What may be right wrong time will tell.

Try bringing something substantial to the table Rhino.

I am happy with the process, as I believe that the Board are after more than just a coach but what is needed to take us to the next level, is that wrong? what is the rush to appoint a coach now and what purpose would it serve, none, as for them deflecting blame if it does not work out how can that be? the board put the process in place and in the end they take the ultumate blame as the members will remind them of that.

I seem to remember the cats going through a process and where are they now, the saints did the same thing and I think they have the right coach, the dogs did the same.

All the board are doing is trying to get it right across all sections of the club agin is that wrong?

Ok, there's been some discussion about possible alternatives so I thought I'd kick it off and suggest a couple od replacements.

Firstly with Walls, I don't understand why he's on the panel. His reputation right now is probably as low as it's ever been and from memory he hasn't worked with a club for quite awhile. He's articles have also been pretty poor of late, in fact it wasn't that long ago that a piece of his work was 'discussed' on this forum quite strongly. My suggestion to replace him is David Parkin, he's worked with alot of clubs recently and is still highly respected in the footy world.

Anthony Ingerson, I've already mentioned it once before but I'll post it again because it appears to have been missed. As far as I'm aware he's been concentrating on his business since retiring, what skills does he bring to the panel? Anyway, i don't see why we can't get any other player who has retired recently who would be more 'in touch' with the modern game. Ingerson last played in 2001, alot has changed since then.

Danny Frawley is currently an assisstant coach with another team, anyone find that odd that he's on our panel? I'd prefer to have a past coach who isn't either applying for the role or currently coaching another team. I'd be happy with Grant Thomas, he's demonstrated he knows what he's doing in the business and there wouldn't be a conflict of interest.

They are the three main ones I'd question, but the name Stan Alves also came up in the above discussion and from memory someone bagged him and mentioned him being a loser while his time at the Saints. Perhaps my memory is a little hazy in my old age but I seem to remember Alves getting a so-so Saints list into a Grand Final. Alves would be perfect for the job.

Anyway enough of my rambling, we as supporters don't know what's going on behind closed doors, perhaps all these guys have been approached and turned down the job, perhaps the guys on the panel are the only ones who wanted to do it? We just don't know, however, this forum is all about discussing the possibilities and expressing our opinions and sometimes I think a couple of people here forget this....

Alan, I've read most of the posts, and I can understand your frustraion. What I cannot understand is why, given your frustration, you won't put forward an alternative method to get a coach. provide to alternative? Don't let me down!

A reasonable request deservers a reasoned reply.

I put it to anyone to justify the need to involve a cast of thousands to net one fish.

But thats not half of it.

But for now...

Go out on a limb and chase who they believe would be the candidate which fits the criteria. The most successful clubs have had the capacity to do this without fanfare & succeed.

Go through a consultancy if they must.

Solicit one or two trusted figures.

Cut the middlemen out.

Cut the transparency. This is a business, not a Butchers shop window.

What the problem with this club. Surely it can't be scared of failure.

Great choice. Two players with no coaching experience and I dont know what a premiership medal gives us in that process. A further one more that has not coached for 10 years. Alves got sacked as a perennial loser from St Kilda. Not alot of perspective.

I would not be so prominent in the criticism of the appointed group given the calibre of the alternative.

You asked for some alternatives - Lynch and Ball are recent premiership players who have played under a variety of successful coaches. I'd back their records against Ingerson, Lyon, Healy, Frawley any day of the week. Stan actually had a reasonable record as a coach, but more importantly he is an astute media observer who would be at least equally as well qualified as Schwab. If you are not happy with these names then I could also suggest Parkin and Blight as coaches who would provide contrasting but very valuable contributions and are both unaligned but still actively involved in the media. Why do you need coaching experience to have an opinion on who might make a good coach. If we follow that line right through then you are saying that the club has made an error in consulting Lyon, Ingerson, Maclure et al. For the record, Lynch has played under Parkin, Curly Austin, Robert Shaw, Walls, Northey and Matthews; Ball played under Malthouse, Eade and Roos. Between them they played in five premiership teams. I think they might know a bit about success and what it takes to make a successful coach. But anyway, it's just an opinion, and I'm more than happy to be prominent in my criticism of the appointed group because it is totally justified.

Ok, there's been some discussion about possible alternatives so I thought I'd kick it off and suggest a couple od replacements.

Firstly with Walls, I don't understand why he's on the panel. His reputation right now is probably as low as it's ever been and from memory he hasn't worked with a club for quite awhile. He's articles have also been pretty poor of late, in fact it wasn't that long ago that a piece of his work was 'discussed' on this forum quite strongly. My suggestion to replace him is David Parkin, he's worked with alot of clubs recently and is still highly respected in the footy world.

Anthony Ingerson, I've already mentioned it once before but I'll post it again because it appears to have been missed. As far as I'm aware he's been concentrating on his business since retiring, what skills does he bring to the panel? Anyway, i don't see why we can't get any other player who has retired recently who would be more 'in touch' with the modern game. Ingerson last played in 2001, alot has changed since then.

