Slartibartfast

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.

We've got three more games against development clubs and if we win all of them that's 4 wins. We've won one game against non development clubs in Neeld's reign and our losing margin so far this year against non development clubs is 87 points. 87. Hell, that 14 goals 3 behinds per game. That's hard to comprehend. On what basis do you think we can win 3 more games against non development clubs? It's a very hard proposition to accept. The value bet says it won't happen.

I feel for the whole bloody list.

Because we know he can't deliver.

Further destabilize the club? Hell, this club at the moment is effectively in AFL administration and the we are so uncompetitive on the field we dread every game we go to and would settle for a 60 point loss to any reasonable opposition. Five goal losses against cellar dwellers is now a positive. Help me here? Keeping Neeld is destabilizing the club - getting rid of him removes a clear hindrance. Neeld tried and failed, very sad but it's reality.

I confess to not having read a lot of this thread so apologies if this observation has been made before. Neeld must go and he must go now and that was clearly demonstrated on Sunday when Moloney ripped us to shreds. Yes, Moloney is a B grade mid but he would be our best mid if he currently played for us with a coach able to utilize his skill sets. Voss has demonstrated this. Further Moloney clearly demonstrated why it is now impossible to judge our playing list. He showed that Neeld can't utilize mature players skill sets and we already know Neeld cannot develop youngsters. Few if any of our players has shown significant improvement under Neeld and a whole host haven't come on or gone backwards under his guidance. Accordingly we can't judge our list and any new coach coming in would not be able to make LM decisions. If Neeld were to be replaced now and an interim coach installed then there is a chance that we could see what some of the players could do. If that happens we are in an infinitely better position and if it doesn't then the new coach is in the same position as if Neeld coaches through to the end of the season. Also if Neeld is replaced now there is a reasonable expectation that the damage he is doing to this group of players will cease. That would be a very good thing. Of course there is a chance that Neeld will inspire this lot to great heights during the remainder of the season but given that after 27 coaching games he has one win against a non development club that would be wishful thinking. Even more ideally is that we are looking for a new coach now and he takes over directly from Neeld. That would show some good fortune and excellent administration.

Firstly I don't believe the "faceless men" accusation because you've been unable to substantiate any of the accusation you've made for months. I doubt you'll have more to say that's meaningful because I can't imagine anyone who has confided in you happy to have their name plastered across the internet. Secondly I don't give a flying whatever about the Davey Misfud affair. In the scheme of things it's totally meaningless. I fail to see how a past employee could have leaked the information anyway as he wouldn't have been at the club or involved in the meeting. The initial leak would usually come from either Misfud,Davey or someone involved with MFC or the AFL. How would a past employee come by the information? Thirdly the damage done to our club is being done by the current admin and Board and FD. They are in charge. Caro's copped a lot of crap from people here and I understand she'll be unpopular but sadly she's been pretty spot on with what she's said.

You may well be right, but unfortunately it's a side issue of no consequence when compared to the damage done to the club by our continued failure to be a credible football side. The sideshow of Caro and the faceless men is a smoke screen to the real issues which can't be denied. We're rubbish and this FD and administration is responsible.

My recollection is that Davey spoke with Misfud who told Thomas who put it in his blog. But it doesn't really matter. The event was a shocking one for Neeld at a difficult time. But the prime responsibility for our current position rests with US, the Board, the admin and the FD. Faceless men and Caro have ammunition because of their failures. Those seeking to lay responsibility at people other than the prime participants are seriously missing the point. We need a Club that starve Caro et al of oxygen, at the moment we are giving them a blast.

So you've read a couple of versions and concluded one is a gross exaggeration. You actually wouldn't have a clue unless you were there so you either were there or you have made an unsupportable statement. We all know it was the latter.

How do you know this? Were you at the vault meeting because the only way you'd know is if you were there. Fill us in, I'm fascinated.

Did these faceless men make the decision to tank (oh, sorry, let's call it bringing the AFL into disrepute to avoid a silly legal discussion)? Did these faceless men fail to report our dealings with Danks to the AFL? Did these faceless men make a press release stating that there would be no major change at the club only to sack the CEO the next day? Did these faceless men release SMS's between Danks and Bate to the press? Did these faceless men instigate a coach recruiting process that was child like in its conception? Did these faceless men also cause the Board to act in a way they themselves stated was poor? Did these faceless men tell Schwab he was sacked before the Geelong game in 2011 only to change their minds and reinstate him a few days later? Did they then grant him a three year contract that we as members will in part be responsible for honouring? FM. Perhaps these faceless men, if indeed they exist and aren't just a figment of your imagination, are acting in the best interest of the Club. What this administration is asking us to do is back them after 5 years of incompetent management and embarrassment on the field. But unbelievably they still believe they are the ones to lead us to the promised land. Jack in another place you said that when the tanking investigation was complete you'd share this "faceless men" conspiracy with me (and others) and I was interested because you included me in the broad categorization of those you accused. But you failed to keep your word. It's actually time to put up or shut up because at the moment you're the faceless man undermining the club.

