Sando sacked - confirmed **** crows only ****

[TexFactor]

It's a neutral move.

congratulations you have an opinion

 

[Mattrox]

Is Bolton even an assistant coach.

Stepped in for Clarkson when he was ill this year.

 

[Mattrox]

congratulations you have an opinion

Opinions are like ar$eholes. Everybody has one.

 

[TexFactor]

Opinions are like ar$eholes. Everybody has one.

but nobody wants to look at the other persons

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I'm not one to normally defend chapman, in fact I wanted him gone as much as I wanted trigg gone. But something he said resonated in his interview on AA. It's something I've posted before about being disappointed with Sando having the security of a 2 year extension but still selecting for the moment and the apparent singular goal of making the 8 this year. Regardless of how low and irrelevant in the 8 we'd finish.

Chapman said that they extended Sando's contract because they thought that the security it provided combined with removing external pressures provided him with the best chance of success. My view is that Sando then used this security and vote of confidence to leverage future success and development against a short term bottom end finals finish. I'd suggest that he was hell-bent on doing the exact same thing again next year.

He was the one who signed off on the contract.

Trigg would have made the proposal to extend the contract and Chapman and the board would have then said yes or no. Clearly they said yes.

 

[ruscy002]

Bolton just doesn't do it for me

Far too Sando-like for mine, at least on the surface anyway.

 

[1970crow]

Until we know his replacement, how can you say it;'s a positive.

Looking back, Sando was not a positive change from Craig. It was a change for change sake and we plateaued.

We need to appoint someone with a long term vision that can take use forward. Not aim for a short term fix.

Come on Alex, we plateaued, so we didn't go backwards and had a chance of going forwards. If you relate that to your view on selections, you are saying we should play the mediocre plodders because we know what we get and we don't risk the replacement being worse. Sando was a mediocre plodder, there's at least a dozen who will be no worse and amongst them a few who will be better. There's no risk at all in removing Sando.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

congratulations you have an opinion

Well done, go call it a positive all you like - but it's still not a positive until we know his replacement.

 

[Mattrox]

Far too Sando-like for mine, at least on the surface anyway.

Apparently Hawthorn chose him to step in as he is supposedly just like Clarkson in style.

 

[Sanders]

So what does this say about Stephen Trigg's legacy and the great position he left us in?

Can we ban him from the AO negotiations? Oh and bring back Rendell.

Come back Matty all is forgiven. We're in a state having just got out of a toxic relationship, we see it now. We need you.

We've always needed you.

You're the one. We'll change

 

[hey shorty]

but nobody wants to look at the other persons

And some stink more than others.

 

[FR0GGY]

Trying to understand the implication - alarm bells that the club had made the wrong decision or alarm bells regarding his capability? Former or latter?

Alarm bells at sando and his coaching style

 

[Niximus]

Well done, go call it a positive all you like - but it's still not a positive until we know his replacement.

Depends on if you believe that there was serious unrest in the playing group.

If we'd traded Tippett to Brisbane and we'd never gone through 'Tippettgate', there'd be people criticising it, never knowing the shitstorm they were saved from.

Maybe we've just avoided a disaster and we'll never know for sure.

 

[TexFactor]

Well done, go call it a positive all you like - but it's still not a positive until we know his replacement.

whether its a positive is subjective not an absolute.

 

[Johnny Rutten]

Please show me where I have been negative towards him?

I'm negative towards Chapman for being discrete again towards the fans.

"Bit rough to bag our new coach or be negative towards him before a ball is bounced."

Probably didn't phrase myself well enough...
What I was trying to suggest was for us not to bag the new coach before next season. I wasn't suggesting you personally were being negative towards any future coach.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Stepped in for Clarkson when he was ill this year.

Ahhh I was thinking Jude knowing he has aspirations to be a senior coach.

 

[tinman]

There were plenty here that wanted him last time.

There have been people on this board who wanted Neeld and Wallace....

