Slartibartfast

If you missed it read this. http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/date-with-disaster-20120504-1y4ky.html?skin=text-only "On Friday, Schwab was told his position was no longer secure and that Stynes and some board members were looking at ending his tenure at the end of the season." I don't know what's in Styne's book but the mismanagement of last year is well documented in the article and the main players are still the same.

Congratulations to those that contributed to the club. It's mind boggling that we have to put our hand out each year to be able to pay the full TPP which is a core expense and fundamental to the winning of premierships. Let's hope we get it right next year.

You can't know whether Clark is a moneyball signing until you know what he's paid. If the figures quoted last year when he joined are accurate he was anything but a moneyball signing IMO. But to truly know you'd have to know what measurements were used to evaluate him. We don't so any argument is pretty meaningless. Moneyball is a way of evaluating players and getting "value for money". The most relevant area in AFL footy is to look at role players. I reckon you're on the money BH and have a better handle on it than RPFC.

I think it's a good thread and deserving of discussion. Beamer appears to have thrown in the towel, a sad state of affairs. It's also interesting that the two players who finished top in our B&F can't get a contract offer despite being free agents.

The OP discussed the failure of the MFC since 2007 to grow and be successful. It talked of culture. That comes from the leadership in the club and the CEO and Board have been there for over 4 years now and we've gone nowhere under their guidance. You can rejoice in the success of Clark, Howe and Jones if you like and if that is what you want out of footy that's up to you. I want a club that is respected and competitive and one who isn't consistently being belittled by the media and the footy public. We are where we are because we have made consistently poor decisions. I want better and think it comes from the top. You don't and that doesn't surprise me at all.

Which part do you disagree with or are you happy with how we are playing and think we are a well respected and great club ATM. Is discussion of management performance off limits for you. I could name you 40 players along with coaches and recruiting staff who have suffered a lot more critical comment than the management. You are so touchy, are you on management. With the quality of your comments it wouldn't surprise me. Toughen up and see if you can make a sensible comment.

Good clubs have Boards and management that make consistently good decisions. MFC haven't and we are a very poor club. Until this changes we will continue to fail. Whilst many here blame past footy departments and players the real responsibility rest's the people who choose those people.

If the point was irrelevant why did you waste a post on it initially? You'll respond and I'll let you have the last word, I hope it makes more sense than your previous ones.

HG you've got a good knowledge of these things so I was just after clarity. The issue of drafting/trading was discussed in another thread so I won't repeat myself other than to say good management will give the club the best results and support those who make good decisions. If Neeld makes good decisions as far as I'm concerned he can have the job for as long as he likes.

Thanks, I thought you'd catch on in time.

You get very confused with things don't you. I wasn't arguing if extending Bailey was good, bad or indifferent. I was arguing Stynes, Schwab and Connolly (FD manager at the time) were responsible for it. They were so they do "have that issue to contend with". You were wrong.

Your confidence is totally misplaced and as is often the case, you are wrong. Gardner appointed Bailey (as an untried coach) in September 2007. Stynes, Schwab and Connolly extended his contract (effectively endorsing the Gardner Board decision) in February 2010 having had the advantage of seeing Bailey in action for 2 full seasons. If Bailey was a terrible coach then the decision to extend him was a terrible decision particularly seeing they had had the benefit of working with him for the best part of his two years. They are totally accountable for the decision. They fired McNamee almost immediately because they didn't think he was up to it. They would have done the same to Bailey but they didn't and are accountable for his coaching tenure.

HG thanks for your thoughts. I'm confused in your replies. You say that you are not sold on Neeld but that "all he needs now is players". If all he needs is players then you'd tick off his coaching wouldn't you and the jury wouldn't be "out". I fully concur that we need to back him all the way. I'm also concerned at your comment that "we must draft kids with our high picks that are fit enough to play the top level straight away, this will take a lot of pressure off Neeld." Surely we need to pick the best young talent we can and if it takes time to develop so be it. Why is the objective to take the pressure off Neeld. Surely it's to do the right thing by the club. Anyway thanks for your thoughts and insights.

