Slartibartfast

I think it's a completely false to decide whether a coach stays or goes based on whether the players are playing for him. It should be based on results. Wins/loses, individual player improvement, success of game plan etc. I spoke with some players after Bailey left. The universal answer was pretty much "if the coach isn't picking you then you don't like him. If he is you do." Just because the players are playing with spirit doesn't mean they are doing it for the coach, they might just be doing it for themselves.

Schwabby doesn't have "personal hand written notes" from meetings where he represented the MFC. It was his job to record for the MFC the content of the discussions of meeting between MFC and AFL. His hand written notes are MFC's, not his. Sol yes, I am serious.

I don't think so. I think it was leaked by the MFC. They would have kept all of Schwab's hand written notes. Good things hand written notes, aren't they.

Who do you think leaked the information to the Age? I think we have fought back and I liked it. It's a shame Bates withheld information about the use of AOD 9604 on Trengove's foot but I feel very comfortable with the way the Club has handled the issue.

And many of us are looking in the longer term. It's interesting you're neither "here or there" because with your analytical approach I thought you may have reached an outcome or conclusion or at least be leaning one way or the other. When you're charged with responsibility to manage you don't have that luxury, you have to make decisions based on judgement and that is what the footy club must do and that is what many on here are debating - what they should do. Whilst I don't want to get into a semantic argument I suspect there are irreversible outcomes from Neeld's coaching and I'd look to players like Watts, Moloney and Rivers as examples. I've seen a person unable to handle personal situations well, unable to utilize players skill sets and he makes what I consider to be poor decisions. Jack x 2 as captain for example. I think this has probably irreversibly impacted their careers. It's an opinion and I believe if he has a history of making bad decisions there is a strong possibility he will continue to make poor decisions. I think the support for the club by many has waned which will impact on revenues which in turn will impact on our ability to perform on field. I suspect we are not a great brand to be associated with as a result of our performances which again will effect sponsorship. I suspect young kids won't be lining up to support us. All of these things will hurt us irreversibly in the longer term because we will never get those younger supporters back and we will never receive the funding. In the end it comes down to whether you think Neeld should coach in the long term. If "yes" then keep going on the path we are on now. If "no" when do you get rid of him. Where do you stand?

So what's ok? Was Sunday ok?

Thoughtful and good post. To answer some of the questions you raise I'd say that the main thrust of my post was to say that you can't look at things in isolation. One "good" point doesn't negate the whole of the body of evidence that, in my view, stands against the achievements (of lack thereof) of this FD. I think that over the journey I've highlighted a range of things that have worried me about this coach pretty much from day one. I was on a hiding to nothing then and believe me, I wanted to believe. But his treatment of Davey and Watts early was awful, his appointment of the two captains was awful, his scorched earth approach and disenfranchising of the older players was awful and his handling of the Misfud affair was awful (these are my opinions). But they did not mean he couldn't coach, they just meant he had some issues with handling situations and people that I thought was poor. After two preseasons and 28 games his results have been just terrible. He has reduced us to two years behind North and the equal of GWS. We lose games by 5 goals on the road to a team beaten by about 120 points on either side of playing us and he deems that performance good. We lose to Carlton who in the end were playing injury free circle work and demeaned us by kicking torpedo's for goal after the siren and we see positives. Heavens, how far have we fallen. A win against GCS on Sunday will mean nothing IMO. It won't change where we are - 18 months has established that and one win won't change it. I've seen enough but I was further down the road a lot earlier than others. I happened to be right and I take no pleasure in that. So I think this Club would be best served by changing coach and I think that should happen in the most dignified way possible. I think Neeld knows in his heart he's finished at Melbourne and his performance now is for his next employer, not us. That's what I think. Should we thrash GCS and then have wins against creditable teams shortly after I'll have egg all over my face but as I've said before the value bet says that won't happen and I don't want to gamble it will as the damage that has been done and will continue to be done is too great. We need a change.

I note you haven't listed a coach...........

We're not a "better side" and we never were. With Dawes and Clark out Petersen couldn't get a game. What does that say about him? He's a bust.

What is quite "clear". I haven't seen any improvement that I can lay at the feet of the players he's bought in. Did the players we let go have a poor culture? What makes you say that? Does Moloney have a "poor culture"? Won a B&F under Bailey, played for Casey under Neeld and is probably close to leading the Lions B&F under Voss. Pick the variable? I think that the experiment of bring in the mature aged recruits has failed to show any signs of success.

This highlights the problem with the thinking on here. Bad performance - sack Neeld, Good performance - MFC finals bound, intermediate performance - react depending on last game. I think that those who no longer support Neeld would and should not have been influenced by yesterdays game. Many here are glorifying endeavour and presenting it as proof the coach has not lost the players. Such short term thinking is flawed. What should be focused on is one win and 5 losses. 840 points against in 6 games - that's 140 points a game and that is with a full compliment of important back line players available. One win against a non development club in 28 games since Neeld started - and none this year. An average losing margin of greater than 10 goals this year. A team that plays with little of no system or enthusiasm. That people are trying to defend the coach based on a 10 goal loss to Carlton suggests the propaganda coming from the Club has been highly successful. We were very ordinary yesterday (as we have been for the whole season) and that is the product of 18 months under this football department. Thankfully I believe Peter Jackson will not be seduced by the positives some here are highlighting. When I ask myself if I can see a successful future under Neeld I just can't. When I ask myself where he ranks against the 17 other current AFL coaches he's bottom quartile. If we are to succeed I believe we need much better.

You'll be a much happier man if you except reality and just move on. It will be interesting to see if we do get a pp.

