One year extension for the coach

[sylvias dukes 9]

You really love Dean Bailet 'rpfc.' There is no need to sign him for 2011 just look at Mick Malthouse and Rodney Eade. If the board assesses that Bailey is doing an adequate job next year then they will resign him. This is what I mean by using the term 'Dean Bailey Love' there are some people here who think this man is a doing a splendid job even though he has done nothing other then manufacure losses and played some youngsters

[CarnTheDees 52]

You really love Dean Bailet 'rpfc.' There is no need to sign him for 2011 just look at Mick Malthouse and Rodney Eade. If the board assesses that Bailey is doing an adequate job next year then they will resign him. This is what I mean by using the term 'Dean Bailey Love' there are some people here who think this man is a doing a splendid job even though he has done nothing other then manufacure losses and played some youngsters

Correct

[rpfc 27,544]

Correct

That's 'Correct'?!

Some of you set a low bar for posters to be 'Correct.'

Make no mistake, my desire to give him 1 year now is to avoid giving him another 2, most likely 3, years on very little evidence.

Whether you extend half way through 2010 or at the end (you are naive if you think they will wait until the end of the season), the fact remains that he will get his 5th or 6th season.

I want to give him his 4th season now to better assess whether he is the coach to take us to a flag.

I have got little idea whether he can coach, but I tell you one thing, we won't have a much better idea in 6-8 months time.

[Akum 2,660]

You really love Dean Bailet 'rpfc.' There is no need to sign him for 2011 just look at Mick Malthouse and Rodney Eade. If the board assesses that Bailey is doing an adequate job next year then they will resign him. This is what I mean by using the term 'Dean Bailey Love' there are some people here who think this man is a doing a splendid job even though he has done nothing other then manufacure losses and played some youngsters

You're right to a point - there's also been list management, player management (e.g. Morton developing defensive skills; Brock playing in positions other than on-ball), and getting more out of certain established players (best examples being Sylvia, Davey & Jamar).

But you have actually made a very good argument for giving him a 1-year extension. Because from 2010 draft picks are no longer a part of the coaching "equation", so it's almost a different job requiring him to display a different set of skills. And the two big question marks we all have about DB are:

(1) What are his skills as a match-day coach? In other words, can he make moves during a game that bring about a win that we might not have got without the moves?

(2) Can he develop a good game plan that doesn't just look pretty but brings about wins, especially under pressure?

It's these two aspects of coaching (there may be more) that are going to decide whether we stick with him for an extended period or not.

So far, he hasn't been required to do either, so we can't say yes or no. As far as I'm concerned, we'll need at least a full season to be able to judge this. Half a season isn't going to be nearly enough to know either way, so if we leave it until the pressure's really on (at about the same time of the year that cost Wallace, Laidley and nearly Williams their jobs in 2009), there won't be enough eviodence to decide either way.

IMO, by mid-2011, there will be very little doubt about whether DB is the right coach to take us to the next stage, or whether he's done the tough stuff but can't take us further. It's not out of "DB-love" that I argue for the 1-year extension, it's just to avoid the situation where the club has to make an extremely important decision based on too-little evidence.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Akum

[CarnTheDees 52]

For those who are advocating a 1-year extension now - What exactly is the reason that we should give it to him now as opposed to during next season?

I mean, the end result will be the same (he will have coached 4 years) so why not wait until we've seem more from him? And then if we really like what we see by late or the end of next year then we can give him another 1 or 2 if it's deserved.

I want something relevant, not just "media scrutiny blah blah blah", as that can't surely be the prime motivating factor in deciding coaching reappointments. Do you honestly think that CS, JS etc and/or who else it is that decides on DB's contract will sit down and say "well we should give him an extra year now even though we're not sure he's the right man for the job just in case the newspapers start giving us some grief about it during next season"?

Edited October 1, 2009 by CarnTheDees

[rpfc 27,544]

For those who are advocating a 1-year extension now - What exactly is the reason that we should give it to him now as opposed to during next season?

I mean, the end result will be the same (he will have coached 4 years) so why not wait until we've seem more from him? And then if we really like what we see by late or the end of next year then we can give him another 1 or 2 if it's deserved.

It won't be a 1 year extension if he gets a contract half way through next year; it will be 2 or 3 years.

Think about it - you cannot give another 12 months when you are 3 months away from expiry. It will be 24 months or 36 months.

We have spring cleaned the list, got Trengove, and now we have to give Bailey more than the first half of 2010 to get us back up the ladder.

I can't believe that people don't credit this idea as a compromise between getting rid of him too early and giving him a long contract on little evidence.

I'm wary of him, but it looks like I have unlimited faith in him.

Therein lies the cunning beauty of my plan...

We agreed?

