On 03/09/2025 at 17:04, Ted Lasso said:

Why would fans discussing a situation directly relevant to our club, on a fan forum about that club be at all surprising or inappropriate. the thread is about our new coach and the journalist has used more than one entire segment to sell the idea that one of our leading coaching options should ignore our advances and should go to a club that doesn't have an AFL license, doesn't currently have a role advertised to even offer and she fails completely to acknowledge the enormous conflict of interest in having close relationships with several very high ranking people at the Tassie devils.

It would be more odd, by a long long way if that wasn't an active topic of conversation on here.

Imagine if Carlton sacked Voss and Damian Barrett was saying Horse should ignore the Blues and wait for Tassie, the Blues forums would be having the exact same conversations, without the notion of sexism entering into it.

I think you're a great contributor on here but this is a wild response to a 'don't get triggered by the media' comment.

There's nothing directly relevant to our club when it comes to media commentary on our coaching situation. They have no say in who our board selects and they have no say in how the candidate will make their decision. What they do have is a forum to flaunt their takes to get clicks and reactions like this and have hit the nail right on the head when it comes to their desired outcome.

This has happened in the media forever and a day. Media figures were telling the likes of Sheedy and Clarko to ignore us for a future opportunity. How many times have we been just flat out labeled a basket case in the media? I know there are some numpties in the media but they aren't total block heads that implicate themselves at every opportunity.

The conflict of interest part is possibly a relevant point of conversation but what are we saying here exactly? That someone who has had no working relationship with Gale at Richmond is in cahoots to get Buckley to Tassie? Does this mean that if Garry Lyon endorses Buckley for the Melbourne job over Tassie that this is a conflict of interest because he still has relationships with several figures at our club?

Media will have opinions, people like us will lap it up and occasionally get our noses out of joint over it but why stress out so much about it? That's all I was trying to say.

2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

We need a fresh approach from someone who works with the best in the business. I maintain that Buckley is the safe, very Melbourne choice. We may as well of kept Goodwin.

Sacking Goodwin seemed like a commercial choice to me more than anything. We may never know, but on appearances, Buckley seems like a commercial replacement.

2 hours ago, Ted Lasso said:

I think the club itself needs more in terms of leadership than an assistant is likely to be able to provide and this is why Buckley is a favourite. They’re all great coaches but we’ve basically had max carrying the club and now we need to rebuild the culture and standards around the place, the actual footy performance is just one part of what we need to happen

This is very true and one reason why I'd be fine with his appointment. We do have to deal with commercial realities unfortunately.

4 hours ago, Hellfire Dub said:

Caro-Lying hates the Demons and uses every opportunity to get the boot in. Sure our club is not exemplary, but she really hates us. I listen to her Age Real Footy podcast and lots of her other content is good because she gets inside information from clubs. However in the past two years I've heard her bring up the old tanking scandal when there's been discussion about Petracca's injury etc. It's a big hobby horse of hers and this Bucks interference is shoddy behaviour that needs to be called out as an unacceptable personal agenda.

In fairness there are few sacred cows on Demonland and we have a go at plenty of AFL related personalities and lots of it is justified.

It's not sexist to criticise poor performance in the media and most of it limited to those who deserve it: For example Kellie really only annoys me when she does her full-on Bogan-male growls trying to whip up excitement. She doesn't need to try so hard to sound like Browny to be a good commentator.

By contrast Daisy is a well-spoken and insightful commentator who I'd much prefer listening to more of. Jonesy, Abbie, Erin and Kath all do a good job with intelligence, character and good humour compared to the smug naked bias of Pavlich or Eddie. Jack Riewoldt is totally wooden, but he's less offensive than the boorish buffoonery of BT.

I can't stand Brereton though, wow if ever there was someone for mansplaining and condescension that's him. And like Caroline he HATES the Demons! He's only a few notches below Sam Newman for my most objectionable talking head.

Smarmy would be down there in the pit of unpopularity with biased Umpire 22 Nathan Williamson who also hates the Demons.

I think it's more scattergun than sexism.

Agree on the following:

Ump 22 definitely is anti Demons!

Caro W definitely hates Demons!

Dermie hates the Demons!

