binman

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

Pardon me for butting in on your fascinating back and forth about culture but you say the bit i have bolded is not culture and what is funny is that i would have thought this is actually an excellent definition of culture. If you showed 100 people that paragraph and asked what it described i'm guessing most would say something along of the lines as oh you are talking about the bloods culture" It is this very culture that is at the heart of the Swans'sustained success. It is exactly this sort of culture that Melbourne needs to build. Neeld has been entrusted with building it but my gut feel is he has focused to much on the obvious bits - elite training, competitiveness etc and not enough on the less tangible more difficult to build aspects such as playing for your team mate, pulling your weight, care for each other etc. As another posts says above perhaps he has gone too hard too early. To be honest i wonder about Neelds emotional intelligence. Roos was very tough but has EI in spades. My sense is Neeld has to work on this and i hope he does. If he does he might stay around - if not and he can't get the players to play for him history tells us he is gonski

I really hope so Jumbo. The last thing we need is lose a coach. As an aside if Neeld did go and Viney became caretaker again would that be the first time a bloke has been a caretaker coach at a VFL/AFL club more than once (at the same club that is)

I think Gary Lyon should choose the next CEO.

Thanks for that Older. Fascinating and proof that hidden in the the dross there is sometimnes some nuggets of gold on this site. One assumes today's announcement relates to the second rumor.

An Opel insignia. It was the only way he could swing the deal.

H-T on the show last they mentioned that when he came in as interim footy manager for a coupe of months he had done a review of the footy department. I had forgotten about that. It occurred to me that if he had been thorough in that he would have spoken to the players. If he did surely any one being honest would have brought up any issues they had with the admin team and CS in particular. I would love Hutchy or Caro to ask him about this.

I agree with this Older Demon (are you the slightly older brother of old demon?). MN questions the player alot but i haven't heard much from him about what he needs to do (this year or last year). I also agree about the disconnect between him and the playing group. I probably wouldn't have before the weekend but it was there for all to see Sat night. BTW what's the source on the players calling the AFL player welfare manager in and when was it supposed to have occurred?

Its not about the final tattoo. Its about the process. If the process is right the outcome will take care of itself.

That's complete bollocks RR and i assume you know that. Go back to the original post and name one inconsistency or example of revisionism with what i said above. You are no better than shock jock or Greg Denham in your attempts to illicit responses and stir up meaningless (and useless) foment and angst. I have long said MFC has cultural problems which are manifested by the factional, spiteful in fighting and complete lack of unity that has long beset the club. RR your approach is typical of the cultural problems at the club. RR you are part of the problem not the solution. If you ares so concerned why did you not go to the AGM and put forward your concerns? This is the last response i will make to you as content generators like yourself rely on annoying prople and getting them to bite. I've mostly resisted in the past and probably should have today. I'll learn from that mistake. Goodbye.

I assume RR that you are referring to me to some extent given you previously described (in a resposne to a previous post in this thread) me has having conservative views. Perhaps your read that post but didn't comprehend? Or more likely you've read it and applied your lens to support your agenda. To be clear i agree that the club is in crisis. But i did not (am haven't at any stage) call for CS's sacking or Mark Neelds for that matter. I certainly questioned the recent performance of both however. To that extent i am probably in sync with most posters on DL. I am with those who are calling for calm. Decisions made in an environment of hysteria are rarely good ones. Some calm heads are needed. The solution i have put forward is that a matter of urgency some form of professional psychological help is required that will enable the obvious wounds and angst among the playing group to be healed. We're going nowhere without meaning reconciliation and healing. If the current admin is to stay then they would need to both support this process and participate in it. If they can't or wont then i believe they should leave the club. But if they do leave the club we still won't move forward if the wounds are not addressed and healed. Sacking Schwab in of itself would just be a hollow panacea. So don't include me in your not so merry band of malicious pranksters.