Sue apart from being very competent fund raisers what would you list as this Boards major achievements? It's a serious question btw.

I don't know what he meant by "cheap seats" and I'm sure by this morning it doesn't mean the members - nor should it. But he made a comment at the commencement dinner about fickle supports which was very direct. One way or the other my favourite quote from Cool Hand Luke comes to mind - "what we have here is a failure to communicate". Anyway I'm going to enjoy the moment of our win before I head to Brisbane for the game. Well done fella's, a win against Brissy followed by GCS will put some serious fun back into footy.

Stuie I retract. Please ignore any comment I've made to you and we'll agree not to converse.

The members have tried for decades to elect good Boards but we've really not had one that's excelled. I'd ask the AFL to professionally administer the Club or recommend Board members. How on earth are we to know what Geoff Freeman will be like? We can't know and those that have elevated him are proving themselves to be less than acceptable. Sadly I'd expect many to think they should have a say. Well I'd say so far our collective efforts have been abysmal and I want something better.

No he wasn't but that's what we were told. It was a situation where telling lies is acceptable.

It's not hard. You could start with any supplement program to be approved by two doctors and only supplements on the approved WADA (ASADA) listing to be administered. You could go further and have a central register of drugs administered which is checked periodically by an independent third party. That's off the top of my head. Give me a day and it would be much more sophisticated. By the way, it's not the Board members job to come up with the protocol. It's the CEO's to ensure one is in place and he would consult with people who understand these things. The Boards job was to make sure a protocol was in place. That's governance.

This situation is a failure of Governance but perhaps shows why governance is difficult. Any small business representing others or with multiple owners will properly require two signatories on every cheque. Why? To avoid fraud and theft. It's call internal controls and without wanting to bore people internal controls are more and more important the larger an organization gets because it ensures core objectives are met or the chances of a failure of process minimized. Clearly the administration of drugs to players is a critical issue for any football club because should something go wrong, like a rogue doctor, the implications for the club, player and governing body (AFL) are severe. We are seeing that now. Schwab's job, amongst others, was to ensure that proper systems were in place to ensure the club met pharmaceutical standards. That a rogue doctor could put the Club's players at risk without any check or balance is a complete failure of internal control. The Boards job is to ensure these internal controls exist. That's what governance is. Bate, on his single authority, should not have able to prescribe "supplements" without someone else checking. It's tough on the Board but it's why you need people on the Board who understand their role. This Board doesn't. All they had to do was ask what protocols were in place to ensure supplements were legal. It would appear they didn't.

This sort of post frustrates me. Like many I don't think that those who are charged with the responsibility of running our club have done a good job and I've argued for some time that in order to be a competitive AFL club we need to have better people in senior positions. This doesn't require me to do the job, in fact I don't think I'm up to it. The difference between me and some that have done and are doing current roles is that I recognize that I'm not up to it. I know my limitations and that has served me rather well over my 60 years. I do what I'm good at and recognize what I can't do. The trouble with some in senior positions at out club is that they can't recognize that they are not up to the job and they keep doing it and they keep doing it badly. We've had tanking and danking together with about 4 wins in 25 games but still they believe they are the one's to lead us to the promised land. They need to look in the mirror, realize they've had their go, and move on. Hopefully whoever does take their place is up to it. It's not an easy job, there is no shame in failure, but there is shame in pretending you're up to it and worsening an already terrible position. Jack I'm thrilled you've picked up the cause of the membership and are calling the Board to account for their failure to fully disclose the truth to members. I'm just surprised you saw fit to start a thread on this subject when clearly the major issue in relation to their dishonestly rests not with their relationship with a largely supportive membership but with the less than impressed AFL. Keep up the good work and thanks for the clarification.

We'll change. Headquarters will see to that. But how many false dawns have we been through? How did you feel when you watched the 7.30 report last night? I felt sick. Like it or not I can't stop supporting the club.