Dean Bailey reveals stress of sacking

[Rogue 585]

Jimmy could have phoned him after, but Vice President, CEO or Footy Manager should have gone and told him in person. Should have said his contract would not be renewed and given him the opportunity to stand aside, be paid out and let him and us begin to prepare for the future.

I don't think DB would have resigned. I wouldn't have been surprised if he even said as much.

[DirtyDees DDC 176]

It wasn't just the 186 match that stuffed him. It was a series of bad performances this year.

We were 28 points up against the Hawks in rd 2 and got done by 46 odd pts.

We played arguably the worst 1st quarter of football this year against West Coast and got done.

We were leading Nth by 4 goals early in the second. They came back and doubled that margin in 2 quarters.

We were terrible against Carlton in our first friday night match of the year.

We let Collingwood kick the last 10 goals against us in our marquee match on Queens Birthday.

And in a match we started favourites, we got overrun by the Bulldogs to lose by 60 points.

Robert Walls is wrong. Bailey wasn't dismissed just because of one bad game. The 186 game was simply the final straw in Deans tenure at the MFC.

[RudeBoy 164]

In my opinion, the team's poor performances last season, including the smashing by Geelong, were as much a result of internal divisions and friction between sections of the administration and football departments. Regardless of who the coach is, a club which is divided will always be doomed to failure.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

I think as President of the club Jim Stynes made the decision to tell Dean the news. Because of his health it was via a phone. Dean was well aware of that. I don't think it was handled poorly at all.

There was no point in coaching the last 5 games. I have just read the article in full, Dean holds no grudge toward the club. We have all moved forward. In the same way in 4-5 years if Bails was appointed as an assistant coach again I would have no problems with it. He is a quality man.

[Choko 493]

I think as President of the club Jim Stynes made the decision to tell Dean the news. Because of his health it was via a phone. Dean was well aware of that. I don't think it was handled poorly at all.

There was no point in coaching the last 5 games. I have just read the article in full, Dean holds no grudge toward the club. We have all moved forward. In the same way in 4-5 years if Bails was appointed as an assistant coach again I would have no problems with it. He is a quality man.

Agree that Jim would have done the deed on the phone so he couldn't be said to have delegated the task. I think he would have made the decision with the Board, and would have had a very heavy heart. I don't think Jim would have avoided face-to-face, it would only have been a matter of his health.

That's not saying we handled it perfectly, but hey, Freo told Harvey face to face, which also doesn't mean they did do it perfectly!

[1858 285]

I think as President of the club Jim Stynes made the decision to tell Dean the news.

Same.

Also, I'm guessing here, but IMO Stynes would have been the person Bailey would want to hear it from first at that point in time. If relationships were so strained so as to have contributed to 186 then it would have been the ultimate insult to Bailey if certain members of the executive had wheeled up to give him the bad news. The way I see it, the club acted as best possible given the loss, given the poor relationships between people at the club and given the short time frame they had to work in. As soon as a decision was made, Stynes got on the phone to inform Bailey as soon as possible.

Too much idealistic shoulda, coulda, woulda going on.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

It is not nice getting the sack or giving it. I actually like the fact it was done fast. The wounds heal better on both sides quicker too.

[Dee Dee 1,108]

It was the President's decision to tell Dean he was gone! And Jim said himself that it was one of the hardest decisions he's ever had to make.

Maybe (and of course with 20/20 vision hindsight) it could/should have been handled differently. In corporate life and with the help of a good PR outfit, Dean would have been "helped" to resign his position: a decision that would have looked better all round. But it's now all history and we move on!

And I'm sure Dean had a pretty good feeling that he was gone! He is now an honorable member of the society of sacked coach's.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I think as President of the club Jim Stynes made the decision to tell Dean the news. Because of his health it was via a phone. Dean was well aware of that. I don't think it was handled poorly at all.

There was no point in coaching the last 5 games. I have just read the article in full, Dean holds no grudge toward the club. We have all moved forward. In the same way in 4-5 years if Bails was appointed as an assistant coach again I would have no problems with it. He is a quality man.

If that is the case then its poor judgement by Jim and the Board. Once again if Jim;s health is the issue then McLardy should have deputise. Its a cop out to think otherwise.

Same.

Also, I'm guessing here, but IMO Stynes would have been the person Bailey would want to hear it from first at that point in time. If relationships were so strained so as to have contributed to 186 then it would have been the ultimate insult to Bailey if certain members of the executive had wheeled up to give him the bad news. The way I see it, the club acted as best possible given the loss, given the poor relationships between people at the club and given the short time frame they had to work in. As soon as a decision was made, Stynes got on the phone to inform Bailey as soon as possible.

Too much idealistic shoulda, coulda, woulda going on.

