Opinion Matthew Nicks: Adelaide's Coach (Part 3) - Re-Signed to 2027...

[WetCrow1991]

A loser club does what a loser clubs does. No one should be shocked, they were always going to extend, but at least we can all hang on to the thread of cope that they only extended the blundering baldy by the bare minimum of 1 season.

 

[Golumless]

Not too surprising, really.

 

[Peter Doherty]

He's already locked in for 2026 with previously agreed money. So under your system if we needed to sack him at the end of 2026, we've just handed him more money for no reason.

Maybe this is where my plan falls down.

Is it not possible to give him more money in '26 now Darren Burgess is off the books?

If with what I'm suggesting happens the extra money in '26 is not 'for no reason'. It's the bulk of his pay out money (if required) up front. He then agrees to a minimal pay out clause (if required).

 

[Redline]

I don't think we will want it to be a big announcement so my guess is sometime this week. There will be limited football talk and even more so in Adelaide with the Cricket

It shouldn't be but my guess is it will be for two years

I got the timing right but not the years. You don't announce something on the first day of the test match unless you want it low key.

 

[Scorpus]

The only way the extension makes sense is if the contract requires Nicks to pay us if he is sacked before 2027

 

[George CantStandYa]

That’s ok, apparently the board and Silvers are going to personally cover any payouts, so there’s no risk

 

[Mutineer]

Too much Christmas cheer Bear?

 

[Syd Crow]

That he got an extension is no surprise. That they decided to do it today, well may be a little early but again not too inconsistent with the AFC. That they kept it to 1 year is actually surprising and not a bad decision. He was always going to get rewarded for this past season's performance which would have been graded excellent if it wasn't for the disgraceful finals performances. Not winning a single finals quarter. Hopefully we build on this season and win some finals.

 

[clinto69]

I'm fine with this. One Year contract extensions should be the norm really. We finished minor premier last year so I think he deserves 1 year of free air without the contract noise.

 

[Bovo]

I’ll be the first to admit I have no idea. I honestly believed a minimum of 2 years. See you guys back here in 12 months

 

[Slippery Pete]

Why TF is any extension necessary at this point?

 

[Croweater78]

All these people saying this removes noise around his contract...it doesn't. In fact it creates MORE noise...i.e. if you know he's your man, why only 1 year, why not another 2 years...to show your faith in him.

Fact is we are a soft club and that was summed up with our absolutely pathetic finals display.

Those saying it was inevitable Nicks would be rewarded for his 14-2 run and Minor Premiership; well that was totally undone in the finals....and in fact I would argue has done more damage to us than if we finished 8th and lost 1 final.

We didn't need to extend him. In fact a sacking would have been better.

 

[skittlebrew]

As much as losing two home finals is a sackable offence, I don't see any other coach winning those games given our lack of midfield and missing Rankine.

 

[FR0GGY]

If we've upped his '26 money, he's agreed to a minimal pay out if required, then what's the risk?

We cut him at the end of '26, the '27 soft cap has minimal impact and Nicks gets his money.

Why would we up his money in 26?

 

[GameofSloanes]

A 1 year extension definitely doesnt scream they have unwavering faith in him. It couldve been worse.

 

[Croweater78]

A 1 year extension definitely doesnt scream they have unwavering faith in him. It couldve been worse.

But that's the thing....why do it then? Should have just let next year play out.

 

[Peter Doherty]

Why would we up his money in 26?

Sorry, I think I've ballsed up my proposal, doesn't seem to be getting across.

What I'd like to see the club do is the following;

- Increase Nicks' '26 money and give him a '27 contract of an equal amount

This along with the contract media pressure coming off is his incentive to agree to a 1 year deal that has a minimal pay out clause.

In a scenario where we sack him in Sept '26, Nicks has been very well paid in '26, still gets a pay out (minimal) and we get to move into '27 with minimal impact to the soft cap.

Nicks gets looked after financially, we have flexibility in '27 (if needed) and the contract talk in '26 is put to bed.

 

[Pugsley]

At least it's only for one more ****ing year. Idiots.

Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[StonesThrow]

Why TF is any extension necessary at this point?

Yeah you have to wonder why the club needs to do it. Not as if there would be another club looking at him for head coach and I doubt he'd shift to an assistant role.

Only thing I can think of is they want to avoid speculation around his future, but I'm not sure one year mitigates any speculation.

 

[Peter Doherty]

All these people saying this removes noise around his contract...it doesn't. In fact it creates MORE noise...i.e. if you know he's your man, why only 1 year, why not another 2 years...to show your faith in him.

Fact is we are a soft club and that was summed up with our absolutely pathetic finals display.

Those saying it was inevitable Nicks would be rewarded for his 14-2 run and Minor Premiership; well that was totally undone in the finals....and in fact I would argue has done more damage to us than if we finished 8th and lost 1 final.

We didn't need to extend him. In fact a sacking would have been better.

On the balance of things, the 1 year extension helps manage media pressure.

Say we have a year like '25, a 1 year deal means there is no contract extension talk leading up to finals. He would be in contract for another year and it's just not up for discussion.

Say we have a year like '25 and we did not extend him, there would be a heap of pressure pre finals to extend him, we'd likely cave and give him 2-3 years in the pre finals bye. What if we don't win a final? (Power extended Hinkley pre finals in '23 and then went out in straight sets)

Say we have a poor year, we can just play down any sacking talk with, 'Matthew is under contract for next year'..... then just sack him at the end of the '26 season.

Say we have a poor season and we didn't extend him, the Nicks contract talk would be insane and potentially derail a season that could otherwise still be alive.

 

[Pugsley]

Why TF is any extension necessary at this point?

This. The AFC shitting the bed again

 

[Scorpus]

Yeah you have to wonder why the club needs to do it. Not as if there would be another club looking at him for head coach and I doubt he'd shift to an assistant role.

Only thing I can think of is they want to avoid speculation around his future, but I'm not sure one year mitigates any speculation.

The club is kidding itself if it thinks there wouldn't be speculation if he underperforms

If it's half way into the season and Nicks isn't looking like making finals, the media will begin speculating about us sacking him, whether he's signed for 2027 or not

 

[Bernie L]

I seem to have tripped into the pessimist thread

 

[Croweater78]

I seem to have tripped into the pessimist thread

Didn't watch the finals???

 

[Peter Doherty]

The club is kidding itself if it thinks there wouldn't be speculation if he underperforms

If it's half way into the season and Nicks isn't looking like making finals, the media will begin speculating about us sacking him, whether he's signed for 2027 or not

What would happen if Nicks had no extension and had a similar year to '25?

You think they wouldn't extend him for multiple years pre finals?

They would say, 'We'll discuss it when the season finishes'?

Doubt it. We'd see a multiple year extension pre finals.