Slartibartfast

Both those articles were in September last year. Caro has written in the Age this week and stated on FC that Neeld wasn't in the final group for Adelaide so it's not just Rucci. I believe her as she's the best investigative footy reporter there is and she'll be right. We all believe what we want. I believe we need to give Neeld all the support we can, although what that means I don't know, but can't we debate the process of his appointment which seems to be flimsy at best and incompetent at worst. The process goes to the issue of management and from what I've seen from the club since 186 our management has been poor with the manner of Bailey's sacking (not the decision) and the appointment of the coach less than worlds best practice. Personally I'm worried about this as a few others seem to be. I'm worried because if we are poor in our processes on these critical issues what are we like on all those things we never see? There's nothing we can do but it's a valid concern. Those that think otherwise have their head in the sand.

Damien Hardwick. We wouldn't have needed anyone else.

Where did I mention pyyche testing? I'm talking about a process that meant we didn't interview other very well credentialed applicants, we didn't have a person on the football panel who had coached a game, we made a decision in a panicked way because we thought someone might steal him from us and yes, we didn't do psyche testing. It was an unprofessional process but that is in no way a criticism of Neeld, he may have got the job anyway.

Everyone is missing the point. It's not Neeld's fault that he was given the job and he might be the right man, it's far too early to tell. But the process was flawed and that is a real worry.

Sorry DC but the first comment was so far from my thinking I doubt we have anything in common. And I read slowly!

Does it improve? Give me a snippet I might like!

Sorry DC, I read that but not the rest.

Looks like Roos and Sheahan liked my question Daisy and McLardy's response was damning. Not his fault, he just didn't want to tell the truth. IMO the club has handled the older players so poorly it's no surprise they haven't "bought in". The organization has ostracised the older players and particularly last years leadership group. We all know they had limitations but under Bailey they did as well as their ability allowed and the playing group were united and commited. When McLardy and Stynes interviewed the leadership group leading into the Geelong match the leaders spilled their guts on Schwab, Connolly and one or two others. They supported Bailey. McLardy listened, thanked them and acted. Schwab would not be extendedand Bailey was likely to be. This all changed post 186 and Bailey and a few others who were in the Bailey camp were dumped and in Bailey's case in the worst of ways. The playing group and leadership group in particular felt responsible. The players are not "politically savvy". They thought they were doing the right thing. But they have, almost to a man, been dumped and humiliated by the current football department. Their loyalty to the club has counted for nothing. No wonder Moloney, Green, Davey and to a lesser extent Rivers are shadows today and their older mates like Jamar and Sylvia impacted as well. You reap what you sow. The FD lost the respect of those players and I can understand why. MFC have a history of treating its older players very poorly. And please don't come back with "but they're professionals". They are humans with all the feelings and reactions that go with it. They've been told they're not wanted. What did you expect?

So I can understand what's gone on. If I don't know what's gone on who do I know who to vote for at the next election. If he's got good answers that give confidence, if not at least I know. Voting for our Board is the only say the members have. My bitterness is at our inept current situation and McLardy leads the club. What are you going to ask him? What he had for dinner tonight?

I'd like Paul Roos to ask McLardy two questions tonight. 1. How many applicants did MFC interview (full presentations) for the job for the senior coaching position. Was Sanderson one of them. 2. Why is it necessary for the club to go back to square one after 4 years of rebuilding under Bailey in light of the fact that the Stynes Board extended his contract in February 2010. If Bailey was the wrong coach why didn't they sack him before the 2010 season. Apart from that I think a message was necessary but it should have said something enlightening rather than the predictable platitudes. I look forward to OTC with interest.

Please use the locker room when discussing a player.