I think you are guessing. The decision to sack Bailey was a Board. Clearly Stynes is unable to fully fulfil his role then his VP should have done it. Its ironic that the VP and some Board members can meet face to face with the players behind the CEO's back only days before but cannot find the good grace to tell the coach to his face that his sacked.

And the Board did work hard. WIthin a few short days they went from wanting to lynch the CEO to lynching the Coach. Poor boys they must have been too tired to do the right thing.

[H_T 3,048]

I prefer to look forward. But before I look forward, a quick glimpse in the rearview mirror tells me this could have been handled better. By that I mean being told in person. No one should be told over the phone after holding the coaching position of the Melbourne Football Club, even if it is after an unacceptable 186 point loss.

That said, it had to be handled swiftly for a number of reasons, including starting the process of looking for the best available coach, seeing there was already one club in the market place for a new coach at the time.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

If that is the case then its poor judgement by Jim and the Board. Once again if Jim;s health is the issue then McLardy should have deputise. Its a cop out to think otherwise.

I think you are guessing. The decision to sack Bailey was a Board. Clearly Stynes is unable to fully fulfil his role then his VP should have done it. Its ironic that the VP and some Board members can meet face to face with the players behind the CEO's back only days before but cannot find the good grace to tell the coach to his face that his sacked.

And the Board did work hard. WIthin a few short days they went from wanting to lynch the CEO to lynching the Coach. Poor boys they must have been too tired to do the right thing.

Those are merely your opinions Rhino & not mine. I am glad our president was the one to tell Dean. He is the man in charge.

[beelzebub 23,379]

whats done is done...and we move on.

[1858 285]

I think you are guessing.

What gave it away? The bit where I said "I'm guessing here"?

Are you suggesting Bailey wouldn't have wanted to be contacted by Stynes first (irrespective of how)?

The decision to sack Bailey was a Board. Clearly Stynes is unable to fully fulfil his role then his VP should have done it. Its ironic that the VP and some Board members can meet face to face with the players behind the CEO's back only days before but cannot find the good grace to tell the coach to his face that his sacked.

I don't think there is an arguement about that as a general principle wrt any presidential role. In the way the Bailey sacking unfolded though I am of the opinion that it had little impact on things other than cause an internet discussion on due process. Whether the VP should have taken the reigns from Stynes may seem clinical from a due process perspective but Stynes' intuition may have included what was best for Dean Bailey at the time and it was his call to make. It may have meant more to Dean that Stynes made the call and wanted to be the first to tell him, we don't know but it can't hurt at least considering the possibility.

And the Board did work hard. WIthin a few short days they went from wanting to lynch the CEO to lynching the Coach. Poor boys they must have been too tired to do the right thing.

What the...

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

It's just Rhino's daily rant. Feel free to vote Jimmy & the board out at the next election. It is your rite. But i doubt you will have too many followers apart from Caro & Greg Denham.

[Yoda 33]

What about the stress he put us under?

Lest we forget ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQeaGFXqvTQ

Edited November 6, 2011 by Yoda

[Carrot Top 947]

It wasn't just the 186 match that stuffed him. It was a series of bad performances this year.

We were 28 points up against the Hawks in rd 2 and got done by 46 odd pts.

We played arguably the worst 1st quarter of football this year against West Coast and got done.

We were leading Nth by 4 goals early in the second. They came back and doubled that margin in 2 quarters.

We were terrible against Carlton in our first friday night match of the year.

We let Collingwood kick the last 10 goals against us in our marquee match on Queens Birthday.

And in a match we started favourites, we got overrun by the Bulldogs to lose by 60 points.

Robert Walls is wrong. Bailey wasn't dismissed just because of one bad game. The 186 game was simply the final straw in Deans tenure at the MFC.

Exactly. To me he was a dead man walking at Q time against West Coast - 22 I50's to 3 if I remember rightly - and it didn't get better after that. The team had no confidence in him or his plan and went to water every time pressure was applied.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Carrot Top

[Slartibartfast 17,309]

Why wasn't Bailey given the option of resigning? That would have made both the parties look a lot better.

He got a phone call, was told, end of story.

Right decision, wrong management.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

Why wasn't Bailey given the option of resigning? That would have made both the parties look a lot better.

He got a phone call, was told, end of story.

Right decision, wrong management.

Why should he have to resign? By being sacked he got his full pay out. Not for a minute do i believe Jim enjoyed making the call, but i am glad it was him, and i bet you Dean Bailey was to. Edited November 6, 2011 by why you little

[Slartibartfast 17,309]

He'd get paid out anyway by agreement and it wouldn't have looked so undignified.

It would appear many here don't care but I thought the treatment of Bailey was shocking and showed our club in a bad light. Pick the odd one out - Adelaide, Footscray and Melbourne.

