binman

Redleg and Stuie i am really surprised that you are both taking the stance you are as you both seem relatively switched on. Do either of you understand what governance means? Lets say it is true that the good Doctor did not follow proper processes and there was a "breakdown in reporting protocols". Leaving aside the fact that President of the club has said the club did a thorough review of the club supplement program (and seemingly did not pick up this breakdown in protocols - i mean what sort of review fails to pick this up?) the responsibility for such a breakdown is the completely that of the boards - not the employee. This is what governance means - and this is why being a board member, little lone a president is such a huge responsibility When the [censored] fails it is on your head! They have seen fit to sack a CEO and now a doctor. The CEO is the board's representative and a doctor their employee. Can either of you seriously suggest that this does not directly reflect on the board? Governance 101

Crisis can create strange bedfellows but Rhino you are spot on here. I'd go further and say choosing not to is negligent in the extreme, exposing as it does the club to harsh punishment from the AFL. Which raises the question. Did the CEO and the board know we had ongoing contact with Dank. It would seem the FD did, so if the CEO and board didn't what we have here is a serious, serious problem ( a failure to communicate! would be my normal joke but i'm not feeling that humorous). Perhaps we've gone from one extreme to the other - two years ago the Admin too involved in the FD, now the FD being unaccountable with no control by the admin

Which would be ironic as it would mean 2 of the four posters i have on my ignore list are the same people. But my guess is he's not the doctor.

Not of stupidity

Way too cute Redleg. This isn't a court. AD has also said that he would have expected Melbourne to detail any and all contact or connection MFC had with Dank. Not unreasonable. Not a time for the club to be playing funny buggers and silly semantics i would have thought and the fact they chose that route is an indictment. I watched that interview and i suspect from his resposne to the question as to whether the offical they had the discussion with was still at the club that it was CS

It would appear the board has come to the realization that (like many on DL have been saying) there needs to be a clean out. They've sacked the CEO and if the report you cite is correct plan to install a new president.

I don't wish to get into a slanging match but i find many of your post Satyriconhome frustrating in the extreme, such is their frequent lack of logic. I appreciate your passion for the club and i get you volunteer for the club but your blind faith and preparedness to bag posters who dare criticize the club (as if you have some personal connection that others don't) is worse than posters who are consistently illogically negative. The right thing to do? Once again are you serious? They were embarrassed into cutting ties with Dank.For god sake the club doctor alerted Dank about the presser by text such was his connection! Lets be clear the right thing to do would have never to have any dealings whatsoever with Dank. You do understand Essendon sacked him for being sketchy. You do understand that by the clubs own admission he sought employment at the club? Meaning they likely had his cv and employment history. DL applauded the good sense (and luck) we showed in rejecting him. Yet despite rejecting him for employment we continued to consult with him! Until we were shamed into cutting ties. A clearer failure of governance you could not see. For god sake this is not the right bloody thing to do. Nor is lying to the AFL or members. If you can't see that - and you don't seem able to - i can simply not take anything you say credibly. So rather than feel like banging my head into the table when i see your happy capping, nothing to see here palava i'm going to add you to my very small and select group of posters who i ignore. For context sake there are only 3 others and RR is not one of them! Good bye and good luck with the membership drive.

Welcome back Ben. Good post and one that i largely concur with. The players have not bought in, despite what they may say in pressers. If Neeld wants to talk KPI's getting the team to play for you is the most crucial for a coach. He has failed in this regard - at least thus far. I could forgive him that last season but he had his chance to build his own team this year and cut those he thought were not on board (or he couldn't get on board). Good point about his GWS comments. For me he simply does not get that you have to sell hope not despair to fans and more importantly players. How does he expect a team to feel about its own ability when he constantly says in public how far off the mark we are, how we're not 'AFL standard', that we're no further along the path to success than a club in its second season. His focus is so narrow, so much on process he can't instill confidence or god forbid allow players and fans to dream of better times. He is a functionary not a visionary. Perhaps his level is a good assistant coach.

You simply don't get it.

We deserve to be screwed. I have consistently supported the board and DM but this is just woeful and inexusable. Just as is the case for Essendon the issue of the whether the drugs used were banned is to an extent a furphy. It is the governance issues that Essendon and now Melbourne will be smashed on by the AFL. I have said Essendon will cop a huge fine and if it is proven Hird condoned/knew about the program at Essendon he will be suspended. Whilst it doesn't seem to have been as systematic at MFC, none the less governance system seems to have been woeful. We also deserve to be fined. It remains to be seen if Neeld was directly involved and if the method of administration of the drugs d was above board but if they weren't and he knew he should also be suspended. Keep in mind two things. One Essendon sacked Danks because of concerns about financial probity (so they say but much more likely they knew what he was doing was dodg). How could we continue to remain involved with him after that. How did we allow the club to get involved in the first place for that matter? Where was the bloody risk management practice at. Governance 101. Secondly put what ever spin on it you like MFC lied to the AFL publicly but more appallingly from my position to its members The very people they have asked to to accept another rebuild, asked to be patient, asked to stick with the club. Unacceptable. Demondame hit the nail on the head in the best post i have read in some time on Demonland. Of course there is a link between the listless efforts of our players and this pathetic sham. How would the skipper feel knowing at any point this would inevitably all come out in the media. The whole playing group would have felt the same. Jeez loise. Compare us to Essendon. They get on the front foot and their club is galvanized. Witness the scenes in the change room after the Freo game. We do the opposite and our club is falling apart. Witness the scenes in our change rooms after the first 3 games. As Demondame said we have all been wondering why we have been so, so poor on field. We now have the answer. People talk about the players having pride in their performance, which i agree with but in a game where people are always talking about the difference between winning and losing being a fraction of a per cent how on earth could the players be expected to perform at the required level when their own club performs so terribly off field. How can they give their all for a club they would have every right to have lost faith in. You don't think they have lost faith? Re watch the first 3 games and count the pressure acts. Neeld bangs on about elite. What about elite standards of governance and management. I'm sorry i've had enough, this is the final straw. For a start DM needs to go. The buck clearly stops with him. I'll wait and see what the evidence is but my gut says that Misson (as much as it pains me to say as he has been about the only positive in the last 2 years), Craig and Neeld will also need to go.