Good.

Thread done.

[Rogue 585]

most likely 3, years on very little evidence.

There's no reason it would 'most likely' be three. In fact, I think it's more likely to be 2.

Of course, it suits your argument to portray the choice as either a one-year extension now or a three-year extension later.

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

I believe the compromise step, the prudent step, with regard to Dean Bailey's position is to give him a one year extension right now to give him a year and a half to get us back up the ladder.

If we go into next year as is, and reassess after Rd 11-15 we will have fired the coach or given him another three years based on 11-15 rounds of evidence.

That isn't how you run a successful footy club.

Let's hedge our bets and take the prudent step.

Give him 2011 right now.

Nope. He's had two years of @#$%ing around and being able to excuse losses with either "rebuilding" or "tanking". I also understand that he was told that last years tanking was fine and wouldn't be held against him.

Don't get me wrong - I like what he has done with hard deals and by getting new leases of life out of almost given up on players, and FWIW I think he has the makings of a quality coach and I am happy with what he has done BUT there are some ????'s over him. It is one thing to show that he can get some previously NQRs' to show some form, and to play kids here there and everywhere on some masterplan but it is another thing to make it all gel and produce wins.

Unless we are getting smashed in every game and we have obviously gone backwards then there is no reason why we shouldn't wait until the end of next year to review where he is at. So until then it is a big NO from me. If he can't give us 7+ wins next year then he has failed unless he can point to half a dozen key players that have had injuries at crucial times.

What you are proposing is the same as giving Newton the 2 year contract. Sure, he took the mark of the year and showed glimpses but that was it. That is how I see Yoda at the moment. He now needs to start kicking goals to prove to me he is worth the extention. If the players are on notice that near enough isn't good enough then so should he.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Rojik of the Arctic

[beelzebub 22,236]

Nope. He's had two years of @#$%ing around and being able to excuse losses with either "rebuilding" or "tanking". I also understand that he was told that last years tanking was fine and wouldn't be held against him.

Im inclined to think any thinking this way have got it arse about.. He isnt about using rebuilding or experimentation as EXCUSES ...This has been his job !! He has had to do this as part of the process. To punish a man for simply doing what will have been asked of him is abhorent.

For me he's already done some hard yards and it ought to be reciprocated.

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

Im inclined to think any thinking this way have got it arse about.. He isnt about using rebuilding or experimentation as EXCUSES ...This has been his job !! He has had to do this as part of the process. To punish a man for simply doing what will have been asked of him is abhorent.

For me he's already done some hard yards and it ought to be reciprocated.

Please re-read what I said. I understand that he was told that the "experimentation" was OK , was probably board sanctioned, and wouldn't be held against him in 2009. But this year is different.

Just have another look at the first paragraph again and you will see we agree.

[beelzebub 22,236]

Please re-read what I said. I understand that he was told that the "experimentation" was OK , was probably board sanctioned, and wouldn't be held against him in 2009. But this year is different.

Just have another look at the first paragraph again and you will see we agree.

I cant see how.. you would wait in pr3eference to the en of next year..i would give another year now.. where are we in accord ? Just asking

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

I cant see how.. you would wait in pr3eference to the en of next year..i would give another year now.. where are we in accord ? Just asking

I was agreeing that Bailey was asked to get the picks. That is what you called me on. But if we could have the deal between Bails and the admin over that I don't see why we can't have the same on this year but with different KPI's. We have good talent and it is now up to him to show he can coach them to win. I have faith but not the blind sort so I want to see some results.

Seriously, what would you do if we got flogged and "won" another spoon next year and he had a year to run? I don't see it happening but we can't afford to throw away 300k like that. Also we really don't have to worry about him getting poached.

[old55 21,383]

One doesn't follow from the other.

First, this assumes that Bailey would disregard the plan he and others have put in place. I feel this is possible but not probable. If Bailey went down this path I think he's the wrong man for the job.

Second, this assumes that it would be in Bailey's self-interest to deviate from the plan. I don't believe he will or would only be judged on wins and losses. In fact, I contend that selfish coaching would not help but hamper his chances of a contract extension. If selfish coaching would assist his contract extension chances then we need new management.

That said, it's not like Bailey could dispense with the youth policy in any significant way - the only older players we have are likely to be best 22 (McDonald's our captain, Bruce and Green are still playing decent footy).

You're not giving him any incentive to stick to the plan - it's got to be a two-way street.

The reason I am saying extend him for 1 now is that with our young team and now McLean gone it's unlikley we're going to see wins until into the 2011 season.

What more conclusive evidence are you expecting mid to late 2010?

Put up some targets for 2010 for recontracting him - that's what Bailey would want and reasonably expect.

