Bumped Mark Neeld to Melbourne

[Paladin]

1) No matter which way you slice this, the process of finding a new coach has once again been a total **** up by the club. This sort of off-field incompetence is what I expect of Alberton, not the Crows.

2) If Scotty Burns is appointed I'll be chuffed, but we'll never know if he was really the best candidate available.

Agree FU im hopefull of a good outcome but its a major ****up that we couldn't get it done by the end of the regular season and have our pick of all the candidates. Heads should roll i can remember Triggy saying it was difficult to get everybody in a room togethor that makes me feel sick get it done ffs. If we have lost our prefered option because of shithouse time management skills the entire board and coaching selection panel is incompetent.

 

[Bone71]

Wasn't Neil Craig the "best candidate" for the WCE job?

 

[arrowman]

Agree FU im hopefull of a good outcome but its a major ****up that we couldn't get it done by the end of the regular season and have our pick of all the candidates. Heads should roll i can remember Triggy saying it was difficult to get everybody in a room togethor that makes me feel sick get it done ffs. If we have lost our prefered option because of shithouse time management skills the entire board and coaching selection panel is incompetent.

Geez, the club is on a hiding to nothing with this one. In 2004 they were bagged (rightly so, IMHO) for running what appeared to be a sloppy, token selection process and when they try to do it better in 2001 they're bagged for taking too long.

Try this for a timeline:
Appoint selection panel and determine process and criteria: 2 weeks
Determine list of candidates and approach them: 2 weeks
Allow time for candidates to study up and prepare their presentation: 2 weeks
Interviews/presentations: 2 weeks

That's 8 weeks just to get to the decision stage. Then final negotiations and agreement with the successful candidate.

Ok, you could and probably should do it quicker, especially if you're prepared to compromise on the process (like they did in 2004 ) but I think all this talk about "8 weeks is way too long" is off the mark.

And speaking of marks: How do we know we have "lost" Neeld to Melbourne and that that is such a disgrace because Melbourne are such a joke of a club and we should have "beaten" them?
- Maybe Neeld always preferred Melbourne, apart from anything else because it meant he didn't have to move his family?
- Maybe Melbourne aren't such a disgrace of a club with such a rotten, useless playing list and a prospective coach might actually see them as a good option.
- Maybe Neeld wasn't our preferred option, or not such a runaway leader that we were prepared to panic and cut short the process just because (shock, horror) he got an offer from somewhere else.

We'll never know the ins and outs of the process - all the speculation on this board and all the conflicting stuff out of the media shows that you can't rely on hearsay.
- Nor can we rely on anonymously quoted "excellent sources" like "I had the opportunity of meeting with someone high up in Collingwood who happens to know exactly to "know" what happened - not only that, but he was prepared to blab about it to someone he hardly knows".

Maybe we'll never know exactly what happened but FFS if Burns or Sanderson get the job then that's good enough for me and we should get on with supporting them and the club.

However I reserve the right to spit chips if Bickley gets it.

 

[dude316]

However I reserve the right to spit chips if Bickley gets it.

But it's his destiny!

 

[KUNG FU]

Geez, the club is on a hiding to nothing with this one. In 2004 they were bagged (rightly so, IMHO) for running what appeared to be a sloppy, token selection process and when they try to do it better in 2001 they're bagged for taking too long.

Try this for a timeline:
Appoint selection panel and determine process and criteria: 2 weeks
Determine list of candidates and approach them: 2 weeks
Allow time for candidates to study up and prepare their presentation: 2 weeks
Interviews/presentations: 2 weeks

That's 8 weeks just to get to the decision stage. Then final negotiations and agreement with the successful candidate.

Ok, you could and probably should do it quicker, especially if you're prepared to compromise on the process (like they did in 2004 ) but I think all this talk about "8 weeks is way too long" is off the mark.

