I see Collingwood is still disgruntled about Neeld's immediate departure following his appointed as head coach of the Dees:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-scrutinises-coach-contracts-20120207-1r5fz.html

They obviously felt it was a disadvantage to them that he left prior to the Prelim. Makes me happy that we might have affected their premiership tilt and that Neeld played a key role in their previous premiership which vindicates his appointment too.

I think the notion of a coach staying on after they've agreed/signed with another team is a bit ridiculous. Similar to a player staying on after doing the same. All decisions like this that are made before the end of the season should be made public and that player/coach should depart the team immediately. I think Malthouse was right in not allowing Neeld to stay on for the Preliminary and Grand Finals. I only wish that GW$ and GC$ had their uncontracted player signings made public when they happened. That would have prevented Melbourne from playing with a black cloud over its head every week, and Geelong from doing the same the year before.

Yeah its a bit of a tough one as I can see the merits on both sides of the argument. Unless the AFL made a regulation that prevented clubs from signing (or announcing the signing) of a contracted coach until the end of the season (i.e. after the Grand Final(s). But that would just cause the same media rumours and distractions that we had in 2011...

It is the Pies!

Tell someone who cares.

I wouldnt be suprised if there was greater internal conflict at Collingwood on Neeld's leaving than just timing. It is easy to believe you get the better half of any deal, but i have heard a couple of times that the Magpies had their arms tied in the Malthouse - Buckley deal and really wanted Neeld instead.

It may be the some players really hoped that Neeld would have stayed rather than Bucks and that Malthouse jumped earlier than he may have if Neeld had stayed another year.

I wonder if we had not taken on Neeld the morning he signed, he would have had his name on an Adelaide contract later that day. Maybe, maybe not, but if that one is true, the magpies would be dreaming thinking they could hold him once the dominos started to fall for top Assistant Coaches.

Edited February 8, 201213 yr by Franky_31

Hahaha, sucked in Collingwood! On another note, surely there is a better stock photo of Neeld that they could be using isn't there. What a shocker

Hahaha, sucked in Collingwood! On another note, surely there is a better stock photo of Neeld that they could be using isn't there. What a shocker

There will be a better one in three years time when he is holding up the cup!!!!

I know this will go against the 'I hate Collingwood and suck on them' attitude here, but I can feel their pain here. 2 weeks without their midfield coach was a big loss. 2 weeks with us didn't really achieve anything. In the NFL they don't sign a coach to a new team until that team is done for the year. I think that's fair. The original team signed them in good faith that they would complete their job. 2 weeks before the end they pull the pin? At the most important part of the season.

*Ducks for cover*

I know this will go against the 'I hate Collingwood and suck on them' attitude here, but I can feel their pain here. 2 weeks without their midfield coach was a big loss. 2 weeks with us didn't really achieve anything. In the NFL they don't sign a coach to a new team until that team is done for the year. I think that's fair. The original team signed them in good faith that they would complete their job. 2 weeks before the end they pull the pin? At the most important part of the season.

*Ducks for cover*

You may get a little sympathy if it was not the Pies.

So keep your head down the storm is coming

I know this will go against the 'I hate Collingwood and suck on them' attitude here, but I can feel their pain here. 2 weeks without their midfield coach was a big loss. 2 weeks with us didn't really achieve anything. In the NFL they don't sign a coach to a new team until that team is done for the year. I think that's fair. The original team signed them in good faith that they would complete their job. 2 weeks before the end they pull the pin? At the most important part of the season.

*Ducks for cover*

I think that you're right A.contract is for the full leanth of the contract but C'wood told him to leave when he wanted to stay the final two weeks.

From memory Neeld offered to stay yet Malthouse insisteds he leave sao its their own fault.

I think that you're right A.contract is for the full leanth of the contract but C'wood told him to leave when he wanted to stay the final two weeks.

Correct .

Correct .

Not totally correct. Mick Malthouse told him to leave. I'd wager there were some that wanted him to stay

Interesting scenario. I certainly wouldn't want to lose a coach(s) in september before a tilt. Neeld offered to stay but Mick said go as his head was now elsewhere. I peesonally think the assistants should see out a finals series with there club, unless there is unforseen circumstances. Like i said, i don't want want to loose our coaches when we are in full battle mode.

Interesting scenario. I certainly wouldn't want to lose a coach(s) in september before a tilt. Neeld offered to stay but Mick said go as his head was now elsewhere. I peesonally think the assistants should see out a finals series with there club, unless there is unforseen circumstances. Like i said, i don't want want to loose our coaches when we are in full battle mode.

wyl I am living for the day

Stiff sh*t..... Bad luck Pies - take it up with MM.....

Fwiw, Geelong was pushing for this too. Not just Collingwood. Cook is quoted numerous times expressing disgruntled sentiment in losing an assistant.

We lost Wellman with one year of his contract left.

Clubs also ditch coaches at will so they can hardly be upset if ithappens the other way..

We lost Wellman with one year of his contract left.

Clubs also ditch coaches at will so they can hardly be upset if ithappens the other way..

You have my vote jnrmac

If my memories is correct Wellman wanted out 2 weeks after signing a new deal

We lost Wellman with one year of his contract left.

Clubs also ditch coaches at will so they can hardly be upset if ithappens the other way..

Yes, but if a club wants to sack a contracted coach they have to pay him out. If a coach wants to leave (Wellman) there seems no compensation to the club.

It's a one way deal that works for the individual and not the club.

Yes, but if a club wants to sack a contracted coach they have to pay him out. If a coach wants to leave (Wellman) there seems no compensation to the club. It's a one way deal that works for the individual and not the club.

Isn't that the way in life?

Individual over an entity?

Isn't that the way in life?

Individual over an entity?

Ahh, the individual is greater than the team!!

Ahh, the individual is greater than the team!!

It is when you are the individual...(I would put an emoticon here if I used emoticons, I am going to change this to the acronym IWPAEHIIUE to save time, and to start a trend!)

I wouldnt be suprised if there was greater internal conflict at Collingwood on Neeld's leaving than just timing. It is easy to believe you get the better half of any deal, but i have heard a couple of times that the Magpies had their arms tied in the Malthouse - Buckley deal and really wanted Neeld instead.

It may be the some players really hoped that Neeld would have stayed rather than Bucks and that Malthouse jumped earlier than he may have if Neeld had stayed another year.

I wonder if we had not taken on Neeld the morning he signed, he would have had his name on an Adelaide contract later that day. Maybe, maybe not, but if that one is true, the magpies would be dreaming thinking they could hold him once the dominos started to fall for top Assistant Coaches.

Agree on the MM-Bucks baton change. Its never easy to lose an assistant. And I cant see how you can keep someone on when they are joining the opposition. Neeld's position was untenable but not an easy decision for the Club.

Yes, but if a club wants to sack a contracted coach they have to pay him out. If a coach wants to leave (Wellman) there seems no compensation to the club.

It's a one way deal that works for the individual and not the club.

Correct Fan

I can't see why an assistant cannot stay on to finish his season at his club before commencing a new role elsewhere. Only a few rounds to go and there was never conflict of interest with us not being in the finals race. There would be very few secrets left to guard and it should have been Collingwoods best interest that he fulfilled his role at a critical time of the season. Coaches are more tradeable entitles with not as much angst or loyalty factor when they depart for whatever reason unlike players.

Edited February 8, 201213 yr by Jackie