Mega Thread The new Bucks mega-thread. It's Official. 2 Year Deal for Bucks.

[TKiL]

Nailed it mate.

My questioning of Buckley's bona fides and McGuire's conflicts pales into insignificance vis-a-vis the personal vitriol towards Malthouse. You'd swear he is the devil incarnate.

I'm waiting for the book, t-shirt, set of mugs, play, musical, doc-drama, film etc on this era of the Pies - wish we did flags as well as we do drama, machinations and utensil ups...

 

[westozpie]

I don't recall painting MM as a model citizen who is considerate of the very man next to him and patting him on the back as you say. Can you quote or link a post of mine saying so? His coaching? No doubt, thought he was a wonderful coach and his consistency in having us in contention - and a flag - says so and am truly grateful for that.

As for the bolded, no s**t sherlock! I know you're saying that. Do tell how is that going to make us a better club now? And if you wanna have a dig at MM how about you add the architects of this "succession" plan, after all they're just as guilty for the failure plan as MM was. Unless of course you believe it was entirely MM's doing which of course would be certifiably insane to think that

If you knew that I'm talking about MM after he left Collingwood Sherlock then why ask me whether I wanted a nice unsuccessful coach and one less flag, I wasn't discussing his coaching when at Collingwood I was discussing him since leaving Collingwood.
Didn't exactly say you said that, I said "some of you paid up members", subtle difference.
Again the succession plan may have been flawed but it was agreed to by MM and his manager, two hardly shrinking violets so it must have been tempting enough.
Do you really think they signed away merrily something so flawed so poorly put together so lacking in enough job description these two hard nosed experienced mature men (if so maybe something about certifiable) tell you what I think. Document was tempting enough for Uncle Mick to sign and had all parties agreeing to it, we won the granny Mick thought he would get more years to build on his legacy, oh and help us at the same time, he didn't get what he wanted and THEN (as most of my comments have been about) came out nasty Mick.
The succession plan worked at two other clubs because the coach stayed true to the contract maybe even if they had some minor flaws

 

[noideaatall]

Like many who have squeezed as much as possible out of their sporting careers, his insanely intense competitiveness is a massive part of his success.

I sort of agree it is a driving force but I believe his coaching success largely came from his ability to meld a bunch of players in to a loyal team playing their best for him. Splitting hairs but the bitter side of MM is just his weakness, don't see it doing anything for him in terms of success.

I'd argue that many, without actually knowing the full story (just as I don't), are happy to pot away at a Collingwood legend who played a major role in turning us from a laughing stock to an object of fear. And to be honest, I still don't know what he has done that was so terrible - other than intitially fight to retain his job - a job that he was doing bloody well at the time. Yep he's made a few minor quips in the media, but other than that, what is there to fuel the bile that gets spewed in his direction.

Mick is a pies premiership coach, nothing can change that. How he acted/publicly spoke post that win was about his desire to continue coaching and he clearly allowed that ambition to have a negative impact on the club besides a continued enmity towards Eddie and Bucks. I have a bet each way on this one: yes Mick has and continues to do his time a the pies a disservice through his bitterness but at the same time he cops a degree of criticism that is perhaps unwarranted. The reason for this, IMO, is that all of us feel ripped off that the dynasty flopped and desperately need to blame someone for unfulfilled expectation.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

What about bringing in an experienced football person that might need some work?

like...

Mark Thompson?

Too soon ? I'll see myself out......

 

[jackcass]

Fair enough, at least you are one of the few Mick fans that has the guts to admit he is nasty and vindictive. Many seem to be more than happy for him to pot away at us and rub Micks tummy saying good onya Mick please keep potting.

I'm a MM fan, not sure how any Collingwood supporter can be any different given our success during his tenure. Doesn't mean that his time wasn't up. I wasn't among those baying for blood before the succession plan came to fruition, nor did I envisage the turmoil it would lead to. None of that changes the fact MM behaved like a petulant brat through the course of 2011 and likely cost us b2b premierships. His reputation was further tarnished when he took the reins at Carlton, not just because of the performances of the team during his time, but also because it was Carlton.

 

[westozpie]

I'm a MM fan, not sure how any Collingwood supporter can be any different given our success during his tenure. Doesn't mean that his time wasn't up. I wasn't among those baying for blood before the succession plan came to fruition, nor did I envisage the turmoil it would lead to. None of that changes the fact MM behaved like a petulant brat through the course of 2011 and likely cost us b2b premierships. His reputation was further tarnished when he took the reins at Carlton, not just because of the performances of the team during his time, but also because it was Carlton.

