really be certain that Robbo's recollection of things is accurate or if it just rumors? The same can be asked about those rumors that Neeld didn't do everything he could to keep Moloney and Rivers.

I never argued that he didn't cut Morton, Martin and Petterd, but do you actually think we'd be better placed if they were here? None of them showed anything last season. Someone has even come on here and alluded to some real issues with Martin as a player. Gysberts, could come back to bite us, but he still hasn't even had a senior game with North Melbourne. Who knows what will happen with him, but he was one player I was disappointed to see go, though I would prefer to have Viney, Toumpas, Matt Jones, Terlich in the team based on what they have provided then Gysberts and Morton.

This is true however surely you concede that we are less experienced than last year because Neeld elected to cut experienced players or not fight to retain Rivers or Moloney, who had a choice (though we could have matched beamers offer). For gods sake it was his call.

Now of course you could argue that that the players you've mentioned were part of some cultural problem at the club and needed to go (as many on DL did at the time) but just as some have said there is no proof players this year are not playing for Neeld, or that he has lost them (despite what i would see as plenty of on field proof - but that's another argument) there is no proof, just scuttlebutt that Pettard, Morton, Rivers, Moloney or Green did not buy in or were poor role models that needed to be cut.

I repeat Neeld chose to cut these players. Strange given he has made it abundantly clear that having players in the 80-150 game range is crucial. Surely given the importance of having this senior core he might have been a bit more pragmatic (and perahps even a bit more conciliatory) and kept a Pettard, Moloney or even Morton. What about try and encourage Green to play on another year? What about a coach who actually can get a player who is not fully buying in or performing to their potential turned around? That's what good coaches do. Instead Neeld tried to take a short cut and draft players in who he thought had the right attitude rather than working with what he had.

Neeld (and you Pm) can't have it both ways.Another of Neeld big calls that if they don't come off have a big downside. And if you live by the sword etc etc.

The other thing i'd point out (and have done previously) is that that using lack of experience as an ecuse is a bit misleading (and dare i say it disingenuous) as the players you mention (Terlich, Matt Jones, Gilles) and others you don't (Sellar, Nicholson, Bail and Pederson - who also bring the average number of games down) are all older players with bodies ready to cope with the physical demand of AFL football. I don't see anyone knocking Barlow for a lack of experience even though he's only played 30 odd games. 10 years ago an inexperienced player was invariably young and not physically ready to match it with mid 20's players.

So you would prefer that we kept Moloney, despite statements already being made about how he moved on because he wasn't named captain, and refused to mentor young players and improve his aerobic fitness for the better of the team. Sorry, I've said multiple times already, if that is what happened, I don't want him even playing in the red and blue, let alone leading the club.

Do we really know that Neeld kicked out Rivers. Rivers was a free agent. This is how free agency works. Player gets an offer from a rival club. Player weighs up that offer against offer from current club. Player decides whether to stay or go. So explain how Neeld cut him from the side? From what was said during the preseason, we had made an offer to Rivers, but just like Bruce a few years earlier, Rivers chose to go to a finals bound team in the last few years of his career. Good on Rivers for making that call, I completely understand it.

I think Green could have gone on for another year, but I'm not going to crucify the coach because of it. Though I do recall Green making a comment in a radio interview after finishing up that players needed to get on board what was happening and not just rely on skill like they have in the past. Doesn't sound like someone who disliked the coach.

Please explain how you know that Neeld cut the players, and I'll reconsider my position.

Ridiculous post by your standards. It's not the main grounds for his dismissal, but certainly it is part of the picture which adds to the frustration.

Damn, I didn't realise I had set myself a standard because of my other posts.

I better pick it up quick smart.

So, let me get this straight, some people now think Neeld should be dismissed as head coach because some of his messages in the media have been a little inconsistent? That is one of the weakest arguments/reasons I have heard yet. If I was to be sacked for something like that I'd be tempted to lodge an unfair dismissal case against my employer. It's been obvious from the get go that the focus was on rebuilding the club by changing the culture, and embedding elite training standards. Last year we had more experience than we had this year, and Neeld and co used that time to evaluate the current player group. They then went about moving on those not fitting within the plan for the list and brought in young players to begin the rebuild of the list.

Has anyone considered that the lack of experience line has been used more this year because our team is actually much less experienced compared to last year. We no longer have Rivers, Green and Moloney, not too mention guys like Morton who had played 73 games (which would make him one of the top 10 experienced players on the list at the moment), and Petterd who had played 54 games. They've been replaced with guys like Gillies (20 odd games), Terlich (first yr player), Matt Jones (first yr player), Viney, & Toumpas. Take a total of all those players experienced and they don't even equal Petterd's 54 games.