Robbie hates it when Baghdad Bob is right. Actually, Caro was pretty right as well.

Great point, insightful. Thanks for clearing that up.

Were you there? I was. The work rate was terrible. No run, no pressure, dispirited and lacking in confidence.

Well, in the first instance I did say "On balance" and secondly "yes, he's made mistakes". But comparing the job AD has done at AFL to that of Schwab at MFC is extraordinary. The job of the CEO of the AFL is to see the AFL in good health. He must provide an environment where individual AFL clubs can thrive and the business of AFL is strong. AD has done this. Attendances, memberships, TV exposure, revenues and player welfare are at or close to all time highs. AD has been at the helm of an organization that has succeed wonderfully. Schwab was at the helm for close to 5 years and we are worse of now than at any time in terms of our core business - winning AFL games of footy. Do you recall Schwab say MFC would be "the team of the decade"? He was saying this in 2010 and 2011. Sadly we may be the team of the decade but not the way he was thinking. AD has made mistakes but has been a wonderful success in terms of the business of AFL football. Schwab made mistakes and was a terrible failure in terms of the business of the MFC. The only valid comparison is to show the two ends of the spectrum.

I didn't say I know nothing about the list, I said that I'm not an AFL coach and couldn't tell a new coach what to do. I can compare this list on how it's performing with last year and the Bailey years and make a judgement. If you don't like that judgement so be it. Others can make their own decisions.

You're just being silly now. I'm not an AFL coach and don't pretend to be. But I can look at the performance of AFL coaches across the AFL and historically and make a judgement that Neeld is a poor coach.

I don't agree with you. Our situation is because under this administration the FD that have been employed aren't AFL best practice. Prendergast was appointed under the Gardner Board and extended under McLardy. Neeld was appointed under McLardy. The footy department blokes aren't independent of the CEO, they are because of him. They don't appoint themselves. Peter Jackson has everything to do with improving this club. He can appoint a new coach, he can change spending pattern in the club giving more or less money to various departments. In short, he can allocate our resources as he sees fit. He's the CEO put in by the AFL to fix us. Don't think he will do nothing other than make recommendations. He's there on a mission to fix us. Bailey and his game plan had a list that was more unfit and not as good as this winning 8 games a season. We are so much better than 87 point average losses, but not under this FD. I'll take my view over yours but each to their own.

On the contrary, it's mind boggling you can't see we are better than we're playing.

I don't agree. This list is underperforming significantly. The removal of the poor coach and replacement of a good coach could make a world of difference. We might even win some quarters but more importantly we may become at least more competitive. Can't you see the sentiment on here? Nobody wants to go to the footy, we are shyting ourselves about Sunday - I'm no different. A new coach with a simple message can do wonders. Look at Hinkley, look at what Roos did when he took over from Eade. There is no hope (optimism) with Neeld. You can't get worse than that so any change is good. BTW, Jackson will act. I'd be worried if I was an employee without an important role in the club and was doing it well.

If it wasn't for AD's view on where the game needed to go MFC would be dead as we've survived on AFL guarantees for survival. He's built the sport into almost bullet proof strength and because of the TV rights he has negotiated there are developments at ground like Arden St, Seaford, Richmond, Western Oval and footy clubs are now on a much more equal footing in terms of training facilities. Without a strong AFL we'd be dead, no MFC. Yes he's made mistakes, of course someone who has been in that position for 10 years will make mistakes, but if the AFL were a publicly listed company the shareholders would be very happy. We find ourselves in our mess because of our actions. Essendon are similar. It amazes me that people continually want to blame someone for something rather than looking in the mirror. On balance AD has done a great job.

Spot on. Paul Roos said that the Sydney market couldn't stand the Swans bottoming out and that they had to stay competitive. Mark Neeld and this administration has brought us to the same spot. Unless there is immediate improvement and going to watch MFC play becomes enjoyable we risk losing what little support we have and our status in the game. Just at the moment I couldn't give a flying toss about Premierships, I want my club to survive in Melbourne in an independent form. I simply don't believe that this administration approved a plan that said that 18 months after Neeld took over we'd have an average losing margin against non development clubs of 87 points and the coach would be saying we are where GWS are. That was NOT the plan. Neeld has taken us to the brink, hopefully Jackson saves our hide.

I don't agree. Moloney under Bailey won the B&F Moloney under Neeld played for Casey Moloney under Voss is playing good footy and equal to that which he played under Bailey. Moloney hasn't changed, only the coaches. If you think there has been improvement in our younger players why are we being beaten by an average of 87 points by non development clubs? Trengove, Grimes, Watts, Frawley, McKenzie, Strauss, Blease, Garland are no better than when he arrived and in some cases significantly worse. Can you point to significant improvement in any area since Bailey left? I can't. How do you think we'll go against Carlton? What would be acceptable? But each to their own.

How would giving him another 12 games or so endanger our ability to attract a new coach? I didn't say it would. What value is there in having 16 weeks of caretaker coaching? My preference is for our permanent coach but I believe Neeld is damaging the players as we speak. We need to stop that damage. I do not believe that confidence in oneself and teammates is an irredeemable commodity. Let hope not. If constant failure for 6 years doesn't snuff it out than another three months isn't going to extinguish it. See above And our club has a new interim CEO, should have a new President by October, and looks on the road to have a new coach for 2014. Can we not allow our new interim CEO to have some input over what we do with the coach? Wouldn't that be a sign that we are comitted to excellent administration? I think everyone knows what to do with this coach. Excellent administration would be to get our permanent coach quickly, good administration would be to stop the damage this one is doing.