I’m really struggling to get my head around the urgency to sack goody being such that we would pay him 1.2 million a year to hire a coach with a worse record (bucks) or an untried assistant.

change for the sake of change is generally a sign of poor governance and if there is a clear and urgent reason this needed to happen now the club hasn’t really communicated it.

I’d get it for John Longmire. If we’re sacking goody to get access to horse before Carlton or anyone else could, but if bucks rules himself out it’ll basically be an untried assistant

29 minutes ago, Davos said:

Shame, I was just strapping in for a fun little back and forth.

As you appear to be his most vocal backer on this site, I was eager to hear the compelling reasons (that I'm obviously missing) why he should be the favourite for the job.

Yes, I'd say you are missing some* compelling reasons.

The same compelling reasons that forced the club you so dearly love to get on the front foot, meet with him twice during the year and now have him as front runner to coach the club.

Not sure, just throwing it out there.

9 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

No? Various FD people still have contracts, like the head of footy. On top of Goody's payout. Are they going to pay out Jones, Radford and Bassett?

There won't be many changes due to the soft cap.

There are definitely levers we can and will pull. Not everyone in the department going to be under contract. Pretty much every time a club sacks a coach their footy department has massive turnover. A couple of coaches might survive, a couple of roles might be changed, but broadly it will be a significant regime change.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by KozzyCan

Current coaches pumping up the tyres of an assistant I have never heard of gives me a bad does of the 'neelds'

Buckley brings:

• coaching experience, 110 secs from a flag as someone mentioned above

• Credibility in the industry, Trac, Oliver & co. Will respect him and might even listen to him.

• 2nd time round will know mistakes he previously made.

• Buckley will draw players to the club like Roos. You only need a few.

• And also draw some coaching & fitness talent!

it’s not all bad:

• Another poster said we lack impact aside from Max, Kossie has impact, Trac of old has impact showed glimpses against Hawks & Dogs!

• As mentioned in another post get Oliver to handball more to better ball users!

• There are a multitude of changes that can be made to improve our lot!

• Trading out Oliver, Petracca, Viney, Fritsch when you get next to nothing won’t really help. But getting them back to near their best will.

• Smart drafting and trading can make a big difference, Hawks been very clever I this regard.

  22 minutes ago, Ted Lasso said:

  I’m really struggling to get my head around the urgency to sack goody being such that we would pay him 1.2 million a year to hire a coach with a worse record (bucks) or an untried assistant.

  change for the sake of change is generally a sign of poor governance and if there is a clear and urgent reason this needed to happen now the club hasn’t really communicated it.

  I’d get it for John Longmire. If we’re sacking goody to get access to horse before Carlton or anyone else could, but if bucks rules himself out it’ll basically be an untried assistant

  The board simply lost faith in him!

• Since 2021 flag with supposedly dynasty team has gone backwards each year and after 0-5 start this year, then the coach killer last qtr against the Saints being the final straw!

• Personally feel we were unlucky in 2023 with injuries and the mess at board and administration level made life tough for Goodwin since 2021 flag.

• Hopefully new Chairman in Smith, new CEO in Guerra, new coach, hopefully a new home Caulfield and some other assistant coaching and fitness changes provides an opportunity to start relatively fresh and leave the past behind! Richardson will likely go at end of 2026!

1 hour ago, Howard_Grimes said:

Haha, if you think we don't have a greater chance of keeping senior players that may be weighing up their options by naming someone like Buckley because of his standing in the game, the fact he made multiple finals appearances and was within an inch of a flag, ie (aura), then you well and truly do have your head in the sand.

Haven't you been banging on for years about trading away our senior players? Now you want to make sure we appoint a coach who played for their childhood team to keep them around?

Again, I don't really care who we appoint as long as they are the best fit for us. But you're all over the place on this.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Adam The God

28 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

There are definitely levers we can and will pull. Not everyone in the department going to be under contract. Pretty much every time a club sacks a coach their footy department has massive turnover. A couple of coaches might survive, a couple of roles might be changed, but broadly it will be a significant regime change.

What are you basing this on? How do you know this?

51 minutes ago, Howard_Grimes said:

Yes, I'd say you are missing some* compelling reasons.

