I reckon Richardson is gone and very possibly Goodwin. If Goodwin stays I reckon it’ll be with a swathe of new assistants and clear warning for early next year.

They sound very open to letting him go despite the cost

We must be BLEEDING members and sponsors

Must be grim

$1m payout won’t stop Demons making tough call on Goodwin if necessary

By Michael Gleeson

July 30, 2025 — 5.30am

A payout of nearly $1 million for the final year of Simon Goodwin’s contract would not stop Melbourne from parting ways with the premiership coach should the board decide the change was the circuit breaker the club needed.

Melbourne are determined to make significant changes this year after another season that has spiralled into misery. There is a harder edge to Melbourne’s decision-making this year and the potential of a payout for Goodwin or other contracted staff will not be an impediment to change should they decide it is required.

Simon Goodwin has a contract for next year, but Melbourne’s poor form - including Sunday’s loss to St Kilda - means the Demons are under pressure to make changes.CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES

Goodwin’s position remains under serious threat at season’s end, and possibly sooner should the club lose to bottom-of-the-ladder West Coast at the weekend.

The Demons board held a scheduled board meeting on Monday, which included presentations from both Goodwin and former All Blacks performance head Darren Shand, the consultant who ran the club’s football review at the end of last year.

Board member Steven Smith, who will take over as club president from Brad Green later in the year, joined the meeting by conference call from Europe. While the board did not settle on what its next course of action will be, it was agreed that significant changes to the football department are needed. The timing of decisions on those changes will not be reliant on the handover of the presidency.

Senior Melbourne sources said the board would analyse the football department and performance again, look at Shand’s review conducted at the end of last year and examine whether changes recommended then were properly implemented this year.

They will consider Alan Richardson’s role as the club’s head of football, the broader coaching panel as well as the senior coaching position, and most pointedly, consider whether changing the senior coach is necessary to prompt cultural and seismic change at the club, or simply the easiest and most symbolic change to make.

What change would have the biggest impact at a club that needs to halt a continued slide from their premiership year? Moving on the one coach in the past 60 years to take the club to a premiership? Overhauling the rest of the coaches and football figures? Being more aggressive in turning over the playing list? Or all of the above?

Advertisement

The potential availability of a number of experienced senior AFL coaches – namely Adam Simpson, John Longmire and Nathan Buckley – cannot be ignored when considering whether Goodwin’s message is still getting through or the group needs a new voice.

Melbourne believe they could cover the impact on the soft cap of paying out the final year of Goodwin’s contract, or other contracts, if it came to a decision to part ways.

The only certainty, as a senior Melbourne figure said, was that all options were on the table for the football department, with the board agreeing the status quo was not working. The dissatisfaction and resignation of members and sponsors is not lightly dismissed.

While all options are on the table for the broad football department and strategy, the same does not apply to the playing list, as players such as Max Gawn and Kysaiah Pickett will not be up for trade.

The Demons are aware they have stuck with the same midfield of Gawn, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Jack Viney since their 2021 premiership. That midfield blend was formidable when their game style, predicated on contested ball and strong defence, was the successful dominant method of play, but has waned in the years that the trend has been towards transition running and repeat speed.

Debate has been had internally about whether Melbourne’s list is suited to that style of play or, if it is, then is the style getting trough to the players? That is the list-versus-coaching debate every club that finds itself in this situation argues about (see Carlton).

Melbourne refused to trade Oliver to Geelong last year, believing the return offered was insufficient, and shutdown Petracca’s restlessness for a move.

The club still believes it would need a significant return to entertain moving any of its players, including that pair, on. The Demons do not have a first round draft pick this year.

As a senior Melbourne figure observed of their season, doing nothing is not an option.

22 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

The club still believes it would need a significant return to entertain moving any of its players, including that pair, on. The Demons do not have a first round draft pick this year.

This is going to be a real litmus test for this club now. While I don't want either player with us anymore, we should demand adequate compensation from their destination clubs. I hope we hold a very firm line on that. Would not be surprised if both go on to be impactful players at their new clubs. We shouldn't be made to pay further for the fact that they haven't fulfilled their end of the bargain for us. That's on them.

If we don't get adequate compensation, i reckon our approach should be one of them can stay and be told he's playing at full forward from now on (yeah i know he can't kick, but it's the best place to have him coming towards the ball and getting in one on one contests), and the other well I have no idea...you'd just have to hope the new coach can get him back to the great player he used to be.

6 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

I reckon Richardson is gone and very possibly Goodwin. If Goodwin stays I reckon it’ll be with a swathe of new assistants and clear warning for early next year.

