jim wrote:
Why would one get rid of Mitchell when he's done his job here well.
He's been with the club in off-field capacities for 10 years now. As far as we can tell, he hasn't been seriously considered by any other club for a role, despite having heaps of experience.
He has also been a big beneficiary of the experienced players on our list over the last couple of years who struggled to consolidate senior positions but who were very good players at VFL level because of their mature bodies and experience. Deluca, Sporn, Wiggins, Davies, Bannister, Teague, McGrath, Livo and others. That enabled him to win h&a games against unaligned teams without players of that standard and aligned clubs playing skinny youngsters. But when he had to try to match it in the finals and other sides loaded up with big-bodied AFL players, we sank without trace.
Even Mitchell points out that his team is struggling this year because of the turnover of senior players. Sitting at 4-45, it doesn't appear that Mitchell is able to weave heaps of magic. His policy of getting numbers behind the ball isn't an original plan.
As has been said by others, our youngsters don't seem to hit the ground running when they are selected for AFL games.
But the issue isn't whether he does a good job. It's whether there were and are other coaches who could do as well or better. If we can get someone better, why would you be so insistent that we retain Mitchell?
jim wrote:
The same can't be said for Pagan, who's been a disgrace.
Maybe we could go into the salary cap penalties, the need to overcome resistance from self-indulgent senior players, etc. etc. just one more time? No, I can hear the horrified shrieks from cyberspace, so I won't
jim wrote:
Pagan's only marking time until he's paid out so for the sake of a year why get rid of Mitchell. Wasn't if it was going to affect us winning a premiership.
Yep, they were always going to worry about locking in a master coach at VFL level as the first priority. Ingenious really.
jim wrote:
He was asked to apply for the job and got stumped at the last minute by the AFL.
Poor guy. How could he possibly know that all hell would break loose if he made an unsuccessful application. Like, just because he was an AFL player for 15 years or so, and has been at Carlton for 10 years or so as an assistant of various sorts doesn't mean he knows the way things work, does it? And the reports of tension between Pagan and him in the months before the board meeting don't have to indicate that he was making his move well ahead of the "invitation" from the board during the meeting, do they?
jim wrote:
Not his fault our useless senior coach is too stubborn to talk to him. He should be forced to.
Strange, isn't it? You would have thought that if Carlton had the power to direct Pagan to communicate with Mitchell, Pagan could be sacked if he didn't. Wow, that would enable Carlton to get rid of Pagan without having to pay him out
Hmmm ... could that mean that the Board doesn't have the power to do so? But surely if such a refusal hurts the club, the Board can make such a reasonable direction? Maybe, the Board breached the contract with Pagan by re-signing Mitchell. See, coaches would usually have written guarantees that the coach has a right of veto over football department appointments to avoid them being lumbered with staff they don't trust or respect. But I'm sure that Sticks and Gleeson came up with their own little loophole - as Bullants' coach, Mitchell wasn't in the football department!!!! Brilliant. Only one small problem. That meant that if Mitchell wasn't part of the football department, the club could hardly protest if he didn't talk to him. Mexican standoff. What seemed to be a stroke of genius by Sticks in presenting Pagan with a fait accompli has now become a major embarrassment to the club and an impediment to our development. Sticks and Gleeson, and whoever else joined them to stop Swann resolving the problem when he took over, should be condemned for their stupidity and selfishness.
jim wrote:
Properly run organisations get rid of their bad employees and keep their good one's, not vice versa.
Properly run organisations ensure that they have a unified team at the top. They don't go around trying to create hostility, rivalry and distrust at the top level. We had plenty of that in the last Board. Not surprisingly, the members voted to eliminate the factionalism.
You were all for anything that would humiliate Pagan into retiring, Jim. You thought it was great that Mitchell was re-signed from this point of view. Seems that the stunt backfired.
jim wrote:
The only reason Denis is still here is because we couldn't pay him out last year.
Interesting - I thought you said it was because of the AFL.
jim wrote:
I think the clue as to who's leaving might be seen in the fact that Mitchell's still here. If Pagan was considered long term I'd imagine Mitchell might not be here but seeing he's not it might tell us was Mitchell hasn't been sacked.
Good to see you really got your hands dirty by trying to deal with the "jobs for the mates" angle. Maybe governments everywhere should have you on retainer. Any time one of them appoint a friend or party hack to a lucrative post, you'll be able to state categorically that he or she must have been the best person for the job because otherwise someone else would have been appointed.