Two points

1. Is this another knee-jerk reaction? I thought we were putting a process in place to find the best "value for money" candidate available. Is Clarkson so far ahead of the field that nobody else even warrants an interview? We know from several recent articles that Gary is a huge fan - but he was one of those who recommended Bailey .... so his judgment is not perfect.

2. What chance is there of Clarkson leaving a club which is still in the premiership window - with money, facilities and supporters ? Now that Jeff's gone, Hawthorn must look pretty attractive to him. If could well be that all we are doing is pushing up Hawthorn's offer price - and flagging to the footy world that whoever we finally get will not be our preferred choice.

Let's hope Caro's off the money with this one ... for the time being at least

PS That is not say that we shouldn't consider him

Edited August 19, 201113 yr by hoopla

PS That is not say that we shouldn't consider him

nice backtrack.

OH PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

The Malthouse talk always had the smell of smokescreen for me, with Clarkson clearly the right man for us and that we would have a go.

Knows the club from the inside. Has the right level of a---hole that a coach needs,

Even with a $5 million five year deal we are an outside chance only.

The key is the Hawks won't be able to give him five years - obviously the dough is big but five years in his caper is a lifetime.

As to those asking where did we get the money- I suspect that's what the big end of town is supposed to supply and I would not be surprised if some promises have been made assuming we get the right bloke...

1. F... the process. If you internally agree that one person is amongst a few targets, their CV is very good and they are out of contract - you let them know that you are an option.

Let him know we are an option - and offering $5m before considering the value for money elsewhere - are two different things

Edited August 19, 201113 yr by hoopla

- and flagging to the footy world that whoever we finally get will not be our preferred choice.

It will be forgotten pretty quickly. North publically wanted Buckley as their first choice, I don't think it is an issue now.

Let him know we are an option - and offering $5m before considering the value for money elsewhere - are two different things

'Value for money elsewhere'?

I don't understand.

Yeah, Neeld at $300k would be cheaper, but he isn't a proven flag winning coach who is out of contract.

The key to this 'offer' which I am sure was just ballpark figures is that we wanted him to know how interested we are before he is signed by the Hawks.

I know of a lot of business who act on instinct, experience and gut feel to make large decisions (without outside input) and I dont have a problem with that.

But to suggest spending copious amounts of money on research/consultants to justify your position - bad business 101 UNLESS it is necessary to get consultants/research to give opinion etc which you already know the outcome to give a better understanding to people who dont have a thorough understanding.

Consultants are frequently used in private equity world for the express purpose

Don't sweat it so much old bean....................back to the footy B)

to say nothng of putting a shot across Kennet's bow !!

Or stern! LOL.

Just an aside, please feel free to abuse me for this, but many people on this board get upset, nay, very upset when Trengove is spelt with an r, or Robbo was called Robinson not Robertson. Yet we have multiple posts about some bloke called Kennet, he has two T's, Kennett. The bloke may be a complete @$&$wit, however he did do some good things while being premier of Victoria, and maybe should have the courtesy of having his name spelt correctly like we demand for our players. I just feel that it goes both ways.

/end rant. Carry on

Ps very very nice way to publicly tell MM we can well and truly afford his services, or should AC do the unlikely and return 'home' to his very good pals Jim, Garry, Todd, Cuddles, Schwabby et al, so be it a win for us

I would love to have Clarkson at Melbourne, he is the one I have been hoping we could get.

I do not want Eade. I just dont rate him and am not a fan.

That being said though, do you think Clarkson would leave? He will get more money from us, and a longer contract, however, with the quality of the Hawthorn list you would think they will stay near the top of the ladder for a few more years. That would mean he would more than likely have another contract again from the Hawks.

You need to ask yourself, why would he leave the Hawks?

As much as I want him as a coach, and I am ecstatic about the approach we are allegedly taking, I cant see it happening.

I am thinking that we will most likely have someone like Neeld at the helm next year, who I would be more than happy with. I hope I am wrong though and the Clarkson comes over to us!

+1 on this

I also don't think he'll come across. Although prior to our dark Saturday meltdown at Kardinia, i think our chances might have been somewhat better, having been able to offer a more settled administration without all the perceived (or maybe real) shyte hitting the fan.

I also think that our off field problems will make it hard to snare any of the main contenders now, unless we up the $$ stakes on offer. Which may well be the case from what's being speculated on in the media. Then again, this is the footy media that's speculating. No self interest there of course

Hard to see Clarkson leaving the Hawks at their peak. His premiership window is going to be open for the next 3-4 years if he can keep the list healthy.

The only clincher of course is that Hawthorn won't give him 5 years, they probably won't give him 3. He'll get a standard 2 and maybe have an extension clause based on GF appearances. So he'll either back himself to succeed with Hawthorn again, or he'll chase the job security, which is nearly unheard of in this caper.

For what it's worth he would be my number 1 pick and by a long way. He is exactly what we need and he is a brilliant tactical coach. I'm glad we are making massive bids too, great that we can finally afford to play with the big kids!

This coach selection process could honestly make or break our premiership tilt, and is as important as our list building efforts of the past 3 seasons.

I'm beginning to think that the assistant coaches we have in place will be just as key to our success as the head coach.

