I have one concern about the Roos succession plan. What will happen if it doesn't work.

He says he believes in it because it worked at Sydney. But Longmire worked and developed under him for most if not all of his 8yrs there. He was able to develop him and observe him over many years including getting him to coach the team during NAB games. He won't have that luxury here. Kirk is about the only assistant I can think of that he knows really well and has an understanding of how he thinks and acts and what he would bring to the table. But that's still very different to him actually doing all the different roles a Coach has to perform. Who else does he know that would be available. Rawlings is one, maybe Dew, but he seems to have ruled himself out. Neeld was the most highly regarded Assistant when we got him but we know how that turned out. I can't see how Ling could get the gig. He is completely untried.

What happens if he picks someone and they don't work out. He's only here for three years. Does he stay on or what happens.

  On 30/05/2014 at 04:38, It said:

I have one concern about the Roos succession plan. What will happen if it doesn't work.

He says he believes in it because it worked at Sydney. But Longmire worked and developed under him for most if not all of his 8yrs there. He was able to develop him and observe him over many years including getting him to coach the team during NAB games. He won't have that luxury here. Kirk is about the only assistant I can think of that he knows really well and has an understanding of how he thinks and acts and what he would bring to the table. But that's still very different to him actually doing all the different roles a Coach has to perform. Who else does he know that would be available. Rawlings is one, maybe Dew, but he seems to have ruled himself out. Neeld was the most highly regarded Assistant when we got him but we know how that turned out. I can't see how Ling could get the gig. He is completely untried.

What happens if he picks someone and they don't work out. He's only here for three years. Does he stay on or what happens.

I believe this is why Roos will remain at the club in some capacity, he will not leave the dees in bad shape.

  On 30/05/2014 at 03:58, H_T said:

Woosha anyone?

No thanks. Think he's a poor mans Roos. Never seemed to have any tactical game plan at West Coast. Didn't keep an eye on the players off the field. And after the star players he had left he's turned the current West Coast group in to a very inconsistent team.

I'd rather someone younger even if they have been a coach before (Ratten and Voss) who will carry on what they've learnt from Roos before tweaking things. I'm pretty sure Woosha would just try to do things his way and that would waste what Roos hopefully has achieved in 3 years.

  On 30/05/2014 at 03:58, H_T said:

Woosha anyone?

Good god no

  On 30/05/2014 at 04:38, It said:

I have one concern about the Roos succession plan. What will happen if it doesn't work.

He says he believes in it because it worked at Sydney. But Longmire worked and developed under him for most if not all of his 8yrs there. He was able to develop him and observe him over many years including getting him to coach the team during NAB games. He won't have that luxury here. Kirk is about the only assistant I can think of that he knows really well and has an understanding of how he thinks and acts and what he would bring to the table. But that's still very different to him actually doing all the different roles a Coach has to perform. Who else does he know that would be available. Rawlings is one, maybe Dew, but he seems to have ruled himself out. Neeld was the most highly regarded Assistant when we got him but we know how that turned out. I can't see how Ling could get the gig. He is completely untried.

What happens if he picks someone and they don't work out. He's only here for three years. Does he stay on or what happens.

There's always a risk. But on balance in any business, including the business of coaching a football club, the chances of success should be higher with a properly executed succession plan.

Ironically, the higher level of risk comes from Roos staying on in another capacity as the new coach may feel constrained having his former boss overseeing his every move. It's certainly a well-intentioned idea, but needs to be very carefully managed.

I had a family get together this week. The in laws come from up Shepp way and found myself talking footy with Tom Rotcliff's uncle. It seems MFC threw every thing they had at Tom at the end of last season. He talked about Tom meeting Roos and PJ at the Gee and Tom being blown away by Roos knowledge of football in general but was astounded by Roosey's knowledge of the Lions game plan and that he kept asking why they failed to follow their own plan. It seems Vossey under pressure would ditch his own game plan and the assistant coaches didn't like it one bit. And it seems Roosey had a fair idea that was the problem. Tommy agreed. The uncle said if Voss had been retained as coach Tommy would have come to Melbourne. But in the end they doubled his contract offer after five young kids left o he took up the offer. With out that he might be a Demon.

The other MFC issue he brought up was Chris Connolly who played for Shepparton United. He said they brought him up especially one night to look at A young Micheal Barlow at training when he was still playing for SHepp United at 19 and had won the B&F for the comp. apparently Connelly had a look,and said there was nothing there to work with. And moved on to pick the young kids in the National Draft, who we know went not so well. Of course Barlow was over looked by many and went pick 80 to Freemantle but then played phenomenol footy in his first year before he was injured.

But if only we took some of our inside knowledge and used that for picks.

VH amazing story.. just shows we could seriously prize a big name recruit while Roos is at the helm. I am very very happy with Dom Tyson btw.

How many years did Rockliff sign for? Do you reckon we will have another crack?