And speaking of marks: How do we know we have "lost" Neeld to Melbourne and that that is such a disgrace because Melbourne are such a joke of a club and we should have "beaten" them?
- Maybe Neeld always preferred Melbourne, apart from anything else because it meant he didn't have to move his family?
- Maybe Melbourne aren't such a disgrace of a club with such a rotten, useless playing list and a prospective coach might actually see them as a good option.
- Maybe Neeld wasn't our preferred option, or not such a runaway leader that we were prepared to panic and cut short the process just because (shock, horror) he got an offer from somewhere else.

We'll never know the ins and outs of the process - all the speculation on this board and all the conflicting stuff out of the media shows that you can't rely on hearsay.
- Nor can we rely on anonymously quoted "excellent sources" like "I had the opportunity of meeting with someone high up in Collingwood who happens to know exactly to "know" what happened - not only that, but he was prepared to blab about it to someone he hardly knows".

Maybe we'll never know exactly what happened but FFS if Burns or Sanderson get the job then that's good enough for me and we should get on with supporting them and the club.

However I reserve the right to spit chips if Bickley gets it.

Either they took too long and/or the process was corrupted once again and/or Neeld was not impressed by our club.

Neither is good.

 

[kulak]

"It's taken me my apprenticeship - 15 years coaching football at different levels as well as an education career. I have done as much as I possible can to be ready (to coach AFL)."



Burns 3 years....

2nd coming of Damian Drum?

 

[arrowman]

Either they took too long and/or the process was corrupted once again and/or Neeld was not impressed by our club.

Yes, because these are the only possibilities that present to a rational mind.

Neither is good.

Neither - this refers to which 2 of the 3 possibilities you listed?

 

[KUNG FU]

Yes, because these are the only possibilities that present to a rational mind.

I don't see how the three alternatives I presented are exclusive of the conclusions you presented.

You can't pull a positive out of this.

Either we stuffed up, Adelaide is not a very attractive club to coach, or we never really gave Neeld a free shot at the job.

Neither - this refers to which 2 of the 3 possibilities you listed?

Late edit.

 

[Glenno23]

I don't see how the three alternatives I presented are exclusive of the conclusions you presented.

You can't pull a positive out of this.

Either we stuffed up, Adelaide is not a very attractive club to coach, or we never really gave Neeld a free shot at the job.



Late edit.

Or Neeld wasn't as impressive as Sando, Burns or Bicks

 

[jenny61_99]

I don't care about getting the best candidate, I want us to obtain the most successful. And that will/can only be judged over time.

It doesn't matter if its Burns, Bickley or even Warrick ****ing Capper but if in 2 years time we have shown improvement and heading for success at a quick rate.

It won't achieve anything if we got the best candidate and then lost 17 or 18 games 2 years in a row as we will still suck. But if we get the most coach who can deliver success is what we want. That's why I'm nit gonna worry for 2 years, lets see where we can go.

This is absolutely the right approach!

Everything - every candidate - is completely theoretical at this stage. The one that presented the best may actually be crap in the long run. Only time will tell.

AND KF - there is no way we've botched this process. It is very clear that Burns was always their preferred choice. Might not have been yours, but you haven't seen all the presentations. They have. I'm glad the Club has taken their time (to a certain extent) to make sure we get the right fit for our needs.

 

[arrowman]

I don't see how the three alternatives I presented are exclusive of the conclusions you presented.

But they are the most pessimistic and negative interpretations, and you state them as if they were fact and the only possible interpretations.

You can't pull a positive out of this.

Why not? There are plenty of other interpretations, as I have listed.

Either we stuffed up, Adelaide is not a very attractive club to coach, or we never really gave Neeld a free shot at the job.

Once again - these are not the only possibilities!

1. We only "stuffed up" if (1) Neeld was our preferred option and (2) we were Neeld's preferred option.

2. If Neeld preferred Melbourne to Adelaide, that does not show that "Adelaide is not a very attractive club to coach". It could be either or both of
a. All other things being equal, he'd prefer to stay in Melbourne, and/or
b. For whatever reasons he sees Melbourne as being a better "fit" for what he wants to do and what he thinks he is capable of. That does not make Adelaide "unattractive".

3. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that "we never gave Neeld a free shot at the job".

As I said, the options you offer as if they were the only possible options, are simply the result of starting with the most negative possible view of the club and seeking out "evidence" to support your preconception.

Late edit.

Play on

 

[KUNG FU]

Or Neeld wasn't as impressive as Sando, Burns or Bicks

He might not have been the front-runner at the time, but we haven't even seen Burns yet. If Bicks or Sando gets the job, then that's a fair point.

AND KF - there is no way we've botched this process. It is very clear that Burns was always their preferred choice. Might not have been yours, but you haven't seen all the presentations. They have. I'm glad the Club has taken their time (to a certain extent) to make sure we get the right fit for our needs.

Can't you see that the process has been botched BECAUSE Burns has always been our favourite. He has been the favourite for good reason and I trust them to make a call over myself as humble outside observer.* However, given Trigg's past form with the previous appointment, I have no reason to have faith they have gone through the process properly. Taking their time now just seems like a PR exercise given that Burns started a very short favourite for the job and has only gone in since then.

*When the heck have I claimed to know more than the insiders? Have you forgotten all the times I copped flak defending you and your NC crusade.

 

[KUNG FU]

But they are the most pessimistic and negative interpretations, and you state them as if they were fact and the only possible interpretations.
Why not? There are plenty of other interpretations, as I have listed.
Once again - these are not the only possibilities!

Well, that's just a difference in rhetoric. I think we actually agree on this, but you're spinning it like a PR man, whereas I am acknowledging that Neeld signing to Melbourne is a bad thing. A bad thing to varying degrees depending on other unknown variables, but a bad thing nonetheless.

Not all of these assertions need to be true. But at least one of them certainly is.

1. We only "stuffed up" if (1) Neeld was our preferred option and (2) we were Neeld's preferred option.

The process has been stuffed up and taken too long. The end is something altogether. We might get lucky and get the end we wanted anyway, but that does not enthuse me about the capacity of our administration one bit.

2. If Neeld preferred Melbourne to Adelaide, that does not show that "Adelaide is not a very attractive club to coach". It could be either or both of
a. All other things being equal, he'd prefer to stay in Melbourne, and/or
b. For whatever reasons he sees Melbourne as being a better "fit" for what he wants to do and what he thinks he is capable of. That does not make Adelaide "unattractive".

Yes, but it does mean that a scrubber club like Melbourne is now catching up to us, and catching up quick. This is a bad omen and should not be that way considering the comparative advantages the Crows had over Melbourne 5 years ago.

3. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that "we never gave Neeld a free shot at the job".

We obviously went into the process with the preconception that Burns was the favourite; the media, the bookies, the fans all knew this. We've obviously accommodated to a greater degree than Burns.

As I said, the options you offer as if they were the only possible options, are simply the result of starting with the most negative possible view of the club and seeking out "evidence" to support your preconception.
Play on

Oh come on, my positivity-credentials are as good as anyone bar Jenny.

I acknowledge there are a number of unknown variables, but regardless

 

[macca23]

We don't know whetehr Trigg and crew have stuffed up or not with their far too lengthy process.

The only way that there could have been no hint of compromise about their process would have been if Adelaide was the first team to make an appointment, as that would have meant it definitely selected the person that they wanted, with all candidates available.

Further to that, Neeld obviously presented extremely well, not only to us but to Melbourne and the Bulldogs as well. He was obviously a very credible candidate. His removal from the field of applicants by becoming the Melbourne coach, before we had completed our search, is what unfortunately does leave an element of doubt about whether we will have got the best man for the job or not.

Now, it may well have been that Neeld wouldn't have got the job, and that Burns still would have, but we should have been the first to complete our process and make an appointment, and that would have prevented there ever being any thought of the process maybe being somewhat compromised.