My apologies Jnr for being unnecessarily brusque. In terms of what he may have taken Dank's allegation is that he did take something illegal, at least for a player (ie a banned WADA drug for players), Whilst under WADA he would not be punished under the AFL drug code my understanding is that he would be. I have heard commentators say that even if he did not break a rule by taking a banned drug there is a big problem with a coach telling players they should not take banned substances at the same time as he is taking such drugs (assuming of course he did - he has apparently said they were amino acids and given he is not tested it would be hard to prove otherwise)

Is this a serious question? Even if if his players have not used any banned substances, or indeed he hasn't, not only was he aware of the whole supplement regime and highly sketchy practices (off site injections, iv drips, ignoring warnings/concerns raised by the most experienced doctor in the league etc etc) he would appear to have had a high degree of control over it. This is on his head. The other thing is his email with the three non negotiable One was that players could not be harmed. It would appear players were given a cocktail of drugs that even if not banned would appear to have unclear health impacts (i assume particularly in combination). How could they be confident that such a mix (combined with a regime that Ings has said is really pushing boundaries) would not negatively impact on players health. In fact they had an epidemic of soft tissue injuries. Surely it is possible this are in some way linked to supplement program. Hird and the bombers have brought the game into disripute in a way that has no comparison in terms of damage I have little doubt a factor in the ultimate fine and penalties applied at Melbourne were to give the AFL a yardstick, a precedent to guide them in the penalties they will hit Essendon with - a sense of scale if you like, so te public are psychologically ready to accept the penalties they will mete out. Even if things remain as they are the bombers are going to be smashed (and AD seemed to hint there is more to come). if the dees can be hit with a $500 k fine and CC 12 months out I reckon we will be seeing a fine in the vicinity of $5 million for essendon and 2-3 years out of the game for Hird (if not longer)

Maybe 55. But sometimes i reckon its possible to turn these things around and get the horse back. A crisis such as the one we have just had can also represent an opportunity. We will soon see (sat 2pm). Crossroads for Mark and the team.

Spot on red. What you only get one crack at being a poor side?

What would that mean?

Was Pederson in Casey's best last week? If not how is he back?

Stupid decision to leave Watts out. Makes me wonder anew about Neeld. I mean we are in a development phase. What is he trying to achieve, first by subbing him early then dropping him.

I am hoping that some magic has been weaved at Sorrento and he has connected with the players. Whilst i agree our mid field is woeful (which does beg the question why Neeld has been so focused on talls) by far the the biggest issue is the players are not playing for him. If that is not solved he's gone. If he can fix whatever is broken then things will improve and he'll stay. I sincerely hope he gets to stay.

You can't be serious. $100, 000? Even if no banned substances have been used the practices and breakdown of governance have smashed the reputation of the AFL. If we were fined $550k for bring the game into disrepute and Connolly copped a year then if the bombers will be fined upwards of $5 million and if Hird is guilty of using banned substances (or even injecting at all) he will be out for 3 years. I refer you to this quote from AD's doorstop presser today The league boss admits that he is unsure of the ramifications of the scandal for his sport, terming it "horrible" and "terrible".

Wasn't sure where to post this and didn't want to start a new thread. Good article by Robinson that sums up Neelds plight pretty well and largely mirrors my thoughts (which is probably why i reckon its a good article!). I have to say i am losing faith in Neeld. He hasn't given the fans anything to hang their hat on yet - no real glimmer. Quite the opposite unfortunately. Compare Neeld to Hinkley. If there was a shomozzle ladder at the end of last season we would have been on top with Port second (albeit a distant second). So the situations are somewhat comparable. Hinkley has recognized that you have to sell a bit of hope and that the focus just can't solely be on process. He seems to have got the players excited and up and about. His club is 2-0 and with more excitement in the pre season and opening 2 rounds than we have had in the whole time Neeld has been on board. I think Neeld and the club has been a bit naive not to acknowledge the fans (and players) need more than process, competitive quarters KPI's etc etc. There is no humanity in those things - no magic. Robinson is right - he has lost the players. Should he go. Not yet. Lets see if he can win the hearts and minds of the players. But really the argument about him going or staying is largely moot. History tells us that if the on field performances do not make a dramatic improvement he is gone. And yes it could be as soon as GWS. Lets say WC beats us easily and then GWS beats us at home. The pressure to sack him will be enormous and depending on how bad the losses are he may well be toast. Fair? Neither here or there. As he says often enough football is an unforgiving industry (god i hate that word as applied to football but there you go)

A question. Do internet football forums have a higher percentage of wack jobs than the general population?

That was what i alluded to in my missing post - i can't imagine Neeld and the fd would be too keen for someone to come talk to the Don about how the FD is being run and offering advice on how it could be run better.

Yep, perhaps with a more specific title eg rally round the boys at treaining on Friday morning. Or something, I can't make it Friday - have meeting i can't shift but will wear red and blue in solidarity. Top work.

I seemed to have had a (very innocuous) post deleted from this thread. Mods is this the case or did it never go up? I can't imagine it was deleted as it could not have been less problematical but if so it'd be good to know the reasons.

Can't imagine the Neeld and the footy department would be so keen for him to intervene given his comments in that article