I agree and without getting labelled "pro Bolton" again my questions still are:
1. BB was brought in as a great people person, teacher and can build relationships, as per the strengths in the article. So why didn't it work?
2. What was BB being asked to do with the playing group? i.e. accelerate the development of young talent only (the only plausible explanation for not having Ed and Murph in the middle).
3. Was his lack of flexibility guided from above? And is this why they had Walls in the box?
4. Is Teague being told what to do from above? i.e. put the mature players back on the ground and in the middle to win games.
5. If so, is this just a plan from above to showcase the possibilities of the team to future players, a proven coach and membership sales? All with having a back up in Teague himself.
6. And taking the possibility of the above into account, does the board believe Teague is a genuine contender if they are in-fact directing him from the top?

A transparent review process from the club would be nice. Because without insider knowledge on this, it's all a bit assumptive.

May the wins keep coming until the end of the season.

It may be a plan from above to put mature bodies in the middle, but Murphy, Curnow and co have been in the middle for some absolute smashings. Teague is doing something to rejuvenate our veterans and have our youngsters playing out of their skins; he's not getting messages from above at half time to make tactical changes which have seen several victories now. He's got every player singing his praises and that's not just coz they're winning, it's because of what he's doing that's making them want to win and executing it. "Above" can't and don't motivate the players; clearly Teague is doing the right things internally to create such a massive 180...and I was a Bolts fan.

Actually, for what was initially anticipated to be a caretaker role, I reckon the pressure might now be starting to mount on the lad to see how he continues his coaching run...

If you said at the start of his interim tenure that he could get 5 wins out this side, you'd sign him straight up. Now as the wins have mounted, it feels like the expectations for him and the players to continue winning keeps rising.

What if they lose the remaining matches which in reality, given the tough run home is a strong possibility... If the number of "acceptable" proven alternatives seem to be drying up, it makes for an interesting dilemma for the selection committee.

I guess that was my concern with the questions above. Teague might just end up being a puppet for the board and if appointed and with real pressure, unlike the last 5 weeks or really the next 4 (being mostly top of the ladder teams), he might crumble next season and we are back to where we were 7 weeks ago. Especially if opposition teams nut out his game style. Mid next year we might again be looking for the next "breath of fresh air" with another season down the tube and possibly losing talent (obviously worse case scenario).
Plus no one can answer if an interim coach (no matter how many games we have won) can attract A-Grade talent?
And if we don't win anymore this year, will most have the same love for Teague if we finish up with 5 wins and 6 loses?

I think I'm clearly still a beaten man when it comes to our dismal history in coaching appointments.

basically that could be appointment but truth is we are close now, talent etc. I think teague has coached really well. I am not averse to Ratts and if i was clarkson I 'd say @#$%&! hawthorn i want that mob.

Clarko will not come to us.

Bolts is a family friend and Clarko would not do it to him. Imagine that...eating the fruits of his friends hard work.

Assuming our form holds in the next 4 weeks, appoint Teague and build a very strong team of assistants around him. Money better spent and not directed to Paul Roos annual USA sojourn.