rpfc

This idea would make a good telemovie but I don't think we should sit on our hands for a year. It could work, absolutely, but if Malthouse wants to keep coaching, or more specifically wants to coach our list, he has to decide that in this last bit of the season and make the decision public mid-October of this year. Otherwise, get Eade, and Neeld or someone as his senior assistant and poach a couple other bright minds and starting shaking this list around and wake it up.

Wow, this thread was not the greatest thread in the world...

Is JB the embodiment of the soft Melbourne culture? Or is he affected by the soft Melbourne culture? I am loathe to get rid of talent before the new coach can attempt to pull a few fingers out.

The sons of the MFC and Casey head coaches are playing. Seb and Jack. BTW Seb is an excellent, bloody excellent WK/Batsman.

'Value for money elsewhere'? I don't understand. Yeah, Neeld at $300k would be cheaper, but he isn't a proven flag winning coach who is out of contract. The key to this 'offer' which I am sure was just ballpark figures is that we wanted him to know how interested we are before he is signed by the Hawks.

1. F... the process. If you internally agree that one person is amongst a few targets, their CV is very good and they are out of contract - you let them know that you are an option. 2. Who gives if we push up his price? We are acting now because we cannot act later. Can't wait for him to sign a contract with the Hawks. And who cares if we are showing our hand? Too many on here are worried about perceptions. I think with our problems - people who don't think we are a basket case won't be swayed by trying to get Clarkson.

You know what we should do? Look at the state leagues! Get some ready made players in their prime. Oh, rpfc, you've done it again!

Didn't get them a flag though. And they were in the top 4 when he went there. He was a very fit 33 year old who has played 1 good season and got them them no closer, and has been a injury riddled 34 year old who has decided to give it away. Have to ask ourselves what the benefits would be opposed to the risks. And I don't think the potential benefits outweigh the risks. I also think it will be a short term experiment that will leave us no closer to a flag.

I wouldn't say that. It's probably a deliberate leak - get the word out that we have money to spend, so that other people know that we can compete in the marketplace. Also, gets the story off 'The Internal Crisis at Melbourne'...

Hall was 25 when he went to the Swans... Fev will be 31. And even if he can play till we are contenders, he will be 34/35, does anyone seriously think he will be in a state to help us win that flag? After all this talk about clearing dead wood, I am disturbed by the 40% of Landers that want to plonk a massive rotting redwood right on the front garden...

Because he is too young for the A-Team...

We are far too cynical, DC...

Come on, RF. Give the kid a chance. Tall, teenage CHFs have issues early on... It isn't a failed pick because he is in the thirds in his first year.

I am ok with the club abandoning a 'formal process' if they get a proven coach who has won a flag. Sometomes getting consultants in to tell you something means they tell you something you already know or they give you glossy BS.

How cash can be obtained by not spending an amount you were never going to spend is beyond me... We can pay for a good coach like Clarkson or Malthouse because of the fact that we have grown revenue streams and asked fans to chip in.

I guess if you can define success, you can always define what success is... It's like lowering the high jump bar as you realise you will never jump over it... We have lost the coach. The senior players are hopeless and mutinous because they don't realise how hopeless they are, the admin is bloated (according to some), the footy dept is poorly run (according to some), the CEO is meddling places he shouldn't, and the board hadn't the faintest idea what hit them, and is now getting a retired champ to tell them what to do... Oh, this year went great...

The senior players send a terrible message. But we now have the calibre of player and individual in the U/24 brigade to have them mould the club and the playing group. Absolutley. U/24 LG in 2012. Well they didn't... But I get your point, less Leading Teams and more ownership for those that can actually lead teams. If you are saying that any measurement is bad other than wins, then we get into a debate. I like the KPIs that the club has talked about - some are in my thread - and I am sure they led to the end of the Bailey tenure - they obviously show a lack of progress, even a movement backwards... Ok, you are talking about process. I think we are talking past each other here. Your process is the same as mine, but I simply want to measure (attempt to at least) the performance of that process. KPIs are in every sport, and are strong in AFL. I am sure Malthouse has some important KPIs that give the players a measurement of their performance in key areas. A proper leader wants to improve those, wants to put them up against the best, wants to put in a performance in all of the key areas. We don't have those in our senior group - as you say - they are happy enough to coast and they are obviously happy enough to smash Adelaide and get smashed by Geelong. The KPIs are not the problem, the ones that should be pushing improvement from their fellow players are. They are just measurements, Robbie.

Blatant false advertising...

It's obviously been a raging, unmitigated, titanic-sized success... All that could go right, went in a direction. It wasn't right, but it was definitely a direction!

And thus the problem with wins being the measurement of a season...

Strange article that. It says Scully is off, Ward may stay, Thomas will definitely stay, but that GWS has reached its max for salaries next year... They don't know a damn thing...

Not old enough, apparently.

Should we re-hire Bailey if we get there?

I agree with a great deal of what you say but I have two problems with this notion: 1. We have been 'rebuilding' this list since late 2007, not the decades that you are implying - the MFC of 2011 can own its own failures. I see this as giving the club an out - 'we have been bad for so long, how can I be blamed for being apart of the latest failure.' 2. We argue ad-nauseum about Bailey and his KPIs or 'touchstones' and winning qtrs is simply that, it isn't an out. It was a device to focus the minds of players to play well in all qtrs and not allow the 'blow-out' periods that have marked Bailey's tenure. 8.11 against Hawthorn, 8.1 against Carlton, 7.7 against WCE (although the last two were a week after he left), etc. I can see where you are coming from and we do value the wrong type of player, although I think that is changing, and I think we have had the wrong players in leadership positions, and I hope that changes... Just as an aside - it won't take much for me to be pushed to start a 'dissolve the LG, and install a U/24 group' petition...

I agree that we have an affliction of being far too easily pleased with, not mediocrity, but a level of performance that is ultimately sub-optimal. I don't attach the past to the present to the extent you do. Bailey's reign didn't suffer a continuation of this decades long anemic culture that you are certain has pervaded the club. He had built his own house on a sandy foundation with his own anemic culture - kids coddled, senior players given leadership roles not deserved or earned, etc. The mistakes of those at the club are theirs and not the unavoidable happen-stance of a decades long culture issues. Brad Green's issues are his, and were completely avoidable if proper decisions were made. As for the current culture affecting the kids - I don't know. Maybe it is best that we had this year, so that those kids can take charge of the culture before it takes charge of them. Needless, to say it worries me, but if we can keep the impressive yougsters we all talk about - I am confident we can outgrow our contentedness with suboptimal performances and results. I would at this point like to say that our culture issues are a major reason I would like to keep Tom Scully. I think that players like him are valuable on the field, but invaluable off of it.