The same compelling reasons that forced the club you so dearly love to get on the front foot, meet with him twice during the year and now have him as front runner to coach the club.

Not sure, just throwing it out there.

Glad you maintain such strong faith in our board and executive!

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

If Eddie says OK

Im having second thoughts .....

21 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

What are you basing this on? How do you know this?

Well for example it's already been reported that Mark Williams is out of contract. There have been several reports about our footy department expecting a shake up this off-season and with Goodwin gone I see no reason why we shouldn't expect more change.

Even in that 3AW clip Caroline Wilson was saying we are going to be hiring high performance manager, assisstant coaches etc.

Also just an expectation that our coaching appointment will probably be similar to how most other coaching appointments go. I don't really have any reason to believe that we are a special case in that regard. When a new coach is appointed they bring in their own people. Obviously not a 100% turnover of the entire footy department, but significant enough change that it looks significantly different.

8 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Fagan says hello

So does Brendan Bolton!

1 hour ago, Davos said:

Glad you maintain such strong faith in our board and executive!

Got to have it in some part of the club!

2 hours ago, Adam The God said:

Haven't you been banging on for years about trading away our senior players? Now you want to make sure we appoint a coach who played for their childhood team to keep them around?

Again, I don't really care who we appoint as long as they are the best fit for us. But you're all over the place on this.

Ahhh Adam my son.

This always seems to happen. You take snippets of my posts, exaggerate to the shizen and form your own story, trying to hem me in.

Get ready to read my words.

I think some* senior players need to go.

I think some* senior players need to stay.

I think Buckley has more pull for some of the senior players that I think have great upside and that I'd like to stay at the club like Trac. I also think we'd be a more attractive potential home for players like Jackson if there is still a possibility of him leaving as well as others..

I think that this off-season will also be very important in securing picks for a player like Jackson if that is still on and/or having ammunition going into this year/next years draft which will also be super important for regenerating this list with high end talent.

Please read and thank you.

8 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

Isn't this broadly reported as being our plan? In all likelihood we're going to go in with a totally revamped footy department, a new CEO and new President.

Yep.

And it's one reason why I suspect they are keen on an experienced respected coach like Buckley because an untried coach would find it hard to enure their demands (eg veto on key hiring decisions) are met.

The problem the board has created for itself is a million dollars of our soft cap is tied up in Goody, severely hampering out effort to get the best possible team of assistants etc around a new coach

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by binman

35 minutes ago, binman said:

The problem the board has created for itself is a million dollars of our soft cap is tied up in Goody, severely hampering out effort to get the best possible team of assistants etc around a new coach

Hey Binman, you might have more of a handle on this than me, but isn't it a soft cap for a reason? I.e., we can pay more than that if needed, it just costs us more?

The club might not be rolling in cash, but the board might think another million or so to get the structures in place for next year and beyond is worth it for the hit.

26 minutes ago, Mickey said:

Hey Binman, you might have more of a handle on this than me, but isn't it a soft cap for a reason? I.e., we can pay more than that if needed, it just costs us more?

The club might not be rolling in cash, but the board might think another million or so to get the structures in place for next year and beyond is worth it for the hit.

To be honest I'm not really accross how the soft cap works, and tou may well be right.

30 minutes ago, Mickey said:

Hey Binman, you might have more of a handle on this than me, but isn't it a soft cap for a reason? I.e., we can pay more than that if needed, it just costs us more?

The club might not be rolling in cash, but the board might think another million or so to get the structures in place for next year and beyond is worth it for the hit.

Exactly how it works

Quid pro quid so to speak 😆

Edited 52 minutes ago52 min by beelzebub

4 hours ago, Howard_Grimes said:

The same compelling reasons that forced the club you so dearly love to get on the front foot, meet with him twice during the year and now have him as front runner to coach the club.

Meet with him twice ? Caro, Cornes or Tom never mentioned this ( or did they ?), Who, Where, and who proposed the meeting, and Sauce all over it please thankyou

47 minutes ago, binman said:

To be honest I'm not really accross how the soft cap works, and tou may well be right.

I think you're right that it will still be a factor; we aren't Collingwood or Carlton who could just ask a coterie group to stump up the cash. But hopefully, if it's the difference between getting a really good senior assistant or high performance manager, the board look at it more strategically than just the dollars