Not many of Channel 7 commentary team like us either!

4 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Sacking Goodwin seemed like a commercial choice to me more than anything. We may never know, but on appearances, Buckley seems like a commercial replacement.

When Demons won 2021 flag expectations were for multiple flags with the list and domination of that final series!

The results got progressively worse each season thereafter! I feel we were unlucky with injuries in 2023!

Our forward line and entries into the forward have not improved from 2022-2025, this is a coaching issue!

After a shocking start to the season, then many close losses and finally a disastrous 4th quarter loss to the Saints, where the team was in disarray. These issues ultimately stamped Goodwins ticket out!

Commercial maybe part of the reason, but not the reason Goodwin was fired!

If we’re now sacking and appointing coaches because of “commercial realities” then that’s exactly why we remain in the bottom tier of clubs. Serious organisation’s set their own “commercial realities” Our club hasn’t done that. Board squabbles through to 2 of our marquee players going off piste have left us here, having sacked a coach and now seemingly on the verge of appointing an ex coach who’s been out of the game for the best part of 5 years. In my eyes largely because he’s seen as having the respect to pull our whole club together.

If he really is the standout applicant then fine but I don’t think he is or at least I really hope there’s someone on that list who’s better than him.

Edited September 4Sep 4 by Roost it far

1 hour ago, old55 said:

Buckley "not a complete failure" as a coach, wow you're harsh. He was Dom Sheed magic away from a flag and followed up with PF and SF finals and then his message ran out. All coaches except Chis Scott and Kevin Sheedy have a use-by date at a club and even Sheedy ultimately did.

Buckley's coaching trajectory at Collingwood was similar to Goodwin's at Melbourne except he didn't snag that elusive flag. I don't think anyone is describing Simon Goodwin as "not a complete failure".

Buckley did preside over cultural change at Collingwood, he inherited the "rat-pack" of players and weeded them out and then took his list to within a kick of the flag.

He's been there, done that and IMO has grown from the experience. I'm with @Ted Lasso and his persuasive posting, Buckley is the right choice for Melbourne at this time.

The trajectories of Buckley and Goodwin's tenures were nothing alike.

Buckley took charge of the youngest premiership list of all time, while Goodwin took over a rebuilding side that had last played finals a decade prior and last won a flag over 50 years prior.

Buckley improved Collingwood's W/L record once during his tenure. One year out of ten.

4 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

If we’re now sacking and appointing coaches because of “commercial realities” then that’s exactly why we remain in the bottom tier of clubs. Serious organisation’s set their own “commercial realities” Our club hasn’t done that. Board squabbles through to 2 of our marquee players going off piste have left us here, having sacked a coach and now seemingly on the verge of appointing an ex coach who’s been out of the game for the best part of 5 years. In my eyes largely because he’s seen as having the respect to pull our whole club together.

If he really is the standout applicant then fine but I don’t think he is or at least I really hope there’s someone on that list who’s better than him.

You are fighting the right battle Roost, and will be proven correct in time (assuming Buckley is the man).

Cult of personality doesn't win flags.

19 minutes ago, Davos said:

You are fighting the right battle Roost, and will be proven correct in time (assuming Buckley is the man).

Cult of personality doesn't win flags.

you might well be right, but could you imagine if we did go for an assistant over someone like Nathan Buckley and they ended but being another Mark Neeld?

getting these decisions long can set the club back 5-10 years

6 minutes ago, Ted Lasso said:

you might well be right, but could you imagine if we did go for an assistant over someone like Nathan Buckley and they ended but being another Mark Neeld?

getting these decisions long can set the club back 5-10 years

Or we could recruit Buckley and he fails to deliver then we will ask did we explore every option carefully

Just now, Ugottobekidding said:

Or we could recruit Buckley and he fails to deliver then we will ask did we explore every option carefully

Hense the long, thorough process we're currently going through. Whoever we choose will be properly vetted and recommended by the panel, we can't really do much more

3 hours ago, Roost it far said:

If we’re hiring a coach to try and lead the club as a whole we’re still acting like amateur’s. You get the best coach and you support him to do his job. Others run the organisation. Buckley isn’t the best coach, never was, likely never will be.

