Given we're already supposedly offering a few blokes contracts if they want them then it suggests theres no long drawn out panle selection going to be had.

How exactly would you ask Picasso or Da Vinci how theyre going to paint a picture for you.. You just hire them..... youve seen what they do already surely.

This committee just screams to me - "we are very keen to poach an established coach."

And I am ok with that...

agree and agree

Great point this, and something I've been wondering myself. I have no issues with Garry - on the contrary I think he's a fantastic footy brain and obviously a club legend held in the highest esteem, and I'm glad he's back involved - but I struggle to understand what changed for him to suddenly be thrust into this position again, when he clearly stated he did not want to be involved in selecting the next coach.

The only problem I see is that like last time, Garry will most likely be making a (HUGE) decision on behalf of the club, but that he will then presumably next year fall off the radar of involvement, and not have to live with the ramifications (positive or negative) of the decision made. Doesn't sit well with me.

Also agree with the point mentioned above about none of the panel members having had any coaching experience. You'd think this would be fairly critical in assessing candidates. Or perhaps this is where Drake's involvement might come in...

What on earth are you on about?

Lyon said he didn't want to go through that process again, because he felt uncomfortable with it.

He now is going through the process again because, a long time after making that comment, Stynes asked his mate Garry to help out again, as temporary Director of Football, which involves this process.

He didn't want to do it again, but he is doing it again to help the club and to help Jim.

Lyon repeated what he had previously said, reiterating it to illustrate that he wasn't keen to be a "king-maker" or "power-broker" at the club.

He felt uncomfortable with the process last time, presumably because of the way he was forced to make dispassionate personal judgments of others, which ultimately put noses out of joint.

I doubt Kevin Sheedy would be too happy with Garry's involvement.

Just like Choco Williams wasn't too fond of the Essendon panel that wasted his time as a smokescreen leading up to Hird's appointment.

I'm pretty sure Lyon does have to live with the ramifications.

Lately he has been questioned for having been on the panel that selected Bailey, and Garry has never tried to hide that he personally nominated Bailey based on that process (as 1 of his 2 nominations).

I find it interesting that our Head of Football Department is not involved. Seems strange you would think the coach would report to him. No issues with the panel, I can't see us employing anyone from left field, it will either be an experienced coach or an assistant from Geelong, Essendon or Collingwood we all know these three.

The next interesting part is the assitsant coach structure, I really can't see any of our current assistant coaches retaining their jobs.

Also our conditioning Staff, haven't most of these come from Essendon? I know the Essendon players are on record that this years pre-season was the hardest they have ever done and James Hird thought that Essendon was weill below AFL fitness standards.

I agree, and think having a good support staff for the head coach is just as important.

Hopefully we can poach Neeld if he doesn't get a senior job.

I've heard he's likely to move on once Buckley takes the reins.

This panel is of the ilk such to rubber stamp a selection of an existing high calibre coach..Not to pick some newby from the scrub.

In many respects..the coach will be picking the club...not the other way round.

to clarify...for those who cant see it:

If Melb gets Mick...its because Micks wants to

If Melb gets Lyon...its because Ross wants to

and we say thankyou

I find it interesting that our Head of Football Department is not involved. Seems strange you would think the coach would report to him. No issues with the panel, I can't see us employing anyone from left field, it will either be an experienced coach or an assistant from Geelong, Essendon or Collingwood we all know these three.

The next interesting part is the assitsant coach structure, I really can't see any of our current assistant coaches retaining their jobs.

Also our conditioning Staff, haven't most of these come from Essendon? I know the Essendon players are on record that this years pre-season was the hardest they have ever done and James Hird thought that Essendon was weill below AFL fitness standards.

This would probably indicate you are correct (although it's not specific):

The Demons yesterday confirmed their coaching sub-committee would be chaired by Lyon and include president Jim Stynes, vice-presidents Don McLardy and Guy Jalland and chief executive Cameron Schwab. The panel will also determine other issues in relation to the appointment, including what resources and support staff will be provided.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hes-dee-man-20110823-1j8it.html

Which ever coach comes in he'll have a shopping list.

The panel will toss coins and draw straws as to who pushes trolleys and who pays the cashier.

In effect we only have 2 board members.

