Blue Vain wrote:
ThePsychologist wrote:
Lots of speculation and opinions on here. Questions quite rightly need to be asked. I believe the club needs a major shake up.
I have been concerned for a long while of the lack of communication between the different departments at the club.
In my opinion we need to get people on the same page and to do that a new coach needs to have a full say over the football department. One person in charge.
This is a cultural issue and this doesn't change by moving one person.
Swann needs to appoint MM. They have a good relationship and they have been through this before.
Head of Football: Currently McKay I like him but he is a Ratten appointment. I have a question mark.
Asst Coaches: Malthouse will bring in own people.
Recruiting: I would leave as is unless MM can get Hine.
Fitness: Time for change.
.
Yep. Thats exactly the route I'd expect the club to take.
Forget doing the hard yards. Get someone high profile in so the responsibility goes off those who should be implementing a comprehensive process.
"it wasnt our fault, Mick bought his own people"
The good old Carlton way, hey?
Hell, we could even get Jack back as vice president!
As a club, we've become a pack of starstruck, reactive followers looking for the soft option.
Soft option?
I personally like the theory that was used by Pratt and a number of SUCCESSFUL businessman and that is get the BEST.
Stuff everyone else, what they do, whatever. GET THE BEST.
The coaching position is the MOST IMPORTANT in any football club.Who is the best coach? Based on Premierships its Arguably Malthouse, Roos, Matthews or Thompson.
The other three wont take the job, so its Malthouse. Simple.
We are not appointing a CFO or a Marketing Manager. We need the BEST coach and the field is thin.
To make the appointment, give him three years at good money and carte blanche regarding the football department is a strong and decisive decision. Shows guts and a that what has been happening isnt good enough.
If you want "weak" how about reappointing Ratten because "he was there" or giving him the job originally after Voss knocked it back and McKenna and Bond were given one interview.
IMO that is weak and the people in charge at the time should be held responsible.
Ratten also has other issues. He doesn't speak much with Swann, Cordy or Rogers. Icke left because of him as did Hyde. All good people, what happened? Even Sticks is on shaky ground with Ratten. Their relationship is not the same.
Malthouse whether you like him or not has gone to clubs, made the hard decisions, started at low bases and had success.
I cannot see how appointing him is "weak".