  On 30/05/2014 at 12:24, dazzledavey36 said:

VH amazing story.. just shows we could seriously prize a big name recruit while Roos is at the helm. I am very very happy with Dom Tyson btw.

How many years did Rockliff sign for? Do you reckon we will have another crack?

I believe he resigned for three years at big dollars with Brisbane but it does hurt that he was a Dees boy all along, he trained with us pre draft but we went for Jurrah first hoping to pick Tommy up as a rookie but Brisbane jumped in earlier. In retrospect a bad move but at the time?? Jurrah was a freak and I suppose a risk worth taking but we lost yet again.

  On 30/05/2014 at 11:56, Viscount Hood said:

I had a family get together this week. The in laws come from up Shepp way and found myself talking footy with Tom Rotcliff's uncle. It seems MFC threw every thing they had at Tom at the end of last season. He talked about Tom meeting Roos and PJ at the Gee and Tom being blown away by Roos knowledge of football in general but was astounded by Roosey's knowledge of the Lions game plan and that he kept asking why they failed to follow their own plan. It seems Vossey under pressure would ditch his own game plan and the assistant coaches didn't like it one bit. And it seems Roosey had a fair idea that was the problem. Tommy agreed. The uncle said if Voss had been retained as coach Tommy would have come to Melbourne. But in the end they doubled his contract offer after five young kids left o he took up the offer. With out that he might be a Demon.

cant wait for this trade-free agency period

Especially if we can get a bunch more wins in the last 13 games and knock off a contender or two

The package he's on with the Lions must be very tidy. I imagine any offer we put forward would've been nothing to sneeze at.

He's a gun.

I think the story you tell 'Hood' also counts out Voss.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-07-01/roos-unsure-of-boltons-interest-in-dees

Interesting thought. He certainly is enthusiastic about footy in general and has had a great record in his limited tenure....mind you the old one about the drover's dog could be apt in his case.

As Roos says...if he is interested.

Woosha -NO NO NO and for good measure NO

  On 02/07/2014 at 02:52, monoccular said:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-07-01/roos-unsure-of-boltons-interest-in-dees

Interesting thought. He certainly is enthusiastic about footy in general and has had a great record in his limited tenure....mind you the old one about the drover's dog could be apt in his case.

As Roos says...if he is interested.

I wouldn't be against Bolton in the slightest and I think spending some time under Roos, coupled with his extensive experience already, would make him an ideal candidate for the job. Worth a serious look if he's interested.

  On 02/07/2014 at 02:52, monoccular said:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-07-01/roos-unsure-of-boltons-interest-in-dees

Interesting thought. He certainly is enthusiastic about footy in general and has had a great record in his limited tenure....mind you the old one about the drover's dog could be apt in his case.

As Roos says...if he is interested.

I think if you read between the lines that he is not a realistic option, just a name brought up. I would be very surprised if there was not a short list already and that might even be a short list of one.

...and I know we've had the discussion before but I don't think the MFC can afford to take the risk of appointing someone who doesn't have a good senior playing record at a minimum.

  On 02/07/2014 at 03:55, Wiseblood said:

I wouldn't be against Bolton in the slightest and I think spending some time under Roos, coupled with his extensive experience already, would make him an ideal candidate for the job. Worth a serious look if he's interested.

I'd throw it in if Bolton (or Thompson or Ling) got the gig. He should think more about becoming a life-coach than anything.

  On 28/05/2014 at 03:14, hogans_heroes said:

you dont sign someone with no coaching experience as the successor

The suggestions of signing Ling to be the next coach are laughable

He might be an absolute dud

You do understand that he is looking at the successor being an assistant for ( in all likelyhood) 2 years.

So the signing of someone like Ling if Roos thinks is made of the right stuff is not laughable at all.

You are right - he ( or whoever they bring in ) may be an absolute dud.

So do you believe that after two years assisting, if Roos believes the successor is a dud that Roos will just shut up and let him take the reins ? Or would you think that Roos was say to our board - "he's not right to be elevated to the main gig - look outside for someone else " ?

Succession plans are a great idea but don't assume that they are written in stone.

  On 30/05/2014 at 04:38, It said:

I have one concern about the Roos succession plan. What will happen if it doesn't work.

He says he believes in it because it worked at Sydney. But Longmire worked and developed under him for most if not all of his 8yrs there. He was able to develop him and observe him over many years including getting him to coach the team during NAB games. He won't have that luxury here. Kirk is about the only assistant I can think of that he knows really well and has an understanding of how he thinks and acts and what he would bring to the table. But that's still very different to him actually doing all the different roles a Coach has to perform. Who else does he know that would be available. Rawlings is one, maybe Dew, but he seems to have ruled himself out. Neeld was the most highly regarded Assistant when we got him but we know how that turned out. I can't see how Ling could get the gig. He is completely untried.

