Regardless of whether you are pro/anti Mick,
people are going to have to start getting used to the fact that premierships are going to get harder and harder to win under the current league format.

The assistance given to the new teams (on top of the obvious fact there are now 2 new competitors), along with free agency, will make flags harder to come by, and will entrench certain 'Organisations' in the top of the ladder for the long term.

It's not just simple footy anymore, it's more like an American or European league where successful corporations win more often than not.

We need to get the WHOLE organisation humming, not just the coach.

In the future there may be coaches who achieve miracles by getting their team to 8th, and then they will get poached to a good club, where the superior organisational environment means the coach's skills are put to best use in order to win a flag.

Things have changed.
If we were an awesome modern club (ala Geelong or Hawthorn) and Mick came along and got us to 8th or 13th, then we would be in our rights to sack him Manchester United style.
The problem is we were (and in some ways still are) a basketcase, at possibly (almost) the worst time in the history of the game to be a basketcase, and we are only improving at a marginal rate.
So in the context of our organisation, we are a bottom 10 organisation.
Until we are a top 8 or top 4 organisation, then there's no way you can isolate Mick as the cause of our underperformance.

So blaming Mick in isolation is useless. Getting Ratts back, or Vossy or Ling or Goodwin or whoever is trendy flavour of the month will not work in isolation.

Certain broken records on here keep talking about Hinkley - Take Koshie out of the equation, along with the bailouts from the AFL/SANFL/whoever else helped them, along with a major organisational reshuffle, then Port would be a rabble. They were very close to heading the same way as Melbourne.
Put Hinkley into a Mark Neeld type situation, and I bet he wouldn't be getting the hype he currently is.
He had a good opportunity at the perfect time which utilised his skills.
He was a good fit for a quickly improving organisation.

We need a President, board and staff that know what they are doing.
The last bunch clearly did not.
The new bunch are only half new - half recycled. Hopefully the tide is turning.

I'm happy that MLG is actively trying to poach people.
That will be the modern way - top tier clubs poaching talent from bottom tier clubs.
At some point money will become absolutely make or break too.
Teams like the Western Bulldogs may never win another flag.

We have to wake up and take a broader view than just the head coach.
The whole club needs to work well, every staff member needs to be under as much scrutiny as the head coach.

Sadly we aren't at that point.

Regardless of whether you are pro/anti Mick,
people are going to have to start getting used to the fact that premierships are going to get harder and harder to win under the current league format.

The assistance given to the new teams (on top of the obvious fact there are now 2 new competitors), along with free agency, will make flags harder to come by, and will entrench certain 'Organisations' in the top of the ladder for the long term.

It's not just simple footy anymore, it's more like an American or European league where successful corporations win more often than not.

We need to get the WHOLE organisation humming, not just the coach.

In the future there may be coaches who achieve miracles by getting their team to 8th, and then they will get poached to a good club, where the superior organisational environment means the coach's skills are put to best use in order to win a flag.

Things have changed.
If we were an awesome modern club (ala Geelong or Hawthorn) and Mick came along and got us to 8th or 13th, then we would be in our rights to sack him Manchester United style.
The problem is we were (and in some ways still are) a basketcase, at possibly (almost) the worst time in the history of the game to be a basketcase, and we are only improving at a marginal rate.
So in the context of our organisation, we are a bottom 10 organisation.
Until we are a top 8 or top 4 organisation, then there's no way you can isolate Mick as the cause of our underperformance.

So blaming Mick in isolation is useless. Getting Ratts back, or Vossy or Ling or Goodwin or whoever is trendy flavour of the month will not work in isolation.

Certain broken records on here keep talking about Hinkley - Take Koshie out of the equation, along with the bailouts from the AFL/SANFL/whoever else helped them, along with a major organisational reshuffle, then Port would be a rabble. They were very close to heading the same way as Melbourne.
Put Hinkley into a Mark Neeld type situation, and I bet he wouldn't be getting the hype he currently is.
He had a good opportunity at the perfect time which utilised his skills.
He was a good fit for a quickly improving organisation.

We need a President, board and staff that know what they are doing.
The last bunch clearly did not.
The new bunch are only half new - half recycled. Hopefully the tide is turning.

