nutbean

Why embarrassing ? Its a big game. What would have happened if they said no but maybe Mitch Duncan. The game is you keeping dipping the bait no matter how ridiculous it is and the worse thing that will happen is you wont land a fish.

On Malthouse - yeah, that too... It had unhappy ending written on it from day one

The major difference with the Malthouse/Buckley transition is that reason that Buckley was selected was because they didnt want to lose him to North. Not a firm base to build a succession plan on.

I resemble that remark

I think everyone is getting way too caught up in this succession plan and has never been involved in one. I dont think players give a rats who is going to be coach in the 3 years - to the extent i dont think players arent coming because they dont know who the annointed one is. The players havent known in the past who is going to coach us in 3 years time and what about Hawthorn - their players wouldnt know either. We have succession plans for all our top management and it takes 5 mins to 5 months to a couple of years to find the right person. On top of that if the person touted as the successor doesnt measure up as expected then the person is out and we start again. We only have a couple more assistant roles to fill and if we dont find a successor this year - no biggie - we find one next year. The succession plan is not ridiculous - either right person hasnt been found or hasnt wanted to come. I think the biggest problem is people is not understanding that succession planning is a journey. It is not the matter of rushing and finding the person put their feet in concrete and done. I would be very surprised if there is not an out clause for both parties in the succession plan.

Not so worried about assistant coaches - but you just figured out we are on the nose ? Taking off our Rose coloured Demons glasses - if you have any other club offer on the table and a MFC offer for comparible amounts of money which one would you take ? Maybe Essendon because of their off field problems but if the players dont get hit with infractions they are still more appealing. I am not sure why this is a surprise to people. One season under Roos where we show really advancement ( and that doesnt necessarily mean wins) and players may want to come. Until then - stinkaroo

Common practice for retired players to move into coaching elsewhere to get a fresh look at another club rather than fall into an assistant coaching role at your club. There is also a school of thought that it is easy apprenticeship to coach players you havent played with. Look at Hawks and Freo's coaching staff - Hawks have two players ( Bruce being one of them) and Freo nil players who played for the club - dont they have players who have retired also ?

I reckon nonsense. Its not a perception that we havent been able to develop young players - its fact. But to think that this is sticking point that opposition clubs and player managers are falling back on ? I think not - it is much easier to say - last year we were second only to GWS as the worst team in the league and GWS even have more to offer than we do - it may be a very long road back for the MFC to be called competitive - this is what is stopping players coming - more attractive alternatives. Unless a player is offered large dollars - then they wont come this year. If we show glimmers of hope then next year players may be more responsive to a move. Any player manager worth his salt can see that if George Stone comes (which is likely ?) then we have a good structure to develop youngster with him and Roos and others. Why ignore the main reason why players dont wont to come ?

You mean like Pods and Chappie at Geelong. Sad fact of football is that some players still want to play passed their use by date.

please tell me that this was tongue firmly placed in cheek.....

I think you spend too much time here - I have been slightly disappointed on the senior assistant front but are we are aware if potential coaches have knocked us back or Roos hasnt wanted them as the senior coach designate ? I am not sure where you are getting the Big Brand sponsors or players wanting to jump onboard ? I must have missed those news flashes. The only jump onboard that was mooted was Watts - no was even suggesting that Sylvia was staying because of Roos

And I quote Paul Roos - "I wont be coaching next year". This is a 3 week process - after the 3 weeks I will be over it. Until that time - no doesnt mean no . If at that time no genuine pick 2 quality players is up to be traded then we get a kid. But as far as I am concerned - no means no at the end of the 3 week trade period - until that time keep asking the question to any player manager whose player we have interest in whether the manager has said no or not. If Peter Jacksons approach with Roos has taught us anything it has taught us that.

Why is the Roos factor disappointing ? Nobody believes that his arrival is going trigger a meteoric rise up the ladder. Therefore as you rightly say - onfield success is the only thing that will make us an attractive destination - or at least signs of revival.

At the moment we stink on ice even with Roos. The only thing we have to offer is a greater opportunity for players who arent getting a go ( unless a better club than us can offer the same thing) or money. We need next season of going in the right direction ( aka the bulldogs) and we will be more attractive.