I was also, sent him a message saying how grateful I am for the premiership.
His actions since that footy show appearance in 2011 and onwards have been disgraceful and what ever gripe he may feel he should show some class and dignity to a club that was great to him for a long time.
Forever grateful for the flag in 2010 but if you pot Collingwood you're part of the enemy

 

[Apex36]

If you knew that I'm talking about MM after he left Collingwood Sherlock then why ask me whether I wanted a nice unsuccessful coach and one less flag, I wasn't discussing his coaching when at Collingwood I was discussing him since leaving Collingwood.
Didn't exactly say you said that, I said "some of you paid up members", subtle difference.
Again the succession plan may have been flawed but it was agreed to by MM and his manager, two hardly shrinking violets so it must have been tempting enough.
Do you really think they signed away merrily something so flawed so poorly put together so lacking in enough job description these two hard nosed experienced mature men (if so maybe something about certifiable) tell you what I think. Document was tempting enough for Uncle Mick to sign and had all parties agreeing to it, we won the granny Mick thought he would get more years to build on his legacy, oh and help us at the same time, he didn't get what he wanted and THEN (as most of my comments have been about) came out nasty Mick.
The succession plan worked at two other clubs because the coach stayed true to the contract maybe even if they had some minor flaws

Fairly sure the situation was that Mick was OOC at the time and his options were to sign up to the succession plan or be replaced at the end of his contract. The only thing tempting to him about it was the fact his coaching career was extended for a couple of years.

 

[westozpie]

Fairly sure the situation was that Mick was OOC at the time and his options were to sign up to the succession plan or be replaced at the end of his contract. The only thing tempting to him about it was the fact his coaching career was extended for a couple of years.

OOC? Possible as at time of the plan we hadn't merged into the super team we did second half of 2010.
For me the fact that he walked away is ok, it's within his right to change his mind. More so it's been his attitude to us, never hear him potting Carlton, they gave him the arse.

 

[jackcass]

Fairly sure the situation was that Mick was OOC at the time and his options were to sign up to the succession plan or be replaced at the end of his contract. The only thing tempting to him about it was the fact his coaching career was extended for a couple of years.

Not sure about his contract status but as I recall the rumours were the Board wanted his head and he wouldn't have survived to coach the following season without committing to the SP irrespective of contract status.

 

[jackcass]

OOC? Possible as at time of the plan we hadn't merged into the super team we did second half of 2010.
For me the fact that he walked away is ok, it's within his right to change his mind. More so it's been his attitude to us, never hear him potting Carlton, they gave him the arse.

Maybe it's only those you care about that hurt you most and MM couldn't give a fat rats clacker about Carlton.

 

[westozpie]

Maybe it's only those you care about that hurt you most and MM couldn't give a fat rats clacker about Carlton.

Haha, I suppose we should be grateful to Mick, almost destroying the cheating scum, all we needed was one more year and they would have folded

 

[Apex36]

OOC?

Out of contract.

Possible as at time of the plan we hadn't merged into the super team we did second half of 2010.

Board was out for blood at the time, the succession plan was Ed’s way of getting Mick a contract extension, securing Buckley and placating the board all at the same time.

For me the fact that he walked away is ok, it's within his right to change his mind. More so it's been his attitude to us, never hear him potting Carlton, they gave him the arse.

I’m not defending his behaviour, just clarifying the circumstances that he signed the contract under. If he’d had the choice between a regular contract extension and the succession plan he’d never have signed the latter. He pretty much had no choice at the time but to sign up if he wanted to continue his coaching career.

 

[TKiL]

Not sure about his contract status but as I recall the rumours were the Board wanted his head and he wouldn't have survived to coach the following season without committing to the SP irrespective of contract status.

Who started the forward press in 2010? Mick the Head coach or Nathan the fwd line coach? If it was Nathan does Mick owe Nathan? Just asking...

 

[westozpie]

Out of contract.

Board was out for blood at the time, the succession plan was Ed’s way of getting Mick a contract extension, securing Buckley and placating the board all at the same time.

I’m not defending his behaviour, just clarifying the circumstances that he signed the contract under. If he’d had the choice between a regular contract extension and the succession plan he’d never have signed the latter. He pretty much had no choice at the time but to sign up if he wanted to continue his coaching career.