All it takes to understand some of these variations in messages is a little bit of thought. A little bit of rationale thought that is.

l agree, l like Neeld but something is bloody rotten to the core at Demons and needs to be fixed NOW

Something has been rotten with the club for some time. Only when Neeld, Craig, Misson and co took over did we actually start to address those issues. That's part of the reason, in my opinion, why it's taking time.

I've got a gut feel that Neeld is the type of coach with a plan that Peter Jackson might actually think is the right person for the job. I don't know why, as I said, it's just a gut feel.

I also wonder how many of those who say they trust Peter Jackson, but want Neeld gone, will still say they trust Jackson if he chooses to keep Neeld for not just this season, but also next season???

I love the inconsistencies of some of the anti-Neeld comments here: First the sign that he had lost the players was the lack of effort. Now in the last two weeks they have had over 70 tackles, and today in particular, showed a great deal of effort, but despite acknowledging that effort, Neeld still should go?? I love the statements that say there is no gameplan, but no explanation as to why they say this, or the failure to consider that we have a very inexperienced team out on the field each week who are still learning to play AFL level footy.

I will actually be [censored] off with the club if the choose to sack Neeld not just tomorrow, but even at the end of the season. I like the direction that club is taking with the rebuild. I've read and heard numerous media commentators argue that our list lacked players in that 22-26 age bracket with 100 games experience, and that was before Neeld. They were saying that under Bailey. Guess what, it's still a problem and its part of what has lead to the rebuild. We don't have the luxury of a group of 100 game mid fielders to trot out there on a weekly basis. The only way for this club to improve is to develop the young players, and it takes time.

Another reason I will be annoyed if they sack Neeld, is because I believe it would be a very WEAK act by the club to do so. It shows that the club will succumb to the pressure from the media and football public, and does not have the guts to stick with its plans. It shows that the club is reactive, not proactive. It would also have a negative effect on the players. You can't just keep swapping coaches over hoping one might satisfy every player.

After what's been said about Moloney, I'm glad I don't have to see him in the red and blue any more. The guy might have had skill to play football, but if he's going to be so selfish that he cracks a tantrum when he doesn't get his way, and acts detrimental to the team, the as far as I'm concerned he should have been removed. This isn't the first time he's done it either apparently. I've had a colleague speak directly with Paul Couch (due to Tom being on the Rookie list) and Paul Couch said he did the same thing when he was at Geelong. If he didn't get what he wanted, he lowered his head and pouted around.

To me the list moves that have been made have been good for the club. The experience and character of guys like Rodan and Byrnes provides something we did not previously have, that is guys with finals/premiership experience.

I also have one key question to the Anti-Neeld people. IF Neeld was/is such a bad coach, why would a player who has already played in a team he has coached, then leave that team to come to Melbourne? Think about that for a moment. If you were in a work place and one of the managers absolutely sucked, would you then choose to go and work under that Manager at a new company?

Dawes chose to come to Melbourne after already having a good experience with Neeld in Collingwood. I'm going to trust the opinion of a guy who has played in a premiership winning side, over a guy like Moloney when determining if Neeld can coach. It is also notable to me, that many of the new additions have nothing but praise for Neeld. Clarke has always been positive about things. Byrnes and Rodan as well.

So if the new guys we've brought in, who are experienced players, are saying positive things about Neeld, it leads me to question the opinion of ex-players like Moloney, who didn't see eye to ey with Neeld. I then hear guys like Cale Morton comment on our poor training standards pre-Neeld when compared to West Coast, who also said that he thinks we'll get there, and can't help but think we are on the right path.

This is the type of rebuild we needed to a long time ago. The culture and lack of leadership has put us into this position and it takes time to dig out of it. Give me a few more years of pain anyday if it's going to mean a stronger culture, and a stronger club for the next 20 years!

Thanks Territory for the insight.

Interesting the truth about Moloney now coming out. Personally I'm glad we got rid of someone with such a divisive character.

It was bad enough that he sulked after not getting the captaincy, but to then refuse to change his body type to help his running game, and refuse to mentor the younger guys, that is just plain childish. Better off without him. I can't help but wonder if Moloney was one of the players Brad Green referred to in one of his interviews at the end of last season when he mentioned that some of the guys needed to get on board what was happening and not just think there talent was enough.