Help me understand...

[Triple B]

I just can't seem to get my head around why it seems commonplace these assistants who accept senior jobs at other clubs must vacate their post at their old club immediately.

I admit coming from Sydney and being sort of desanitised by the NRL way of doing things may make me look at it differently, but I just don't see it.

It appears both clubs welcome the move. Why? Is the club they are leaving not cutting off their nose to spite their face by punting an assistant in Prelim week? You'd think an assistant who has just been successful in gaining a senior position elsewhere, usually after a pretty exhaustive process would have something to offer. No? And any club who cannot wait a week or two for their chosen man to finish committments is kidding themselves.

As Roosy pointed out last night on OTC, the assistants have contracts that are binding until the end of October anyway.

I'm just puzzled why it seems to be the norm...

[ScottH]

Malthouse said of Neeld, his head would not be 100% on the job.

I find it hard to fathom, too.
Is it possible Neeld could sabotage the Pies midfield with only possibly 2 games left?
Surely that would damage his reputation.

[Triple B]

Is it possible Neeld could sabotage the Pies midfield with only possibly 2 games left?
Surely that would damage his reputation.

If they were playing Melbourne I could understand it, but I struggle to see how it negatively affects Collingwood one iota this weekend if Neeld stays in his role.

[ScottH]

If they were playing Melbourne I could understand it, but I struggle to see how it negatively affects Collingwood one iota this weekend if Neeld stays in his role.

I guess it's a lot like people who work with Intellectual Property.
It's best to boot them ASAP, than wait to see if they walk with any goods.

[Frog]

I don't think it's what he already knows or that he will sabotage him ... It's what they learn themselves as a team in the next two weeks and what they learn about their opposition that they do not want to impart on (what will be next year) an opposition coach - Yes, much like intellectual property ... I am much in favour of "you wanna go, go now, don't hang around".

[beameup]

I think it is obvious why they should be gone. Head not 100% on the job, opportunity to poach players and 'borrow' IP but Sydney people should get it more than others. Go no further than St George and Wayne Bennett. Meetings with future club and players and St George down the gurgler. I am a St G supporter and have been for nearly 50 years. They should have punted him months ago when it became 'they' and not 'we'.

A lesson for all clubs. Players are in the moment and just work to gte fit and play hard therefore distractions about next year are not as important. Coaches should be got rid of because if they are not 100% the players know it and the team drops off.

[Damien]

It's easier for them to move on in my opinion. It is common practice in all companies in the world to move staff on if they go to a direct competitor (except NRL it seems)

I am sure the Asst Coaches would be do the right thing and I wouldn't even worry about sabotage for one second, but you have to ask yourself, do you want Melbourne or Adelaide's head coach speaking to your players in intimate training sessions, tactics etc? being involved in Mick or Chris Scott's masterstroke moves that win them the grand final? They might have been doing it all year, but it totally changes the world once they accept a head coaching role at a new club.