Lyon is in a fly by night role at MFC. He is there for the short term and has no accountability after that. He is more a short term crisis consultant in action than a focussed director

Schwab is presently CEO but his currency of tenure is dubious at best. On very shaky ground. From all report he does not have confidence of the Board

Stynes, well its obvious he is far too sick to fulfil his role and should not be there at all. He may not witness the start of next season.

All 3 are more than likely not to have a functional role at MFC next year.

Under the circumstances, McLardy and Jelland are the only functional directors that are likely to have some tenure at MFC beyond 12 months. They should rightly be involved.

You are quite mistaken if you think Board members of companies don't get involved before making critical executive appointments. Given the situation as I have outlined above, McLardy and Jelland's involvement is critical.

That is interesting. You are effectively saying that Stynes is not capable. With respect to Jim, if that is the case why is he on the sub-committee? Unlike you I would prefer to give Jim the benefit of the doubt. If he has put his hand up to do the role, I trust that he will do it and do it well.

Similar to Moloney taking the field against Geelong, if you declare yourself fit, there is no excuse for not doing a good job.

As far as Schwab not being there next year, I don't think that will effect his ability to make the right decision for the club at the moment.

Fingers crossed, as usual.

And I note you did not comment on my thoughts on Neitz...Hmmm.

Yes I did. Refer to post #23...Hmmm.

That is interesting. You are effectively saying that Stynes is not capable. With respect to Jim, if that is the case why is he on the sub-committee? Unlike you I would prefer to give Jim the benefit of the doubt. If he has put his hand up to do the role, I trust that he will do it and do it well.

Similar to Moloney taking the field against Geelong, if you declare yourself fit, there is no excuse for not doing a good job.

As far as Schwab not being there next year, I don't think that will effect his ability to make the right decision for the club at the moment.

Yes I am saying that. And the appointment of Lyon only vindicates his inability due to illness to act. I gave Jim the benefit of the doubt when he took control of the FD. In hindsight he shouldn't have given the outcomes we have experienced over the past 6 weeks. He is too sick to do this effectively.

He has possibly terminal cancer, I dont think it is analogous to Moloney at all. I think terminal cancer is a pretty good excuse and that why I want McLardy and Jelland to be there and accountable.

I dont want problems down the track where the Board can say "Oh the selection panel who were responsible for the recommendation and the process are no longer around".

The more I think about it I see the group is really a "poach the coach" set up as someelse said.

Yes I am saying that. And the appointment of Lyon only vindicates his inability due to illness to act. I gave Jim the benefit of the doubt when he took control of the FD. In hindsight he shouldn't have given the outcomes we have experienced over the past 6 weeks. He is too sick to do this effectively.

He has possibly terminal cancer, I dont think it is analogous to Moloney at all. I think terminal cancer is a pretty good excuse and that why I want McLardy and Jelland to be there and accountable.

I dont want problems down the track where the Board can say "Oh the selection panel who were responsible for the recommendation and the process are no longer around".

The more I think about it I see the group is really a "poach the coach" set up as someelse said.

Please dont take this as an afront but I agree 100% with this

Some are truly naive. Eitherr that or theyre allowing sentiment to rule logic.

That would cancel out any AFL media commentator, supporter or D'land poster.

Too true!

I see a certain irony that we are all passionate and vocal ( and sometimes even reasoned and logically) about who should and shouldnt coach our team but criticise who is on the committee to make the recommendation.

The only person missing from the committee is a panel of Demonland posters.

The Hard Man

I'll stick this here...as good as any place in all this discussion possibly.

Makes for an interesting read actually as Jake Niall touches upon some of the qualities you want...and dont when considering all this .

others thoughts ?

If this is a "coaching sub-committee", it might not be the same thing as "coaching selection panel". These might just be the guys who are going to do the groundwork - make the approaches at the appropriate times and suss out who's interested.

There is actually a lot of groundwork that will need to be done. They may have to look at combinations - Laidley, for example, is supposed to be a crash-hot match-day coach, but probably has deficiencies in other areas so will need a senior assistant to cover for his deficiencies. Some may wish to bring their own assistants, so it's a package rather than just the single appointment. Which is where they will need Schwab's input. No reason why the ones who will actually do the interviewing also need to do the groundwork beforehand.

And G. Lyon's past remark that he doesn't want to go through it again may refer to the interviewing etc, while he may be happy to take the lead role in the groundwork.

