Just now, beelzebub said:

Around the 20/21st Im thinking 🤔

In the meantime, any of the assistants need to be told 'yay or nay' by the end of August (according to the AFL)

So those deadlines makes it difficult for the new coach to pick his own team (FD)

Let's say it is Buckley ... wouldn't it be best if he brings his own crew with him? At least in part?

1 minute ago, lorn said:

I just hope the club can convince the candidates that it's a proper process and anyone can get the the job

There's a fair bit of heresay that he's already got the job but I'm not so sure

What if Skipworth or Enright present a compelling case?

1 minute ago, Macca said:

What if Skipworth or Enright present a compelling case?

Yeah they could be more compelling than Buckley but can we convince them to apply?

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by lorn

2 minutes ago, lorn said:

Yeah they could be more compelling than Buckley but can we get them to apply?

I'd say there'd be approaches made either way

It's a $1Million a year job usually with 3 years applied as the contract

A big step up from the Assistant coach salary

Plus, these blokes are ambitious

1 hour ago, Engorged Onion said:

Richmond absolutely ran interviews during our finals campaign in 2023, and yes, there were murmurs that Yze was distracted prepping for them.

Having spent time in this industry, I think it’s important to put some context around what’s actually happening. Clubs are constantly balancing short-term performance with long-term succession planning. When a coach is under pressure, or when an assistant shows genuine potential, interviews in-season—even during finals—are unfortunately part of the landscape. They’re rarely ideal, but they are a known and accepted part of how clubs operate.

Every club will publicly speak about fostering assistants into future head coaches. “We value their talent. We want the best for them. They can go learn elsewhere. Maybe even come back.” It’s a narrative that looks good and, in most cases, reflects genuine intent.

So to tar Adem Yze with the brush of “distraction” feels both unfair and disingenuous. He was doing exactly what the industry expects and what any ambitious assistant would naturally consider.

Yet when a coach is sacked, interviews happen all the time—in-season, in finals—formal, informal. It’s literally how the industry works. Everyone knows it.

And then, lo and behold, in 2025 MELBOURNE does exactly that during a finals campaign, holding interviews, both formal and informal and suddenly it’s a “distraction”? A scandal? A breach of trust?

Classic AFL bubble logic: perfectly fine for me, morally catastrophic for you.

I certainly didn’t intend to tar Yze with my comment. Simply to point that I don’t think there are rules preventing clubs conducting coach interviews during finals. As you say, it’s part of the business cycle. As it turns out, Yze’s appointment was announced right around the time of the 2023 GF. Exactly the same timeline we are on. One that makes a lot of sense if the Senior Coach is to influence the trade period and have adequate time to prepare for the pre-season.

no ex filth people thank you.We are still the melbourne football club so none of that filthy no teeth mob welcome.I would rather have Denis Jones back

1 hour ago, Engorged Onion said:

Richmond absolutely ran interviews during our finals campaign in 2023, and yes, there were murmurs that Yze was distracted prepping for them.

Having spent time in this industry, I think it’s important to put some context around what’s actually happening. Clubs are constantly balancing short-term performance with long-term succession planning. When a coach is under pressure, or when an assistant shows genuine potential, interviews in-season—even during finals—are unfortunately part of the landscape. They’re rarely ideal, but they are a known and accepted part of how clubs operate.

Every club will publicly speak about fostering assistants into future head coaches. “We value their talent. We want the best for them. They can go learn elsewhere. Maybe even come back.” It’s a narrative that looks good and, in most cases, reflects genuine intent.

So to tar Adem Yze with the brush of “distraction” feels both unfair and disingenuous. He was doing exactly what the industry expects and what any ambitious assistant would naturally consider.

Yet when a coach is sacked, interviews happen all the time—in-season, in finals—formal, informal. It’s literally how the industry works. Everyone knows it.

And then, lo and behold, in 2025 MELBOURNE does exactly that during a finals campaign, holding interviews, both formal and informal and suddenly it’s a “distraction”? A scandal? A breach of trust?

Classic AFL bubble logic: perfectly fine for me, morally catastrophic for you.

Please post more mate.

59 minutes ago, Macca said:

Frank Ponissi was interviewed on SEN today and he hinted that the appointment of the new MFC coach may not happen until late September

Ponissi is the GM of football at the Melbourne Storm and is on the panel formed to find the new coach

For those who don't know, other members of the panel include Brad Green, Steven Smith, Paul Guerra, Alan Richardson, Jobe Watson & Meahan Callaghan

I don't believe that it's a lay down misère that Buckley is a shoe-in

Buckley might be the most likely but there's a process in place which could take a bit of time

The club’s statement on the selection panel issued Aug 14 stated it was aiming to make an appointment “by mid-late September”. That’s pretty explicit and suggests they have a clear process and timeline for reviewing candidates, interviewing, and taking a decision. Given the off-field governance challenges that have beleaguered the club the past few years, I think it’s essential that they follow a clear process even if it confirms Buckley as the best candidate. Ramming through a decision without adequate due diligence and participation is almost always a recipe for setting up future leadership instability and governance problems.

13 minutes ago, Nairobi_Demon said:

The club’s statement on the selection panel issued Aug 14 stated it was aiming to make an appointment “by mid-late September”. That’s pretty explicit and suggests they have a clear process and timeline for reviewing candidates, interviewing, and taking a decision. Given the off-field governance challenges that have beleaguered the club the past few years, I think it’s essential that they follow a clear process even if it confirms Buckley as the best candidate. Ramming through a decision without adequate due diligence and participation is almost always a recipe for setting up future leadership instability and governance problems.

Yes, I agree

And with the interviewing process there's every likelihood that a smokey or 2 could win people over

21 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Please post more mate.

Thanks mum x

14 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Thanks mum x

Hahaha not sure I’ve ever been “mate’ed” by my mum, but then again she’s old school.