We were widely lauded for the process that got us a coach who didn't last 4 years...

Not saying we weren't. Although i'm not sure it was as wide as you're stating. Evidence?

Regardless, personally i didn't think the outcome was favourable for us at the time, and i still don't. Sheedy was ready made, massive amount of experience/knowledge at the highest level. Came from a winning culture. Runs on the board. Regardless of whether he had any more success (or less) than Bailey, he would at least have been able to advise what was required in order to build this club into a winning culture within the FD, and more than likely on the field slowly as well. His record away from the G couldn't have been worse i wouldn't think.

The amount of marketing $$, potentially extra members (even disgruntled flakey Bombre supporters in some cases) and the likelihood of snaring a few experienced players from other clubs out of contract with Sheeds being there, to me far outweighed whatever Bailey was able to bring (as a total package!).

Maybe Sheeds' asking price was too high for us at the time given our finances, maybe he was too outspoken for the MFC to handle. Who knows.

By securing Sheeds, success, progress or otherwise in the 4 years that followed, at least we would then have the foundations in place within the FD, for a successful climb up the ladder, and potentially in a better position right now to secure the Captain required to take us there. I've heard all the talk about Sheedy being a one man show and things had moved past him etc blah blah blah. But people change and i'm sure he's always learning and willing to change within reason.

Stop getting so hung up on the process.

Not hung up on it. Just worried given the 'fail' of the last effort. Not alone either.

Sometimes talking through the list at length, and match simulation at length, and tactics in depth, you don't find the best head coach - you find a very good assistant coach who would like to be a head coach.

Not sure what you're saying here. We apparently aren't going through such a process at this point, as we're looking to just poach someone. You mean other clubs? Or you referring to the last time we looked in 2007? If so, there wasn't an assistant chosen for us from that process that i'm aware of, so that theory doesn't apply to us last time around. Football Manager yes (and how has that panned out?) ...but not an assistant.

I want Malthouse or Lyon, but failing that you go out and get a hardnosed personality to steel the weak minds that are our 'senior' players and you poach some IP from Geelong, Collingwood, and/or Hawthorn.

Yep. No argument from me there re: hardness from whoever's coming in. Some mongrel and hardness big time for me pls! That's one major reason why i'm not too keen on Eade. Also his ability to motivate on match day....similar to my feelings on Bailey but IMO Eade a better match day tactician. Maybe as an assistant to help out on match day though if we could afford it IF recruiting a rookie who needs the support.

As usual it's amateur hour with the good old boys down at Melbourne.

Our strong list is the only thing that may land us a coach of any quality

Not hung up on it. Just worried given the 'fail' of the last effort. Not alone either.

Just because the outcome turns out (with retrospect) to be less than ideal, that doesn't presume that the process failed ... and that's not just in selecting a coach either.

Specious discussion for me, it's about selecting a coach, not selecting a coaching committee. And it's obvious who we want.

Not saying we weren't. Although i'm not sure it was as wide as you're stating. Evidence?

Regardless, personally i didn't think the outcome was favourable for us at the time, and i still don't. Sheedy was ready made, massive amount of experience/knowledge at the highest level. Came from a winning culture. Runs on the board. Regardless of whether he had any more success (or less) than Bailey, he would at least have been able to advise what was required in order to build this club into a winning culture within the FD, and more than likely on the field slowly as well. His record away from the G couldn't have been worse i wouldn't think.

The amount of marketing $$, potentially extra members (even disgruntled flakey Bombre supporters in some cases) and the likelihood of snaring a few experienced players from other clubs out of contract with Sheeds being there, to me far outweighed whatever Bailey was able to bring (as a total package!).

Maybe Sheeds' asking price was too high for us at the time given our finances, maybe he was too outspoken for the MFC to handle. Who knows.

By securing Sheeds, success, progress or otherwise in the 4 years that followed, at least we would then have the foundations in place within the FD, for a successful climb up the ladder, and potentially in a better position right now to secure the Captain required to take us there. I've heard all the talk about Sheedy being a one man show and things had moved past him etc blah blah blah. But people change and i'm sure he's always learning and willing to change within reason.

Jesus!

You wanted Sheedy?!

