When is the earliest we are looking at winning a premiership? 2012?

It means that we have a coach who is coaching us through development years who has shown that he is an excellent developer of young players. If he is extended until the end of 2011 then the worst thing that could happen is we discover he's not a very good finishing coach (in years where we don't need a finishing coach). If it turns out he's not the coach to take an excellent list to premiership then we'll have the opportunity to replace him before such time as we are actually challenging for a flag, and the players have been further developed by an excellent developing coach.

It also means that Bailey can focus on developing the players in 2010 rather than sacrificing development in the search for cheap wins early in 2010 in order to get a contract extension. And, in reality, after 2 years and additional 10 weeks is not going to tell us too much more - plus we'd then have to offer a 2 year contract taking us to the end of 2012.

Plus it also adds stability during a period where the media will be sniffing for blood. Sorry scumsuckers, there's nothing here to see here - so move on to Mark Harvey.

What's a "cheap win" and how does it compare with racking up a series of "expensive defeats"?

Personally i think that Bailey has sacificed alot for the MFC and should be given no less than a two year extention...

Load of krap. Anyone would think the MFC is here for the benefit of Dean Bailey.

Wouldn't give him an inch until we have evidence that the team has improved in 2010.

We will look really stupid if he's given an extension then the team goes backwards in 2010.

Lock him in now while he's cheap. If we wait too long he'll have too much bargaining power.

GIve him one year and give yourself the chance to see if Bailey is as capable a finishing coach ans he is a development coach.

FWIW, I think Axis of Bob nails it here.

So RR, you're now firmly on the one year extension bandwagon I take it ?

No longer the 2 year extension bandwagon..?

NB. Please excuse me if I missed your change in decision on a previous thread.

A "cheap win" is a win that, while giving everyone a nice fuzzy feeling inside, actually does nothing to bring us closer to a premiership.

I we win 6 games by playing Scully, Trengove, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Spencer, Bennell, Tapscott and Gysberts then we are developing our side into a premiership contender far better than if we get an extra couple of "cheap wins" and win 8 games by playing Dunn, Bell, Bartram, Johnson and Cheney every week.

If Bailey thinks that the best way to develop Jack Watts is to play him as a key forward in the AFL then I don't want Bailey to play a small forward line instead because he thinks that we are more likely to win games that way. If Bailey thinks that Grimes will learn more by playing as a run with player this year then I don't want him to play Grimes at half back because he thinks that's the best way to win the game. Bartram will help us win games of footy this year, but if he's not part of a future premiership team then I would rather Bailey play a young kid.

I don't want Bailey to venture away from the plan of developing a premiership side simply because he needs to chase some meaningless wins in 2010. We're not going to win the flag this year, so the difference between winning 6 games and winning 8 games is not a whole lot. It may help a few supporters feel better about themselves, but it's not helping us win a premiership.

BTW, an "expensive loss" would be like the Bulldgogs against St Kilda in the prelim and St Kilda had an expensive loss against Geelong in the Grand Final. Losing to make your record 6-16 rather than 7-15 is not an expensive loss. Good on you for not enjoying losses, but the war is still ongoing and we have many, many battles till to fight - none of the battles in 2010 will cost us the war.

......................................................................... 2 years would be minimun and 1 year would be an insult

Strongly agree with that Swampy.

Given the 'run-down' state of our playing list when Bailey arrived at the MFC two years ago, offering him a one year extension now would be akin to offering a new senior coach a one year gig. It just wouldn't happen, not even at Richmond!

Few would argue that Bailey has done an excellent job transforming a dilapidated list into one that is now brim full of promise, but one that is clearly very young and inexperienced. He has consistently argued that getting game experience into our youngsters is the next priority, and he has urged supporters to understand that this is a pre-requisite for sustained success, and hopefully the premiership(s) that we all crave. This makes a great deal of sense to me.

Bailey should now be given the opportnuty to get 50+ games into the youngsters who will form the nucleus of our team for years to come. Making premature judgements about his coaching ability based on his W/L record during a period of extensive individual player and team development would be irresponsible IMO.

A "cheap win" is a win that, while giving everyone a nice fuzzy feeling inside, actually does nothing to bring us closer to a premiership.

I we win 6 games by playing Scully, Trengove, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Spencer, Bennell, Tapscott and Gysberts then we are developing our side into a premiership contender far better than if we get an extra couple of "cheap wins" and win 8 games by playing Dunn, Bell, Bartram, Johnson and Cheney every week.

If Bailey thinks that the best way to develop Jack Watts is to play him as a key forward in the AFL then I don't want Bailey to play a small forward line instead because he thinks that we are more likely to win games that way. If Bailey thinks that Grimes will learn more by playing as a run with player this year then I don't want him to play Grimes at half back because he thinks that's the best way to win the game. Bartram will help us win games of footy this year, but if he's not part of a future premiership team then I would rather Bailey play a young kid.

