Malthouse contract discussion: EXTENSION DENIED!

Sydney Blue · **Posted:** Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:31 am

Bluey44 wrote:

Guys,

sorry to say,

but I have this funny feeling that....

Ratten is NEVER Coming back ... !

I know, I know, hard to accept.

But if you say it out loud, just form the words with your mouth ... it might make it feel more real :

"Ratts
has
gone"

It will get easier.
I promise.

no one said anything about Ratten coming back
we just dont want Malthouse

bluegirl72 · **Joined:** Sat May 23, 2009 8:30 pm **Posts:** 23924

Cretylus wrote:

dane wrote:

Not a spelling mistake. The whole post.

People change their minds all the time

look at Mick - he thought we were top 4, 12 months later he thinks we should rebuild

takes on a multi million dollar senior coaching role at the Blues, 18 months later he doenst recognise the game and doesnt really like the game if he wasnt coaching.

People change their minds all the dane

[FRYBIE]

if you're writing this much now crety, God help us come August!! :yikes:

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:32 am

I'm not entirely sure if Mick is right for us going forward into what is going to be acknowledged as a rebuilding phase. Although, I'm also not necessarily advocating for change. Which is a bit ironic given what I'm about to say.

Sacking Mick at the end of this year or not extending his contract at the end of next will mean the club has to take a risk. A big risk.

Who do we bring in and what can the board and club do to ensure any new coach would have a suitable platform from which to achieve success?

Port Adelaide is the current shining example of how a club can quickly turn its fortunes around. Much of that success is laid at the feet of David Koch and Ken Hinkley. We'll probably never know if the signing of Hinkley was a masterstroke or just dumb luck. But if it's the latter, then surely Koch, his board and admin staff, must be lauded for creating an environment where a lucky coach could excel.

It's usually said that a club can't be successful if the board and footy department aren't on the same page. At various times I've naively thought that to be a bit strange, but history shows it to be true more often than not.

From my far away vantage point Koch appears to be forward thinking, media savvy (obviously) and knows what it takes to operate smartly in 2014 and beyond. He understands that risks need to be taken, but I'm guessing he knows how best to calculate those risks.

Does MLG possess those qualities? Does our "new board" possess those qualities?

I sure hope they all do, but I can't say I've got full confidence that they do.

Therefore, would it really matter if Mick is moved on and someone new is brought in?

If the board is not clear and public with the members and broader footy community about what its guiding principles are and what direction it wants to take the club, can any coach deliver sustainable success?

Does the club have the requisite foundation required to take the risk of changing the coach?

The flipside of that is, does the club have the capability of making a considered decision on Mick, regardless of what it is?

I hope they do. But, right now, in this context, we deserve a lot more than hope.

moshe25 · **Joined:** Wed May 11, 2005 1:23 am **Posts:** 11671

camelboy wrote:

I'm not entirely sure if Mick is right for us going forward into what is going to be acknowledged as a rebuilding phase. Although, I'm also not necessarily advocating for change. Which is a bit ironic given what I'm about to say.

Sacking Mick at the end of this year or not extending his contract at the end of next will mean the club has to take a risk. A big risk.

Who do we bring in and what can the board and club do to ensure any new coach would have a suitable platform from which to achieve success?

Port Adelaide is the current shining example of how a club can quickly turn its fortunes around. Much of that success is laid at the feet of David Koch and Ken Hinkley. We'll probably never know if the signing of Hinkley was a masterstroke or just dumb luck. But if it's the latter, then surely Koch, his board and admin staff, must be lauded for creating an environment where a lucky coach could excel.

It's usually said that a club can't be successful if the board and footy department aren't on the same page. At various times I've naively thought that to be a bit strange, but history shows it to be true more often than not.

From my far away vantage point Koch appears to be forward thinking, media savvy (obviously) and knows what it takes to operate smartly in 2014 and beyond. He understands that risks need to be taken, but I'm guessing he knows how best to calculate those risks.

Does MLG possess those qualities? Does our "new board" possess those qualities?

I sure hope they all do, but I can't say I've got full confidence that they do.

Therefore, would it really matter if Mick is moved on and someone new is brought in?

If the board is not clear and public with the members and broader footy community about what its guiding principles are and what direction it wants to take the club, can any coach deliver sustainable success?

Does the club have the requisite foundation required to take the risk of changing the coach?

The flipside of that is, does the club have the capability of making a considered decision on Mick, regardless of what it is?

I hope they do. But, right now, in this context, we deserve a lot more than hope.

Ah, Camel. That's exactly what we've been saying for years. If the water is polluted, it doesn't matter the quality of the fish, the food, the decorations, etc. You'll have a shit fish tank in which the fish will inevitably die.

