One year too long...

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • dimelb
    pr. dim-melb; m not f
    • Jun 2003
    • 6889

    #46
    Can't remember where I saw this, but I did read that the players were quite happy with the arrangement. A bit like when Roos was appointed.
    He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

    Comment

    • Triple B
      Formerly 'BBB'
      • Feb 2003
      • 6999

      #47
      I'm fairly confident that Kirk is the type of person who if he thought his time was up sooner than the end of the year would hang up the boots immediately.

      Wouldn't surprise to see him draw stumps earlier than the end of the year, but I'd argue long and loud that he should be allowed to retire in the seniors. He isn't going that bad.
      Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09

      Comment

      • ernie koala
        Senior Player
        • May 2007
        • 3251

        #48
        Originally posted by Jewels


        So, instead of the coach retiring and having the input into appointing his successor, said successor having (in all probability) a say in the hiring of his future co-coachesand all these people working together so that the transition is seamless for all parties involved, you would prefer more of a Essendon, North, Richmond, Carlton et al scenario?
        No, I simply would of liked the club to look around and field other candidates, if after that process they decide Horse is the best option, good. But if you don't look you'll never know. IMO, the succession plan is to say NO to any other possibilities before you've even seen them.
        Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT

        Comment

        • swansrule100
          The quarterback
          • May 2004
          • 4538

          #49
          Originally posted by ernie koala
          No, I simply would of liked the club to look around and field other candidates, if after that process they decide Horse is the best option, good. But if you don't look you'll never know. IMO, the succession plan is to say NO to any other possibilities before you've even seen them.
          especially when you do it two years in advance and the man is already there. Yes he could be an awesome fit as coach, but what if the players are already sick of him, or more likely at the very least used to his ideas. Roos doesnt coach as a dictator, longmire already would have a fair say on how the side goes, so we are missing out on the breath of fresh air a new coach can bring.

          Though hopefully it does work, but wouldnt of hurt to shop around and consider others
          Theres not much left to say

          Comment

          • Lucky Knickers
            Fandom of Fabulousness
            • Oct 2003
            • 4220

            #50
            Originally posted by ernie koala
            No, I simply would of liked the club to look around and field other candidates, if after that process they decide Horse is the best option, good. But if you don't look you'll never know. IMO, the succession plan is to say NO to any other possibilities before you've even seen them.
            It's a reasonable assumption that a professional football club would continue to monitor the availability and talents of coaches across all leagues.
            I think that succession planning will become the norm at most clubs now, given the considerable investment that is made into football departments. For example, consider Buckley and Roos' development - has involved considerable stints in the offseason offshore. Similar has occurred with our own coaches and medical team recently.
            Last edited by Lucky Knickers; 7 July 2010, 05:46 PM.

            Comment

            Working...