They sound very open to letting him go despite the cost

We must be BLEEDING members and sponsors

Must be grim

I’m confused as to where this team is list/age/expectations wise for next year. Are we expecting to be in contention next year? Are we planning to continue to rebuild?

I’d expect losses if we fundamentally changed positioning (not Tracc/Oliver/Viney ever as the midfield trio for example) and we are building for 27’/28’/29’, but is that what we’re doing? I.e. blooding all the youth and bringing in more.

Are we expecting to have a serious shot at a Granny next year?

Because if Goodwin is left in charge, what choice does he have but to just try and win as many games as possible despite what moves might be better long term? That’s where I’m at, he’s literally coaching for his job, not necessarily what is beneficial for us beyond next year as that may not be enough to save his job. Approaching Daniher to come out of retirement is one such move.

21 hours ago, Bowserpower said:

That's more like it! Those are actual facts. Stating that Goodwin was relegated to the bench as some kind of demotion is not.

Come on mate, what do you want me to kiss your shoes or something?

It would be a nice gesture.

Edited July 29Jul 29 by Previously known as LITD.

I reckon the list is pretty good, and that’s the bit that makes no sense how such a good list can’t win games.

coaching! Sorry to say, but coaching has to be an issue here and the thing to change. Goody maybe, but definitely those beneath him there needs to be serious changes to football department then the players will get a refresh and it will probably do wonders.

If Oliver and Tracc want to leave I would let them.

But we play hard ball.

As for Goody and the payout, given the prediction of support dropping off and games won, it will be worth paying it.

Anyone who leaves Petty in the same position for two years needs to go a year ago.

Just saying.

5 minutes ago, Previously known as LITD. said:

If Oliver and Tracc want to leave I would let them.

I would as well but Oliver won't be traded because his value has decreased a lot and he's on a huge contract which no club will pay. The only way he gets traded is if we accept a second rounder and pay a big chunk of his wage which the club won't do.

Edited July 29Jul 29 by lorn

Based on that age article sounds like Richo and goody will make way. New coaching team will assess list so major departures to take place in close season fy26.

2 minutes ago, BDA said:

Based on that age article sounds like Richo and goody will make way.

I think the article is just throwing up some possibilities. No one knows what the board is thinking.

A lot to unpack from that article.

Its probably the first time ever under Goodwins tenure that we are now hearing of serious discussions about his future being in serious doubt.

One line that stuck out to me that wouldnt please Smith at all was this..

"The dissatisfaction and resignation of members and sponsors is not lightly dismissed."

Gleeson is usually pretty solid - ie not a muckraker

Sounds well informed

Oddly enough that article makes me feel more confident in the club’s decision making process this off season

For years it seems we’ve been allergic to making tough calls on coaches and players alike, but it seems like the club finally recognises how deep our issues go

As Gleeson alluded to they now need to identify what exactly is causing the issues and make decisions based on that determination (I still think Goodwin is at the heart of it but I’ll concede the club should know more than the supporters in that regard)

Let’s just hope that the right decisions are made between now and the first bounce of 2026 or we could be having a similar conversation in 12 months time

Edited July 29Jul 29 by demoncat

On 28/07/2025 at 15:46, Macca said:

The players lost the game yesterday

Not the coach

The coach has and bears the responsibility.

It is the coach who developes and teaches structures and reactions. It is the coach who selects and inspires players. It is the coach who sets and monitors performance. It is the coach who must understand and communicate with players intimately and who must deliver rewards and penalties. It is the coach who must recognise individual performance and construct it into the performance of the whole.

It isnt an easy job but if Goody gets the plaudits for 21 and he should , he must also be recognised for the faults peaking this season.

He needs to publicly communicate this and take the heat of his players and provide a coherent response.

I admit I have trouble myself but with time to focus soley on his job the coach should be able to construct an appropriate communication to fans and the public. I believe it can only be a resignation, but if he can make a statement in the presence of all the players and have them endorse his remarks particularly with outstanding performances for the rest of the season, I am happy to consider.

48 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

$1m payout won’t stop Demons making tough call on Goodwin if necessary

By Michael Gleeson

July 30, 2025 — 5.30am

A payout of nearly $1 million for the final year of Simon Goodwin’s contract would not stop Melbourne from parting ways with the premiership coach should the board decide the change was the circuit breaker the club needed.

Melbourne are determined to make significant changes this year after another season that has spiralled into misery. There is a harder edge to Melbourne’s decision-making this year and the potential of a payout for Goodwin or other contracted staff will not be an impediment to change should they decide it is required.

Simon Goodwin has a contract for next year, but Melbourne’s poor form - including Sunday’s loss to St Kilda - means the Demons are under pressure to make changes.CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES

Goodwin’s position remains under serious threat at season’s end, and possibly sooner should the club lose to bottom-of-the-ladder West Coast at the weekend.