They probably should have already but that's a story for another day.

We are probably on the same page. I'd expect: The Board to establish an objective (which we probably assume is "win a flag") The CEO and the FD to formulate a plan including timelines and KPI's to be met within the vagaries of football The Board to sign off on the plan making the Board and management accountable for results. The FD to be measured with reference to the KPI's established by the CEO and FD Neeld to follow the agreed processes with list management and player selection decisions Neeld (and others) to be terminated if the KPI's are not met (with reference to the variations that occur in footy) Neeld to be extended if he has meet the KPI on field and his off field KPI (which would be established separately) What I wouldn't accept is Neeld (or anyone else) making decisions outside the MFC's objectives (established and agreed with the Board) to protect or enhance their position to the detriment of the club. I don't know if recruiting a large number of mature players or investing in youth is the way to go, that is a decision for the CEO and the FD (not the Board) but people must be accountable for their decisions. Bailey followed the agreed path but his plan was judged a failure and he was terminated. Neeld should be subject to the same principles as must the Board and the CEO. The Board and the CEO are on their second chance in relation to our on field success and have blamed our failure on the people they appointed. I'd love to hear both McLardy and Schwab say "we must (individually) do better" rather than everyone just blaming the voiceless players. It's a cheap shot blaming a group with no voice and I believe the blame doesn't just sheet home to one group.

I agree. I was directing a pretty simple question to Footynut who has yet to respond. I'm not suggesting or supporting any particular course of action, I don't know if youth is the way to go or mature players, but we should expect the club to decide the correct approach and follow it and the length of Neeld's contract has nothing to do with that decision. Like everyone I'm sick and tired of blue sky and young list, I want to succeed. That requires us to make good decisions. We haven't in the past and I just hope we do in the future.

I don't care if he's Einstein and Churchill rolled into one. There is the best way to progress and then there is the rest. I don't want the way dictated or influenced by the length of Neeld's contract. That you can't grasp this doesn't surprise me. If he is allowed to dictate list management direction based on the length of his contract it will be an abject failure of management and governance.

Thanks, but it wasn't a question for you.

So are you saying that Neeld is looking after himself rather than the long term best result for the Club?

I was at Casey and often find that it's hard to see what's happening on the other side of the ground clearly as it's difficult to get any elevation for viewing. My view was from the outer. I thought Morton was ordinary in the first half but most of Casey were. His second half was very very good. He ran hard, he linked up and was integral to Casey getting back in the game. Just watching him it's hard to believe how much ground he covers. He seems to be making better decisions and taking the first option more often and is much more direct. I'm not convinced he'll make it but he played well IMO. Couch seemed to be played forward in the second half and did well kicking goals and finding some space. For those that haven't seen him much think of a slightly larger Valenti although I think Valenti shades him. He's a very good VFL footballer but I'm not sure it translates into AFL status although today is the most damaging game I've seen him play. Petterd seemed to play in bursts but like so many others on our list just hasn't taken the next step. Davey will play next week, his disposal is a class above and while he is a long way from what he was at least he is an offensive threat. I really think that Gysberts has to play the rest of our season. He's a midfielder who can at least find the ball, something we are in short supply of in the seniors. The others have been well covered.

It would be a shame if TGR and Bluey didn't come across. And I reckon that if the Demonology boys want to play we could just let them have their own thread and if anyone went there is would be at their own risk. Of course, there would have to be certain limits ...

Mate I've got so many misses that I could fill an AFL list. I don't take it quite so seriously as you.

Big H has had his misses. Clayton Collard is a minnow though. His frustration when we took Frawley over Sellar still lives in my memory. But he's not the only one to "miss" and thankfully his misses have cost us nothing unlike the pro's who would seem to have cost us a lot!! Everyones had their misses Sleeve, my best couple were thinking that Ryan Ayres would be a ripper and Jared Rivers would never make it. Having said that TGR's Wallace campaign will be hard for anyone to emulate!! All good fun.

Lovely to see you No5! Hope all is well where you are.

Yes Joeboy, we've missed you, welcome back.