Malthouse announced as Carlton coach

[mediumsizered]

Unless you recruit some key forwards, and key defenders for that matter, no chance of top 4. You have blokes up forward who can mark, like Waite and Casboult, but they are both very very ordinary kicks for goal IMO.

MM will change the game plan, but you need forwards who can convert. Midfield is first class though

Jarrad Waite has kicked 196.129 over his career for a conversion rate of 66%. That's handy in anyone's language.

 

[sherb]

Its time for a Mick appreciation thread

It will be a change to see you supporting the Carlton coach rather than backstabbing him.

 

[footscore]

Mark Robinson's celebrity status seems to have gone straight the bald one's cranium.

'it sickens me'

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

So, with MM now at the helm has Carlton now become everyone else's second side?

 

[PieBeast]

So, with MM now at the helm has Carlton now become everyone else's second side?

Dunno about everyone else's but they are definitely our seconds

 

[Richard Jones]

He will do well there.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

So, with MM now at the helm has Carlton now become everyone else's second side?

Just had an Essendon supporter on our board the other day start a sentence with "I hope Carlton do well because..."

Bring out your dead, everyone.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Just had an Essendon supporter on our board the other day start a sentence with "I hope Carlton do well because..."

Bring out your dead, everyone.

I hope you carded him.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

I hope you carded him.

I came exceedingly close.

We all have our moments of weakness. I'll be barracking for WCE on the weekend. Yuck.

 

[Gone Critical]

Err ... mate I think they said at the presser that people associated with the club had contact Peter to confirm what Mick had been saying in public. But that's not what's been accused is it?

Yes it is. Essentially it's the gist of what you and I have discussed.

In my 1st post to you in this thread I said
"At a minimum Carlton would have put indirect enquires to MM and obtained answers back"

Amongst your replies was

" Like I said, it had all been played out publicly enough, why the need for private feelers?"

As I said to you originally no big conspiracy here just business common sense. Carlton did, as any sensible business would, put out private feelers to MM and obtained answers back.

Pretty simple really

 

[Gone Critical]

If not for your own president he would probably still be coaching Collingwood now...

No MM was facing the sack in 2009, Eddie remained as his biggest supporter and key to survival. When the deal was signed in 2009 BF and the press was criticising Eddie not for not supporting MM but for not having the guts to sack him.

Really with a flag and RU in the next 2 years the deal turned out well for Collingwood and may yet get better

Still people do like rewriting history

 

[Such is life Ben]

Do West Coast fans still like Mick Malthouse for what he did for them?? I am grateful for the flag, but Malthouse is more in love with his own reputation and legend status than any other respected figure in the game. Can seriously coach though, not sure about him on game day but he'll get the most out of the Blues.

I was pretty filthy on how he lied when it was clear he was leaving. But, if I am honest to myself you cant really blame him though, its their career, their livelihood and I am thankful for bringing us 2 premierships, a grand final and a decade of success. I believe he really helped shape the successful culture that we have and that others like Worsfold have continued with.

 

[Scotland]

No MM was facing the sack in 2009, Eddie remained as his biggest supporter and key to survival. When the deal was signed in 2009 BF and the press was criticising Eddie not for not supporting MM but for not having the guts to sack him.

Really with a flag and RU in the next 2 years the deal turned out well for Collingwood and may yet get better

Still people do like rewriting history

Whether MM was or was not the man for the job in 2005 or 2009 or 2012 is not the issue.

Collingwood could have moved him on at any stage and approached Buckley at any stage once his playing career finished. Eddie's scheme was an each way bet to try and keep both at Collingwood and it predictably failed.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Whether MM was or was not the man for the job in 2005 or 2009 or 2012 is not the issue.

Collingwood could have moved him on at any stage and approached Buckley at any stage once his playing career finished. Eddie's scheme was an each way bet to try and keep both at Collingwood and it predictably failed.

How?

 

[iluvparis]

I came exceedingly close.

We all have our moments of weakness. I'll be barracking for WCE on the weekend. Yuck.

I know how you feel mate - I am barracking for the Pies this week in the hope they can stop the Swans getting to the granny (the Hawks should have no trouble then knocking them off).

What has the world come to!?!?!

 

[Scotland]

How?

Errr, because MM is now the coach of Carlton...

 

[Gone Critical]

Whether MM was or was not the man for the job in 2005 or 2009 or 2012 is not the issue.

Collingwood could have moved him on at any stage and approached Buckley at any stage once his playing career finished. Eddie's scheme was an each way bet to try and keep both at Collingwood and it predictably failed.

I was replying to the assertion that except for Eddie MM would be still Collingwood coach. The truth is without Eddie MM was probably gone in 2009, perhaps before. Through his tenure there is no doubt Eddie was MM's biggest ally and supporter. So it's not true that without Eddies influence MM would still be coaching us.

I agree the 2009 agreement was Eddies method of keeping his 2 men, MM and Bucks at the club. It needs to be remembered he was a supporter of both. Eddie never shafted MM but Mick did go sour on Eddie (and Bucks as well)

 

[Madblue]

No MM was facing the sack in 2009, Eddie remained as his biggest supporter and key to survival. When the deal was signed in 2009 BF and the press was criticising Eddie not for not supporting MM but for not having the guts to sack him.

