RE-SIGNED: Longmire (till 2014) and Reid (till 2017)

[BSA5]

The only thing John Longmire has done wrong is not DECIDE on a onfield leader.Should have shown more respect to Adam Goodes a legend of the game.It is an embarrassment that our club thinks we need to have co-captains.

Nothing wrong with that. Goodes seems to be the on-field marshal, while McVeigh seems to be more of a leader off-field. They complement each other well, and you get the best of both worlds. Given Roos had at one stage 6 captains on a two-week rotation (and look how that turned out! ), you can hardly criticise Horse for having multiple captains.

IMO, the only real criticism of Horse is with regards to the sub rule. He really took a while to get a handle on it, but then, it caused a lot of coaches problems. He seemed to get better with it by the end of the year, in any case.

[Big Al]

The only thing John Longmire has done wrong is not DECIDE on a onfield leader.Should have shown more respect to Adam Goodes a legend of the game.It is an embarrassment that our club thinks we need to have co-captains.

I've always been a fan of just one captain but as was discussed in another thread, our model works. If our leadership strategy is working why would we and the club want to change it.

[caj23]

He doesn't have the longest contract - a two year extension takes him through the next three seasons.

Lyon was signed for four years by the Dockers, while Hird was initially signed for four years by the Bombers (which means his remaining contract is now the same length as Longmire's). Clarkson was also recently re-signed for three years. So Longmire's contract length hardly seems excessive.

Fair enough Liz, I missed a couple there

Lyon and Clarkson both have alot more runs on the board than Horse and deserve the faith shown by their respective clubs

The Bombers have gone from a powerhouse to a rabble in the space of 10 years, I think a 4 year term is too long for an unproven rookie coach, just look at how well the last bombers legend who went into coaching without an apprenticeship went.

Anyhow back on topic, why extend Horse before the start of his second season? There is just no sensible reasoning or logic to it. Wouldn't it be smarter to wait and see how we go this season before doing so?

It's not as if another team is going to poach him and I think Voss and the Lions is a great example of how quickly things can turn, premliminary final in his first season to bottom 4 the next.

[liz]

He was out of contract at the end of this coming season. Did we want the spectre of "will they, won't they" renew his contract hanging over the team all year? At what point during the coming season should the board have started thinking about an extension? What would happen if we were 50/50 half way through the season with a few key players injured or struggling for form? Would we want Longmire to "play it safe" at selection table to claw his way into an acceptable win-loss ratio but maybe at the expense of giving experience to younger players?

There are always arguments for and against but sending Horse the message that he met expectations in his first season and has three years to develop the team into an absolute contender (which given the ages of Reid, Hanners, AJ et al is probably realistic) is fair enough. They could have given him just a one year extensiokn, but I doubt he is on anything like the $1m a year that Lyon was reported to be offered by Freo, so if worst comes to worst and we have a horror couple of seasons, the club probably hasn't set itself up for a massive payout if they do decide he's not the right man for the job.

[caj23]

He was out of contract at the end of this coming season. Did we want the spectre of "will they, won't they" renew his contract hanging over the team all year? At what point during the coming season should the board have started thinking about an extension? What would happen if we were 50/50 half way through the season with a few key players injured or struggling for form? Would we want Longmire to "play it safe" at selection table to claw his way into an acceptable win-loss ratio but maybe at the expense of giving experience to younger players?

Sydney is pretty insulated, unless we are bottom 4 the media wouldn't give a toss one way or the other about our coach. If he's the type of guy to play it safe to keep his job then he wouldn't deserve an extension IMO

There are always arguments for and against but sending Horse the message that he met expectations in his first season and has three years to develop the team into an absolute contender (which given the ages of Reid, Hanners, AJ et al is probably realistic) is fair enough. They could have given him just a one year extensiokn, but I doubt he is on anything like the $1m a year that Lyon was reported to be offered by Freo, so if worst comes to worst and we have a horror couple of seasons, the club probably hasn't set itself up for a massive payout if they do decide he's not the right man for the job.

Yep this is pretty logical, I doubt he'd be sacked after 2012 no matter how badly we go and we're not a club for sacking mid season so end of 2013 is the earliest he would go in a worst case scenario on field performance.

[royboy42]

Yep this is pretty logical, I doubt he'd be sacked after 2012 no matter how badly we go and we're not a club for sacking mid season so end of 2013 is the earliest he would go in a worst case scenario on field performance.

Where did the highlighted portion in the middle of Liz's quote come from? It doesn't appear in my copy of her post??

[caj23]

that's my comments i tried to differentiate by different format - sorry for any confusion will edit now (except I cant now!)

[Doctor]

I've always been a fan of just one captain but as was discussed in another thread, our model works. If our leadership strategy is working why would we and the club want to change it.

Agreed. I tend to think that the job is such a huge demand on time (off the field particularly) that sharing the load between two players is an effective way to do it. Throwing all of that responsibility and time demands on one person might have an impact on their performance on the field, especially Goodesy, who has been known to drop his level of performance when distracted by off-field stuff.

[wolftone57]

Yippee - great news on Sam. Now if only he had a footballing older brother with strong AFL experience that we could somehow get our hands on.......

A couple of years under Buckley and he'll be looking to the Swans for a rescue and of course we won't say no!

[wolftone57]

Agreed. I tend to think that the job is such a huge demand on time (off the field particularly) that sharing the load between two players is an effective way to do it. Throwing all of that responsibility and time demands on one person might have an impact on their performance on the field, especially Goodesy, who has been known to drop his level of performance when distracted by off-field stuff.

Years ago there were Captain & Vice Captain and their responsibilities were the same as our co-captains. I think the coaches were harder on them years ago as the C & VC would be pulled aside by the coach if the team was traveling badly and given a blast. The on field motivation and performance of the team were the responsibility of the C & VC and if things were going wrong they were given a blast and told to get motivated. Then the team was given a blast just for good measure. Today you don't see so much of the Co-Captains or Captains getting a blast unless it is from Mick or Lethal when he was coaching