Danny Frawley is currently an assisstant coach with another team, anyone find that odd that he's on our panel? I'd prefer to have a past coach who isn't either applying for the role or currently coaching another team. I'd be happy with Grant Thomas, he's demonstrated he knows what he's doing in the business and there wouldn't be a conflict of interest.

They are the three main ones I'd question, but the name Stan Alves also came up in the above discussion and from memory someone bagged him and mentioned him being a loser while his time at the Saints. Perhaps my memory is a little hazy in my old age but I seem to remember Alves getting a so-so Saints list into a Grand Final. Alves would be perfect for the job.

Anyway enough of my rambling, we as supporters don't know what's going on behind closed doors, perhaps all these guys have been approached and turned down the job, perhaps the guys on the panel are the only ones who wanted to do it? We just don't know, however, this forum is all about discussing the possibilities and expressing our opinions and sometimes I think a couple of people here forget this....

Sorry, Jarka - missed your post but agree with everything you've said. It is all about different opinions and all we want is the best outcome for this club.

Well said WD. You're onto something .Results matter. & your opinions, as with Jarkas, are on the money.

If the board does not get Brett Ratten, then the whole process has been a joke and the MFC will not exist in 2 years time

Go out on a limb and chase who they believe would be the candidate which fits the criteria. The most successful clubs have had the capacity to do this without fanfare & succeed.

Go through a consultancy if they must.

Solicit one or two trusted figures.

Cut the middlemen out.

Cut the transparency. This is a business, not a Butchers shop window.

What the problem with this club. Surely it can't be scared of failure.

That's a superb collection of cliches there Alan. Well done.

Go out on a limb and chase who they believe would be the candidate which fits the criteria. The most successful clubs have had the capacity to do this without fanfare & succeed.

Go through a consultancy if they must.

Solicit one or two trusted figures.

Cut the middlemen out.

Cut the transparency. This is a business, not a Butchers shop window.

What the problem with this club. Surely it can't be scared of failure.

My God, no wonder why you've refused to give an alternative process. That is the biggest load of nothing I've ever seen.

You haven't actually said anything.

Lucky you aren't on the committee, because everyone would sit around and do nothing, but then make a decision in the spur of the moment.

What are the criteria? How do we find the criteria? Who are the best people to know what criteria are important in judging the potential of a coach?

Chase the coach that fits the criteria of a good coach. Wow, truly earth shattering.

It almost sounds like you're parodying yourself, and it's quite amusing too!

It almost sounds like you're parodying yourself, and it's quite amusing too!

C'mon Bobby - get with it! That approach will surely net us a coach who fits all the right criteria and will:

- get the players to give 110% for 120 minutes

- be happy with the 4 points

- dot the i's and cross the t's

- take it one week at a time, and not get ahead of ourselves

...

What are the criteria? How do we find the criteria? Who are the best people to know what criteria are important in judging the potential of a coach?

Axe Bob, you've peaked with this post but wasted it because you can't read dimwit. I said, "...but for now..." you marauding invertebrate.

And my question for you is why on earth do we bother having a board if they haven't a clue what this club needs. Surely the answers not with the goons who have been handed ownership of our fate. and the list of candidates make Bruce and Timmy look like footy genius.

Rhino..wheres the beef? Still waiting

Old. Love your work. Sounds just like one of Neale's better speeches. Keep up the good work.

.......

Rhino..wheres the beef? Still waiting

.......

You are asking for beef when your contributions to date would make a Hare Krishna vegetarian look like a ravenous carnivore.

Bob's right its certainly a wonderful self parody.

I note you avoided his questions. You clearly have not got a clue about process and functions.

Far easier to roll out some disjointed cliches to give a false impression that you know whats going on.

Very Amusing.

You are asking for beef when your contributions to date would make a Hare Krishna vegetarian look like a ravenous carnivore.

Dumb & predictable Rhino. The college pimple popper can't even read.

Perhaps its time you enlightened the movement.

Ready to hear your answers to Bob and others questions about process.

Or are you going to continue to duck behind some childish and unnecessary name calling of MFC officers and other posters in lieu of substantiation?

We're reading you Alan..but in your case you haven't said anything.

We're reading you Alan..but in your case you haven't said anything.

And neither have you ecclesiarch.

& whats with the name calling? Thats low.

And whats the capacity with the MFC officer. Paid or volunteer?

Shall we continue?

If the board does not get Brett Ratten, then the whole process has been a joke and the MFC will not exist in 2 years time

you on something? whatever it is l don't want any

& whats with the name calling? Thats low.

I agree Alan. So I suggest you discontinue it.

And whats the capacity with the MFC officer. Paid or volunteer?

It does not matter what capacity it is. MFC officers and players should not be subjected to it. As you have pointed its low.

We're still waiting to hear your answers to Bob's and other posters questions about process.

Axe Bob, you've peaked with this post but wasted it because you can't read dimwit. I said, "...but for now..." you marauding invertebrate.