Again what the hell would any of us know. It is what it is and will be what it will be. It will be this year..it will be next year. I don't really care. It is an asst coach being training to be a head coach. Roos will pick who he thinks is right when the person and the time is right. I will lose no sleep over this.

agreed, A little more on leading teams . The system that leading teams would employ would be group discussion about the captain and you would find the candidates will talk about why they should be captain and non candidates would talk about who should be captain - then the hard part comes - Roos would talk in front of the entire group as to why it his belief that Jones would be a better captain than say Trengove. A little further discomfort - the whole group may be asked " who would you respond to better as captain " and names would be heard and then players would have to explain why. You have to be very open to criticism and be able to handle it under the leading teams process and fragile ego's dont cope all that well. As an aside - the hardest part I found was that we had Justin Peckitt ( ex Saint) as the leading teams facilitator for our company and I found it hard to get over the fact that a very average footballer was trying to add value to our very good company - but cudo's to him - he was excellent. edit - basically the main difference is that leading teams make you explain your decisions in terms of honest feedback - whereas the Neeld system you voted and thats it

I think that people are missing two vital points. With most succession plans : 1/ You dont only do you own job - you are involved in the learning the job for which you have been annointed as successor ( as in Dews case senior assistant then becoming head coach) - he would be involved in the decisions and tasks that Roos does so he can learn the skills. It is a different apprenticeship from just being an assistant and then getting the top gig. It is working with Roos as head coach for next 2-3 years so at the end of his apprenticeship he is more than just an assistant that has taken over cold. So to all those saying that of the rumoured names "what has he done" - the experience to be a head coach is going to come over the next 2-3 years whilst it may not be there right now - thats why it is a succession plan. 2/ All succession plans I have seen are not locked in stone and there is an out clause for both the company and the successor - The likes of a Dew may get 2 years into the apprenticeship and say it aint for me and likewise Roos may say that he hasnt come along as hoped and all bets are off - it is not usually a clause made public but it is there. The clause usually comes with golden handshakes for the successor if the succession plan doesnt go ahead.

good point. Neeld, Watters and Buckley all seem to have this rigidity to them - like Malthouse - as rightly pointed out - Scott and McKenna dont

So where do I start.... Firstly - your earlier assumption that Neeld selected Trengove therefore is not correct - what he did was implement a process that chose Trengove as captain and he didnt over-rule it. As an aside it is a Neeld/Malthouse failing as this is the Collingwood process brought to the MFC - it is not exactly ground breaking) Secondly - from your comments about Roos and leading teams you obviously havent had leading teams through your company . The leading teams process is heavily into transparency and 360 degree feedback of which no one in the organisation is immune to - (we had them through our company and it is uncomfortable to say the least). The idea that a leading teams process would throw up Trengove and Grimes but then the coaches would pick differently is the antithesis of what leading teams is about. Wouldn't happen. Thirdly - I think there was mostly consensus on Demonland once the announcement was made that trengove/Grimes wasnt a bad decision as the previous leaders of the club had failed us ( there was some conjecture over joint captains). We are looking at failure through a rear vision mirror.

I do find it interesting that there is a common thread here. Neeld - gone Watters - rumours of discontent Buckley - rumours of discontent All proteges of Mick Malthouse - common thread on their player management styles ?

This has been mentioned many times and I just dont get it. For those to suggest that Neeld appointed the captains - this means then that all of part of the following documented process was a lie. - did the players and staff vote for the captains and leadership group ? ( this was process that was announced) If that is the case - did Trengove and Grimes get the nod as captains or conversely did Neeld pick them even though others had higher votes ( says Jones) and then get in front of the camera and lie through his teeth that the players and staff voted them in. You may want to criticise Neeld for not overturning his process but he may have looked mighty silly for setting up a protocol and then not following it.

I'm with you Jack. I dont disrespect any employees of the club. I will offer a critique of their performance and Craig has been given leeway on his failure because he comes across as a good bloke as opposed to Neeld who has been blamed for absolutely everything including the sinking of the titanic. (don't get me started on Brian Royal, the worst coach of all time who apparently coached the last two best and fairest winners ?)

I would play except I have two small problems 1/ complete absense of any talent 2/ pea heart

Guilty as charged. I see a couple of good games from a player and think yes. 22 games of that a season over 6 seasons and we got a champion. And then reality hits. 5 seasons on and a couple of good games is the sum total. I have seen a couple from Blease and Tappy and think yes....... So why couldnt Roos bring out more of the good games from them ? ( alas not to be and I'm being a [censored] in not wanting them traded)

agree - my only conclusion is that it doesnt matter that he goes now - we are better off without him and right now !