Analysis Dear Ed...it's come to this

[sideswipe]

Yeah we definitely got left behind by a lot of other clubs... but hard to blame Jock for that, the poor guy had been dead for 15 years by then. Best to level the gun at the club admin who thought that the continued run of near success in the 60's meant that the system worked...

One thing about a number of the club directors at that time was that they had put themselves on the line by personally guaranteeing various banking facilities made available to the club. In that context, a hard-nosed approach to pay negotiations seems a little more understandable.

 

[Mukesh]

One thing about a number of the club directors at that time was that they had put themselves on the line by personally guaranteeing various banking facilities made available to the club. In that context, a hard-nosed approach to pay negotiations seems a little more understandable.

yes it does... but it also suggests to me the bank required the personal guarantees because the clubs books didn't fill said bank with any confidence with respect to ongoing cash flow...

 

[Countrypie]

One thing about a number of the club directors at that time was that they had put themselves on the line by personally guaranteeing various banking facilities made available to the club. In that context, a hard-nosed approach to pay negotiations seems a little more understandable.

I didn't know that.

My understanding was that Jock had a culture of one in all in and everyone got paid the same. It worked fine in the 30s when Collingwood lived off the us against them maxim.

By the late 60's early 70's we were still operating on similar lines although I think there had been some ground given. But to think that players like Thompson, Tuddenham and Mckenna were getting paid similar sums to names like Urqhart, Coles and Heard when there were agrressive players on the scene like Richmond and Carlton beggars belief. Add that scenario to the ham fisted recruitment of Peter Eakins while expecting the aforementioned guns to get paid unders and I wonder why there wasn't a mass walk out.

When Collingwood did attempt to move out of the old way of doing things we did so with little planning and no idea of what the ramifications could be.

None of that is Jock's fault. I just think we rolled along expecting things to remain as they were when the world was changing rapidly . We just weren't hungry enough until the 80s when we went stark raving mad for a couple of years

 

[Buckley is my hero]

I think the lesson for Eddie is that mids don't make great coaches, even when they are legends of the club. If and when we make the change best go with what other clubs do and pick a defender as coach.

 

[sideswipe]

yes it does... but it also suggests to me the bank required the personal guarantees because the clubs books didn't fill said bank with any confidence with respect to ongoing cash flow...

Was a different time. CFC was something like an unincorporated association at that time and they were looking for construction finance for the social club, etc. Then, and probably now in a similar situation, you wouldn't get the dough without personal guarantees.

And if the books were looking crap, that makes the personal guarantees even more noble!

 

[Mukesh]

Was a different time. CFC was something like an unincorporated association at that time and they were looking for construction finance for the social club, etc. Then, and probably now in a similar situation, you wouldn't get the dough without personal guarantees.

And if the books were looking crap, that makes the personal guarantees even more noble!

Which to me just points to a fine coach and an excellent set of players being let down by inept club management..

 

[Scodog10]

I think the lesson for Eddie is that mids don't make great coaches, even when they are legends of the club. If and when we make the change best go with what other clubs do and pick a defender as coach.

I think the lesson needs to be club before personal relationships. If our senior coach wasn't managed by Kelly and had Ed as his biggest supporter there's no way he'd still be in the chair. Can you imagine the maneuvering and pressure being applied by Kelly behind the scenes to protect his client? Our club is now run like a corrupt dictatorship and the results have shown.

It's a complete and utter mess at the top and until one of the board members (or the collective) stand up to Ed things will remain as is.

 

[legendstatus]

Cool thread...... not


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I think the lesson for Eddie is that mids don't make great coaches, even when they are legends of the club. If and when we make the change best go with what other clubs do and pick a defender as coach.

That pesky Leigh Matthews spoils the theory.

But yes quite a lot of defenders have success.

Ofcourse a lot of defenders as coach don't have success too.

