On 20/08/2011 at 14:40, jungle dee said:

Mick Malthouse will be at the Dee's next season!

Bet my left & right one...

Mick aint saying nothing until the Pie's season is over. He will say what the Pie's want too hear.

I hope your left & right one actually have some value that you'd need some certainty to say that, cause if I said it it'd mean nothing due to the lack of use of my left & right one

I've seen a similar story from my brother. He showed me an email from a Melbourne friend of his who attends these club events (usually reveals interesting tid bits before they come out in the media) and according to his report, Viney has offered to coach for 12 more months if the club decides to wait for Malthouse. I'd love to have Malthouse at the club as coach but can we truly afford to tread water for an entire season? I find it hard to believe that the club would seriously consider going down this path. Will be interesting to watch it all unfold.

Why go for Malthouse when the real brains behind Collingwood's systems is Mark Neeld?

  On 20/08/2011 at 21:20, Apocalypse XXXI said:

Why go for Malthouse when the real brains behind Collingwood's systems is Mark Neeld?

I would much rather give Mark Neeld a 3 year contract than sit here for a year.

Yes. Malthouse is the best option. But he is not the be all and end all that everyone is making out.

I will be very angry with the club if this happens. It would be so frustrating as a player to have 3 different coaches with 3 different game plans within 3 years. They would finally perfect what Viney had taught them, knowing that Malthouse would most likely change it the following season.

This idea would make a good telemovie but I don't think we should sit on our hands for a year.

It could work, absolutely, but if Malthouse wants to keep coaching, or more specifically wants to coach our list, he has to decide that in this last bit of the season and make the decision public mid-October of this year.

Otherwise, get Eade, and Neeld or someone as his senior assistant and poach a couple other bright minds and starting shaking this list around and wake it up.

  On 20/08/2011 at 13:40, UTAH said:

We took applicants for the job. Weeded out the bad one's and made a shortlist.

We then extensively interviewed the people on the short list and got them to give us a presentation.

Bailey was deemed the best available by the selection panel.

Thinking about who was available at the time, how was he a left field option?

Utah

I don't give a stuff about the selection process last time.

Did you actually even know who Dean Bailey was before he as announced as coach last time?

Seem to remember a 3 time premiership coach being in the race & being trumped by Bails.

He was as left Field as you could ever get.

  On 21/08/2011 at 00:42, Old Man Rivers said:

Utah

I don't give a stuff about the selection process last time.

Did you actually even know who Dean Bailey was before he as announced as coach last time?

Seem to remember a 3 time premiership coach being in the race & being trumped by Bails.

He was as left Field as you could ever get.

I would have said Sheedy was left field in that race...

The guy was/is nuts.

We went for the straight-up-and-down assistant coach with premiership experience.

I really don't know how he qualifies as left field - because no-one knew of his name?

Who had heard of Mark Neeld up until a few months ago. Doesn't make him left field.

Interesting idea, particularly after reading the article on Viney in yesterdays HUN.

Seems to me Todd wants to be head coach for just 5 weeks...But i do like the emphasis now being put on DEFENSE.

Top sides always have Top Defense.

  On 21/08/2011 at 00:53, rpfc said:

I would have said Sheedy was left field in that race...

The guy was/is nuts.

We went for the straight-up-and-down assistant coach with premiership experience.

I really don't know how he qualifies as left field - because no-one knew of his name?

Who had heard of Mark Neeld up until a few months ago. Doesn't make him left field.

Strongly disagree

Going for the straight Up & Down choice simply hasn't worked for The MFC for decades.

When we finely get the balls to appoint someone who was/is nuts with a proven track record we might just see a difference.

We have been there done that once to often with the Mark Neeld's/ Dean Bailey's of the AFL.

  On 21/08/2011 at 00:53, rpfc said:

I would have said Sheedy was left field in that race...

The guy was/is nuts.

We went for the straight-up-and-down assistant coach with premiership experience.

I really don't know how he qualifies as left field - because no-one knew of his name?

Who had heard of Mark Neeld up until a few months ago. Doesn't make him left field.

Guess that would make the AFL nuts too, appointing him coach of GWS

However.....I don't disagree with you B)

Out of interest, what exactly are Malthouse's terms with Collingwood for next year and beyond? Anyone know/speculate?

  On 21/08/2011 at 02:33, Ron Burgundy said:

Out of interest, what exactly are Malthouse's terms with Collingwood for next year and beyond? Anyone know/speculate?

I don't think Eddie knows...

From what I gather, they are still trying to design a role for him that he is happy with.

I don't think they will ever get there, and wither of two scenarios will eventuate:

1. He doesn't agree to the design of the role and moves on.

2. He agrees, finds it difficult and within 12 months moves on.

  On 21/08/2011 at 00:25, UTAH said:

I would much rather give Mark Neeld a 3 year contract than sit here for a year.

Yes. Malthouse is the best option. But he is not the be all and end all that everyone is making out.

