In today's Herald Sun, Mike Sheehan announces that neither have signed.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/no-ink-on-dean-baileys-contract/story-e6frf9ox-1225848767672

I hope they don't. Your thoughts?

In today's Herald Sun, Mike Sheehan announces that neither have signed.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/no-ink-on-dean-baileys-contract/story-e6frf9ox-1225848767672

I hope they don't. Your thoughts?

IMMEDIATELY ICE this deal until Queens Birthday!

THE CLUB MUST LISTEN TO IT'S MEMBERS!

GG

In today's Herald Sun, Mike Sheehan announces that neither have signed.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/no-ink-on-dean-baileys-contract/story-e6frf9ox-1225848767672

I hope they don't. Your thoughts?

Agree, i hope they dont either. If we fail to win a game up until we play Richmond and we lose that one Bailey MUST go.

Sign it now.

Or don't.

Anyone that says otherwise clearly doesn't understand the issues.

Very interesting. Obviously a club insider has leaked this nugget to Sheehan.

In addition to Gary Lyon's less than effusive support of Bailey the other night,

more clear evidence that his tenure is not 100% secure.

Wait until round 12 I say. Let's see some improvement in this football team

before we go doling out contract extensions.

Edited April 2, 201015 yr by Spirit of Barassi

And when Bailey goes, who do we bring in?

Bring in a new coach and wait 3 years for their plans to start working.

I am not saying he is a great coach or a bad one, but we need to give him time with a team which is now trying to develop and hopefully win games. Given that they out and out tried to lose almost every game in the second half of last year, he needs some time to see how he goes this year.

I agree he should not be signed for next year yet, but I dont want a replacement coach/interim coach half way through this year.

And when Bailey goes, who do we bring in?

Bring in a new coach and wait 3 years for their plans to start working.

I am not saying he is a great coach or a bad one, but we need to give him time with a team which is now trying to develop and hopefully win games. Given that they out and out tried to lose almost every game in the second half of last year, he needs some time to see how he goes this year.

I agree he should not be signed for next year yet, but I dont want a replacement coach/interim coach half way through this year.

they'll sign the dotted line, but I wish the MFC has a serious think first for the future of our mighty club

This is exactly why we gave him an extension, to stop this kind of talk. The club needs to stick to it's guns and sign him NOW. Otherwise i feel the bad press to come of it would be a hell of a lot worse than if we have an average year and come under scrutiny. The bottom line is this, the club felt he was the best man for the job 2 weeks ago, after ONE poor showing against a top 4 contender, nothing should have changed.

Just sign him.

Very interesting. Obviously a club insider has leaked this nugget to Sheehan.

In addition to Gary Lyon's less than effusive support of Bailey the other night,

more clear evidence that his tenure is not 100% secure.

Wait until round 12 I say. Let's see some improvement in this football team

before we go doling out contract extensions.

Obviously Sheahan is desperately trying to create a "coach-in-crisis" situation where there is none.

Gotta sell papers somehow, even if it is after only one round.

I know for a fact Bailey doesn't have 100% support at the club; precious few coaches ever do.

But the board is smart enough to know the even they cannot judge him yet, as it is still too soon.

He's the best development coach in the game? (-Grant Thomas)

That's exactly what we need.

His tactical ability can be judged once we have a team capable of implementing said tactics.

Edited April 2, 201015 yr by Enforcer25

Obviously Sheahan is desperately trying to create a "coach-in-crisis" situation where there is none.

Gotta sell papers somehow, even if it is after only one round.

I know for a fact Bailey doesn't have 100% support at the club; precious few coaches ever do.

Don't know about "coach in crisis", but I certainly think it's newsworthy that the contract extension hasn't been signed.

If the Board are prepared to extend his contract then they clearly have made a judgement about him.

I think they realise the gaps in the list and the potential problems this has caused to MFC. I suspect behind closed doors the Club realises this is going to be a hard season and hence the message of patience. All be it last Saturday was a poor showing but there were clearly many reasons for this and not just possibly the Coach. I can see this patience being tested

If the Club do walk away from extneding Baliey's contract then I would have to ask questions about what their vision and why its so easily spooked.

His tactical ability can be judged once we have a team capable of implementing said tactics.

Disagree. I think it's pretty clear he's lagging in the tactical nous department. Having a young team doesn't preclude judgement in this area.

That's not something that should automatically prevent him re-signing though.

Don't know about "coach in crisis", but I certainly think it's newsworthy that the contract extension hasn't been signed.

The issue is has the contract negotiations stalled? If the negotiation of the contents is progressing as planned and both parties are seeking to execute in the normal course of events then there is not an issue.

We need to be careful was is being inferred here.

In today's Herald Sun, Mike Sheehan announces that neither have signed.

http://www.heraldsun...x-1225848767672

I hope they don't. Your thoughts?