The Demons board held a scheduled board meeting on Monday, which included presentations from both Goodwin and former All Blacks performance head Darren Shand, the consultant who ran the club’s football review at the end of last year.

Board member Steven Smith, who will take over as club president from Brad Green later in the year, joined the meeting by conference call from Europe. While the board did not settle on what its next course of action will be, it was agreed that significant changes to the football department are needed. The timing of decisions on those changes will not be reliant on the handover of the presidency.

Senior Melbourne sources said the board would analyse the football department and performance again, look at Shand’s review conducted at the end of last year and examine whether changes recommended then were properly implemented this year.

They will consider Alan Richardson’s role as the club’s head of football, the broader coaching panel as well as the senior coaching position, and most pointedly, consider whether changing the senior coach is necessary to prompt cultural and seismic change at the club, or simply the easiest and most symbolic change to make.

What change would have the biggest impact at a club that needs to halt a continued slide from their premiership year? Moving on the one coach in the past 60 years to take the club to a premiership? Overhauling the rest of the coaches and football figures? Being more aggressive in turning over the playing list? Or all of the above?

Advertisement

The potential availability of a number of experienced senior AFL coaches – namely Adam Simpson, John Longmire and Nathan Buckley – cannot be ignored when considering whether Goodwin’s message is still getting through or the group needs a new voice.

Melbourne believe they could cover the impact on the soft cap of paying out the final year of Goodwin’s contract, or other contracts, if it came to a decision to part ways.

The only certainty, as a senior Melbourne figure said, was that all options were on the table for the football department, with the board agreeing the status quo was not working. The dissatisfaction and resignation of members and sponsors is not lightly dismissed.

While all options are on the table for the broad football department and strategy, the same does not apply to the playing list, as players such as Max Gawn and Kysaiah Pickett will not be up for trade.

The Demons are aware they have stuck with the same midfield of Gawn, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Jack Viney since their 2021 premiership. That midfield blend was formidable when their game style, predicated on contested ball and strong defence, was the successful dominant method of play, but has waned in the years that the trend has been towards transition running and repeat speed.

Debate has been had internally about whether Melbourne’s list is suited to that style of play or, if it is, then is the style getting trough to the players? That is the list-versus-coaching debate every club that finds itself in this situation argues about (see Carlton).

Melbourne refused to trade Oliver to Geelong last year, believing the return offered was insufficient, and shutdown Petracca’s restlessness for a move.

The club still believes it would need a significant return to entertain moving any of its players, including that pair, on. The Demons do not have a first round draft pick this year.

As a senior Melbourne figure observed of their season, doing nothing is not an option.

Thanks for the article. A good summary of DL thoughts throughout the year.

This in particular caught my eye:

"Senior Melbourne sources said the board would analyse the football department and performance again, look at Shand’s review conducted at the end of last year and examine whether changes recommended then were properly implemented this year."

imv the bolded part is saying the Board did not follow up during the year.

After last year's disastrous performance, the much heralded Shand review and the 0-5 start, a progress report should have been at the top of Board meeting Agendas. Every. Single. Meeting.

Many times this year I have asked on DL 1) if Shand is still involved. And 2) why we haven't had an update from Green or the Board. Now we know the answer to 2).

On 1). As someone with a management consulting background I would bet my bottom dollar that Shand tried to implement the review but met with great resistance by the FD. It often happens that a department being reviewed doesn't believe in or like it. They give the consultant lip service, appear to be working with them but their resistance undermines the implementation.

Given Shand's main task this year was to work on leadership with off field and on field leaders the review implementation has failed. Lack of leadership was evident during the year and the last quarter on Sunday demonstrated the extent of our leadership void or incompetence.

I might add, It would be rare that a consultant does not report directly back to the sponsor (ie Green and the Board). My professional opinion is the Board did get feedback but didn't know how to handle it so just kicked the problem down the road. On Sunday those chickens came home to roost! And the paragraph quoted above is just a smokescreen.

Whether the Board didn't ask for progress reports, didn't know what was/wasn't happeing or didn't act on them is a dereliction of duty and a complete breakdown in due diligence.

Edited July 30Jul 30 by Lucifers Hero

4 minutes ago, dpositive said:

The coach has and bears the responsibility

It's also incumbent on the exceptionally well-paid players to get the best out of themselves

That's not happening, not even close

Especially so for the senior players and the so-called leaders

All along I've stated that when things go bad in a club it's never the fault of one individual

Even in the short-lived Neeld era we had a myriad of issues with the AFL needed to step in. Wholesale changes followed including at Board level

So for those who think it's just about the head coach, take a re-think

Having said all that, it looks like the Goodwin era is coming to an end. At a guess, I'd say he'll coach out the rest of this season

12 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Thanks for the article. A good summary of DL thoughts throughout the year.