What happens if he picks someone and they don't work out. He's only here for three years. Does he stay on or what happens.

I know how they work in business so I would hope they work the same way here.

Roos goes to the board near the end of 2016 ( hopefully he takes his one year option) and says - "Lingy was announced as the successor and after 1 and half years as my assistant - I don't think he will cut the mustard. I will go on for another year or two whilst we look for a suitable replacement/ I am out at the end of year so we need to look outside for a replacement amongst the current crop of assistants and coaches"

This idea that a succession plan is binding and irreversible is a nonsense. There is every likelyhood that the successor will take the reins as was the case with Longmire and Buckley but I would be certain that there is a clause in the contract( with a generous payout) if for some reason the succession plan is jettisoned.

The players really need to re-assess their collective bargaining agreements under the AFLPA.

They have one preseason left under Paul Roos; and as it stands 30 odd games.

To maximise their last preseason under Roos, they might want to reconsider their entitlement and rest period away from the club. In other words, even though they have the right of 4 weeks off, they might choose 2.

Rumour flying around albury where Kirk is from are that it's him and it will be announced as soon as fremantles season is over, Fremantle are apparently aware of this as Kirk wanted to give them ample time to find a replacement, it's just a rumour but alot of people in albury know Kirk really well so might be truth to it

I will leave it to minds greater than mine.

Everyone has these opinions on assistants and I have asked again and again - how would you know ?

Rawlings was an assistant last year ? ewww. This year ? Have a look at how miserly our defense is now.

We have so little insight as to how good or bad an assistant is - to me, we are all just guessing.

  On 02/07/2014 at 04:46, nutbean said:

I know how they work in business so I would hope they work the same way here.

Roos goes to the board near the end of 2016 ( hopefully he takes his one year option) and says - "Lingy was announced as the successor and after 1 and half years as my assistant - I don't think he will cut the mustard. I will go on for another year or two whilst we look for a suitable replacement/ I am out at the end of year so we need to look outside for a replacement amongst the current crop of assistants and coaches"

This idea that a succession plan is binding and irreversible is a nonsense. There is every likelyhood that the successor will take the reins as was the case with Longmire and Buckley but I would be certain that there is a clause in the contract( with a generous payout) if for some reason the succession plan is jettisoned.

The Buckley succession was handled poorly - I doubt if PJ / PR would make the same mistake.

  On 02/07/2014 at 05:08, nutbean said:

I will leave it to minds greater than mine.

Everyone has these opinions on assistants and I have asked again and again - how would you know ?

Rawlings was an assistant last year ? ewww. This year ? Have a look at how misery our defense is now.

We have so little insight as to how good or bad an assistant is - to me, we are all just guessing.

Misery to some other teams, but do you mean miserly*?

*mean, niggardly, close-fisted,parsimonious, penny-pinching,cheeseparing, Scroogelike; tightfisted,stingy, tight, mingy, money-grubbing,cheap; penurious.

  On 02/07/2014 at 04:46, nutbean said:

I know how they work in business so I would hope they work the same way here.

Roos goes to the board near the end of 2016 ( hopefully he takes his one year option) and says - "Lingy was announced as the successor and after 1 and half years as my assistant - I don't think he will cut the mustard. I will go on for another year or two whilst we look for a suitable replacement/ I am out at the end of year so we need to look outside for a replacement amongst the current crop of assistants and coaches"

This idea that a succession plan is binding and irreversible is a nonsense. There is every likelyhood that the successor will take the reins as was the case with Longmire and Buckley but I would be certain that there is a clause in the contract( with a generous payout) if for some reason the succession plan is jettisoned.

I think PR will be around regardless so I think his influence cancels out a lot of the concern of appointing an inexperienced successor, essentially they just need someone who understands and upholds the bloods culture and plan and will take the pressure of the media, Roosy won't leave a job half finished imo

Remember Roos wry smile when interviewed re the successor and Kirks name was mentioned. Body language was very strongly suggestive that Kirk was highly likely. Hardly surprising given their history. Roos always likes to keep close to him his favourites and as he is likely to stay with the club post coaching he would want familiarity. Don't think there is any doubt that what Roos says goes when it comes to the next in line. It makes sense that all is already in place.

  On 02/07/2014 at 07:50, chook fowler said:

Remember Roos wry smile when interviewed re the successor and Kirks name was mentioned. Body language was very strongly suggestive that Kirk was highly likely. Hardly surprising given their history. Roos always likes to keep close to him his favourites and as he is likely to stay with the club post coaching he would want familiarity. Don't think there is any doubt that what Roos says goes when it comes to the next in line. It makes sense that all is already in place.

I am just about certain it's Kirk, Bomber is the other really big chance imo, signing someone like that would basically eliminate the need for him to spend time under Roosy, but I reckon Roosy would move on so Bomber could steer the ship himself

my money is on Kirk bigtime though