Slartibartfast

Trained in the main group and did all running at the end of the session.

He's got a chance. He's had some reasonably high possession games and he is dangerous when he gets it. Not getting it in the last few years could be explained by being in the forward line. But I don't think he'll play much AFL footy this year.

I saw Ro Bail chunder and it was a good one because he did it on the opposite side of the ground to me. Oh, and from what I saw today, and it was a short skills session, Barry would be ahead of JKH who had a bit of trouble in the wind marking the ball in the forward pocket just in front of me. C&B, do you know who the bloke running with Kent was? Riley?

It was my first session for the year and I got there after the start at about 9.30. The rehab group was Dawes, Clark, Gawn, Fitzy, Clisby, Kent, Jamar and one or two others that I can't remember. They were doing running drills and some agility work and none looked inconvenienced. Clark left early and I've no idea what his issues are. There seemed a good representation in the main group and good spirit. They did the normal ball drills with movement into the forward line and some "circle" work and for a reasonably windy day and coming off a break the skills were ok I thought but it seemed to me they were easing back into it and not going full tilt. They finished with some 300 metre running with shorter distances between the repetitions with the usual suspects doing well. I was pleased to see Barry in the "first" group and particularly pleased to see Toumpas at the pointy end of that group. Watts was also in this group and was holding his own which is not my memory from last year. Nobody really stood out today for me but to balance what has been said before I didn't notice any difference in Trengove's speed and Sammy Blease still really struggles in the 300m runs. He is in the "last" group and in the last couple was falling way behind. It will limit any role he plays for us and with the limit on rotations will be a problem that is significant. It was good to see Tappy, Blease, McKenzie, Spencer, McDonald, Strauss, Grimes, Evans and the recruits all train with the main group. Many of those have been regular rehab members in past preseasons. Players I didn't recognize as being there were Tyson, Michie or Riley. One was probably running with Kent around the boundary but I didn't recognize him. Hogan was not there, I would have recognized him!

I don't think the issue is that we recruited him but the length of his contract. I'm hoping the reported 3 year deal is one where the third year is dependent on performance criteria of the second year. That would seem logical in the circumstances. As for him ducking his head I'm in the camp that says he didn't go when it was his turn. If I'm right the damning thing is the situation didn't look all that dangerous. It will be interesting to see what he produces under Roos. He reads the play ok and marks well so if Roos can find a role for him where he plays to those strengths he's not without a chance. But I'm not really a believer.

Bailey had his strengths and weaknesses. It's hard to find any strengths in Neeld. Bailey managed to get quite a lot out of what he had, ok veterans and youth. It's hard to imagine and harder for some to admit that we held reasonable expectations of pushing for the finals in Bailey's last year. And all under a bitterly divided club and football department. One of the things that hasn't rarely been stated here was the vile work environment generated by the football department under Neeld. It was hostile, derogatory and disrespectful to the players and crushing of spirit. Many of the players feared the coaches and didn't respect them. That's why I think the word "trashed" is apt but I understand what you're saying. It's clear that the Board and Schwab wanted a change of culture and that's fair enough, but they put in place a person who had no idea nor the tools to manage that change. It's surprising that we didn't speak to people like Williams and Eade who at least had the experience of managing players as senior coach. I feel sorry for players who's AFL careers are now behind them save a late recall like Taggert and Tynan who never had a good AFL environment and others like Gysberts who needed encouragement and support to succeed, something he found under Bailey and got 2 rising stars in about a dozen appearances. Roos treats the players with respect, is honest with them and encourages them. It's why I hold so much hope for this year because as well as an improved list we have an environment that is not the Neeld "one size fits all" but one where individual players strengths are recognized and we will be coached to our strengths.

Roos is paid for his expertize, not overtime. He has experienced assistant coaches who know the game plan and for the life of me I can't see an issue with him not being here for the first week or so in January.

What do you think caused that? Daniher took over at the end of 1997 and in the following year took us to a preliminary final. He developed players well in the early days and we had some fair imports. I think the thing that hurt us was that we just didn't turn the list over enough and the few picks we had were failures. But it 's not all down to Daniher, in fact I'd argue that Daniher has no responsibility for our position now. After 7 years of pain we are much worse performed than at any time since Daniher left. I think Colin is right. We went through a normal cyclical downturn but the rebuild faltered under Bailey and was trashed under Neeld. Both Hawthorn and Collingwood won flags within 7 years of the bottom of their cycle. We won 2 games. Daniher is not responsible for us now in any way. BTW, I think we are much better than a 2 game 54% club left to us by Neeld and Roos and the FD will demonstrate that this year. We will be unrecognisable. It's just a shame that careers were destroyed in the last 2 years where under different circumstances they could have succeeded.

I hope not. Let the kid develop his footy before you put the weight of expectation on him. I know you're not suggesting that he be captain but we've just seen Trengove and Grimes impacted by leadership and we shouldn't make the same mistake with Viney.

