Slartibartfast

It's the sentiment Sue. As I said in my post I'm interested in following his progress. I've go no interest in using every meaningless puff piece which quotes him as another platform to have a go at him. You may, go ahead, I don't really care although I think it is childish. But each to their own.

I think is so ironic that many get told to "move on" on this forum so often and yet we have a nothing article about Tom with a separate thread. Frankly my care factor about Tom is low. I'm interested to see how he goes, I don't blame him for taking $1 a year for 6 years (or whatever) and I think his form probably highlights what a smart decision his was. As far as I can see it was a wonderful "win win" for both parties and I'm really looking forward to seeing what Jesse can do.

Presenting a case and using examples is always difficult because instead of debating the core issue you get sidetracked with the examples. Flack is a perfect example. Suffice to say MFC ignored the old adage of "keeping your friends close and your enemies closer". If Flack had been treated with more care and respect and seen his friends treated better he may never have said a word. He was poorly managed and is an example of why a fish rots from the top. And whilst you say Neeld inherited an ageing set of senior players (and I agree) that begs the question of his treatment of them and the resulting impact on their performance. We all have a view. All that is of course down to opinions. I feel for Mark Neeld. I've never met him nor do I know him as a person but he seems to have been promoted well above his capabilities and into a difficult situation at best. I reckon Malthouse sold us up the river. He knew that Neeld, who he clearly liked, had tried and failed to get a number of senior coaching positions and when asked gave him a glowing endorsement in an effort to help him. Not his fault, not Neelds fault, but our fault. MN was a mistake but sadly he was a mistake easily avoided and that would have been to everyone's benefit including Mark's. In the end you have to look at his tenure and say "on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is very poor and 10 is very good where do you score his performance as a coach of the MFC". I score him a 1. Where do you score him?

Firstly the coaching selection process. I agree that there weren't numerous experienced coaches available but despite being told of Ross Lyons possible availability we didn't ring him. And whilst we rushed in to secure Neeld we didn't interview Sanderson or HInkley. Hinkley BTW was second by a whisker to Hardwick at Richmond and Schwab and Cameron's friendship is well known. But not a phone call. And with any limited enquiry it was known that Neeld had failed psychological testing at Richmond and PA not making their final cut. But as I've said on many many occasions it wasn't Neeld's fault he was appointed. And there is no doubt that Neeld ran into some difficult issues in his first season. But it was his decision to sack Ian Flack who had put so much time into Liam Jurrah and understood his circumstances. It was Neeld's decision to let Liam go to Alice Springs to a fraught situation unattended. It was also Neeld's decision to escalate the Misfud situation demanding it be investigated on OTC only to embarrassingly back down 2 days later. And while the loss of Jimmy was upsetting I think that situation was poorly managed by the club. That was not Neeld's doing. But prior to this he had made some poor decisions which alienated Watts and Davey in his first few days, appointed dreadfully inexperienced players as captains and lost the senior players before the season started. The decison to appoint Grimes and Trengove was risky enough but to sack Green as captain and remove him from the leadership group was probably evidence of why he failed the psych testing. It was his job to unite the club but he didn't and the comparison to Roos is profound and enlightening. I also question the impact of his training regime and the credit some are attributing to it. Roos has changed it significantly this year asking the players to do the running whilst practising drills. If they are short on running at the end of the session they do extra running. And despite Neeld's program we saw no benefits from it on the field, in fact the decline in performance startled all of us. If we succeed and win 8 games this season some will credit Neeld's fitness strategy whilst others will merely say we have returned to the level Bailey achieved in his last two years. IMO Neeld did some good list management in terms of getting rid of players who were not good enough. He did well to recruit Clark and Dawes but beyond that it's hard to find further positives. The reality is he took a list that had won 17 games in the previous two seasons to one that won 6 in the next two. And whichever way you cut it that is the measurement that represents our Club. He was a poor coach on any measure and the fact that no other AFL club wanted him after his stint with us compares with Voss, Harvey, Bailey, Craig, Laidley, M Williams, Thomson and Primus. I hold nothing against him personally and wish him well but he was in charge whilst we reached the lowest ebb in our AFL history. I've only posted this to balance your post Jack and others who are attributing credit to Neeld in areas I disagree with. I know you won't agree with much/all of it but it's the opposing view. I happen to hold it.

When we appointed Neeld I was critical because I thought we needed a proven AFL coach because if we got an untried coach and failed (which of course we did) we wouldn't know if it was the coach or players. We now have Roos and I think I'm happy to conclude that if we fail it won't be the coach. Choosing the coach is clearly a critical decision of a club and the CEO is ultimately responsible but his other primary tasks are to ensure financial stability and a sustainable business model. Jackson did that at Essendon and in reality it could be argued that Knights laid the foundation for what is now a pretty good team.

So how do you think he's gone so far?Good relationship with AFL. Attracted Roos. We have a new major sponsor. We seem to have some respect in the footy world although I know this is hard to measure. We have record membership for this time of year. We have a silent Board. I (we) have more genuine hope for success than I've had for a decade. We are tracking for break even financially after a disastrous year and with no budgeted input for the foundation heroes. Negotiated a survival funding package from AFL. I'm struggling for negatives but you may be able to find some. I don't know his detailed history at Essendon but in his time they won premierships and became a financial powerhouse. I'd settle for that.

