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!!

I was not suggesting he was wonderful.

The suggestion by rudeboy was he had been out of the game for a long time.

Unless I read it wrong

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.

Is everyone on agro pills this afternoon.

I was just making a few suggestions on why he might not see Melbourne as desirable.

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.

It certainly isn't.

I can see how Clarkson is a long shot - he has a long term contract in front of him at a contending club in the middle of its window.

But Lyon is nearing midnight in St Kilda's window, and has one year left - and there is a long history of 'the one year left, i'm off' move. Thompson and Malthouse did this.

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 that you might be right. If the sub-committee cannot get someone already on the short list for a straight appointment, two or three of them and a couple of external people will form the interview/selection panel, who will then make a recommendation to the coaching sub-committee.

The exclusion of Chris Connolly does not look good for him. If the General Manager, Football Operations does not have any imput into who should be coach, what exactly does he do?

As for candidates, if we can get Clarkson or Malthouse, great, if not I have no problem in getting a good assistant. Every successful coach has been an assistant at one stage. Just because they picked a dud last time doesn't mean they should totally avoid it.

I'm surprised Sean Wellmans name isn't all over the speculative lists. Did a great job at the Dees and now Essendon. I think he may be a candidate worth looking at.

Edited August 24, 201113 yr by Thomo

The way the club is seeming going about things is they are following an order of priorities.

First approach Malthouse, not available, second throw a a five year deal at Clarkson happy at Hawks but we have just cost Hawthorn another $250K/year, third do the same for Lyon gets him thinking a two year extension with a list at the end of its run or a 5 year deal at a club at the start of its run. Its like Cam Bruce stay at Melb for 1 year our go to Hawthorn for 2 with a high chance of playing finals again.

If this fails, we approach the three assistant coaches that have been involved in recent Premierships, don't waste time on Laidley, Williams or Eade. Instead of having an apply process have a go get who you want process.

It certainly isn't.

I can see how Clarkson is a long shot - he has a long term contract in front of him at a contending club in the middle of its window.

But Lyon is nearing midnight in St Kilda's window, and has one year left - and there is a long history of 'the one year left, i'm off' move. Thompson and Malthouse did this.

An interesting aside, or indeed possibly a particular component of al lthis intrigue is the Walls factor. Walls was quite instrumental in Lyon getting to StKilda in the first place and here we have him now publicly suggesting he ( Lyon ) consider moving to Melbourne.

Now before some jump up and down bemoaning Walls as this or that its somewhat moot what any of us think of him as he has the Ear of Lyon ( Ross) .

I can only take from this that if Robert suggests Ross take more than a glance at the Dees and with a bit of nudge nudge wink wink ...take a walk son, then there's more legs to this whole scenario than many are happy to suggest otherwise.

Ross doesnt work for peanuts nor should he. Weve already shown a capacity to pay a fair remuneration for this job. Many boxes are ticked all round.

This might actually fly.

I find it interesting that our Head of Football Department is not involved. Seems strange you would think the coach would report to him.

That is very telling.

I find it interesting that our Head of Football Department is not involved.

Then again..the 'effective' one IS !!

Schwab as CEO should be on the panel to select the Coach.

He is only one voice in the process but needs to represent the appropriate commercial interests of the Club.

I would like a couple of independent consultants (experienced football backgrounds not currently involved at MFC) to sit in on the process.

With respect to Stynes condition, Lyon is the only onw there with football experience. JCB, if you can read tealeaves then it shouldn't really be a surprise that Connolly is not there.

Fair comment this time maybe Stan Alves or even Ron Barassi should have been onit...3 Board Dirctors???

Fair comment this time maybe Stan Alves or even Ron Barassi should have been onit...3 Board Dirctors???

Stan Alves and Ron Barassi are too long in the tooth for the modern game.

One of the directors is on a consulting basis. Have no issue with the other two.

within the past 5 years, the MFC has had a bit of experience with coach selection.

Appears to me as if they know what they did wrong last time, know what they'd like to correct this time, without the media sticking their nose in.

It frustrates me recently how much the media and posters go straight to the negative just because we are in a transitional phase.

It is very easy to condemn those that are perceived to be down.

It's the safe bet to be critical at the moment.

How about showing some guts and backing your club in to get it right.

within the past 5 years, the MFC has had a bit of experience with coach selection.

Appears to me as if they know what they did wrong last time, know what they'd like to correct this time, without the media sticking their nose in.

It frustrates me recently how much the media and posters go straight to the negative just because we are in a transitional phase.

It is very easy to condemn those that are perceived to be down.

It's the safe bet to be critical at the moment.

How about showing some guts and backing your club in to get it right.

2012 will be a step in the right direction, I can feel it Go Dees.

At this stage you don't need a large panel to choose a coach, one only have to look at the criteria that has been set down and that comes from a small list of coaches that they want. If they cannot land one then I think the sub-committee will then change.

Good article by Leigh Matthews

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/121753/default.aspx

Particularly interesting, I think, is the piece at the bottom in regards to Mick Malthouse:

On the current coaching benchmark, does anyone really think that if Collingwood thought Mick Malthouse was the mythical genius super coach they'd replace him under any set of circumstances?