Can't see that he did anything much different to Franklin or Ablett and I can't see that there was a much better way for him to handle it. He was a kid. Every time I look at him I just smile but I've done that with Moloney and Thomson, McLean and Gysberts and now Scully and Hogan. I just hope one of those three works out.

Fair enough. I just don't subscribe to the theory that success breeds success. St.Kilda, NM, PA and Dogs are all examples of how quickly you can go from chocolates to boiled lollies. Successive mediocre CEO's and Boards have cruelled our Club but I think for the first time in decades we have a good mix although I know little of Bartlett the fact I've heard so little from him since he assumed the Chairmanship is a very good thing. It's ironic that the people we have running the club now were in effect put in there by the AFL and not the members who have consistently demonstrated an inability to elect good Boards.

Sorry Jack, must have misunderstood what you meant when you said " It's also reasonably well known in legal circles". Why didn't you just say "reasonably well know". Oh well. And I still can't find a published statement that it was well known that "although both Melbourne and the AFL had legal opinion that a "tanking" case could not be sustained". And thanks for the clarification on our "crime". We just had employees that just acted in a way that was "prejudical to the interests of the AFL". No biggie.

So if we succeed on field it doesn't matter if we go broke?

Leaving aside the fact we were found guilty of bring the game into disrepute which is a breach of an AFL rule would a court challenge be limited to the "written" Clothier report or would any information that was gathered during their investigation but not documented or reported be open to investigation?There were probably a whole raft of things which both the AFL and MFC did not want in the public arena because it would have been a hornets nest of disclosures and in the end I reckon the main beneficiaries were the lawyers who played both sides knowing there was no chance of court action. I find WJ admission that the legal profession knew of the contents of confidential information of both parties disturbing and does nothing for the reputation of a profession which has a the highest responsibility for confidentiality and honesty. That some would seek that information is unfortunate but that it would be freely given a grave breach of confidentiality and professional behaviour. But it would seem the information was available without regard to those being represented.

Thanks Jack, I just can't find any mention of the legal opinions in the media and I don't recall them at the time. I would have thought it inappropriate for them to be public and I'm surprised confidentiality wasn't observed within legal circles. It's a bit disconcerting to think confidential information is bandied around at water cooler and coffee machine time outs. But apparently not. I don't want to get into the tanking debate but as a point of interest I would have thought if three people gave the same evidence under examination that could hardly be called "thin". The fact they were former employees might just as easily have released them from any sense of loyalty to the club and their work colleagues that could easily have tainted versions offered by those still involved. Six of one and half a dozen of another I'd say. I think it was in both the AFL's and the MFC's interest not to go to court because 1. the AFL would have been faced with other clubs "tanking" episodes which would have damaged the game immeasurably as well as having other direct ramifications and 2. MFC didn't want to go to court as under oath all the dirty laundry would have come out and we would not have been painted in a good light. I can assure you that the tanking investigation involved more than one comment by Connolly, flippant or not. As for your point on the AFL I personally don't have the fear of them that you seem to as I see no reason why we can't work closely and cooperatively with them to secure our future financially and to have them oversee our club. The reality is I can't remember a good MFC CEO and certainly Schwab x 2, Harris, Ellis, McNamee and Anderson have failed to impress in their time. It's also fair to say that I've not seen a good president. Gutnick, Szondy, Gardner, Stynes and McLardy have displayed glaring weaknesses along with some redeeming features. Their major failing has been to appoint successive CEO failures. But like you I have full confidence in Roos and PJ and if it takes the help of the AFL to ensure good management of the Club I've no issue with that. Here's to 2014 and some fun in footy again.

Nice opinion piece Jack and a good summary of the views you've presented during the year. But I'm interested in this comment as I can't find any record of a statement to this extent in the public arena. Can you point me to it? Thanks. Also while it's technically correct to say that Schwab resigned he was really sacked. He was offered the chance to resign but if he didn't accept it he was going to be sacked. Had Bailey been treated with the same courtesy who knows where we might now be. But at least we improved over time and got it right with Cameron. I also note you don't acknowledge the AFL's assistance to us to pay out contracts of Neeld, Schwab, most likely Connolly and who knows who else. It doesn't bare thinking about had we been forced for financial reasons to continue with them in their core positions. Also the AFL played a substantial role in the appointment of Peter Jackson and the current Board. IMO their role is one of the "big ticket" items of 2013 for the MFC as it will be the foundation of any success we taste in the next period of our history. To ignore it would be a glaring oversight and thanks should go to the AFL.

That has to go down as post of the year, and such a late entry!Pathetic! But suit yourself.