I think its one and the same. Given they have apparently put 5 yr deals to Clarkson and Lyon then I think the research has been done. If they were doing more research I would have thought they would have had greater external perspective in the committee selection.

I think this is the crux. For a change we actually KNOW what we need...its just a case of getting him. Also for a change we have spending money; no need to bargain hunt. We need to get the right man for a 5-7 year ( or more) journey .....of success.

I think its one and the same. Given they have apparently put 5 yr deals to Clarkson and Lyon then I think the research has been done. If they were doing more research I would have thought they would have had greater external perspective in the committee selection.

So what happens if Clarkson (as he surely will) and Lyon decline our offer and Eade has been snapped up by Adelaide?

Will we then recast the panel because we will be left to choose "newbies". That will be a good look, not. But it will be in keeping with the performance of the Board since the Geelong weekend which has been nothing short of shambolic.

Very strange. And what if both Clarkson and Lyon want it? Who on that panel has the experience to make an informed judgement.

Very strange indeed.

Agree. Neil Craig or Lethal would be a good choice for the independent. And Schwab has to be there regardless of the security of his tenure at MFC.

I believe Lethal is on the Adelaide selection panel.

So that probably makes him unavailable!

I agree with you Fan, and the candidates you suggested were good, but if they, like Lyon was, are hesitant to be involved in such as process, what are we to do?

I don't think that the Bulldogs panel is particularly impressive either.

Harley doesn't strike me as a great football mind from his special comments on tv.

Chris Grant has been out of the game for some time, and same as Harley.

I imagine it is quite difficult to engage experts to participate in these processes.

I agree with you Fan, and the candidates you suggested were good, but if they, like Lyon was, are hesitant to be involved in such as process, what are we to do?

I don't think that the Bulldogs panel is particularly impressive either.

Harley doesn't strike me as a great football mind from his special comments on tv.

Chris Grant has been out of the game for some time, and same as Harley.

I imagine it is quite difficult to engage experts to participate in these processes.

GK are we talking about the same "Harley"

He played in the Cats 2009 premiership

So what happens if Clarkson (as he surely will) and Lyon decline our offer and Eade has been snapped up by Adelaide?

Will we then recast the panel because we will be left to choose "newbies". That will be a good look, not. But it will be in keeping with the performance of the Board since the Geelong weekend which has been nothing short of shambolic.

Very strange. And what if both Clarkson and Lyon want it? Who on that panel has the experience to make an informed judgement.

Very strange indeed.

Id be inclined to agree Clarkson will stay put..and Eade's a likely candidate for the Crows but upon what do you base your assertation that Lyon would dismiss us ?

Id be inclined to agree Clarkson will stay put..and Eade's a likely candidate for the Crows but upon what do you base your assertation that Lyon would dismiss us ?

Because he has a year to run on his contract

and he may think the back up at St Kilda is a long way in front of Melbourne.

On top of that we may have a group of potentially good kids.

But the experienced players are fairly ordinary or close to the end.

Who is going to carry our side over the next couple of years?

He played in the Cats 2009 premiership

Immediately making him an expert on picking a coach...

Honestly, these committees are drummed up to be more than they are.

As BB said, we know what we want, and we are trying like hell to pry someone out.

If that fails, we can grab the most intimidating assistant out there, and grab some IP from Collingwood.

We did it 'the right way' last time didn't we?

I remember the comments from all over about how professionally we picked a bloke that would be sacked 3 3/4 years later...

Thanks alot Nathan Burke!!

Because he has a year to run on his contract

and he may think the back up at St Kilda is a long way in front of Melbourne.

On top of that we may have a group of potentially good kids.

But the experienced players are fairly ordinary or close to the end.

Who is going to carry our side over the next couple of years?

As has been widely reproted in teh media..he has a GET OUT.. So that year is really irrelevant if he chooses to walk.

St Kilda is coming to the end of its window., Many of its stalwarts are running out of legs..or knees or..whatever. A serious rebuild looms. That will take some time..and a lot of luck in so far as the looming compromised drafts etc.

or

He can walk over to us with a burgeoning list with much rebuilding already done but in need of a new direction and serious moulding.

Its not nearly as far fetched a notion for Lyon to come to us as some seem to want us to beleive.