I'm not so sure. I think while I did have issues with certain decisions (which surely we all did even if they were different issues) my position for quite some while was that I didn't think either were industry best standard and that as a small club we needed that to succeed. I hold nothing against either personally, just wrong people in the job. At least we all seem to be happy with what we've got now, I know I am and I'm optimistic about enjoying the footy again for the first time since Geelong.

Thought I'd get this sort of reply, but thanks anyway. I understand why you don't want to go there. I presume that if you supported the dismissal of Neeld and Schwab those that were calling for it earlier than you just had more vision and understanding of the situation. That seems to be a logical extension of what you're saying. Have a good Christmas Jack and thanks for providing such a good site for the exchange of differing views on our Club.

1. Jack did you support at the time, or do you support now, the replacing of Schwab and Neeld with Jackson and Roos? 2. If "YES" to either of these questions (then or now), when did you come to these conclusions? 3.Is it right to say that if the answer is "NO" you would like Schwab and Neeld in their previous positions. 4. What was the "agenda" you continue to refer to? Was this agenda consistent with the removal of Schwab, McLardy and Neeld? 5. Who had this agenda? 6. What is the difference between an "agenda" and the "view" that changes had to happen at the club and voicing that view both publicly and privately with those who could influence outcomes? You'll note I didn't start this thread and have not until now responded other than to seek your view on these questions that seem to me to go, at least in part, to the heart of your position. Personally I think it's time to move on but you continually raise these issues and as I suspect I'm the target of much of what you say I think I've the right to respond.

I spoke to him when we was just returning from injury at a function some three years ago I reckon. I was very impressed. I just hope the maturity with which he spoke can translate on the field and that he can reach his potential.He has some elite skills that could make him very good but has some weaknesses that could be deal breakers. And many thanks to all those that post reports, great stuff and good to get some differing opinions.

Thanks.

You'll get on very well with Ben although I'm not sure we'll see him again.

The other major difference is the players are enjoying training. They turn up knowing they will work very hard but feel as though they are achieving something in the process rather than just running their guts out. They will be mentally much fresher this year and will probably have worked just as hard. Interesting Frawley said Misson is responding to player feedback much more this season. I wonder what's changed?

I agree. Worrying about the jumper is what Schwab used to do instead of focusing on the main game. We can wear any color as far as I'm concerned, I just want to see us competitive and look forward to the footy again.

Many thanks.

Tappy any observations on Bail, McKenzie and Strauss?' Thanks for your great reports, love them!

I like both. They make me feel good. Ben has a sense of humour and is funny. He also writes in a very engaging way and so when he is personal it's laced with a smile. Not many understand this. Describing RPFC without being disappointingly personal is really not possible. But he's a keen student of the game and loves the club.

They are the teams we play in the preseason. I would have preferred games against at least one if not two lesser teams. I think we need to win a few in the preseason to build confidence and erase some of the metal damage of 2013. Whilst it could be argued that by beating one of these teams it will give us confidnce (and it would) I don't see the likelihood as high. Having said that I'm bullish for this season. I think we can have genuine expectation at winning games against GWS, Footscray, Saints, GCS, Brisbane, PA, Adelaide and WC (the last three more so at home games). We can be competitive against NM, Richmond, Carlton, Essendon. We will struggle against Hawthorn, Geelong, Freo, Sydney, Collingwood. It would have been nice to have a PS game against a couple in the first group.

Richmond, Geelong and Hawthorn. Hard to change.

Disappointingly personal.

Whispering Jack explains here: Clearly I agree with you but many don't. Interesting Jack quotes Denham in support of his position having once said Anyway I suppose it's just what suits you on the day. And what would opposition footy departments know anyway. I mean look what we've achieved.... oh, wait

Hmm. Three finalists from last year and two games against very good teams, perhaps the two best teams over the last 5 years. It will be hard to win one. I don't like that. Our blokes will remember all too well feeling confident going into last year and then getting badly beaten. Whilst it might be a good test I reckon a game against a low level team where we had a fair chance of winning would have done wonders for the teams confidence. I don't like it at all.

The roller coaster occured in 98,99,2000 and 01. What happened between 2002 and 2006 was pretty consistent unless you want to consider a win verses a loss a roller coaster. We were bottom half of the 8 in 2004,5 and 6. Rollercoaster - rubbish. Daniher got remarkable results from an ordinary list with minimal resources and facilities. There is no doubt that by the time he left the list was old and needed renewing, but trying to lay the responsibility of our position now after 7 years and eleven or twelve (depending how you want to argue it) top 20 picks since 2007 on Daniher is just dumb. Hawthorn were bottom 4 in 2004 and 2005 and since have won two flags and been regular finalists since 2007. The Bulldogs were bottom 4 in 2002 and 2003 and played finals 2006 and 2008+. We were bottom 4 in 2007 and in 2013 won 2 games one against a development team in 2013 finishing 17th and yet the responsibility rests with Daniher running the list into the ground. Pffttt.

Think carefully about that comment and laugh.

Perhaps you'd prefer the flat road we've been on the last 7 years.