This was an interesting question to me. I've searched my posts since August 2011 and if the search engine reports correctly I've contributed to something in excess of 80 threads. It's true that I have posted on topics like the AGM, The Commencement Dinner, Caro's article and others involving concerns I've had with the Clubs management. But without having the energy or interest to count there are probably in excess of 70 that are related to other footy matters. Some contributions have been as a moderator. I think your assertion that my only interest is in "poor decisions that have been made post Bailey" (your words) and "The fact that you have taken numerous potshots at the admin and coach since July last year, without any positives, and without one post on a footy matter is insightful isn't it" is extraordinarily inaccurate and rather damning (of your childish assertions). Here is one non "admin" related post in case you missed it. I posted it because it hadn't been clarified previously: Just to clarify the Bennell "hurt" issue. The last quarter lasted for over 35 minutes and when Goldstein kicked NB's last goal I thought it was all over. Bennell went to the edge of the square and sprinted flat out at the ball when it was bounced collecting a NB player on the way. I've not seen him throw his body in like that before and it took him a while to recover. He did and was the one who then forced it forward about 30 seconds later. Blease's final goal came from a free, initially to a NB player wide at HF. The ump called play on when the NB player tried to milk the clock and Blease nabbed the NB player from behind and got paid the free kick. He then just calmly slotted it and the game was all over. Smart thinking from the opportunist and fantastic conversion. I watched the game from the outer wing and when you read observers opinions you need to recognize that Casey is a large ground with a big camber and little elevation for spectators. It's difficult to see what's happening on the other side of the ground. Blease seemed to mainly play on the grandstand side of the ground today (opposite to me)and so I missed a lot of the reported chasing and tackles. But what Sam does is play like a millionaire. It's chocolates or boiled lollies for Sammy. He took the play on and got nabbed on regular occasions and IMO until he learns to judge better when he can and when he can't do this he'll be a liability in the senior team. He has unquestionable skills by foot and his kicking for goal was terrific. He's not scared of physical contact but doesn't seek it. I think he has some way to go and doubt he'll get a call up next week. He's just too high risk at the moment and the turnovers he gives away negates any positives his "dash" creates. He's terrific under a Bailey game plan but for Neeld he's a square peg in a round hole (watch him be picked next week!!). Bennell was terrific today and was very clean with his hands and attacked the ball hard. His kicking was ok but not special but his attack on the ball was good and I've not seen him get it as much. He played on a reasonable player in Campbell. He'd be right in the mix for next week. Spencer was very competitive early but by the second half he was spent and Goldstein had a field day. Poor old Jake could hardly raise a trott at the end of the game. No disgrace, Goldstein is a very good AFL player. The other that impressed me was Jai Sheahan. He's still got a lot of development but he won some important one on one's, took some contested pack marks and his kicking and decision making were terrific at times. Ricky Petterd couldn't get into it up forward and played his best footy around the middle Now there is a post to rock the foundations of the administration. I apologize to Demonlands who have been distracted by this personal exchange but when clearly untrue accusations are continually made in such a manner I felt I had a right to refute them. You should also be aware that when Dandeeman first made these accusations in the "Commencement Dinner" thread I attempted to clarify the issue by way of PM to avoid an exchange such as this. Sadly for everyone, I failed. Hopefully this will be the end of this pathetic matter.

Do you know why I didn't post until 2011? It's your job to balance my opinions Dandy, the fact you haven't tried is insightful. I have a view, show people I'm wrong or unreasonable.

Yes you do. I comment on things that interest me and where few if any other posters have presented a similar view. I think that adds balance and hope that it raises issues for people to consider. I pick my topics which seems in frustrate Ben Hur as well but really, haven't we got enough people rabbiting on about Jack Watts? Perhaps rather than running round suggesting that I have a revolutionary agenda to destabilize the club, which I think on the evidence would be hard to support, you could address the issues and refute them. That would be of much greater value to us all. You'll make me look much sillier by showing people where I'm wrong or unreasonable than sprouting about "an agenda".

I've been at pains to state my skepticism on this issue and didn't raise it, just responded to it. If you have an issue with my posting I suggest you PM the owner of the site and if they think my posting is offensive I'll happily cease.

The person who told me is someone I'd trust to know which is why I gave it any credibility. But again I have no direct knowledge.

Hardnut someone told me the other day that we only interviewed two coaches for the position but when I pressed them on it they were unsure. Does anyone have an information on this? If it's right, who was the alternative. I find it hard to believe because I seem to recall McLardy talking to Burns in Perth although there is a significant difference between going through a rigorous interview and selection process and an initial chat. If it's right it's mind-boggling.

Your problem is that you think I should call every issue. I don't. I call the one's I want to. So does everyone.

That's a relief, I was really worried you'd post under another name. I'm sure the players appreciated the stability in July last year!!

Appointed by Gardner's Board in 2007 as a "newbie" coach and extended by the Stynes Board in February 2010 on two years "exposed form". They endorsed the selection and the game plan. I was always a Danners man but he'd run his race in the end. He got extraordinary results with limited resources and in many ways it's the limited resources then that have resulted in much of our on field problems now.