Ta for explanation mate well put.
OOC yep should have worked that out lol.
I guess Eddie is maligned by some but looks like he tried to do a perfect balancing act. Unfortunately history will show his good intentions did fail.

 

[Carringbush2010]

If you knew that I'm talking about MM after he left Collingwood Sherlock then why ask me whether I wanted a nice unsuccessful coach and one less flag, I wasn't discussing his coaching when at Collingwood I was discussing him since leaving Collingwood.

But you keep banging on about how much of s***** person MM is that will have no positive impact! What's the point?! Give it up mate he's gone

Didn't exactly say you said that, I said "some of you paid up members", subtle difference.
Again the succession plan may have been flawed but it was agreed to by MM and his manager, two hardly shrinking violets so it must have been tempting enough.

So why reply to me on that then?

Do you really think they signed away merrily something so flawed so poorly put together so lacking in enough job description these two hard nosed experienced mature men (if so maybe something about certifiable) tell you what I think. Document was tempting enough for Uncle Mick to sign and had all parties agreeing to it, we won the granny Mick thought he would get more years to build on his legacy, oh and help us at the same time, he didn't get what he wanted and THEN (as most of my comments have been about) came out nasty Mick.

Whichever way you dissect it, there is more than 1 party to blame. You're trying to paint him in a bad light to suit your argument

The succession plan worked at two other clubs because the coach stayed true to the contract maybe even if they had some minor flaws

You mean Nathan? The coach? Nathan stayed true to the plan, even offered to delay or step aside until MM was ready but no the club (Eddie) did not want to lose Nathan to North. If you mean MM then he was not the coach, this is what Eddie (and the club) wanted

 

[westozpie]

But you keep banging on about how much of s***** person MM is that will have no positive impact! What's the point?! Give it up mate he's gone

So why reply to me on that then?

Whichever way you dissect it, there is more than 1 party to blame. You're trying to paint him in a bad light to suit your argument

You mean Nathan? The coach? Nathan stayed true to the plan, even offered to delay or step aside until MM was ready but no the club (Eddie) did not want to lose Nathan to North. If you mean MM then he was not the coach, this is what Eddie (and the club) wanted

Gee can be hard to discuss with you but I will try
- I was only talking about after he finished with us him being such a prick, so I was trying to say to you why did you even bother asking me do I want a nice bloke but s**t coach, my earlier post had nothing to do with when he was coaching so I'm not sure why you asked me that question.
- why reply to you? because you asked me to point out where you had said something about MM, I was trying to say I didn't specifically say you
- thought apex summary of the developments above is perfect, don't see you firing into his interpretation of events though. But yes possible others may have had a small part in the faults.
- the coach I was referring to was Paul Roos, the guy that went through with two succession plans.
Just a couple of things
- two posters have said the board wanted Mick sacked at that time and it seems Eddie may have tried to make a perfect situation ie Mick gets two more years that the board didn't want to give him, then stays involved with the club and on big bucks and we don't lose Bucks to the Roos. Plan is not so bad in principle and in which case why so anti Eddie. Not being smart but your thoughts on that
- a question do you really think Mick and his manager signed the contract so sheepishly when it was so detrimental to Mick

 

[Carringbush2010]

Gee can be hard to discuss with you but I will try
- I was only talking about after he finished with us him being such a prick, so I was trying to say to you why did you even bother asking me do I want a nice bloke but s**t coach, my earlier post had nothing to do with when he was coaching so I'm not sure why you asked me that question.

But why keep discussing it? I'm not interested in MM's persona, it's like your trying justify Collingwood's failings because in your view he's a s**t person and what he said after he left, so what? He's gone, nothing you type can convict him

Just a couple of things
- two posters have said the board wanted Mick sacked at that time and it seems Eddie may have tried to make a perfect situation ie Mick gets two more years that the board didn't want to give him, then stays involved with the club and on big bucks and we don't lose Bucks to the Roos. Plan is not so bad in principle and in which case why so anti Eddie. Not being smart but your thoughts on that
- a question do you really think Mick and his manager signed the contract so sheepishly when it was so detrimental to Mick

If board members wanted him gone at the time (2009?) doesn't mean it is right, the succession plan is great in theory and has proved the complete opposite. On MM signing his contract I'd argue at the time (2009) it was his job or sign and just as probable he was disgruntled as the board wanted him gone

- why reply to you? because you asked me to point out where you had said something about MM, I was trying to say I didn't specifically say you

So again I ask why reply to me?