This in particular caught my eye:

"Senior Melbourne sources said the board would analyse the football department and performance again, look at Shand’s review conducted at the end of last year and examine whether changes recommended then were properly implemented this year."

imv the bolded part is an saying the Board did not follow up during the year. After last year's disastrous performance, the much heralded Shand review and the 0-5 start, a progress should have been at the top of the Board meeting Agendas. Every. Single. Meeting.

Many times this year I have asked on DL 1) if Shand is still involved. And 2) why we haven't had an update from Green or the Board. Now we know the answer to 2).

On 1). As someone with a management consulting background I would bet my bottom dollar that Shand tried to implement the review but met with great resistance by the FD. It often happens that a department being reviewed doesn't believe in or like it. They give the consultant lip service, appear to be working with them but their resistance undermines the implementation. Given Shand's main task this year was to work on leadership with off field and on field leaders the review implementation has failed. Lack of leadership was evident during the year and the last quarter on Sunday demonstrated the extent of our leadership void or incompetence.

I might add, It would be rare that a consultant does not report directly back to the sponsor (ie Green and the Board). My professional opinion is the Board did get feedback but didn't know how to handle it so just kicked the problem down the road. On Sunday those chickens came home to roost! And the paragraph quoted above is just a smokescreen.

Whether the Board didn't ask for progress reports or didn't act on them is a dereliction of duty and a complete breakdown in due diligence.

Really well said LH.

It really seems like there’s systemic issues with accountability.

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

Just do it, our membership is down 15k, it will go back up 15k with a new coach & new direction

We can’t continue with this lack of leadership on & off the club

I would be excited for 2026, the list isn’t that bad at all (just look at the Collingwood- Brisbane games)bit of a midfield update & add a functioning forward line & away we go

I just don’t see how Goodwin can continue when you look at it from a whole. How many reviews and promises do we need, now there will be more. He’s had his chances to rectify post 2021.

Richardson will be a scapegoat but if Goodwin remains the same will continue. The whole FD needs a clean out including the coach as it’s clear that we can’t trade players out on massive long term deals.

First mention I’ve heard of sponsors too which isn’t good but understandable, people need to remember it’s a business at the end of the day and if you’re not performing then you start at the top.

On 29/07/2025 at 09:29, ElDiablo14 said:

Not much we can do but the 2021 core should be looked at.

Salem

Oliver

Petracca

Lever?

May - nothing to do here, just one more year

Max - heart and soul

Viney - same as above

Fritsch ? - finding some good form

TMac - Playing very good footy, not sure if he would like to go again next year

Spargo - not much market value

Melksham - keep him for one more year and then make him our new kicking coach!

Petty - he should go back to be May's replacement, if he is committed to the club

Kozzy - our shining light

Rivers - should become full time mid field

Bowey - our most improved player

Sparrow - not sure what to do with him

Id take anything for Sparrow.

In fact I'd pay whatever to have him move on.

Sack the coach!

There, fixed it for youse

xx

45 minutes ago, Macca said:

It's also incumbent on the exceptionally well-paid players to get the best out of themselves

That's not happening, not even close

Especially so for the senior players and the so-called leaders

All along I've stated that when things go bad in a club it's never the fault of one individual

Even in the short-lived Neeld era we had a myriad of issues with the AFL needed to step in. Wholesale changes followed including at Board level

So for those who think it's just about the head coach, take a re-think

Having said all that, it looks like the Goodwin era is coming to an end. At a guess, I'd say he'll coach out the rest of this season

you are right but I would think that that is part of the coaches job and responsibility to make sure they get the best out of themselves .

I agree its not the fault of one person but the coach also has the responsibility to communicate with others to get the resources to meet that requirement.

Thatb is what the board is considering now I guess.

For the sake of all I would hope that is communicated quickly.

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

There is a harder edge to Melbourne’s decision-making this year

I’ll believe this when I see it.

5 minutes ago, dpositive said:

you are right but I would think that that is part of the coaches job and responsibility to make sure they get the best out of themselves .

Our players are lazy freeloaders

And if they want to jump ship, mercenaries

If they don't perform under a new coach, they'll really cop the wrath

Edited July 30Jul 30 by Macca

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

Our players are lazy freeloaders

And they want to jump ship, mercenaries

For some reason you want to continue the player theory on the coach thread so I’ll ask this, if the players (which are partly to blame) got such an easy well paid gig at the Dees, then why would they want to jump ship where it’s harder?