 

[jenny61_99]

Or it could be that Melbourne dismissed the entire process and made a knee-jerk reaction the minute Lyon went to Freo and took whoever returned their call first.

 

[PykeDream]

Definitely wouldn't put it past them. They appear far too amateur and unorganised to have raced through a full selection process this quickly.

EDIT: I apologise for this comment, it was rude and in effect a cheap shot

 

[Elite Crow]

Or it could be that Melbourne dismissed the entire process and made a knee-jerk reaction the minute Lyon went to Freo and took whoever returned their call first.

Definitely wouldn't put it past them. They appear far too amateur and unorganised to have raced through a full selection process this quickly.

You both can't be serious. Hasn't it been 6 weeks since Bailey was sacked? Hasn't it been 8 weeks for us and we reckon that's too long?

Pretty sure Neeld mentioned that he was in serious discussion with Melbourne at the start of the week. Kelly also said he only receive a courtesy phone call from Gary Lyon.

Melbourne secured one of the leading candidates, we shouldnt think they have been anything but professional unless someone has some evidence to the contrary.

 

[Stiffy_18]

We don't know whetehr Trigg and crew have stuffed up or not with their far too lengthy process.

The only way that there could have been no hint of compromise about their process would have been if Adelaide was the first team to make an appointment, as that would have meant it definitely selected the person that they wanted, with all candidates available.

Further to that, Neeld obviously presented extremely well, not only to us but to Melbourne and the Bulldogs as well. He was obviously a very credible candidate. His removal from the field of applicants by becoming the Melbourne coach, before we had completed our search, is what unfortunately does leave an element of doubt about whether we will have got the best man for the job or not.

Now, it may well have been that Neeld wouldn't have got the job, and that Burns still would have, but we should have been the first to complete our process and make an appointment, and that would have prevented there ever being any thought of the process maybe being somewhat compromised.

You both can't be serious. Hasn't it been 6 weeks since Bailey was sacked? Hasn't it been 8 weeks for us and we reckon that's too long?

Pretty sure Neeld mentioned that he was in serious discussion with Melbourne at the start of the week. Kelly also said he only receive a courtesy phone call from Gary Lyon.

Melbourne secured one of the leading candidates, we shouldnt think they have been anything but professional unless someone has some evidence to the contrary.

These 2 pretty much sum it up from my perspective. Because Melbourne jumped in and announced Neeld, they had a knee-jerk reaction because Ross Lyon bolted to Freo. Typical small minded "No other club can be as professional as us" attitude of club ass kissers where the club is always right!

Despite the facts that:
- Ross Lyon's manager at the time Craig Kelly, confirmed Gary Lyon's story that there was only a courtesy phone call from the Melbourne FC!
- Mark Neeld confirmed that he was in serious discussions with Melbourne FC from Monday which is 3 days earlier than Ross Lyon leaving St. Kilda
- Steven Trigg flying over to Melbourne on Wednesday to meet with Mark Neeld despite the fact that he was there 3 days earlier for Neeld's presentation which by all reports was impressive!

But how dare we suggest that Adelaide had their pants pulled down and lost one of the candidates regardless of whether or not he was going to get the job at the time. I also question how can Scott Burns be our preferred candidate when he hasn't even presented to the selection panel when Trigg flew over to meet Neeld or when Neeld signed with Melbourne. If this is the case, I have serious question about the integrity of the process. How can a candidate that has not presented be your preferred candidate.

If this is a legit process, there is no way we could have preferred Burns to Neeld earlier this week simply because he hadn't presented at the time where by all reports Neelds presentation was very impressive!

There are a lot of legitimate questions that need to be asked of this process and I find it ridiculously small minded to suggest that Melbourne were not professional with their coaching search but we were only because they got their shit together and got it done before we did.

Like I said, whether Neeld was our preferred choice or not is not an issue here. What is an issue is the fact that our pool to select the best coach for this club was reduced by one because we had another team that started the process later name their coach before us. The coach that obviously happens to be one of our preferred candidates by the virtue of the fact he made it to the final stage of the process.