Um like we did with Goodwin the last 2 years!?

Needs more than just changing the coach, assistants, footy dept football mgr, ceo, president, stability is the key & even when we won flag the rumblings & change of president occurred. People are harsh on Buckley was a kick away from winning a flag, I’m sure he’s learnt a lot & would approach things differently, by his own admission he’s said that. Scott at Essendon has proven that until the club gets all of their areas function right success want come & he will be the scapegoat again

2 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

Can you elaborate on this? Roos is the only Melbourne coach I've seen that meets a similar criteria to Buckley and I think that was a good appointment.

It was a great appointment for where we were, at the time. The question now is whether Buckley fits us best in 2026.

1 hour ago, BW511 said:

100%

We’ve already got backroom politics going on with people trying to undermine Guerra, this isn’t a job for a new face

How do we know people are trying to undermine Guerra from inside the club? This is a guy who's been head of a Chamber of Commerce. He will have enemies. Let's not jump at shadows.

1 hour ago, Ted Lasso said:

I think the appeal of Buckley is the potential Paul Roos impact of changing the culture of the entire organisation, our challenge doesn't just involve on field and it's silly to suggest it does.

We've had rolling drama for a few years, what appears from the outside to be slipping standards on and of the field and off field issues to key players as well have behavioral/attitude ones.

The reason Bucks appeals to me more than say Skipworth is that any edge Skipworth might have purely in terms of coaching is likely significantly outweighed by the benefits of Buckley in terms of raising the standards across the board and coming in with an aura that demands immediate respect and credibility.

This impacts sponsors, players considering the MFC, players undecided about staying at the club, the caliber of support staff we might bring in, there is a whole list of benefits someone like Nathan Buckley brings that go way beyond coaching.

So even if we thought Skipworth was a slightly better coach, i think there is still a very obvious reason Buckley is the run away favourite for the role.

Great post mate and I agree. I think bringing in a top notch senior assistant below Buckley is the way to go.

Edited September 5Sep 5 by Adam The God

2 hours ago, Oxdee said:

Pure results suggest Roos was below average

🤦

2 hours ago, Ted Lasso said:

I think the appeal of Buckley is the potential Paul Roos impact of changing the culture of the entire organisation, our challenge doesn't just involve on field and it's silly to suggest it does.

We've had rolling drama for a few years, what appears from the outside to be slipping standards on and of the field and off field issues to key players as well have behavioral/attitude ones.

The reason Bucks appeals to me more than say Skipworth is that any edge Skipworth might have purely in terms of coaching is likely significantly outweighed by the benefits of Buckley in terms of raising the standards across the board and coming in with an aura that demands immediate respect and credibility.

This impacts sponsors, players considering the MFC, players undecided about staying at the club, the caliber of support staff we might bring in, there is a whole list of benefits someone like Nathan Buckley brings that go way beyond coaching.

So even if we thought Skipworth was a slightly better coach, i think there is still a very obvious reason Buckley is the run away favourite for the role.

i wouldn't be a big buckley fan but i think you've made the best argument yet to why he's probably the best candidate

3 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

It was a great appointment for where we were, at the time. The question now is whether Buckley fits us best in 2026.

Agree. My question was purely about how a Buckley appointment 'feels Melbourne' for me it seems like a pretty un-melbourne appointment.

Most of all I just want the process to be legit and the best candidate to get the job.

If that's Buckley I'll be happy with the appointment. He's a very good communicator, has shown a capacity for personal growth as a coach and is highly respected within the industry.

The stuff people are talking about wrt being a leader for the club is still very important also. The coach is pretty much always the face of the club. Having a strong ambassador in that position goes a long way to getting to the kind of stability we seek.

Success fixes a lot of problems, most especially commercial ones. So number one priority is to get a coach that will bring us success. That doesn't mean flags every year, it means being competitive, and in the race every year. Think Geelong.

Of course what will it take to make us a consistently successful, and therefore commercially viable and relevant team, is the million dollar question.

Do we need a mental reset, a game plan reset, a list reset, all three? And who of the candidates is the best placed to bring about all those changes in the least amount of time?