I agree. And the same person who was in charge then is in charge now and I continue to see things that concern me. I just want the best for the MFC and I think we can do better. You're not concerned which is fine but to quote you "I just call it as I see it". If it's my motives that concern you why don't you start a thread on it, say "The Mysterious Motives of Fan". I think Dandy will be the first respondent. It's rather amusing to be seen as so influential that we need a current day Don Quixote following my every move. *Sancho my armor*.......

Yes, my interest in posting on this site has move beyond debating at length the merits of various players. Whether Watts becomes elite or is merely A grade is a moot point which others think important to debate and win. But their opinions will have no impact on the outcome and many are uninformed. Good pub talk but little substance. But unlike the development of players the members select the Board. If we get it wrong we just hurt ourselves and our history of selection is pretty poor because most don't understand the Board's role or importance. I like Don, I've met him personally on several occasions and he has the best of intentions and is a passionate MFC man and football follower. But he heads our club, makes strategic decisions and has a huge impact on our success or otherwise. It's on that level that I comment. I note with interest that in your post you've potted me but not addressed the issues. I think I understand why. As RR has pointed out, last year showed a failure of Corporate Governance where the Board were seduced by the smell of liniment and were (initially) influenced by the soldiers and not the officers - "We spoke to the wrong people". We were a laughing stock as a result and were inches away from reappointing Bailey which I think would have been a mistake. The Board also seemed to have failed to read or act upon the Andrews report and our Chairman has said in an extensive interview in the Age on 21st April that he is as clueless on our current situation as the supporters. I'm not happy with this and expressed an opinion. You'll leave it, probably attribute it to personal motives and move on. That's fine. Personally I think it's a shame because whilst poor Corporate Governance almost certainly won't be fatal it will significantly if not certainly increase the likelihood that we won't see the success everyone here so clearly wants.

I'm with you. Why did Don and his Board speak to the "wrong people". Surely the CEO is one of the "right" ones. Why wasn't Don aware of the issues when the players had spoken about them to Andrews. Why does Don really think the fiasco of the week leading into the game didn't effect the players. particularly the leadership group who had been meeting with him and Stynes. Isn't it concerning that in a recent newpaper article Don said he doesn't really know what's gone wrong this year. Big questions for me 45HG16.

He played on Matty Campbell and cut him out of the game. He's AFL standard - he wasn't playing on a nobody. In the final minutes of play when he ran off the square and crashed into the pack hurting himself and an opposition play he did show that "reckless hardness". It was like he said "it's up to me". First time I've really seem that in him. It was great.

Just to clarify the Bennell "hurt" issue. The last quarter lasted for over 35 minutes and when Goldstein kicked NB's last goal I thought it was all over. Bennell went to the edge of the square and sprinted flat out at the ball when it was bounced collecting a NB player on the way. I've not seen him throw his body in like that before and it took him a while to recover. He did and was the one who then forced it forward about 30 seconds later. Blease's final goal came from a free, initially to a NB player wide at HF. The ump called play on when the NB player tried to milk the clock and Blease nabbed the NB player from behind and got paid the free kick. He then just calmly slotted it and the game was all over. Smart thinking from the opportunist and fantastic conversion. I watched the game from the outer wing and when you read observers opinions you need to recognize that Casey is a large ground with a big camber and little elevation for spectators. It's difficult to see what's happening on the other side of the ground. Blease seemed to mainly play on the grandstand side of the ground today (opposite to me)and so I missed a lot of the reported chasing and tackles. But what Sam does is play like a millionaire. It's chocolates or boiled lollies for Sammy. He took the play on and got nabbed on regular occasions and IMO until he learns to judge better when he can and when he can't do this he'll be a liability in the senior team. He has unquestionable skills by foot and his kicking for goal was terrific. He's not scared of physical contact but doesn't seek it. I think he has some way to go and doubt he'll get a call up next week. He's just too high risk at the moment and the turnovers he gives away negates any positives his "dash" creates. He's terrific under a Bailey game plan but for Neeld he's a square peg in a round hole (watch him be picked next week!!). Bennell was terrific today and was very clean with his hands and attacked the ball hard. His kicking was ok but not special but his attack on the ball was good and I've not seen him get it as much. He played on a reasonable player in Campbell. He'd be right in the mix for next week. Spencer was very competitive early but by the second half he was spent and Goldstein had a field day. Poor old Jake could hardly raise a trott at the end of the game. No disgrace, Goldstein is a very good AFL player. The other that impressed me was Jai Sheahan. He's still got a lot of development but he won some important one on one's, took some contested pack marks and his kicking and decision making were terrific at times. Ricky Petterd couldn't get into it up forward and played his best footy around the middle.