Jack I've completely misread you here and whilst The Myth and others have taken this discussion beyond my contention I feel the need to clarify my position. When we began this discussion I thought we were discussing the Misfud/Neeld/Davey/Thomas petty squabble. I thought we were looking at Neeld's performance as coach of the MFC and the obstacles he faced and how he dealt with them. I even imagined we were looking at what role, if any, Ian Flack played in instigating a campaign to undermine Mark from the very start of his tenure and whether this was the "whole campaign" or just part of it. I didn't realise you thought the Misfud/Neeld/Davey/Thomas affair was part of the institutional failure of some body (I don't know which one) on a scale of the Catholic Church by the "cover ups of errant behaviour". Nor did I realise this affair was part of the social failure which was part of the "wipe out... of our indigenous people". Given that this is your position I'm surprised you think that we should leave the investigation to "investigative journalists". I thought perhaps a parliamentary enquiry might be called for or even a Royal Commission. But I'll bow to your judgement. Anyway I'll leave this conversation now as we delve the parallels of the Misfud/Neeld/Davey/Thomas affair and the Catholic Church's institutional failures towards children in its care. I'm going to move on and put my mind to whether The Toump will be better than Wines, whether Pedersen was a squib and ducked his head and whether party boy Bernie Vince was sacrificed by Adelaide to gain a pick in the early 20's or whether he was pushed out because of behavioural issues. Happy New Year!

I don't think so, even if there is a "truth". I think few care but I understand that you do. I doubt that Mark Neeld is being disadvantaged by what happened because as you say the AFL said the allegation was untrue and Neeld has been thankfully cleared. Everyone else has moved on and I think your call for an investigation and the reasons for it will fall on barren ground. I note that you are still trying to peddle the idea that Neeld was the subject of "a campaign to undermine him from the very start of his tenure". Is the extent of "the campaign" Ian Flack's supposed "racist" claim or is there more? One way or the other you've got to admire the campaign managers foresight. Not many saw as early as April 2012 how much damage MN would reap on our club.

I want the press to concentrate on our footy club's improvement not a grubby past which will achieve nothing and which very few are interested. Wow, can you imagine the scandal "Ian Flack lies to Misfud about Neeld racism". Paper seller that one. Can't see it happening. Besides you've canned most of the investigative journalists anyway and I don't want Emma dragged into that camp! Let's move on.

I can only think you're pulling all our collective legs. Let's see. Racism claim in April 2012 which 2 days after Neeld has said he wants a full investigation he then says he's satisfied. Then follows a 4 win season with a percentage of 67 in which all the "distractions" happen which is then followed by a two win season and a percentage of 54 where Neeld had a pretty good go of it in terms of off field distractions bar the fact that the club's performance was so poor we saw the coach sacked, the president resign, the CEO terminated and the club with a statutory loss of $3 million, the AFL give us a $1.4 million gift to pay for the termination of the coach, the CEO and CC who incidentally was gifted a contract by the now defunct CEO. And lets not mention the T word. Needless to say the club was at a reasonably low ebb. Enter and AFL rescue package, Peter Jackson arrives, secures Paul Roos, gains a major sponsor, restructures the footy department, takes trades and recruiting to a professional level not seen in years, retains Jack Watts, has record membership to Christmas and a footy club which is optimistic and happy for the first time in years and now we want to wind back the clock to April 2012 and investigate racism claims against our (now sacked) coach where he has already said he's satisfied with the situation. There are other things which could be worse but I can see not one benefit in investigating this non issue. While you're at it why don't we investigate the faceless men, the campaign to undermine Neeld "from the very start of his tenure", the sacking and reappointment of Cameron Schwab, the role of Garry Lyon in selecting Mark Neeld as coach and the signing of Tom Scully to GWS. If we are going to investigate the racism scandal let's do it all "for history". Move on. Neeld, Schwab, McLardy and Connolly have all left and Roos, Jackson and Bartlett are doing a good job. The last thing this club needs is to revive the recent putrid immediate past with some meaningless enquiry.

And you leave out Jordie McKenzie. Go figure.

I reckon you're in a hard spot LG. I don't have your issues with gambling, it's legal and I hate the nanny state which stops many having freedoms because a few can't handle it or don't respect it. It doesn't mean I don't understand why you have the views you have. I also think our club needs this revenue stream. I hope it doesn't kill your interest in footy. Just as an aside, how many of us know Essendon supporters who recognize the issues with the drug situation and have adjusted their support for the club either emotionally or financially?

I was responding to the information in post 37. It's been stated Vince that Adelaide were not going to renew his contract after this year and made no effort to keep him. Don't you think that's strange? You're welcome to the rose coloured glasses. You seem to miss where I said I support it. If you think all footballers indiscretions are public and we know all there is to know about Vince fine. Did Father Christmas forget to put something in your stocking again Ben?

The blind love for Vince is to be expected on Christmas day I suppose. I'm happy to have him, he's what we need and he was probably the only/best one of his type available. I support the decision to trade for him. But the seeming dismissal of the inherent danger of listing a player who was not wanted by his previous club because of behavioural issues is silly. Roos may get the very best from him. Vince may want to reform and prove Adelaide wrong. Or it may all go belly up.