There is no doubt whatsoever we are a club in crisis. I went to the game with my son on Saturday night and what was evident was that the club and coach has lost the players. I Think we should support Neeld but the awful truth is that the only way he'll survive to seasons end is if there is at least some on field turn around. Coaches rarely last when their clubs are regularly hammered on field. I support Neeld. However when he was appointed i said that i believed they needed to get some psychological help to deal with the trauma that led to 186, that game and it 's fallout, most notably the sacking of Bailey - by all accounts a coach close to his players. The players could not have helped not to feel responsible for his sacking. It was reported that the players were in conflict with Schwab, that the board sought their opinion and that it was rejected. Now i belive, even in these circumstances that it would have been possible to address the conflict. Mediation perhaps or some other mechanism. Certainly some group counselling to heal the rift and trauma. Instead the club and Neeld decided to draw a line in the sand and seemingly pretend the conflict never happened. They went further. Embarrassing senior players by removing them from the leadership group. Implying they were part of the problem, not making them part of the solution. Again i said at the time this was a high risk strategy but perhaps it was the right one, that time would tell. That maybe i was wrong and it wasn't necessary to heal the wounds - it could all be just consigned to the historical dustbin. Certainly i agree - and still do - that boundaries had to be made, that a clear firm direction needed to be set, that the tail couldn't wag the dog. But as i say it was high risk and to be honest an approach that seems to be contrary to accepted modern HR practice in terms of dealing with trauma and conflict. What i saw on Saturday night was a team that is still in shock, a t group of players still traumatised and broken. The approach they have decided to take has not worked and the consequences are potentially catastrophic - a word i don't use lightly. Despite all that I think the situation is savable. But it will require that healing work to happen. I don't know if it is possible for that healing work to happen with Schwab at the club as i don't know the extent of the damage. But whatever the damage it would have been better dealt with 12 months ago. On Schwab. I certainly have not been in the sack Schwab camp. I don't know what went on before last season but it would appear he has pulled back from his meddling in the FD and at the least has been serviceable since then in terms of the business side. But in the last week i believe i have seen some clearer evidence of poor performance and issues of real concern. One was his comment on MMM that he had attended sveral leadership meetings to "see what goes on". Why? I mean if the rumours about players hating him are even 1/3 true and given there seems to have been no mediation how on earth does the club expect those in the leadership to deal with that? I could only assume they would be furious to have him sit in on meetings when Mclardy has made clear he has been told to focus on admin and leave the footy to the FD. But the big one for me is the media strategy. Firstly what on god's earth were they thinking inviting the media into the room for the coaches address. So stupid. Unforgivable - and one can only assume it was CS's call. Secondly in the lead up to round 1 and 2 there was a veritable media blitz with endless interviews. Again i assume CS's call. We didn't need that pressure and after the Essendon game our media palava about playing hard looked and being competitive "for longer" nothing short of pathetic. The big one however relates to a point i've been meaning to make for a few days. It relates to the post match interview with Jack Watts where he made those stupid comments about not having leaders at the club like Selwood etc (which by the by was an insult to Jones and Viney who had just tried their guts out). The club and in particular Watts have been rightfully slammed for those comments. That interview was a DEETV BLOODY INTERVIEW with everybody's mate Matt Burgan (the fact that it was with Burgan is relevant i reckon as JW was perhaps more open and less guarded that he would have been with a normal reporter). I have no problem with Burgan or the interview per se (other than Jacks silly comment) but what was the club thinking loading it on the website? Surely someone would have watched it before doing so and surely any one with half a brain or sense of the media environment would have realised that those comments would just be like loading a gun and handing it to the general media to shoot us down. Which they duly did! Our reporter. Our website. All the lazy journos needed to do was press play. So stupid it defies belief. And this after Neeld praised the media guys at the AGM. They then compound this incredible lapse of professional judgement by giving the media a free reign at the coaches address. So, so stupid. I must have heard 3 commentators bagging Watts for looking at the floor not at Neeld and four times as many that bagging the club for allowing the media in in the first place. Now i'm sorry but the buck stops firmly with CS on this. He is in charge of media (or in charge of those doing that work) and is certainly responsible for the overall media strategy. Completely amateur hour. Simply not good enough. To end my rant a couple of comments about Neelds coaching in the Essendon game. Firstly it made no sense putting Watts up forward. Sure Zaharakis towelled him up (but why play him on a small player in the first place) bt surely, given the game was lost and he has made it clear that he sees Watts as a backman then why not put him on say Hurley or even better Crameri. Secondly what was he thinking leaving Gillies on Crameri - the poor bloke got slaughtered. It was embarrassing and far from being good for Gillies (ie by allowing him to learn about a good forward) might ruin him. That is not how you develop players. He'll probably drop him and who knows he may never come back. Finally subbing Watts was stupid and i felt almost as if Neeld wanted to humiliate him (much as he did when he first came to the club with his public crticism). What was he trying to achieve with that? I would have subbed Jamar before even thinking of Watts. What was really weird is he did it after the bit of play where Watts had it on the wing, mucked around with it, looked up forward and no one came at him so coughed it up going backwards. Sure, poor bit of play but one of Neeld's pre match points was for the players not to worry about mistakes. He then makes a big show of subbing him directly after a mistake. Yes, we are in a crisis. I'm not sure what the answer is but i do believe whatever it is it's gone pat steady as she goes. That sign in Neeld's office about staying calm or whatever now looks ridiculously ironic. Something drastic is required. A good start would be making a real attempt to heal the obvious wounds amongst the playing group rather than pretending they don't exist. And shave the bloody beards off.

No you're confused. The calf strain is the name of this particular virus. Terrible. terrible strain. Leaves a person unable to run, tackle, man up, understand instruction, hit the ball clear of congestion, lead into space, smother, chase or jump.

Yes! A glimmer of light! It's the flu! Exclamation mark!

Sue done what?

I'm not saying the club should force them to do anything. But Watts described it as all a bit of fun. Things aren't fun at the moment. I'd like to see the players themselves deciding times for fun and games are over.

Th problem people have with the beard is that it is a competition between some players - can't touch the beard at all, player who leaves it the longest the winner. A bit of fun, a lark. Now's no time for a bit of fun or a lark. Shave them off or make them neat and play bloody football.

It was really HG

I'm in Roost it. What's the alternative?

Benson who are you?

Hazy i simply don't understand what you mean by the stifling of criticism of the admin or related aspects of the club. I have been posting on the site for 2 years or so and there is frequent debate about the admin,the FD, the coaching etc etc. You have made many good arguments as to why you think Schwab should leave and that the club has long been run poorly (and continues to be). I think you have made some very valid points over the journey. However your position is clear and you have made your case. Why not leave it there? Schwab has been reappointed for 3 years. The argument could be made this was an error and he should be given his marching orders. But what is the point making that argument on DL, more than a handful of times. Even if by dint of effort you convince 99% of DL posters that he should be sacked do you really believe that will result in his him being sacked? I don't. But lets say convincing all DL posters (or the majority) that he should be sacked actually does result in him being sacked it would be by definition a very, very long game. The same tired arguments would come out over and over.The very definition of tiresome.

Redleg you are spot on in the post a few above this one. To that i'd add its tiresome in the extreme to have threads clogged up with the same point being made over and over again (and people responding to those points over and over again).

Some awesome comprehension going on here. Perhaps you need to make it even simper for WYL.