What measurement are you going to put to him so that he can aim for that in 2010 to get a contract extension at some stage?

[beelzebub 22,236]

If we get flogged and get another spoon we might as well all give it away and take up darts Thats not going to happen. My view is he has two years to create what we have now, he ought to be given the same two years to do something with it. fair's fair !!

We've accomplished an incredible amoutn in a short while really in overhauling this team It needs at least a year to gel and another to ride that success with honing and improvement. To expect anyone to all but bang on the 8 in a year is I think just unrealistic.

I would think you would be better placed ( indeed better PACED) to be able to work you wonders over two seasons without thinking you need to fabricate a short term look of success in stead of a real one, one that yakes a littel longer but sticks around.

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

If we get flogged and get another spoon we might as well all give it away and take up darts.

Not us. Him. Hey, if you want to be part of a Terry Wallace 5 year 20 year plan be my guest but go do it at the Panton Hill 3rds. I want to see KPI's being met before my membership $$$'s are given to the coach. Not now but after the end of 2010.

[old55 21,383]

Not us. Him. Hey, if you want to be part of a Terry Wallace 5 year 20 year plan be my guest but go do it at the Panton Hill 3rds. I want to see KPI's being met before my membership $$$'s are given to the coach. Not now but after the end of 2010.

List Bailey's KPIs for 2010 then ...

[Rogue 585]

You're not giving him any incentive to stick to the plan - it's got to be a two-way street.

If he doesn't stick to the plan he doesn't get recontracted - I reckon that's incentive enough.

The reason I am saying extend him for 1 now is that with our young team and now McLean gone it's unlikley we're going to see wins until into the 2011 season.

I'm well aware that next year's likely to be a tough one. I've been pouring cold water on the idea that we're in for a sudden and dramatic rise up the ladder, and this was before we lost McLean.

What more conclusive evidence are you expecting mid to late 2010?

Put up some targets for 2010 for recontracting him - that's what Bailey would want and reasonably expect.

What measurement are you going to put to him so that he can aim for that in 2010 to get a contract extension at some stage?

I don't know that there's ever conclusive evidence but there's certainly going to be more evidence after three years than there is two, isn't there? You get to know an employee better with every year that they work for you, surely?

Coming into this year I didn't think our wins/losses would necessarily show our improvement, but I felt we would and had to improve and this would be reflected in our percentage. I believe it has been.

I'm not sure about KPIs for coaches, but wins/losses (and percentage) are pretty simplistic. I don't employee AFL coaches but I imagine those that do have a better idea. I'll have a think about it, but I'm open to suggestions - what do you think?

However, I think this is the wrong way around. The 'burden of proof' should be those pushing for the recontract now. Otherwise what's the rush?

The main reason I've seen put forward is that we fear external pressure if Melbourne are struggling halfway through the season. If we're going to have little conclusive evidence after three years it strikes me that we'll have less now. To me, external pressure isn't a very convincing reason to recontract someone.

The only other reason I can think of is fear of losing DB. How many Clubs are going to be circling?

[CarnTheDees 52]

The only quantitative KPI I would have would be: Minimum of 6 wins.

The rest would be qualitative; relating to match-day performance, man-management of players and staff, 'game plan' development etc.

In the end it would be the powers-that-be sitting down and asking the question: "Do we think that Bailey is the best available man to take MFC toward a premiership in the next X years"? It would be a purely judgement call from people who are experienced in the AFL industry.

EDIT: Rogue's post above summarises all that needs to be said regarding this issue, far more eloquently than I am capable of.

Edited October 2, 2009 by CarnTheDees

[old55 21,383]

However, I think this is the wrong way around. The 'burden of proof' should be those pushing for the recontract now. Otherwise what's the rush?

The main reason I've seen put forward is that we fear external pressure if Melbourne are struggling halfway through the season. If we're going to have little conclusive evidence after three years it strikes me that we'll have less now. To me, external pressure isn't a very convincing reason to recontract someone.

The only other reason I can think of is fear of losing DB. How many Clubs are going to be circling?

Give him incentive to pursue development ahead of wins, give him incentive to pursue longer term goals.

I think it's highly likely we'll be bottom 4 next year as we get games into Watts, Blease, Strauss, McKenzie and our 2009 draft recruits.

He's being doing exactly that so far and we want him to continue.

You have been unable to come up with any measures for recontracting him next year because like me you want to see more development.

If Bailey thinks this is his last year then it's very reasonable that he will push for wins above all else if you can't give him a better metric.

If you're worried about the disaster scenario that we go equal to or worse than 2009 then you can put a floor in that the extra year depends on better than 4 wins. I think it's quite reasonable to start expecting wins in 2011 - out of the bottom 4 (or 5 with GC included) would be a reasonable benchmark for 2011.