It's probably evidence that the Magpies believe that their football operation as a whole is the key to their success more so than any particular senior coach.

http://www.sportsnewsfirst.com.au/articles/2011/08/23/lyon-and-schwab-on-melbourne-coach-panel/

The only problem I see is that the people that made the last decision are going to make this one as well.

This is exactly my thoughts robbie...

Even Lyon, i remember when the Bailey saga began he said he did and wouldnt want to be involved with any future coaching decisions, then he is the first person who is called and has no choice with Jimmy being ill imo

Also the direction we are going is "experienced" etc which is the complete opposite direction to last time, im not saying its wrong but from the outside it is like they are excluding a while heap of candidates without even see what the can offer

This was wrong, so the opposite of this is right type thought process

Sheehan on selection panels

Mike Sheehan's thoughts. Similar to a few on here.

The problem with Matthews, Roos, Wallace, and Thomas is that there first loyalty is the media. In addition I think Roos is still employed by the Swans in the academy. I know Lyon is also a media person, but he has shown he also has a loyalty to the club and Jimmy.

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.

Why would you want to poach Neeld? What's wrong with our current assistants? I'd love to know which of our current assistant coaches you would like to replace...

Why would you want to poach Neeld? What's wrong with our current assistants? I'd love to know which of our current assistant coaches you would like to replace...

I have given this argument too, mostly when West is favoured above Mahoney or Royal.

However, we have obvious issues with being behind clubs with regard to current structures and poaching from Collingwood would be highly advisable.

This is less about getting rid of people, and more about getting IP and new ideas into the club.

I have given this argument too, mostly when West is favoured above Mahoney or Royal.

However, we have obvious issues with being behind clubs with regard to current structures and poaching from Collingwood would be highly advisable.

This is less about getting rid of people, and more about getting IP and new ideas into the club.

Was having a shot at him RPFC after he tried to rip me a new one for suggesting our current assistants are like the training facilities at Junction. Found it amazing that if our assistants weren't in that category, all of a sudden he is trying to poach Neeld. Confused by his conflicting posts!

Wouldn't have much faith in that panel assessing assistants but plan A sounds like experienced coach and selecting Malthouse, Clarkson or Lyon is probably straightforward enough - however I think it would be a massive challenge for them to assess whether Rocket is still current enough for example.

But the question is who could really assess assistants game knowledge - maybe Roos.

Walls, Matthews and Thomas would have no idea and I'm not confident about Wallace. It has to be someone independent from a club and that makes it hard to get someone current. Maybe David King - I see the Dogs have Tom Harley - that looks good. Maybe a retiring senior player like Brady Rawlings. There's Matthew Lloyd but his last coaches were Sheedy and then Knights.

Edited August 25, 201113 yr by old55

Wouldn't have much faith in that panel assessing assistants but plan A sounds like experienced coach and selecting Malthouse, Clarkson or Lyon is probably straightforward enough - however I think it would be a massive challenge for them to assess whether Rocket is still current enough for example.

But the question is who could really assess assistants game knowledge - maybe Roos. Walls, Matthew and Thomas would have no idea and I'm not confident about Wallace. It has to be someone independent from a club and that makes it hard to get someone current. Maybe David King - I see the Dogs have Tom Harley - that looks good. Maybe a retiring senior player like Brady Rawlings.

This is why I don't really care.

Bring in Walls?

Er, what value does he add? His gut instinct about coaching? He would have no idea about current structures, new trends etc.

For me - we are trying to get an experienced coach. Failing that, let's get the most intimidating assistant out there and steal some IP from Collingwood, Geelong, et al

Don't need David King to do that - I trust Garry to get that right.

rpfc would do it if asked.

This coaching panel... committee...cal it what you like. has but one purpose. To secure the best "Experienced" front line Senior coach we can entice, poach, steal or abduct...Thats is.

Once htis person is secured HE will set about building his band of of merry assistants. He will simply get his preferences ratified or not by the club.

A salient point amusingly missed by Sheahan is we arent looking at or dealing with "unknown quantitites" Whilst we may not be privy to the ins and outs of their absolute methods it is essentially the 'results' column we're dealing with. All else will work its way out. We dont need a bunch of Coach's arbiters to tel lus whether the main choices can coach.This is where youd go if looking at the second stringers, but we arent.

Ill put it out there again.. this club isnt capable of disecting and wholy understanding whether a Da Vinci knows what hes doing, only of observing what he does and wanting to covet it.

From AFL.com.au this morning.

Melbourne coaching live chat

Why would you want to poach Neeld? What's wrong with our current assistants? I'd love to know which of our current assistant coaches you would like to replace...

We're in no place to judge our own assistants' performance, but Neeld is widely regarded as being one of the best assistants in the game, by those people who would know.

His results are so good that they are recognisable to those on the outside, and he is widely regarded as a chance to win a head coaching position.

I'd like him on our staff because he is clearly a very capable midfield or backline coach at the very least, because he is the type that could eventually take over as head coach if a guy like Malthouse came in for a few years, then grew tired of the caper, and because no matter who the new coach is that comes in, they are likely to bring in a new group of assistants - it would be good to get one regarded as one of the best in the game.

That's very different to making judgments on the performances of our current assistants, with very little to go on.

Do you see the clear distinction?