And the club may not have got it right, but thank god they didn't go down either route.

 

[jenny61_99]

He was the one who signed off on the contract.

Trigg would have made the proposal to extend the contract and Chapman and the board would have then said yes or no. Clearly they said yes.

And they gave very valid reasons for that. 9 months is a long time in footy... and we've gone from someone we believed could do the job to someone who clearly can't. Best to call it now than prolong it like we did with Craig for example.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Come on Alex, we plateaued, so we didn't go backwards and had a chance of going forwards. If you relate that to your view on selections, you are saying we should play the mediocre plodders because we know what we get and we don't risk the replacement being worse. Sando was a mediocre plodder, there's at least a dozen who will be no worse and amongst them a few who will be better. There's no risk at all in removing Sando.

Sando is gone - he was delisted. We can not change that, it's done.

The argument isn't about sacking him or not - it's about looking art this as a positive, a negative or a neutral move.

My perspective on it is - we can not say if it's good or bad until we have more information.

If we hypothetically sign a dud like Mark Neeld - it will end up being another negative overseen byChapman but if we sign a coach who can move the playing list forward by making finals and then winning a flag will result in this being a positive but don't ask me to manufacture a positive out of nothing based on past results that have bern a negative.

 

[Deaneus!]

So what does this say about Stephen Trigg's legacy and the great position he left us in?

Can we ban him from the AO negotiations? Oh and bring back Rendell.

Come back Matty all is forgiven. We're in a state having just got out of a toxic relationship, we see it now. We need you.

We've always needed you.

You're the one. We'll change

Isn't Trigg coming back to do a handover for Fagan in a few weeks, help him get started?

"Oh yeah, g'day Stevo, look, made a few changes, spruced up the place a bit, don't think we need to worry about the handover."

 

[ruscy002]

Apparently Hawthorn chose him to step in as he is supposedly just like Clarkson in style.

Guess he was never really under pressure with five out of five, which may have unearthed some more Clarkson-like traits. All I could see in Bolton was a smiley gladhands salesman.

 

[Tex200]

Well done, go call it a positive all you like - but it's still not a positive until we know his replacement.

Agree.

I think there is a huge reputational issue at stake here. We appoint the new CEO and the narrative is particularly concentrated on ceasing mediocrity, it's now about being the best, putting in place the best football department / program etc etc.

In choosing that narrative the AFC has pinned itself to the ruthless pursuit of excellence. To be the best.

They back that up with a coaching execution.

Can you imagine if they now instal a novice? An untried assistant? It will render the narrative impotent and it will necessarily return to acceptance of mediocrity.

I think all the attempts the AFC have made this week to convince its members that mediocrity is unacceptable, will be lost if the coaching appointment fails to match ambition.

This must be an appointment that shakes the AFL - anything less will be a very significant embarrassment for all concerned - frankly I can't see Roo putting his name to all this weeks events for it to end in ridicule.

 

[1970crow]

He was the one who signed off on the contract.

Trigg would have made the proposal to extend the contract and Chapman and the board would have then said yes or no. Clearly they said yes.

That's beyond doubt, but I'm suggesting that it might be what Sando did with that security that could be the issue. Don't get me wrong, I still want chapman gone, but I reckon Sando stamped his cards when he kept going back to the experienced pool and left in form youngsters in the sanfl. I doubt he learned his lesson and was probably going to back up again in 2015 and quite likely with a couple of extra 30+ fillers.

 

[crowman_23]

Well done, go call it a positive all you like - but it's still not a positive until we know his replacement.

You'll be negative regardless of who it is anyway... it's your way of supporting.

 

[crowman_23]

Guess he was never really under pressure with five out of five, which may have unearthed some more Clarkson-like traits. All I could see in Bolton was a smiley gladhands salesman.

Very nearly dropped his first game against GWS.

Pretty sure I read somewhere that Bolton was an extremely successful coach in Tassy before starting with Hawks. Doesn't sound all that bad for mine.