Slartibartfast

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.

Mine is. I'll be there on Sunday and for every match this season. This inept Board and coach are not our club and are merely passing players who will soon be gone. One day we might learn, but if we don't so what, I'll still support.

Some recognized this sooner than others but were dismissed as vendetta driven. I feel for the supporters, not because of not being told the truth on Dank, but for being fed so much hope and swindled. But the easiest thing to sell is hope to a fractured club. I strongly suspected it was all rot, but of course that was not the message people wanted. To Jack's comments. I couldn't give a rats clacker that members were lied to, it may have been done for the right reasons. But to lie to the AFL is inexcusable.

I want it put on record that I think the club is responding well to the situation at the moment. That game is Neeld's 186 and at least McLardy and Schwab have learned that the process they went through with Bailey was horribly flawed. Neeld has the first half of this season to save his job and he should be told that now. He carries Schwab's job in his back pocket. McLardy should arrange a succession plan with another member of the Board but he should stay. He's a good person and a tireless worker but he doesn't have the gravitas we need our Chairman to have. The MFC should look for some experienced football people for the Board, preferably from another club who has had success. We should be talking with the AFL about a possible replacement for Schwab. All is not lost but the hole that has been dug is bigger than I expected. IMO the only hope Neeld has of saving the situation is to somehow instil some confidence in the players who are without confidence, flair or hope at the moment after 18 months under him. It's sad to see the careers of so many good players being threatened by what's happening. Neeld has done many good things in his time so far but unfortunately to date coaching isn't one of them. I hope he can turn it around.

I do.

I've just listened to Caro and Waitley and it's quite different to the views I've read on here. Everybody here is worried about the garnish but the real crux of the matter is not that we tanked which is widely accepted but firstly that the club allowed it to be openly discussed at the time meaning that many many people knew it was a club policy clearly articulated (generally accepted here) but coupled with this allowed the FD and administration to become so divided that the disaffected people who felt so mistreated by the divisions and power plays were prepared to talk extensively and were motivated by revenge against those still at the club. It was a failure of management. If we'd managed the process OR managed the people we'd be home free. But we didn't do either. That's the crux of it. I think the discussion on Offsiders was right on the money.