That's why (when I can exercise the self discipline) I try to stay away from discussions about the coach, the recruiting, and the players. It's all deck chairs / Titanic stuff.

Get the board and president right and ALL WILL FLOW FROM THERE!!

mikeychook · **Joined:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:49 pm **Posts:** 1508

camelboy wrote:

I'm not entirely sure if Mick is right for us going forward into what is going to be acknowledged as a rebuilding phase. Although, I'm also not necessarily advocating for change. Which is a bit ironic given what I'm about to say.

Sacking Mick at the end of this year or not extending his contract at the end of next will mean the club has to take a risk. A big risk.

Who do we bring in and what can the board and club do to ensure any new coach would have a suitable platform from which to achieve success?

Port Adelaide is the current shining example of how a club can quickly turn its fortunes around. Much of that success is laid at the feet of David Koch and Ken Hinkley. We'll probably never know if the signing of Hinkley was a masterstroke or just dumb luck. But if it's the latter, then surely Koch, his board and admin staff, must be lauded for creating an environment where a lucky coach could excel.

It's usually said that a club can't be successful if the board and footy department aren't on the same page. At various times I've naively thought that to be a bit strange, but history shows it to be true more often than not.

From my far away vantage point Koch appears to be forward thinking, media savvy (obviously) and knows what it takes to operate smartly in 2014 and beyond. He understands that risks need to be taken, but I'm guessing he knows how best to calculate those risks.

Does MLG possess those qualities? Does our "new board" possess those qualities?

I sure hope they all do, but I can't say I've got full confidence that they do.

Therefore, would it really matter if Mick is moved on and someone new is brought in?

If the board is not clear and public with the members and broader footy community about what its guiding principles are and what direction it wants to take the club, can any coach deliver sustainable success?

Does the club have the requisite foundation required to take the risk of changing the coach?

The flipside of that is, does the club have the capability of making a considered decision on Mick, regardless of what it is?

I hope they do. But, right now, in this context, we deserve a lot more than hope.

Absolutely spot on.

Cretylus · **Posted:** Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:04 pm

bluegirl72 wrote:

Cretylus wrote:

dane wrote:

Not a spelling mistake. The whole post.

People change their minds all the time

look at Mick - he thought we were top 4, 12 months later he thinks we should rebuild

takes on a multi million dollar senior coaching role at the Blues, 18 months later he doenst recognise the game and doesnt really like the game if he wasnt coaching.

People change their minds all the dane

[FRYBIE]

if you're writing this much now crety, God help us come August!! :yikes:

The conditions of my self-suspension period is a bit like the EFC* drug saga - a misunderstanding and governed by legal technicalities and court actions.....very appropriate ruling by Judge Cretylus I think. Appealing to a higher a court is in the hands of your legal counsel - nothing to do with me.

dane is currently looking at his options at the moment

I couldnt believe that the GREAT DANE publicly requested official documents and receipts from my head office.

the gall of the man

[FRYBIE]

bluegirl72 · **Joined:** Sat May 23, 2009 8:30 pm **Posts:** 23924

Cretylus wrote:

bluegirl72 wrote:

Cretylus wrote:

dane wrote:

Not a spelling mistake. The whole post.

People change their minds all the time

look at Mick - he thought we were top 4, 12 months later he thinks we should rebuild

takes on a multi million dollar senior coaching role at the Blues, 18 months later he doenst recognise the game and doesnt really like the game if he wasnt coaching.

People change their minds all the dane

[FRYBIE]

if you're writing this much now crety, God help us come August!! :yikes:

The conditions of my self-suspension period is a bit like the EFC** drug saga - a misunderstanding and governed by legal technicalities and court actions.....very appropriate ruling by Judge Cretylus I think. Appealing to a higher a court is in the hands of your legal counsel - nothing to do with me.

dane is currently looking at his options at the moment

I couldnt believe that the GREAT DANE publicly requested official documents and receipts from my head office.

the gall of the man

[FRYBIE]

dane · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:14 am **Posts:** 22357

There are a wide array of problems in that head office.

Cretylus · **Posted:** Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:18 pm

dane wrote:

There are a wide array of problems in that head office.

I have had a close friend, sorry, an independent consultant look into the governance irregularities at head office.

Are you trying to imply something untoward has occurred or that there is a problem with the integrity of the organisation?

Are you questioning the investigation's legal validity?

You cant prove a thing dane - not one single thing.

see you in court Sir...

[FRYBIE]

bluegirl72 · **Joined:** Sat May 23, 2009 8:30 pm **Posts:** 23924

Too true Camel, and Moshe.
I reckon that's why I'm after small pockets of joy.
Long haul from here...way too long for me, until the big bang happens with complete rebuild..(could take years!!) I'd at least like a coach with the right mix of ethics, big picture thinking and grunt, to start impacting the minds of our young players.
It's mostly mental isn't it, once you've got teams of talented, fit young men?

