Blue Vain wrote:
Bluey44 wrote:
Blue Vain wrote:
Rexy wrote:
How much money has been wasted paying out coaching related contracts ?
What's worse, we paid out quality to get in lesser quality.
Here we go ..................
Great comeback. If you disagree, come up with something other than a pathetic eye roll. This forum is for discussion.
We flicked a bloke who was good enough to pick up an AFL senior job and not only did we pay him out, we paid additionally to get in lesser quality.
If I'm wrong, debate the point. If you're not capable, why bother responding?
I've seen the way you debate in the Mick Malthouse threads, and it's like a broken record.
Coaches work in teams, they need context, they need to be a good fit, they need to be effective as a unit, and most of all they need to be able to work effectively with the boss.
Getting the right head coach is more important than assistants - without the right leadership the assistants could be the best in the business and it wouldn't matter.
Mick is the head coach, so Mick picks the team around him. As far as I'm aware, any comments on here about why Richo is not here anymore (I assume you mean Richo, though your original post was a bit vague on that point) are purely conjecture, so in the absence of fact we have to assume that Mick is responsible for picking his team and the buck for the Richo decision stops with Mick. (Although Richo may have left of his own choice anyway)
I don't have a PHD in effective coaching personnel structures, but to me it seems relatively plain that in a lot of modern sports (including AFL) it is a relatively common and acceptable practice (if not the norm) for head coaches to pick their coaching panels.
So if you want to take the CFC board to task for poor contract coordination between the Head Coach decision and the assistant coach decision that has cost us unecessary expense, then go ahead.
But implying that the club admin is stupid for letting Richo go & paying him out just because he has landed a head coaching job makes no sense, given that Laidley has coached finals footy at head coach level, and has seemingly done a respectable round of assistant jobs as well. What makes Richo better except for the "I told you so!/Negative Nelly argument?
Let alone the fact that Osborne is untried and could be the best coach ever.
If you are referring to last years coaching appointments (ie. Mick bringing in Wiley), then I think the timing of that complaint probably fitted better with the previous AGM(?) (I could be wrong)
So either way I'm not sure how the admin or the board are directly at fault for making a bad talent judgement on Richo vs. his replacements (... which I think is an incorrect assertion anyway). The logical argument from your line of reasoning, then, is that Mick doesn't know a good assistant coach when he sees one, and the club admin have wasted money and good talent because of listening to Mick. And to be honest I'm getting a bit tired of the "Mick is no good" vibes around here.
Hence the eye roll.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