Yes, "but for now" is obviously the all encompassing get out of jail statement that allows you to claim that your statement of generalities and cliches isn't an actual solution.

Well what is your solution?

What are the criteria? How do we find the criteria? Who are the best people to know what criteria are important in judging the potential of a coach?

I just thought that I'd quote myself, asking you some questions. Answer them.

Alan, notice that I haven't sunken to petty name calling like yourself, but you're not making it easy. That's because I find that your ideas are similar to those that I would hear from a lightweight.

An aspect not often regarded is that of all the many and varying football people supposedly available for such work as 'consultant' panel member etc. is their impartiality. Or the ability to have it at present. A lot of stuff goes on behind closed doors.

Im failry certain Gardner would have made efforts to put together a group who would bring to the table the required outlooks and eperience without necessary having that in any ONE person.

Also keep in mind no club has sitting in waiting an "Emergency get a Coach board of Inquisitors" .

Yes, "but for now" is obviously the all encompassing get out of jail statement that allows you to claim that your statement of generalities and cliches isn't an actual solution.

No its not. An amoeba would have greater comprehension .

Well what is your solution?

I just thought that I'd quote myself, asking you some questions. Answer them.

WTF. As I said, I'll decide what I do and do not post on this forum. Anyway, what gives you the right to tell me to "answer them" Bobby?

Who the hell are you anyway? Are you an Mfc official. If so, so which dept? Marketing. Strategic analysis? Maybe, just maybe, recruitment? Warm?

and if you are ,which Coterie group or supporter group are you asked to have a chat or associate with at home or away games. Most of em officials do you know. & their all good value too. These groups give a shtlode to the club as any club employee would know. Wthout them this club would be dead!

What about the Supporter groups? Any of them? Young corporates? New initiative and building a steady following. Redlegs perhaps. But you have to buy your own beers there? IMO no good! Presidents lunch is always good for a wine & a laugh.

Maybe you Hang out @ Ralphies wall in the BCuthbert in the Olympic stand? Good company there.

RU mates with Nick G. or TK or GW?? Now no lightweights there. No sir?

Perhaps youve given an 'address' lately to the core front, if you know what I mean. Rubbing shoulders with MB & ANZ Pvt? Great supporters of the beloved.Hmm. I dunno. Not sure. U tell me. Are you just into pissing people off?

But I fear you have little to offer lightweight?

who the hell are you Laity?

No its not. An amoeba would have greater comprehension .

As I said, I'll decide what I do and do not post on this forum.

OK, my comprehension of this post is:

"I refuse to answer the question."

My analysis of this post is:

Alan will not answer the question because he doesn't have a solution. He says that he has one but won't post it. However, given that there is no reason for him not to, the overwhelming evidence supports him not actually having a solution. The only reason why he will not post it is because he's be called up on this thread and other for being nothing but cliches, generalities and hot air with out any substance. He's embarrassed by this and wants to create a reputation of being a hard hitter, where he clearly is not.

How close is that?

Anyway, what gives you the right to tell me to "answer them" Bobby?

........

who the hell are you Laity?

You don't know who I am, nor do I know who you are. Nor do I care. I could be a general member, I could be a Tridents member, or I could be a board member.

The reason why you should answer "them"* is because you need to give some substance rather than simply hot air and insults, otherwise your reputation on this board will continue spiralling ever lower from its currently low point.

So, in fact, you could see this as being somewhat of a lifeline that I'm throwing you. Instead you appear intent on drowning in a shallow sea of cliches.

Over to you, champ.

* "Them" being the questions that you refuse to answer, requoted for your and everyone's enjoyment below.

What are the criteria? How do we find the criteria? Who are the best people to know what criteria are important in judging the potential of a coach?

No its not. An amoeba would have greater comprehension .

WTF. As I said, I'll decide what I do and do not post on this forum. Anyway, what gives you the right to tell me to "answer them" Bobby?

Who the hell are you anyway? Are you an Mfc official. If so, so which dept? Marketing. Strategic analysis? Maybe, just maybe, recruitment? Warm?

and if you are ,which Coterie group or supporter group are you asked to have a chat or associate with at home or away games. Most of em officials do you know. & their all good value too. These groups give a shtlode to the club as any club employee would know. Wthout them this club would be dead!

What about the Supporter groups? Any of them? Young corporates? New initiative and building a steady following. Redlegs perhaps. But you have to buy your own beers there? IMO no good! Presidents lunch is always good for a wine & a laugh.

Maybe you Hang out @ Ralphies wall in the BCuthbert in the Olympic stand? Good company there.

RU mates with Nick G. or TK or GW?? Now no lightweights there. No sir?

Perhaps youve given an 'address' lately to the core front, if you know what I mean. Rubbing shoulders with MB & ANZ Pvt? Great supporters of the beloved.Hmm. I dunno. Not sure. U tell me. Are you just into pissing people off?

But I fear you have little to offer lightweight?

who the hell are you Laity?

Are you actually trying to dispel the "lightweight" tag by suggesting you know "important" people - that is tragic!