I'm happy that MLG is actively trying to poach people.
That will be the modern way - top tier clubs poaching talent from bottom tier clubs.
At some point money will become absolutely make or break too.
Teams like the Western Bulldogs may never win another flag.

We have to wake up and take a broader view than just the head coach.
The whole club needs to work well, every staff member needs to be under as much scrutiny as the head coach.

Sadly we aren't at that point.

So bluey were we a basket case before Micky took over or were we consistent finalists in the previous few years?
How many times did we miss out on finals after Ratten took over while we had the same basket case of a club?
Weren’t we a bottom 10 or even bottom 5 organisation before Ratten took over but still improved dramatically with our on field results?

Good point.

But personally, I think there's a crucial difference between:
1) Taking a team from last place to the bottom of the 8, with the aid of a whole lot of #1 draft picks and priority picks, (not to mention Fev & Judd), and
2) Taking a team from the cusp of finals to consistent top 4 material (& hence grand finals)

If you want Ratt's record to be recognised, then that record stands at 1 x first round finals win.
When you boil it down, that's it. Mick has already taken us to one finals win in his first year.

I see your point, but personally I wouldn't describe 2 x finals wins and a couple of losses in the first round as sustained success.
We need to be aiming for the top 4 on a regular basis to have a crack at a flag.

When Ratts got the chop, I admit I got a little bit sucked in by the club's logic that we were ready to take the next step.
But since then I've come to believe that there was/is more that needed fixing than just Ratts. Sticks just chose to turn a blind eye.

The Wayne Hughes legacy is a key thing - which is having a delayed effect now.
So too the lack of a dedicated list manager to plan the future of the list, along with (IMO) underperforming heads of the footy department.

I can agree that Ratts should maybe have been afforded more opportunity - you could easily argue that he was unfairly judged in isolation when there have been other things going wrong. But unfortunately our club wanted the scapegoat option.

Geelong didn't take the scapegoat option with Thompson, and look where it got them.
The swans patiently developed an enduring structure with a caretaker coach and organisational continuity/stability, and look where it got them.

On the other hand we are just split down the middle - every coach we have, 50% of supporters seem to say 'sack him', and the other 50% seem to want to sack his successor.

Its not about Ratts record vs Mick's record. The context was different.
I'm sure Mick could have taken us from last place to 1 x finals win.

Any mug club can make the finals with enough draft picks & handouts (although so far melbourne seems to be a worrying failure), but getting a successful formula in place for the organisation to have sustained success (ie top 4 & contender) in the modern game will be harder.

I think the structure of the AFL has changed enough in the last few years that the old models won't apply anymore, and we could be in danger or seeing Chelsea/Yankees/New England Patriots type organisations in the AFL always one step ahead, with Gill and his mates muddling along trying to equalize and change the rules as they go to try and even things up.

I want Carlton to be one of those ahead of the curve.
That's why I think the club should focus its efforts not just on Mick's contract, but on everyone's contract.

try it this way

shit clubs get to to three maybe even four finals series in their good years...even manage to win a final or 2 (though rarely 2 and rarely in the same given year)

They do not build a sustainable group that carries them through 6, 7, 8, 9 even 10 finals series winning more finals than they lose. That's what good clubs do.

Did we do that under Ratten? Did we manage even 5 years of continuous finals appearances?

Did we mange 2 back to back years of top 4 finishes?

Did we win a @#$%&! flag?

None...zip...nothing.

Now that is not Ratten's fault.

It was cos he was coaching at the helm of a shit club and shit clubs reach the finals... fall out... panic... sack... rebuild... reach... fall... sack... etc etc etc...

Sound familiar?

And just as it was not Ratten's fault

so too it will not be Mick's nor was it Pagan'.

If fact my advice to a coach would be RUN!!!!!!!!

yes we pay well but we''ll also @#$%&! you over cos we are a shit club...Think Melbourne but with the shimmer of success a bit more recent than their's...only a bit mind you...I mean it was 1995! I was not yet 40 when we won our 16th. I am now 56. My son was 2 he is now 21!

My daughter was not born. She is 17!

But hey...Blame Mick.