Rexy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am **Posts:** 28227

The Board clearly don't know themselves if Mick is the man.

They would re-sign him now to re-build if they thought he was.

$1,000,000 per year...

???????.....

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:40 pm

moshe25 wrote:

Ah, Camel. That's exactly what we've been saying for years. If the water is polluted, it doesn't matter the quality of the fish, the food, the decorations, etc. You'll have a shit fish tank in which the fish will inevitably die.

And said in far fewer words too. :lol:

moshe25 wrote:

That's why (when I can exercise the self discipline) I try to stay away from discussions about the coach, the recruiting, and the players. It's all deck chairs / Titanic stuff.

Get the board and president right and ALL WILL FLOW FROM THERE!!

hotspur · **Joined:** Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:16 pm **Posts:** 481

We can bag Malthouse as much as we like but can someone tell me who out there would be better.( please dont say Ratten)
What the club has to do is give him some incentive if they want him as coach,( as I cant see anybody wanting him as a coach) a lower base salary,if we make the 8 more money if we make the top 4 more money.We have Mick where we want him ,I hope the club knows that ,no more $million dollar contracts ,let him earn his keep

Dominator_7 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:23 pm

Im confused about this guy now.
Had a not bad first season...
Seemed to have recovered\ season 2014 5 weeks ago after a poor start, only for us to lose our next 5 and lapse back into the doldrums.
He came to us with a rep of being a 'players coach', yet we keep hearing rumours of him 'freezing out' players like Lucas, Graham, Garlett etc.
At the Pies, he had a consistant bunch of young assistants who developed well under his tutelage and have gone on to be senior coaches (Richardson, Buckley, Scott, McKenna). Yet, he's come to us and built a 'Dad's Army' of old timer assistants around him in Wiley and Laidley.
Ha d a rep for getting the best out of average players, and develop kids well... That hasn't happened with us, or hasn't happened to the extent that we d hoped.

Something's not adding up......

Cretylus · **Posted:** Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:33 pm

hotspur wrote:

We can bag Malthouse as much as we like but can someone tell me who out there would be better.( please dont say Ratten)
What the club has to do is give him some incentive if they want him as coach,( as I cant see anybody wanting him as a coach) a lower base salary,if we make the 8 more money if we make the top 4 more money.We have Mick where we want him ,I hope the club knows that ,no more $million dollar contracts ,let him earn his keep

wasnt Hinkley available at the end of 2012?

It was good for Swann to conduct a thorough coaching talent search across Australia and eventually come up with an ex-Collingwood employee.

Obviously carlton are the only team that doesnt need to look around and conduct interviews etc. Perhaps set up a panel like Port did, which was headed by David Parkin (and Pot were broke too - still would be if it wasnt for the 9 million dollar handout Vlad game them at the end of 2012 to prop them up)

We also had to sign up a big name - standard Blues practice - and he turned out to be an ex-pie as well..

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:52 pm

Dominator_7 wrote:

Im confused about this guy now.
Had a not bad first season...
Seemed to have recovered\ season 2014 5 weeks ago after a poor start, only for us to lose our next 5 and lapse back into the doldrums.
He came to us with a rep of being a 'players coach', yet we keep hearing rumours of him 'freezing out' players like Lucas, Graham, Garlett etc.
At the Pies, he had a consistant bunch of young assistants who developed well under his tutelage and have gone on to be senior coaches (Richardson, Buckley, Scott, McKenna). Yet, he's come to us and built a 'Dad's Army' of old timer assistants around him in Wiley and Laidley.
Ha d a rep for getting the best out of average players, and develop kids well... That hasn't happened with us, or hasn't happened to the extent that we d hoped.

Something's not adding up......

Yep. I agree.

If the TC info is true that Mick went to the board at the end of last year saying "rebuild" and the board replied "GTFO it's our 150th" that could explain the coach not knowing if he's coming or going.

Still doesn't really explain our mental softness, which hasn't really altered significantly since Mick arrived, and you'd reckon a guys of Mick's should be able to navigate around other periphery issues.

Maybe not??? But, I agree, something's not right.

Dominator_7 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:33 pm

Heard an interview from him last week where Mick said in the past, he's cut players who he's found to be 'mentally soft' even if they had some talent skill wise.
Reckon when he first got here, and even after last season, Mick thought he could improve the mental toughness of a lot of our group, but that this year, its really dawned on him that a lot of our players are simply beyond help and just not up to it (ie Watson, Lucas).

