Neeld sacked

[dedja]

only $400K a year ... $600K for 18 months

[wristwatcher]

Get that Hairy Nob Garry Lion in again to do another review and selection. The last one really solved all the issues

[dedja]

Good to see the AFL sticking to their mantra of not getting involved in football decisions at clubs ... we're independent says the Big D.

Well, they significantly funded the pay packets of Israel Folau and Karmichael Hunt, practically dictated that Peter Jackson take over the CEO role at Melbourne, and then funded Neeld's $600K payout out of a $3M financial package to help the Dees manage their financial mess.

Independent my arse ...

[GWW]

Don't worry, there's always that big fine they imposed on Melbourne earlier this year

That no doubt the AFL will pay to themself

[The Sleeping Giant]

Good to see the AFL sticking to their mantra of not getting involved in football decisions at clubs ... we're independent says the Big D.

Got to pull you up there. Andy D has actually said, the afl is there to help any club, IF IT IS ASKED, but only if asked.

[Banker]

Everyone forgets, the AFL is a private corporation approaching $500million per season turnover!

Not a socialist government giving handouts for votes.

[Punk Rooster]

Not sure that Neil Craig should be 'rewarded' ... WTF has he been doing whilst Neeld has been drowning?

Adding more water.

This was my first thought- Craig has been over-seeing the mess, surely he should go to.
Neeld was never the right man for the job- the mess at Melbourne runs deep, and that was no fault of his.

[Gozu]

Interesting to hear Matty Lloyd and the FC panel tonight say the Demons need to throw the shackles off and play free flowing footy the rest of the season.

New coach = Neil Craig.

[Banker]

Interesting to hear Matty Lloyd and the FC panel tonight say the Demons need to throw the shackles off and play free flowing footy the rest of the season.

New coach = Neil Craig.

Free flowing = risk taking.

Never going to happen under Craig!

[Hondo]

This was my first thought- Craig has been over-seeing the mess, surely he should go to.
Neeld was never the right man for the job- the mess at Melbourne runs deep, and that was no fault of his.

Hasn't the CEO gone too?

I'd guess they'll eventually clean out as much deadwood as the AFL can afford.

[Lightning McQueen]

Interesting to hear Matty Lloyd and the FC panel tonight say the Demons need to throw the shackles off and play free flowing footy the rest of the season.

New coach = Neil Craig.

Neil Cwaig will put a permanent end to any coaching appointments he might of had for the future by seasons end.

[HH3]

I reckon Neeld did make a good point last night. He said everything he was doing was a long term plan, so he was trying to put more time into younger players that will be around for a long time. He was planning on having at least 3 years to do it, and he was cut short at 18 months.

We may never know now. He couldve turned them around if given the whole term...

Doubt it though...

[Pag]

I reckon Neeld did make a good point last night. He said everything he was doing was a long term plan, so he was trying to put more time into younger players that will be around for a long time. He was planning on having at least 3 years to do it, and he was cut short at 18 months.

We may never know now. He couldve turned them around if given the whole term...

Doubt it though...

That theory from Neeld sounds good in isolation, but then begs the question why he would go and get blokes like Dawes, Rodan, Byrnes and Pederson, who were horrible at other clubs?

It wasn't all his fault, but he definitely contributed to his own downfall with horrible decisions like this that showed he didn't really know what direction he/the club should head.

[wycbloods]

I reckon Neeld did make a good point last night. He said everything he was doing was a long term plan, so he was trying to put more time into younger players that will be around for a long time. He was planning on having at least 3 years to do it, and he was cut short at 18 months.

We may never know now. He couldve turned them around if given the whole term...

Doubt it though...

That theory from Neeld sounds good in isolation, but then begs the question why he would go and get blokes like Dawes, Rodan, Byrnes and Pederson, who were horrible at other clubs?

It wasn't all his fault, but he definitely contributed to his own downfall with horrible decisions like this that showed he didn't really know what direction he/the club should head.

I don't think there is an issue in getting Dawes at all he is still young and blokes his size don't grow on trees. He also wasn't terrible at Collingwood.

The other 3 i totally agree with.

[Booney]

That theory from Neeld sounds good in isolation, but then begs the question why he would go and get blokes like Dawes, Rodan, Byrnes and Pederson, who were horrible at other clubs?

Given that, in form, all of these blokes would improve the Melbourne team there was IMO, nothing wrong with recruiting these players.

Dawes is capable but injury prone and played a role in a very recent premiership as a key forward at a club where Neeld was. No issue there.

Rodan would add pace and clearance work if still 100% fit and able to move as he did in 2008/9. Clearly his knees are now paying the price of the recon's and his lateral movement, once a gift, is beginning to fade.

Byrnes showed glimpses when he managed to break into the might of the Geelong 2007-2011 teams and I see no issues with getting him into Melbournes 22 either.

The problem is the kids around them just dont have the structure or presence to give the older heads any confidence to move the ball around and that comes back to the coach. The structures Neeld introduced early were clearly straight from Malthouse's 2010 playbook. Long to a contest down the line etc etc. Not only did he not have the cattle to do it but he stuck at it for almost 12 months and then decided to change it. No wonder the kids are struggling.

[Pag]

That theory from Neeld sounds good in isolation, but then begs the question why he would go and get blokes like Dawes, Rodan, Byrnes and Pederson, who were horrible at other clubs?