I will be very angry with the club if this happens. It would be so frustrating as a player to have 3 different coaches with 3 different game plans within 3 years. They would finally perfect what Viney had taught them, knowing that Malthouse would most likely change it the following season.

I would Sear'iously rather have the Hawthorn Hard Ethos and Game style, than that of Malthous.

If we could get a great tactician (Neeld?) behind a Hard Task Master like Viney, or Clarkson, then I think we'd have A Great Blend.

  On 21/08/2011 at 02:33, Ron Burgundy said:

Out of interest, what exactly are Malthouse's terms with Collingwood for next year and beyond? Anyone know/speculate?

He has a 3 year contract to be Director of Coaching for $1million per year. As I said earlier he WILL NOT coach anyone next year and will be a free agent the year after if he wants to.

  On 21/08/2011 at 02:40, rpfc said:

I don't think Eddie knows...

From what I gather, they are still trying to design a role for him that he is happy with.

I don't think they will ever get there, and wither of two scenarios will eventuate:

1. He doesn't agree to the design of the role and moves on.

2. He agrees, finds it difficult and within 12 months moves on.

These are the two scenarios,

- wont agree because he wants the senior gig elsewhere

- or will try get [censored] off at Bucks etc, realise he is twice the coach Bucks is and then he will plan to take down his own empire

  On 20/08/2011 at 14:19, Whispering_Jack said:

I think the idea of extending Todd Viney's caretaker coaching role by another twelve months is fraught with danger. We desperately need someone to come in with a plan, not just for the present but also for the years to come.

We need to have someone in who will bring stability back to the club and not uncertainty and another change in a year's time. A stop gap measure would be a disaster for our young list which needs firm direction and a coach who can bring it into line with the most modern and up to date coaching methods - not another year of wondering what will happen next.

As intriguing as the idea of the opening post was, I have to agree with you.

  On 20/08/2011 at 18:24, Mallee Bull said:

I'd love to have Malthouse at the club as coach but can we truly afford to tread water for an entire season?

Who would assume that a year with Viney is treading water? I can already see the makings of change in parts of our game particularly last week. I am sure the impression he would leave over a preseason let alone th 2 weeks he has had so far would not see us treading water. My question is what occurs if a Bickley situation happens. What if Viney take us say into the top 6 next year and decides he loves this coaching thing. What to do then. If MM wants to coach us it will happen next year and not after.

  On 21/08/2011 at 01:09, Old Man Rivers said:

Strongly disagree

Going for the straight Up & Down choice simply hasn't worked for The MFC for decades.

When we finely get the balls to appoint someone who was/is nuts with a proven track record we might just see a difference.

We have been there done that once to often with the Mark Neeld's/ Dean Bailey's of the AFL.

I have had exactly that thought myself.

A big problem in terms of our coaching history, IMO, is our non-playing staff. In that group I include all the people who contribute money etc who may not even have a formal role, but who contribute to the prevailing 'club opinion' on what should be done and how it should be done. There are exceptions, and Big Jimmy is a notable one. But overall, our non-playing staff list is riddled with people who whisper and connive and manage to influence our on-field performance without ever having the balls, let alone the qualifications, endorsement, or ability, to do the coaching job themselves.

That said, the very same people have played a hugely positive role in keeping our football club alive, often at significant personal financial cost. I don't dislike them, but this club needs to draw a very dark and emboldened line between finance/marketing roles, and on-field performance roles.

Getting back to your point Rivvo, I think the best thing that could happen for this club, would be the appointment of a senior coach who is arrogant, nutty, and driven enough, to be immune to the above-mentioned group of people.

10/10 - Mick Malthouse

10/10 - Choco Williams

8/10 - Rocket Eade (I just think he might be a little more benign than the two mentioned above. His desire to continue coaching, and the fact that he might struggle to find a gig apart from with us, could see him waiver in terms of 'being told how to do things').

5/10 - Alistair Clarkson (His brief history of playing at our club will have many 'old mates' rushing to get a word in his ear).

0/10 - Anyone who has not been a senior coach before. a.k.a. anyone who can't say "Listen, I know you love the club and that you're enthusiastic, but, IT IS NOT YOUR ROLE TO BE GIVING ME ADVICE OR INSTRUCTIONS, so POQ."

Finally, if we could snare either MM or Choco, I'd back them heavily to make Fevola an option for us to draft.

  On 21/08/2011 at 01:09, Old Man Rivers said:

Strongly disagree

Going for the straight Up & Down choice simply hasn't worked for The MFC for decades.

When we finely get the balls to appoint someone who was/is nuts with a proven track record we might just see a difference.

We have been there done that once to often with the Mark Neeld's/ Dean Bailey's of the AFL.

I'm on the same page as you. But your getting your left and right field terms round the wrong way.

Eg. Rocket Eade is available. He has experience, has a good record, is affordable, is available and would no doubt win us more games than he lost. A safe choice. However the team selecting the coach have decided to go with Ben Cousins. He does not have any experience as a senior or assistance but the team think his work ethic and thinking outside of the square would be worth the risk.

This is a extreme left field choice example.