IMHO Buckley is most likely to command respect and therefore implement a mental reset quickly, and probably also draw players/coaches from other clubs to come to the club. That is a massive factor and cannot be underestimated.

Do I think Buckley is most likely to get a really good game plan going? No. But maybe that's less important than the other factors.

At the end of the day sacking a coach, and appointing a coach is risky business. There is never any guarantees in life, but unlike the last handful of coaches appointed by the club, we find ourselves in a far healthier position with our list, and so this makes the appointment maybe more important in terms of getting the right person for the now.

I still think that this competition is as wide open as it has ever been, and small tweaks can go a long way towards success when you have the bulk of your list spots covered with quality. We also have a good mix of experience and youth. A new coach can very well do a McRae. Doesn't mean they will of course, but it's not that far fetched.

When do the interviews start?

I don't trust Caroline Wilson as far as I could kick her

The main argument on here for recruiting Buckley seems to be he’ll help across the entire organisation. I’m hoping Guerra, Smith and co will take care of their roles and the coach we employ takes care of what he’s employed to do. Surely we’re beyond needing to be saved again. If we’re not then it really is a matter of “here we go again” no matter who we employ. For mine you get the hungry assistant with the ideas on the future of the game, you then surround them with good people and back them in, holding them to account along the way. You don’t get the big name guy from the media who hasn’t been coaching at any level for 5 years and likely doesn’t want to be coaching in 10.

I will of course deny all doubts I had and hail him as the next great coach should he land the role.

47 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Um like we did with Goodwin the last 2 years!?

Sorry Picket, I don’t understand this post.

Contract length.... I'd like two years but that probably wouldn't fly (perhaps 2 years with KPI's for an automatic third).

Just hope we don't go four or five years. We always seem to give one or two years too many.

For KPI's I think a finish above 12th place would be reasonable. What other KPI's would supporters want? Would you include soft KPI's as well as hard ones. Hard to express it but I'd like to see one about the team being good to watch.

20 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

When do the interviews start?

Pretty sure they have already started

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

Success fixes a lot of problems, most especially commercial ones. So number one priority is to get a coach that will bring us success. That doesn't mean flags every year, it means being competitive, and in the race every year. Think Geelong.

Of course what will it take to make us a consistently successful, and therefore commercially viable and relevant team, is the million dollar question.

Do we need a mental reset, a game plan reset, a list reset, all three? And who of the candidates is the best placed to bring about all those changes in the least amount of time?

IMHO Buckley is most likely to command respect and therefore implement a mental reset quickly, and probably also draw players/coaches from other clubs to come to the club. That is a massive factor and cannot be underestimated.

Do I think Buckley is most likely to get a really good game plan going? No. But maybe that's less important than the other factors.

At the end of the day sacking a coach, and appointing a coach is risky business. There is never any guarantees in life, but unlike the last handful of coaches appointed by the club, we find ourselves in a far healthier position with our list, and so this makes the appointment maybe more important in terms of getting the right person for the now.

I still think that this competition is as wide open as it has ever been, and small tweaks can go a long way towards success when you have the bulk of your list spots covered with quality. We also have a good mix of experience and youth. A new coach can very well do a McRae. Doesn't mean they will of course, but it's not that far fetched.

Great post mate. As to the game plan, I really think if we can get a great senior assistant, this would be the perfect fit with Buckley. Someone like Justin Leppitsch if Bruce has truly passed up the role.

48 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Contract length.... I'd like two years but that probably wouldn't fly (perhaps 2 years with KPI's for an automatic third).

Just hope we don't go four or five years. We always seem to give one or two years too many.

For KPI's I think a finish above 12th place would be reasonable. What other KPI's would supporters want? Would you include soft KPI's as well as hard ones. Hard to express it but I'd like to see one about the team being good to watch.

I think 3 years is the sweet spot regardless of who we select. it gives us a good look at them, but a bit of a get out option if it's a total disaster. I don't think the first contract of a coaching stint should ever be more than that, and i'd even argue it shouldn't be full stop.

We've seen amazing coaches like Malthouse, Clarkson and so on go to clubs and struggle, so it feels like too big a gamble to treat coaching contracts the way we do players.