Given that, in form, all of these blokes would improve the Melbourne team there was IMO, nothing wrong with recruiting these players.

Dawes is capable but injury prone and played a role in a very recent premiership as a key forward at a club where Neeld was. No issue there.

Rodan would add pace and clearance work if still 100% fit and able to move as he did in 2008/9. Clearly his knees are now paying the price of the recon's and his lateral movement, once a gift, is beginning to fade.

Byrnes showed glimpses when he managed to break into the might of the Geelong 2007-2011 teams and I see no issues with getting him into Melbournes 22 either.

The problem is the kids around them just dont have the structure or presence to give the older heads any confidence to move the ball around and that comes back to the coach. The structures Neeld introduced early were clearly straight from Malthouse's 2010 playbook. Long to a contest down the line etc etc. Not only did he not have the cattle to do it but he stuck at it for almost 12 months and then decided to change it. No wonder the kids are struggling.

I'm not saying they wouldn't get into Melbourne's 22 at the moment, but how much better do these guys really make the side? They're still losing by 100+ consistently, so what was the point? They'll be long gone when (or if) Melbourne make it back to the finals.

From a Richmond perspective, our recycled guys make a difference to our side, have made our side better, and will continue to have an impact going forward as we head towards the finals that we've been working years to reach (talking about Maric, Chaplin, Grigg, Houli etc). Those guys at Melbourne aren't going to have that impact, so why get them? May as well play four more kids who might be 10 year players and still lose by 15-20 goals.

[Hondo]

The club has been criticised for shedding too many senior players over recent seasons in the push to "rebuild". I don't know what involvement Neeld had in that but I've heard that criticism from a number of media "experts".

[Grahaml]

I don't think it's Neeld's fault and I think it's sick the way the media have made his life a misery for the last 18 months.

Craig is probably the sort of person best suited to where Melbourne's at but if they don't start developing players and keeping their talent better they'll just be in the same position in 2 years when the next coach fails. Jack Watts was universally picked as the best kid in the draft that year and he's no better than the day he got called. Trengove played better for Sturt. Those two (and Scully, Gysberts etc) should be the core of a real up and coming side just like when Clarkson took over Hawthorn and they turned Hodge, Franklin and Rioli into stars.

Fingers crossed now though that Neeld can stop at a red light without cameras surrounding his cars and that his family stops getting pestered all the time. A bloke just lost his job and you can almost hear the corks popping around TV, radio and newspaper headquarters across the country.

[Booney]

That theory from Neeld sounds good in isolation, but then begs the question why he would go and get blokes like Dawes, Rodan, Byrnes and Pederson, who were horrible at other clubs?

Given that, in form, all of these blokes would improve the Melbourne team there was IMO, nothing wrong with recruiting these players.

Dawes is capable but injury prone and played a role in a very recent premiership as a key forward at a club where Neeld was. No issue there.

Rodan would add pace and clearance work if still 100% fit and able to move as he did in 2008/9. Clearly his knees are now paying the price of the recon's and his lateral movement, once a gift, is beginning to fade.

Byrnes showed glimpses when he managed to break into the might of the Geelong 2007-2011 teams and I see no issues with getting him into Melbournes 22 either.

The problem is the kids around them just dont have the structure or presence to give the older heads any confidence to move the ball around and that comes back to the coach. The structures Neeld introduced early were clearly straight from Malthouse's 2010 playbook. Long to a contest down the line etc etc. Not only did he not have the cattle to do it but he stuck at it for almost 12 months and then decided to change it. No wonder the kids are struggling.

I'm not saying they wouldn't get into Melbourne's 22 at the moment, but how much better do these guys really make the side? They're still losing by 100+ consistently, so what was the point? They'll be long gone when (or if) Melbourne make it back to the finals.

From a Richmond perspective, our recycled guys make a difference to our side, have made our side better, and will continue to have an impact going forward as we head towards the finals that we've been working years to reach (talking about Maric, Chaplin, Grigg, Houli etc). Those guys at Melbourne aren't going to have that impact, so why get them? May as well play four more kids who might be 10 year players and still lose by 15-20 goals.

Wasnt having a go and dont disagree.

Firstly, they would not have been able to attract Maric, Chaplin etc and really could only approach the likes of Rodan and Byrnes. Players who would not have said no to another opportunity at AFL level. Mitch Clarkes move looks even more baffling now.

I agree though, the players named didn't make them finals contenders but they certainly should be having an impact on the field. Probably shows more about the likes of Rodan, Byrnes and Pedersen than the young blokes around them too.

[Rik E Boy]

I reckon Neeld did make a good point last night. He said everything he was doing was a long term plan, so he was trying to put more time into younger players that will be around for a long time. He was planning on having at least 3 years to do it, and he was cut short at 18 months.

We may never know now. He couldve turned them around if given the whole term...

Doubt it though...

That theory from Neeld sounds good in isolation, but then begs the question why he would go and get blokes like Dawes, Rodan, Byrnes and Pederson, who were horrible at other clubs?

It wasn't all his fault, but he definitely contributed to his own downfall with horrible decisions like this that showed he didn't really know what direction he/the club should head.

Byrnes not horrible at Geelong. But he was Bombers man and he struggled to get games when Scotty took over.

regards,

REB