We looked terrible when it was so easy to do it better.

[jumbo returns 6,741]

He'd get paid out anyway by agreement and it wouldn't have looked so undignified.

It would appear many here don't care but I thought the treatment of Bailey was shocking and showed our club in a bad light. Pick the odd one out - Adelaide, Footscray and Melbourne.

We looked terrible when it was so easy to do it better.

How can there be a 'romance' in a sacking?

Bailey wasn't up to scratch, was paid out and we move on.

It's interesting that RR and Fan seem to present at every machination that involves the MFC?

Edited November 6, 2011 by jumbo returns

[1858 285]

IMO Bailey was heading in the same direction as Eade and Craig prior to 186 but after 186 his position became untenable - it's that simple. Adelaide and the Bulldogs are not comparative IMO.

When a player or coach reaches that point it is incumbent on the club to act authoritatively. We could have offered him the chance to resign but it would have looked like a farce had he done so and people would be harping on how he wash pushed and how humiliating it must have been for him in front of the cameras announcing his resignation. If anything Bailey retains a certain amount of credibility and self-respect due to how the club went about things and his ability to move on to a support role at Adelaide is a testament to that.

Just because we may not have done it by the book doesn't necessarily mean that the process lacked sensitivity and respect. If I were in the same situation I would prefer to hear from Stynes first whether it be by phone or in person but that's just me and we all have our own perspective on this.

Edited November 6, 2011 by 1858

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

He'd get paid out anyway by agreement and it wouldn't have looked so undignified.

It would appear many here don't care but I thought the treatment of Bailey was shocking and showed our club in a bad light. Pick the odd one out - Adelaide, Footscray and Melbourne.

We looked terrible when it was so easy to do it better.

You don't get it. If there was bad blood out of any of this Bailey would have let on by now. He has been on radio numerous times and in print. Not one bad word about the MFC has he said. After 186 he would have known it was done. Would you prefer a Tery Wallace media stake out?

I am sure Dean & Jimma can still look each other in the eye.

Why would i ever want to do things like Footscray? They never inspire when it counts.

How did Eade leave with anymore dignity anyway? He decided to leave before seasons end, because it is the only sensible thing to do. The MFC then led the pack with the new coaches. Good. Let's all hope we got the man.

Edited November 6, 2011 by why you little

[Slartibartfast 17,309]

You don't get it. If there was bad blood out of any of this Bailey would have let on by now. He has been on radio numerous times and in print. Not one bad word about the MFC has he said. After 186 he would have known it was done. Would you prefer a Tery Wallace media stake out?

I am sure Dean & Jimma can still look each other in the eye.

Why would i ever want to do things like Footscray? They never inspire when it counts.

How did Eade leave with anymore dignity anyway? He decided to leave before seasons end, because it is the only sensible thing to do. The MFC then led the pack with the new coaches. Good. Let's all hope we got the man.

I'm glad you liked the way it was done.

I didn't.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

I'm glad you liked the way it was done.

I didn't.

What would you prefer? Tea & iced vo vo's with all the supporters telling stories before the inevitable is spoken?

The media reported it was badly handled because it makes better headlines. Dean Bailey made no mention of it.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Those are merely your opinions Rhino & not mine. I am glad our president was the one to tell Dean. He is the man in charge.

Lucky Bailey is a good bloke otherwise heavens knows what would have done to him.

Are you suggesting Bailey wouldn't have wanted to be contacted by Stynes first (irrespective of how)?

Given Stynes's fragile health and the fact that McLardy had been front and centre around the football club, it would have been reasonable for the VP or a delegated member of the Board to have the decency to have met with Bailey "face to face" to tell him. He had to go. There was no reason why the VP or delegated group could not have done that. Bailey was owed more than a 22 cent call.

I don't think there is an arguement about that as a general principle wrt any presidential role. In the way the Bailey sacking unfolded though I am of the opinion that it had little impact on things other than cause an internet discussion on due process. Whether the VP should have taken the reigns from Stynes may seem clinical from a due process perspective but Stynes' intuition may have included what was best for Dean Bailey at the time and it was his call to make. It may have meant more to Dean that Stynes made the call and wanted to be the first to tell him, we don't know but it can't hurt at least considering the possibility.

Its was a poor execution of process. From my understanding Stynes did not necessarily hold Bailey in high regard so I am not sure how it could "mean more" to Bailey. A sacking of a senior role should never be done via a phone call. Its that simple.

Feel free to vote Jimmy & the board out at the next election. It is your rite.

Its actually "right" not "rite".

I just thought they could have done things better on this occassion. It not like you to miss the point or take things out of context.

whats done is done...and we move on.

Agree and hopefully those involved learn from it.