ThePsychologist · **Joined:** Sun May 03, 2009 9:52 am **Posts:** 7893

mikeychook wrote:

camelboy wrote:

I'm not entirely sure if Mick is right for us going forward into what is going to be acknowledged as a rebuilding phase. Although, I'm also not necessarily advocating for change. Which is a bit ironic given what I'm about to say.

Sacking Mick at the end of this year or not extending his contract at the end of next will mean the club has to take a risk. A big risk.

Who do we bring in and what can the board and club do to ensure any new coach would have a suitable platform from which to achieve success?

Port Adelaide is the current shining example of how a club can quickly turn its fortunes around. Much of that success is laid at the feet of David Koch and Ken Hinkley. We'll probably never know if the signing of Hinkley was a masterstroke or just dumb luck. But if it's the latter, then surely Koch, his board and admin staff, must be lauded for creating an environment where a lucky coach could excel.

It's usually said that a club can't be successful if the board and footy department aren't on the same page. At various times I've naively thought that to be a bit strange, but history shows it to be true more often than not.

From my far away vantage point Koch appears to be forward thinking, media savvy (obviously) and knows what it takes to operate smartly in 2014 and beyond. He understands that risks need to be taken, but I'm guessing he knows how best to calculate those risks.

Does MLG possess those qualities? Does our "new board" possess those qualities?

I sure hope they all do, but I can't say I've got full confidence that they do.

Therefore, would it really matter if Mick is moved on and someone new is brought in?

If the board is not clear and public with the members and broader footy community about what its guiding principles are and what direction it wants to take the club, can any coach deliver sustainable success?

Does the club have the requisite foundation required to take the risk of changing the coach?

The flipside of that is, does the club have the capability of making a considered decision on Mick, regardless of what it is?

I hope they do. But, right now, in this context, we deserve a lot more than hope.

Absolutely spot on.

x 2

Cretylus · **Posted:** Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:40 pm

Dominator_7 wrote:

Heard an interview from him last week where Mick said in the past, he's cut players who he's found to be 'mentally soft' even if they had some talent skill wise.
Reckon when he first got here, and even after last season, Mick thought he could improve the mental toughness of a lot of our group, but that this year, its really dawned on him that a lot of our players are simply beyond help and just not up to it (ie Watson, Lucas).

just watson and lucas?

Our leadership group is mentally soft with their pathetic mediocre goal setting and aversion to being honest

Dominator_7 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:52 pm

Cretylus wrote:

Dominator_7 wrote:

Heard an interview from him last week where Mick said in the past, he's cut players who he's found to be 'mentally soft' even if they had some talent skill wise.
Reckon when he first got here, and even after last season, Mick thought he could improve the mental toughness of a lot of our group, but that this year, its really dawned on him that a lot of our players are simply beyond help and just not up to it (ie Watson, Lucas).

just watson and lucas?

Our leadership group is mentally soft with their pathetic mediocre goal setting and aversion to being honest

Just used those two as examples.... If I listed all our mentally weak players, id still be writing lol.

ThePsychologist wrote:

mikeychook wrote:

camelboy wrote:

I'm not entirely sure if Mick is right for us going forward into what is going to be acknowledged as a rebuilding phase. Although, I'm also not necessarily advocating for change. Which is a bit ironic given what I'm about to say.

Sacking Mick at the end of this year or not extending his contract at the end of next will mean the club has to take a risk. A big risk.

Who do we bring in and what can the board and club do to ensure any new coach would have a suitable platform from which to achieve success?

Port Adelaide is the current shining example of how a club can quickly turn its fortunes around. Much of that success is laid at the feet of David Koch and Ken Hinkley. We'll probably never know if the signing of Hinkley was a masterstroke or just dumb luck. But if it's the latter, then surely Koch, his board and admin staff, must be lauded for creating an environment where a lucky coach could excel.

It's usually said that a club can't be successful if the board and footy department aren't on the same page. At various times I've naively thought that to be a bit strange, but history shows it to be true more often than not.

From my far away vantage point Koch appears to be forward thinking, media savvy (obviously) and knows what it takes to operate smartly in 2014 and beyond. He understands that risks need to be taken, but I'm guessing he knows how best to calculate those risks.

Does MLG possess those qualities? Does our "new board" possess those qualities?

I sure hope they all do, but I can't say I've got full confidence that they do.

Therefore, would it really matter if Mick is moved on and someone new is brought in?

If the board is not clear and public with the members and broader footy community about what its guiding principles are and what direction it wants to take the club, can any coach deliver sustainable success?

Does the club have the requisite foundation required to take the risk of changing the coach?

The flipside of that is, does the club have the capability of making a considered decision on Mick, regardless of what it is?

I hope they do. But, right now, in this context, we deserve a lot more than hope.

Absolutely spot on.

x 2

x 3

Malthouse contract discussion: EXTENSION DENIED!

Who is online