Pathetic, you honour an agreement. They agreed so should keep their respect & integrity by Honouring such.

Remind me to never believe anything you promise.

Edited April 2, 201015 yr by dee-luded

Just read the article....

"The new contract, announced on February 24, remains unsigned as the parties settle on what are regarded as one or two minor details and formalities."

Storm in a teacup.

Just read the article....

"The new contract, announced on February 24, remains unsigned as the parties settle on what are regarded as one or two minor details and formalities."

Storm in a teacup.

Thought one would read the article before commenting in the first place

Thought one would read the article before commenting in the first place

Why?

My question about the state of contract negotiations was indeed pertinent.

And aside from the opening comment that the contract was unsigned (not unreasonable given the time) the article is a re hash of old news and scuttlebutt to fill newspaper space.

Fodder for the easily amused.

Even if the contract isn't signed, it's implied and if he has been given verbal assurance, I would imagine it's legally binding. If both parties drew up the contract with the proviso that things would have to show improvement before it was to be signed then that's another matter.

Even if the contract isn't signed, it's implied and if he has been given verbal assurance, I would imagine it's legally binding. If both parties drew up the contract with the proviso that things would have to show improvement before it was to be signed then that's another matter.

An unsigned contract is not legally binding. Verbal dispositions are open to interpretation and aint worth the legal fees to prove that.

I would love to know what sort of key performance indicators & criteria that need to be met/passed in order for the club to offer him a contract. I would say at this stage their expectations of Bailey are extremely low, he hasn't proved much other than being able to turn over a list and get some improvement from some players whilst other players have gone sideways or backwards. Tactically he has shown at times he is inept or is not capable of getting his players to carry out his instructions (one of the two). There is only so much you can do when you just plain and simple don't have the cattle, however when he was signed Bailey was signed as being a teacher and developer of players. I think the jury is still out whether he is capable of doing this. The players don't appear to have learned anything regarding kicking, handballing and running through zones. They continue to fail to make space to run into or run at all. The clubs contested footy is poor.

As a coach surely the bare minimum that is expected of you is that you get your players mentally ready, that your players can execute simple skills & that the team play hard contested football. Tell me if I'm wrong but I don't see much evidence that Bailey is going to instill that at this moment in time. I think expectations need to be raised if we are going to become a great club again, the bar is low at the moment due to our considerably young list. I just wonder if its too low in terms of asking for the basics of AFL football to be displayed by all players on our list.

Even if the contract isn't signed, it's implied and if he has been given verbal assurance, I would imagine it's legally binding. If both parties drew up the contract with the proviso that things would have to show improvement before it was to be signed then that's another matter.

An unsigned contract is just that Unsigned. It has no legal weight at all.

Still think the report is fairly meaningless at this stage, although Bails i hope coaches his proverbial Ring off this weekend.

Show the members what he and his assistants can do-get the team pumped to go, make the filth a little reactionary at times

If the contract is not signed by Round 12 then i will take notice

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/89859/default.aspx

I think it would be hard for MFC to disprove that there was an implied contract in place, signature or no signature.

I am not a lawyer either but I still believe that if you have given your verbal assurance and announced it to the general public, on your own website you would have difficulty defending any action against you for breach of contract.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/89859/default.aspx

I think it would be hard for MFC to disprove that there was an implied contract in place, signature or no signature.

I am not a lawyer either but I still believe that if you have given your verbal assurance and announced it to the general public, on your own website you would have difficulty defending any action against you for breach of contract.

Until anything is signed it is worth nothing. That is what a signature is, and why it came to be.

i do not wish to stir any pot here but there is no deal until pen and paper meet.

Handshake agreements are fine and have been used before, but in court they mean nothing.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/89859/default.aspx

I think it would be hard for MFC to disprove that there was an implied contract in place, signature or no signature.

I am not a lawyer either but I still believe that if you have given your verbal assurance and announced it to the general public, on your own website you would have difficulty defending any action against you for breach of contract.

The onus would be on Bailey to prove that the contract terms of an unsigned contract are enforceable.

MFC does not have to disprove anything as it has not been established that any terms are agreed.

All MFC has given in public is intention to enter contract negotiations.

The onus would be on Bailey to prove that the contract terms of an unsigned contract are enforceable.

MFC does not have to disprove anything as it has not been established that any terms are agreed.

All MFC has given in public is intention to enter contract negotiations.

"The Melbourne Football Club today announced that senior coach Dean Bailey has signed a new two year agreement for the 2010 and 2011 seasons, effectively extending his tenure by one year."

I'm not interested in going to war over this but it quite clearly states that the coach has signed a new contract. If the club agrees to a new contract and announces that one has been signed then.......