- the coach I was referring to was Paul Roos, the guy that went through with two succession plans.

So going by that you're saying ours should've been successful fait accompli? If not Paul Roos has nothing to do with Collingwood ever, if yes that is really drawing a very long bow

 

[Carringbush2010]

- the coach I was referring to was Paul Roos, the guy that went through with two succession plans.

If you're talking bout the Roos to Longmire transition, that was completely different as Paul Roos himself appointed Longmire as the coaching coordinator in 2008 not a decision from the board, as Collingwood did, with a large influence from Ed (because he didn't want Nathan to go to North) in 2009 with time to still run on the contract.

A large reason the Longmire transition was/is more successful is because it's not the board forcing it, Roos, the coach himself appointed Longmire not the board - and that is probably the answer to the why MM is a s**t person as you say. To force something against an employee (coach) in this situation was NEVER GOING TO WORK and thus here we are. Whether or not you or anyone else views MM's reaction as, well reactionary, is irrelevant, you can't make someone like a situation if they view it as a personal disadvantage which it seems externally MM thought that

 

[westozpie]

But you keep banging on about how much of s***** person MM is that will have no positive impact! What's the point?! Give it up mate he's gone

So why reply to me on that then?

Whichever way you dissect it, there is more than 1 party to blame. You're trying to paint him in a bad light to suit your argument

You mean Nathan? The coach? Nathan stayed true to the plan, even offered to delay or step aside until MM was ready but no the club (Eddie) did not want to lose Nathan to North. If you mean MM then he was not the coach, this is what Eddie (and the club) wanted

But why keep discussing it? I'm not interested in MM's persona, it's like your trying justify Collingwood's failings because in your view he's a s**t person and what he said after he left, so what? He's gone, nothing you type can convict him

If board members wanted him gone at the time (2009?) doesn't mean it is right, the succession plan is great in theory and has proved the complete opposite. On MM signing his contract I'd argue at the time (2009) it was his job or sign and just as probable he was disgruntled as the board wanted him gone


So again I ask why reply to me?

So going by that you're saying ours should've been successful fait accompli? If not Paul Roos has nothing to do with Collingwood ever, if yes that is really drawing a very long bow

But why keep discussing it? I'm not interested in MM's persona, it's like your trying justify Collingwood's failings because in your view he's a s**t person and what he said after he left, so what? He's gone, nothing you type can convict him

If board members wanted him gone at the time (2009?) doesn't mean it is right, the succession plan is great in theory and has proved the complete opposite. On MM signing his contract I'd argue at the time (2009) it was his job or sign and just as probable he was disgruntled as the board wanted him gone


So again I ask why reply to me?

So going by that you're saying ours should've been successful fait accompli? If not Paul Roos has nothing to do with Collingwood ever, if yes that is really drawing a very long bow

Don't reply to me then, I discuss or reply as i wish, if you don't like what I'm saying you can discuss with me or ignore me.

Eddie, was able to give more time than the board wanted to give Mick, he tried to keep both together, obviously didn't work out

Again, I said something about you paid up members of the Mick Malthouse Fan Club, YOU!!! asked where can I show you where you have posted this then I said didn't specifically say you. That's why I posted that.

What I'm saying is his not that hard the succession plan basically the current coach is told you are coach for a further x number of years in that time take under your wing and groom x to then replace you and then we will keep you to oversee the transition. Roos stuck to the agreement Mick didn't, there may be reasons for that but Mick would have known the timeframe and what was to happen. Surely even you would agree with the fact that Mick knew what was going to happen. He may not have been happy about the scenario in front if him but if you sign a contract well you either honour it or leave. He chose to leave that's fine but to then slag mine and your club surely says something to you about MM

 

[westozpie]

If you're talking bout the Roos to Longmire transition, that was completely different as Paul Roos himself appointed Longmire as the coaching coordinator in 2008 not a decision from the board, as Collingwood did, with a large influence from Ed (because he didn't want Nathan to go to North) in 2009 with time to still run on the contract.