I don't want Bailey to venture away from the plan of developing a premiership side simply because he needs to chase some meaningless wins in 2010. We're not going to win the flag this year, so the difference between winning 6 games and winning 8 games is not a whole lot. It may help a few supporters feel better about themselves, but it's not helping us win a premiership.

BTW, an "expensive loss" would be like the Bulldgogs against St Kilda in the prelim and St Kilda had an expensive loss against Geelong in the Grand Final. Losing to make your record 6-16 rather than 7-15 is not an expensive loss. Good on you for not enjoying losses, but the war is still ongoing and we have many, many battles till to fight - none of the battles in 2010 will cost us the war.

Well stated responses on both posts Axis of Bob- agreed but I do think they need to set goals still- 7 games should be their target. When Schwab,Bails etc went overseas late last year to look at coaching etc at other clubs- my brain said to me the club was investing in a coach for more than 1 year hence the thoughts of extension.Hopefully and I expect only one more year - re end of 2011.

I think most people miss the fact that a 1 year extension is potentially a good thing from Bailey's perspective.

Obviously the guy has confidence in his ability and should he show he has the goods in the space of that extra year he can get a significant pay upgrade, instead of being locked into a lower scale of pay for an extra year.

Security is an issue, but I doubt he'd go into it with a defensive and defeatist attitude re: his contract terms. If he did, I doubt he'd prevail.

Same goes for Miller and Jamar on their 1 year contracts.

2 extra years. In my limited interactions with him I believe the club was along way behind other clubs in terms of developing young talent during the ND years.

Therefore this year is really when his coaching will begin, so an extra 2 years would give him time to build the team he wants.

I can imagine he got the job by being brutally honest about how he viewed the success of the club over his first two years and what was required to improve it. This view would have been shared by staff in the football department who were honest in where we were sitting. Information that he didn't want to chase a marque player reinforces that view.

So now he has a great base of young talent and can mould it to his vision. I believe we'll win more games this year than experts recommend and be more competitive overall. Even last year the number of floggings declined even against the good side, we just didn't have the finishing power in the team to get over the line.

The future is bright and Bailey will be there till the end of 2012 if the club sticks to its plan.

So RR, you're now firmly on the one year extension bandwagon I take it ?

No longer the 2 year extension bandwagon..?

NB. Please excuse me if I missed your change in decision on a previous thread.

The perspective is that if we waited until the end of next year when Bailey's contract is up then I believe we would have to offer him a new contract on potentially new terms one of which would be a minimum of 2 years. At that point now if we offered only one year IMO it reflects a lack of confidence in the Board and potentially risks the continued development of our talent basis in the quest of 2 year outcomes.

By acting now and giving him a one year extension to the existing contract allows Bailey to continue to develop the side with the confidence having two years to do so without risk of short term or media induced outcomes. MFC have a better window to judge Bailey as he move through the development stage and gives confidence to Bailey to continue on the proper path he has taken to date

NB. You're excused thinking that there was a change.

Fine form Axis of Bob!!!!

Its expected that Dean Bailey and Melbourne will announce a contract extension for Bailey during the NAb Cup. I think its smart because he does deserve a chance with this list and it will stop speculation this year as it would have been his final year. Hopefully the meida will lay off him and we perfom well for him.

Something seems odd about giving him an extension and then not announcing it for 6 weeks...

Herald Sun now has an article on it -

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/dean...o-1225818579886

In this article link it quotes: -

A low-key announcement is expected in the coming weeks as the Demons prepare for a tilt at the NAB Cup

I'd say it would be before the NAB Cup.

Edited January 13, 201015 yr by High Tower

It also means that Bailey can focus on developing the players in 2010 rather than sacrificing development in the search for cheap wins early in 2010 in order to get a contract extension. And, in reality, after 2 years and additional 10 weeks is not going to tell us too much more - plus we'd then have to offer a 2 year contract taking us to the end of 2012.

While I agree with the crux of your post, I'm not convinced by this argument. I don't see how a "few cheap wins" is going to help him as I doubt whoever is reviewing his position (presumably it will be Schwab and Connolly) are going to be sucked in by this. I hope they have a fixed set of criteria for Bailey's extension and I doubt it's tied all that closely to a number of wins at this stage of our list development. I'd be disappointed if it was.

1 year is plenty, this gives him the next 2 years to prove that his methods are working. Any more than that is jumping the gun. Let's wait until we see a few more games in the 'W' column before we start throwing more years into the mix.

Correct on all counts :angry:

Lock him in now while he's cheap. If we wait too long he'll have too much bargaining power.

oh please...I can assure you none of the other AFL clubs will be out there trying to poach Dean Who?