This article below explained it a bit more:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/todd-viney-discovers-a-consuming-passion/story-e6frf9jf-1226118366258

His short experience again underlines why Malthouse says he is a manager of men rather than a pure coach.

"You get a lot of people coming up to you asking for answers and you are trying to find solutions. Whether it's about schedules or training or VFL squads," he said.

"We play on Sunday and the VFL plays on Saturday, so who trains with us and who trains with them? You are trying to keep everyone happy - staff and players - so it's a constant juggling act.

"I don't know if it's just the two or three weeks, but I wake in the middle of the night thinking about a scenario or a stoppage structure and how it affects the forwards.

"It's about delegation. You have to trust your assistants implicitly. They are the nuts-and-bolts guys who analyse the game and you, as senior coach, take leads off them about what's happening. You need an elite understanding of the game to challenge them, but ultimately you don't have the time to drill down yourself.

"So you rely on your assistants and sports science guys, then you make the call. Yes, we need to go with that, or we will go with something different. So, no doubt Mick (Malthouse) has a fair crew of support that are doing a really good job."

How cash can be obtained by not spending an amount you were never going to spend is beyond me...

We can pay for a good coach like Clarkson or Malthouse because of the fact that we have grown revenue streams and asked fans to chip in.

If you think cash flow in a football club regarding player remuneration is isolated your'e more naive than I thought by this comment.

If you think cash flow in a football club regarding player remuneration is isolated your'e more naive than I thought by this comment.

I was being flippant.

You said this:

The cash comes from the Board's resolve, quite correctly, not to pay Scully an outrageous salary which would destabilse the team.

So I said this:

How cash can be obtained by not spending an amount you were never going to spend is beyond me...

You are trying to say that we will spend money on a coach as opposed to a player, I replied by saying that the 'extra' money set aside for Scully is non-existent. We have reportedly given his management our 'best offer' of around $3m over 5 years. With that in mind we can now move on because the scenarios are now down to two:

1. He stays on that salary.

2. He goes and we have $600k to spread around.

There was never a time when we were going to match the Scully offer of close to $1m - so you cannot reallocate funds that were never allocated.

Maybe the next time you don't understand what someone is saying you can ask for clarification.

I was being flippant.

You said this:

The cash comes from the Board's resolve, quite correctly, not to pay Scully an outrageous salary which would destabilse the team.

So I said this:

How cash can be obtained by not spending an amount you were never going to spend is beyond me...

You are trying to say that we will spend money on a coach as opposed to a player, I replied by saying that the 'extra' money set aside for Scully is non-existent. We have reportedly given his management our 'best offer' of around $3m over 5 years. With that in mind we can now move on because the scenarios are now down to two:

1. He stays on that salary.

2. He goes and we have $600k to spread around.

There was never a time when we were going to match the Scully offer of close to $1m - so you cannot reallocate funds that were never allocated.

Maybe the next time you don't understand what someone is saying you can ask for clarification.

I love it when you talk dirty

There is a chance Clarkson will be politely asked to 'retire' by the Dawks at about the same time Goodloss is out of contract. If he was gettable in 2022 . . . do we want him?

On 8/19/2011 at 10:42 PM, Jaded said:

Hard to see Clarkson leaving the Hawks at their peak. His premiership window is going to be open for the next 3-4 years if he can keep the list healthy.

The only clincher of course is that Hawthorn won't give him 5 years, they probably won't give him 3. He'll get a standard 2 and maybe have an extension clause based on GF appearances. So he'll either back himself to succeed with Hawthorn again, or he'll chase the job security, which is nearly unheard of in this caper.

For what it's worth he would be my number 1 pick and by a long way. He is exactly what we need and he is a brilliant tactical coach. I'm glad we are making massive bids too, great that we can finally afford to play with the big kids!

This coach selection process could honestly make or break our premiership tilt, and is as important as our list building efforts of the past 3 seasons.

(This aged extremely well.)

1 minute ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

There is a chance Clarkson will be politely asked to 'retire' by the Dawks at about the same time Goodloss is out of contract. If he was gettable in 2022 . . . do we want him?

Nah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

There is a chance Clarkson will be politely asked to 'retire' by the Dawks at about the same time Goodloss is out of contract. If he was gettable in 2022 . . . do we want him?

Honestly, I'm not sure.  He seems to have produced a lot of great assistant coaches which suggests that hie methods work.  On the other hand he might be a bit of a spent force by now.  He's been a senior coach for a long time. 

For a moment i was jumping out of my skin, only to quickly be let down seconds later realising the opening post dated back to 2011.

What a roller-coaster of emotions, thrilled to dejected in the space of 3 seconds. Thanks @Queanbeyan Demon, lol.

I just woke up from a 15 year coma, who did we get instead?

3 hours ago, BillyBeane said:

I just woke up from a 15 year coma, who did we get instead?

The Mighty Mark (N Smith) Neeld!!

We got Neeld. More talk than Trump. I’ll make this team “the hardest team to play against “.  What a statement!! We simply went bacjwards with his bs. Whoever was the decision makers should hang their heads in shame. One G.Lyon may have been a part of the committee.  

I reckon Clarkson needs a new challenge.

Will he be happy to continue to coach a side that’s going to continually finish 6th-12th over the next few years given that they’ve continually neglected the draft?