Not sure what you're saying here. We apparently aren't going through such a process at this point, as we're looking to just poach someone. You mean other clubs? Or you referring to the last time we looked in 2007? If so, there wasn't an assistant chosen for us from that process that i'm aware of, so that theory doesn't apply to us last time around. Football Manager yes (and how has that panned out?) ...but not an assistant.

No you don't understand what I am saying.

We didn't pick the best head coach last time because the 'process' delivered us the best footy brain.

Sometimes you need more than that.

We know what we want, and the type of coach we need.

Yep. No argument from me there re: hardness from whoever's coming in. Some mongrel and hardness big time for me pls! That's one major reason why i'm not too keen on Eade. Also his ability to motivate on match day....similar to my feelings on Bailey but IMO Eade a better match day tactician. Maybe as an assistant to help out on match day though if we could afford it IF recruiting a rookie who needs the support.

And when we know what we need, who needs Matty Lloyd to tell you something you already know?

Jesus!

You wanted Sheedy?!

Hell yeh bud!

Geez.... you preferred Bailey?!

No you don't understand what I am saying.

We didn't pick the best head coach last time because the 'process' delivered us the best footy brain.

Sometimes you need more than that.

I still don't get what you're trying to say. You're on one hand saying the process delivered us the best footy brain. So the process wasn't an issue....so.....ummm...don't worry about the process yeh? Then on the other hand you're saying it didn't pick the best head coach for us. Bit of this....bit of that. But it was all fine is what you're saying... i think.

I would hope we need more than just a good footy brain. Plenty of those around. Not many of them are up to coaching at this level, and some just don't want to, eg. Garry, Dermie.

Also, you wanna inform me as to how you believe Bailey was THE best footy brain lol? Big call RP. Like how did you arrive at that? You measured it with/how?

We know what we want, and the type of coach we need. And when we know what we need, who needs Matty Lloyd to tell you something you already know?

You're taking that totally out of context mate. My Lloyd comment was in response to another poster who was responding to High Tower. Saying that IF we aren't able to pull off poaching an existing coach from someone with the present committee, then we'll be behind a few other clubs in getting a process together to go for other 'untried' alternatives and assess them. And under that scenario, he felt the present committee set up was too 'Lyon focussed'. I was just agreeing with that viewpoint.

Certainly wasn't suggesting we need Lloyd for the present committee under a poaching scenario. Agree, the present committee is fine for that approach as it stands....that's if we can land an MM or a Lyon that is.

Personally i don't see us landing either of those for 2012.

As usual it's amateur hour with the good old boys down at Melbourne.

Our strong list is the only thing that may land us a coach of any quality

What is this even based on?

You have a habit of making these kind of statements, based on little or no fact.

Some reasoning would be prescient.

I still don't get what you're trying to say. You're on one hand saying the process delivered us the best footy brain. So the process wasn't an issue....so.....ummm...don't worry about the process yeh? Then on the other hand you're saying it didn't pick the best head coach for us. Bit of this....bit of that. But it was all fine is what you're saying... i think.

I would hope we need more than just a good footy brain. Plenty of those around. Not many of them are up to coaching at this level, and some just don't want to, eg. Garry, Dermie.

Also, you wanna inform me as to how you believe Bailey was THE best footy brain lol? Big call RP. Like how did you arrive at that? You measured it with/how?

I will try again...

The Great Process of 2007 ©, of which Hazyshadeofgrinter (a poster here) can tell you, was a very thorough process that included match simulations, personality descriptors, and deep list analysis.

It was the epitome of the perfect committee process to find the best football brain and the most eloquent leader of men.

But a head coach doesn't necessarily require the best brain - that's what assistants are for, nor do they need to be eloquent - that's what CEO's are for.

The process did not get us a successful head coach, there are no guarantees with the best and most credentialed committee, and so maybe giving the decision over to a group led by an expert footy consultant who is loyal and wants the best for the club is the best decision to make?

Ask me in 5 years time if it was...

Cameron Schwab gave a bit of clarification of the coaching sub-committee today in a prematch function:

The committee will design the coaching selection process.

Part of that process will be interviewing the candidates and rating their ability.

For the interviews, the club will be able to bring in whatever external consultants the committee deems necessary.

Not being a member of the committee does not preclude experienced coaches from being involved in the selection process.

Anyone care to reconsider their statements in this thread..?

edit: spelling

Anyone care to reconsider their statements in this thread..?

That pretty much addresses my concerns.