I like that we're getting it out of the way so that it isn't lingering around during the season.

But we need to see improvement this year to be sure that Bailey is the right man for the job. I'm confident he is, and I'm confident this year we'll start our climb up the ladder, but in case we don't, there's no need to extend the contract any more.

Surprised you would even give him 3 months

Not surprised you quoted his win loss ratio

FWIW, i don't think a club should go into a season with the coach's contract finishing at the end of that season. Much too unsettling - plenty of examples.

Give Bailey 1 yr extension

- worst case, we have a poor year, and a settlement is made for him to move on end of 2010

- best case, we have a good year, and he gets an extra 2 years (til 2013)

Either way, there is no destructive "contract talk".

Regarding Johnstone trade: if Bailey gets the credit for that, he can have the credit (sic) for drafting Meeson for 3 years.

Also on the debit side is Newton's 2 yr contract. Absolutely the dumbest thing I can remember seeing in AFL football, bar none.

I was an extreme critic of Bailey early on (and justifiably so, I believe). But I have pulled my head in since. I remain to be convinced by Bailey, but nobody deserves to go into a season on the last year of a contract.

If we give him a 1 year extension now it means we have until mid 2011 to assess his coaching. In reality we're not going to find out if he's premiership coach material until we're actually challenging in 2013 onwards. The only thing we can find out in the meantime is if he can't coach us towards a flag. We're not going to know that by R10 next year but in a year and a half we'll have some solid evidence.

In this article link it quotes: -

I'd say it would be before the NAB Cup.

Possibly at our GM- 4TH February

Furthermore, we could alter his contract to extend his contract, say for a further year or two subject to certain criterias.

Edited January 13, 201015 yr by jayceebee31

If we give him a 1 year extension now it means we have until mid 2011 to assess his coaching. In reality we're not going to find out if he's premiership coach material until we're actually challenging in 2013 onwards. The only thing we can find out in the meantime is if he can't coach us towards a flag. We're not going to know that by R10 next year but in a year and a half we'll have some solid evidence.

Beg to differ. I think we'll know by mid year as to whether he can or can't coach and if it's clear that he can't then the usual suspects in the media will be onto him in no time, contract extension or not because that's their nature.

I don't care how long it is for, as long as Bailey gets extended.

A 1 year extension in the next few weeks as the media has reported would be ideal.

Beg to differ. I think we'll know by mid year as to whether he can or can't coach and if it's clear that he can't then the usual suspects in the media will be onto him in no time, contract extension or not because that's their nature.

In that case, why do clubs not just appoint rookie coaches for 6 months? After all, you'll know whether they can coach or not by round 11.

Yeah, fair call I guess.

Johnstone wasn't too hard a decision though, and neither was McLean once you put yourself in his position.

I thing "aggressive list management to secure Trengove" is tripe.

I was thinking more in terms of Robertson, Yze, White, Wheatley, Whelan -- these were all fairly straight forward decisions in my book.

I don't think a lot of other coaches would've traded Johnstone away, considering he was one of our best players at the time and just came off a 40-odd possession game to finish the year off. So too Robertson, our highest goal kicker last year. And obviously McLean walked.

When Trengove becomes a superstar, you know the game to remember and who to thank.

Great news btw. If we're 0-3 and Watts playing and having no impact, the media will be right onto us, the pressure will build and unsettle the playing group. So it will be great to have all that contract stuff out of the way early on.

Edited January 13, 201015 yr by BattlerBailey

Beg to differ. I think we'll know by mid year as to whether he can or can't coach and if it's clear that he can't then the usual suspects in the media will be onto him in no time, contract extension or not because that's their nature.

Depends on where you think the list is at.

Supporters have a propensity to get well ahead of themselves.

I may have mentioned that a one year extension was on the cards late last footy season, i had spoken to someone who said it could be as early as the day after i was told which obviously didnt happen, but it will happen as it has now been made public.

I reckon a year is good deal, bailey has done what he had to do, sacrafice his win loss % for the betterment of the club, and i expect that he would have taken on the job with this as very real prospect. I dont think it is out of the question that he was appointed purely as a intereim coach, someone to dig in, make tough choices with the threat of a short lived contract hanging over his head. And another year is probably on the money.

Depends on where you think the list is at.

Supporters have a propensity to get well ahead of themselves.

This is a critical point.

From our stockpiling of early draft picks we have the following:

regular players: Morton, Grimes

fringe: Maric, Watts

yet to debut: Blease, Strauss, Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Tapscott

There seems to be an expectation that all of the above players are going to be ready to win matches for us in 2010.

There's absolutely no guarantees that any player in the bottom two categories will make it in AFL.

I think its going to be a horrible year on this board and Bailey is going to cop it even more so if his contract is extended and regardless of whether he can coach or not.