padre wrote:
Blue Vain wrote:
cimm1979 wrote:
Sorry BV, new admins often bring in their own people.
You can talk all you like about professionals being able to work together but if there are people Ina position you firmly believe you can't work with, you move them on.
I will add that not all the coaches got moved on and some of them seem to be doing well.
i accept that. If Malthouse didnt want Richardson, so be it. But I expected the club to have a job description for the director of coaching and for them to source the best available person.
Instead they let Mick put in Rob Wiley.
Was he the best available candidate? We'll never know.
But you dont really accept anything. Mm is in the best position not you or anybody else, to assess who is the best available person to work with him. Rats needs were far different to micks. But who is best placed to decide what mick needs if not mick himself?
I dont accept anything?
You mean I dont blindly accept your view. I'm giving reasons why I disagree and I'm happy to debate the relevant views.
The primary consideration shouldnt be who is the best person to "work with MM".
Its not kindergarden.
The role isnt about what "Mick needs". Its about what the club and program needs.
We should have chosen the most qualified and credentialled person. How a bloke who has been out of the system for 8 years can be the best available director of coaching is farcical IMHO. If we were a strong organisation, we would have poached the best bloke and everyone would have worked within
our preferred structure.
If they're unable to do that, you'd have to question their capacity to perform in a team environment.
Login
Register
FAQ