Really with a flag and RU in the next 2 years the deal turned out well for Collingwood and may yet get better

Still people do like rewriting history

Eddie's ego got in the way of whats best for the Collingwood Football Club. You had one of the best coaches in the comp and having the team firing. Because Eddie couldn't cope with his love child Buckley going to another club he came up with the rediculous succession plan. Now you have lost Malthouse and Buckley has shown next to nothing.

Egg firmly on Eddies face !

 

[Collingwoodity]

Errr, because MM is now the coach of Carlton...

if that was the main aim yes, but the main aim was to obtain a premiership with malthouse, have buckley do his apprenticeship under him and then get a premiership with buckley.

plus, malthouse wont coach a game until 2013.

would collingwood have been a failure if we lost buckley to north and malthouse never won a premiership and he became old, decrepit and senile?

he can be those things at carlton

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

Eddie's ego got in the way of whats best for the Collingwood Football Club. You had one of the best coaches in the comp and having the team firing. Because Eddie couldn't cope with his love child Buckley going to another club he came up with the rediculous succession plan. Now you have lost Malthouse and Buckley has shown next to nothing.

Egg firmly on Eddies face !

Did you actually read the post you quoted?? Malthouse was not one of the best coaches in 2009. In fact most people thought he was coming to the end. It's revisionist history to say he was one of the best coaches in the comp. That only suddenly became true in 2010 and 2011.

 

[Gone Critical]

Eddie's ego got in the way of whats best for the Collingwood Football Club. You had one of the best coaches in the comp and having the team firing. Because Eddie couldn't cope with his love child Buckley going to another club he came up with the rediculous succession plan. Now you have lost Malthouse and Buckley has shown next to nothing.

Egg firmly on Eddies face !

As Fairandbalanced said you are just rewriting history to suit yourself

If you want to make an argument Collingwood could heve reconsidered the agreement in 2011 with regard to the results of 2010/11 fine.

Its just untrue to imply that MM's stocks were high when he signed the agreement in 2009. It wasn't until late 2010 that sentiment changed. If you recall Coll losing to St K in early 2010 in an ugly display in a match containing the Milne incident you will remember MM's stocks were very low even in a good part of 2010.

MM signed up because he was in a weakened position in 2009. He had no choice and Eddie remained the biggest man in his corner. 10 years , no flag and an ordinary finals series followed the signing. By the end of 2010 when his stocks had risen tremendously sentiment changed

 

[Monkey King]

Yes it is. Essentially it's the gist of what you and I have discussed.

In my 1st post to you in this thread I said
"At a minimum Carlton would have put indirect enquires to MM and obtained answers back"

Amongst your replies was

" Like I said, it had all been played out publicly enough, why the need for private feelers?"

As I said to you originally no big conspiracy here just business common sense. Carlton did, as any sensible business would, put out private feelers to MM and obtained answers back.

Pretty simple really

If I get my mate to ask your mate if you're serious about comments you've made in public, that does not constitute making contact with you; particularly when your mate doesn't even tell you my mate asked the question.

Now, this is not what's been accused and if you think it is, then it's kinda bizarre given the presser was held before this conversation started and this of level of contact had already been outlined. What has been accused is contact, indirect or otherwise, between Malthouse and Carlton. And that didn't happen.

As I said. Probably better for me now, that you clearly state what is being accused, coz you've lost me.

 

[livnixon9]

Interesting developments with Malthouse's assistant coaches and legal action. Appears Mark Riley is stuck at Carlton despite Mick wanting him sacked.

 

[Gone Critical]

If I get my mate to ask your mate if you're serious about comments you've made in public, that does not constitute making contact with you; particularly when your mate doesn't even tell you my mate asked the question.

Now, this is not what's been accused and if you think it is, then it's kinda bizarre given the presser was held before this conversation started and this of level of contact had already been outlined. What has been accused is contact, indirect or otherwise, between Malthouse and Carlton. And that didn't happen.

As I said. Probably better for me now, that you clearly state what is being accused, coz you've lost me.

Mmmm. As you have previously said you don't believe Carlton put out any private feelers to Malthouse. Carlton have clearly said Carlton people were in contact with Peter Sidwell prior to last week.

You were wrong , nuff said. You do understand speaking to someones management about their availablility to coach constitutes indirect contact.

 

[Monkey King]

Mmmm. As you have previously said you don't believe Carlton put out any private feelers to Malthouse. Carlton have clearly said Carlton people were in contact with Peter Sidwell prior to last week.

You were wrong , nuff said. You do understand speaking to someones management about their availablility to coach constitutes indirect contact.

Just because you want me to be wrong doesn't mean I am. I watched the bloody presser live mate. I already knew that Carlton "associates" has spoken to Peter Sidwell. Anyone who paid attention already knew that Carlton "associates" has spoken to Peter Sidwell - apart from you apparently considering you think that's what was being talked about.

But no, sorry, none of that is Carlton putting out private feelers to Malthouse (love the way you've jumped on that one phrase out of everything I've posted btw lol) or making indirect or direct contact with Malthouse. That's what was initially accused and that's what you chimed in on, no matter how you want to twist it now or leap on to a single phrase and extract from everything I've said.

And to answer your question, NO. The manager would really have to pass that on to Mick for CONTACT to be made. Now think about the definition of that word for a moment before replying.