A large reason the Longmire transition was/is more successful is because it's not the board forcing it, Roos, the coach himself appointed Longmire not the board - and that is probably the answer to the why MM is a s**t person as you say. To force something against an employee (coach) in this situation was NEVER GOING TO WORK and thus here we are. Whether or not you or anyone else views MM's reaction as, well reactionary, is irrelevant, you can't make someone like a situation if they view it as a personal disadvantage which it seems externally MM thought that

Good points all I would say a professional player may not like the coach that's appointed but will still perform, would like to think a mature professional sporting coach would try to make it work way harder than Mick seems to have

 

[westozpie]

If you're talking bout the Roos to Longmire transition, that was completely different as Paul Roos himself appointed Longmire as the coaching coordinator in 2008 not a decision from the board, as Collingwood did, with a large influence from Ed (because he didn't want Nathan to go to North) in 2009 with time to still run on the contract.

A large reason the Longmire transition was/is more successful is because it's not the board forcing it, Roos, the coach himself appointed Longmire not the board - and that is probably the answer to the why MM is a s**t person as you say. To force something against an employee (coach) in this situation was NEVER GOING TO WORK and thus here we are. Whether or not you or anyone else views MM's reaction as, well reactionary, is irrelevant, you can't make someone like a situation if they view it as a personal disadvantage which it seems externally MM thought that

Given your thoughts at things happening at that time would it not have been easier for Eddie to allow the board to have their way and sack Mick. Could have picked any of a dozen good mentors to Bucks.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Don't reply to me then, I discuss or reply as i wish, if you don't like what I'm saying you can discuss with me or ignore me.

Eddie, was able to give more time than the board wanted to give Mick, he tried to keep both together, obviously didn't work out

Again, I said something about you paid up members of the Mick Malthouse Fan Club, YOU!!! asked where can I show you where you have posted this then I said didn't specifically say you. That's why I posted that.

What I'm saying is his not that hard the succession plan basically the current coach is told you are coach for a further x number of years in that time take under your wing and groom x to then replace you and then we will keep you to oversee the transition. Roos stuck to the agreement Mick didn't, there may be reasons for that but Mick would have known the timeframe and what was to happen. Surely even you would agree with the fact that Mick knew what was going to happen. He may not have been happy about the scenario in front if him but if you sign a contract well you either honour it or leave. He chose to leave that's fine but to then slag mine and your club surely says something to you about MM

FMD! You reckon I'm hard to discuss with!

The reason Roos stuck is because Roos created the transition it wasn't forced upon him! i:e it was not a disadvantage to him in his mind, to put simply MM had to sign or leave, he didn't like it but was bereft of choice. The difference between the two plans is overwhelmingly galactic! How you can compare the two is this emoji face

As I said previously whether or not MM liked the "plan" is irrelevant because if you don't like something you're not going to be good at it are you? So the plan was never ever ever going to work. Why the club went ahead is mind boggling and as a result very damaging

BTW I'm not a paid up member of the MM fan club as you allege, in fact I'm not even sure there is one?

Extra BTW, I enjoy our discussions and healthy differences of opinion

 

[Carringbush2010]

Given your thoughts at things happening at that time would it not have been easier for Eddie to allow the board to have their way and sack Mick. Could have picked any of a dozen good mentors to Bucks.

Possibly, maybe would be in a better position now and possibly one less flag. We can only speculate though

 

[Carringbush2010]

Good points all I would say a professional player may not like the coach that's appointed but will still perform, would like to think a mature professional sporting coach would try to make it work way harder than Mick seems to have

Although that is true it is probably an exception to the rule and very highly likely the players in those exceptions would not perform to potential purely because they are not in an "ideal" environment in their mind i;e a dislike for the coach

 

[PieNSauce]

I love the way some posters use the "Ed didn't want Bucks to go to North" line as though that in itself was some driving factor in the succession plan. I don't think you can say it had zero bearing but the bizarre suggestion here is that Mick was pushed specifically to make space for Bucks. The simple truth is that Mick was washed up. The board wanted him out as did a large percentage of the fans. He was increasingly being seen as "Mr Almost" with a bad attitude and that was the prime mover for the succession plan. Eddie still insists that it was Mick who said he was finding it increasingly difficult to keep going. The fact that Bucks was available and highly regarded if a bit raw was little more than serendipity in terms of what evolved in Eddie's and the board's heads.

I also find the suggestion that Mick can be absolved for his decision to sign a contract and later renege to be absolutely ridiculous. The suggestion in that is that both he and his manager are 5 year old children who don't know their own minds. Clearly I believe that the club did not do due diligence in the matter but as far as I'm concerned that is just as true of Mick.