If Melbourne announced some other coach that didn't make it to our 2nd round then it would have been an irrelevant thing. As it stands its a relevant question to raise. Not that we will ever get a straight answer to the question.

 

[Elite Crow]

Exactly Stiffy, if anyone has come across as unprofessional it's us. We've anointed Burns as coach without a presentation. Today was a rubber stamp. Trigg basically admitted as much when he said our first choice was still available. How was he our first choice?

 

[jenny61_99]

Stiffy - I thought you'd get my "what if" scenarios by now.

Melbourne have had 6 weeks, and didn't look close to choosing anyone - about as close as we were, when Lyon goes off their radar and within 24 hours they've signed Neeld. It's entirely possible they did a panic. Garry Lyons certainly didn't want the job!

 

[jenny61_99]

Exactly Stiffy, if anyone has come across as unprofessional it's us. We've anointed Burns as coach without a presentation. Today was a rubber stamp. Trigg basically admitted as much when he said our first choice was still available. How was he our first choice?

Wasn't this a second presentation? He'd already done his initial presentation.

 

[Glenno23]

They're waiting for Burns to have the game tonight

After that, he'll be named. Monday arvo is my guess....

What?? At the same time that Bickley is giving a more detailed presentation?? .

Bickley had already given his final presentation..... Burns to be appointed tomorrow

 

[Elite Crow]

Stiffy - I thought you'd get my "what if" scenarios by now.

Melbourne have had 6 weeks, and didn't look close to choosing anyone - about as close as we were, when Lyon goes off their radar and within 24 hours they've signed Neeld. It's entirely possible they did a panic. Garry Lyons certainly didn't want the job!

How do you know Ross Lyon was on their radar?

 

[headache1]

If this is a legit process

If this were a legit process being implemented by a group of professionals, we would have seen presentations from our top candidates weeks ago. Without going in to what said candidates current work load was like and what was happening at their current team, at the end of the day, they were all assistant coaches with aspirations of being a senior coach. Surely, if it were such a big goal of theirs and they viewed the Adelaide Football Club as an attractive place to achieve this goal, they would have made time. It should have been as simple as, "You want to be a senior coach, we have the power to make that happen. Show us what you've got!".

For the club to suggest that it's all about the integrity of the process, yet come out and publicly state that Scott Burns was our preferred choice, despite not yet having presented to the club, is a huge contradiction. I'm not going to be unhappy if Burns is selected for the position, but it now seems obvious that he was pretty likely to get the job no matter what happened.

If it was indeed a legit process, it seems as though we spent the first month of it sitting around talking, while actually achieving sweet **** all.

 

[bing181]

Not particularly wanting to intrude on your board, hope it works out for you.

But just in terms of some of the comments on Melbourne's selection process, there's an interesting interview with Cameron Schwab on the Melb site, where a couple of points come out:

- we wanted to name our coach first. Pipped by Freeo, but he was clearly talking about the Crows/Dogs/Dees scenario

- we pretty well knew what we wanted from early in the process, and just went about getting the coach who fitted the requirements. He noted that the selection panel didn't want "death by Powerpoint", and they didn't even ask the candidates to analyse the list.

Each club has its own way of doing things at a given moment, and I don't know that it's appropriate to say that one process is necessarily better than the other, simply because it took a longer or a shorter time. It should also be remembered that we went through a fairly rigorous "Leading Teams" type process not that long ago, and the feeling seems to have been this time that we wanted to cut to the chase.

Finally, in terms of the timing, some people may well have the right idea, but perhaps with wrong leading players. We certainly needed to name our coach this week, not so much in response to RL to Freeo, but in response to Scully to GWS. It was a blow to the guts, and what better way forward. In fact, if it hadn't been for the Scully distractions Monday and last weekend, one wonders if we mightn't have named our coach earlier in the week, even before the RL events.

Carry on, and once again, good luck with the search. Hope you're as happy with your man as most of us are with ours.