[Still Waiting 94]

It just interests me that other clubs have taken a LOT less than 3 + years to rise well off the bottom and push into / just out of the 8.

I'm just talking about on field here.

Fair dinkum , if in other industries, a team or group failed to satisfactorally perform for 3+ years in a row, they wouldn't have jobs.

Why are there so many supporters on here who are OK-ing expected poor on field results for next season?

I absolutely expect a minimum of 6 and preferably 8-10 wins in 2010.

There are too many Dee supporters happy to accept mediocrity over a long period of time.

The Off-field team is motoring well and now the coaches and playing staff have to do the same, show SOME positive results.

Why don't more forum users demand a little bit more next year.

What are you frightened of, getting criticised by warm, fuzzy, leave-them-alone, types?

How did Jim Stynes tackle problems when he payed his 244 in a row? He just got on with it and we never heard excuses uttered from him. We gotta do the same as a footy team, in general.

We need to take a bit of inspiration from Jimmy and not accept excuses for continued poor performances.

[old55 21,383]

It just interests me that other clubs have taken a LOT less than 3 + years to rise well off the bottom and push into / just out of the 8.

I don't just want just "to rise well off the bottom and push into / just out of the 8" in 3 years

I want to win the flag in 7 (from when Bailey started)

[rpfc 27,544]

I don't just want just "to rise well off the bottom and push into / just out of the 8" in 3 years

I want to win the flag in 7 (from when Bailey started)

Obviously, our heads are at the some place.

Look, I want a flag, and I am willing to wait a few years and put up with some more losses.

I don't want Miller to play ahead of Watts, if that's the choice. If we are playing NM in Rd 10 and we are 1 and 8 and Watts is competing with Miller, I want some surety that Bailey picks the bloke we need to put games into (Watts) rather than the bloke that might creep up his W/L record (Miller). And that the MFC thanks him for it.

And we are playing a non-zero-sum game in a zero-sum competition - the list he has helped assemble will be far better when/if he leaves than when he started. This isn't Frawley getting Tim Fleming or Wallace trading for McMahon.

In fact, outside of top 15 picks that we have 'earned' - Bailey and Co. have also added Grimes and Pick 11 this year to make sure that the MFC is much better placed years after his 3 years is up.

As for concrete KPIs - how would we measure? If it is opinion, well that is subjective and hardly scientific, and unlikely to change inside 6 months. If it is a hard and fast '6 wins' measurement, does that not paint us into a corner?

And, finally, flippantly saying that all I care about is 'how the media/'footy world' sees us' and then stipulating that any extension should involve the opinion of said 'footy world' or AFL Industry Experts (whoever the hell they are - hello, Robert Walls) is flagrant hypocrisy.

Edited October 2, 2009 by rpfc

[old55 21,383]

Rogue's argument is that we'll be better placed late 2010 than we are now to make a call.

rpfc and I ask "how much better" and rpfc points out we may cause an undesirable change of strategy to occur.

rpfc and I are saying we will certainly be better placed by late 2011 to make the call and there's no risk of a strategy change.

For the nervous nellies who are frightened of a worse 2010 than 2009, then factor that in to the contract extension.

Edited October 2, 2009 by old55

[H_T 2,941]

Make no mistake, my desire to give him 1 year now is to avoid giving him another 2, most likely 3, years on very little evidence.

So, why not also avoid giving him a 1 year extension now if you're going to 'avoid' giving Bailey another 2 or 3 years next year?

I have got little idea whether he can coach, but I tell you one thing, we won't have a much better idea in 6-8 months time.

But we may have a better idea in 9-10 months time.

[rpfc 27,544]

So, why not also avoid giving him a 1 year extension now if you're going to 'avoid' giving Bailey another 2 or 3 years next year?

I am not damning him.

I don't know if he can coach. Giving him 2 years from now provides a greater window to see if he is the one for our flag tilt.

But we may have a better idea in 9-10 months time.

How much better?

Enough to give him another 36 months?

You cannot go in with a 12 month extension at any stage next year. It would be a startling lack of faith.

I reiterate, 24 or 36 months will be given if he is re-signed during 2010.

And this is my point - give him his 4th year now, so that if he isn't the right coach for us he doesn't waste 5 or possibly 6 years of our time.

Which would be a possibility if we re-signed him in 2010 on half a year of misleading evidence.

Bruce, Green, McDonald getting 30 touches each and Brad Miller kicking 3 goals in tight wins against NM, Rich, Freo, WCE, and PA early next season do not excite me, but it would earn a 3-year contract extension for Bailey. However, it would prove that he was distracted from his stated goal of developing this team for a flag tilt.

He isn't above human fault, he will move toward self-preservation if the circumstances push him there.