But seems being a defender certainly doesn't hurt.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I think the lesson needs to be club before personal relationships. If our senior coach wasn't managed by Kelly and had Ed as his biggest supporter there's no way he'd still be in the chair. Can you imagine the maneuvering and pressure being applied by Kelly behind the scenes to protect his client? Our club is now run like a corrupt dictatorship and the results have shown.

It's a complete and utter mess at the top and until one of the board members (or the collective) stand up to Ed things will remain as is.

Whilst Kelly might have a voice, let's call it, Ed decides these things. Nobody but Ed.

My biggest concern is Ed has been there so long, been good in some things, average in others.
Not the greatest success ever, one flag, you'd take it, but it's not multiple.

I think eds greatest achievement has been keeping Collingwood united and stable. No mean feat. On that he deserves praise.

But it's time. Surely Collingwood football club can survive without Ed.

But I'm quite sure Ed will be there for decades to come (yes decades).

 

[Scodog10]

Whilst Kelly might have a voice, let's call it, Ed decides these things. Nobody but Ed.

My biggest concern is Ed has been there so long, been good in some things, average in others.
Not the greatest success ever, one flag, you'd take it, but it's not multiple.

I think eds greatest achievement has been keeping Collingwood united and stable. No mean feat. On that he deserves praise.

But it's time. Surely Collingwood football club can survive without Ed.

But I'm quite sure Ed will be there for decades to come (yes decades).

Given the off handed nature of your comment are you able to explain why that's even remotely acceptable? As the manager of our current coach it is a huge conflict of interest, but that being said he has a big say. When our new CEO is announced I'm confident that a pattern will emerge. The whole place is corrupt.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Given the off handed nature of your comment are you able to explain why that's even remotely acceptable? As the manager of our current coach it is a huge conflict of interest, but that being said he has a big say. When our new CEO is announced I'll be confident that a pattern will emerge. The whole place is corrupt.

I'd say any manager of any coach would open their big traps to have their say.

As a manager gets 5% and on say 800 k pa that's 40 large in their kick.
And managers, well they love poking around looking for a say.

Is it right? Who knows, but will always happen.

But for us at Collingwood, it's only Ed that really decides.

I'd not use the word corrupt, that's too strong, doubt anyone is actively breaking the law or football law.
But we certainly are a one man show.

Is that particularly healthy? No.
Should it change? Yes.

Will it change? No way, I expect decades of Ed to remain. It is what it is.
Can't see anybody even thinking of challenging in a serious way.

Can not even think of one name who would come close to generating interest by the media, or memebers to be even seen as viable.

How did we get this way? Stockholm syndrome. And there it is.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

It's funny I just got an email about membership renewal.

I responded, "Will not be renewing, 26 years member, 43 years supporter, I'm done."

Then I come here & see this post.

 

[Buckley is my hero]

It's funny I just got an email about membership renewal.

I responded, "Will not be renewing, 26 years member, 43 years supporter, I'm done."

Then I come here & see this post.

Got the same email as you. I've got another one year left in me if Buckley is reappointed coach before I give up.

 

[CFC2010]

It's funny I just got an email about membership renewal.

I responded, "Will not be renewing, 26 years member, 43 years supporter, I'm done."

Then I come here & see this post.

You seriously pulling the pin O A?

 

[Obese Arachnid]

You seriously pulling the pin O A?

Just on membership & to clarify something else, I'm as much if not more disillusioned with the AFL itself.

I'll always follow the Pies coz it's in my DNA, I just don't love the game like I used to. If it wasn't for this site & supercoach I'd probably have even less love for the game.

 

[MyManLynch]

I didn't know that.
None of that is Jock's fault. I just think we rolled along expecting things to remain as they were when the world was changing rapidly . We just weren't hungry enough until the 80s when we went stark raving mad for a couple of years

The New Magpies...Ranald McDonald...

 

[Jasper84]

The New Magpies...Ranald McDonald...
View attachment 406324

That name is way too close to being a burger piffing Pennywise, for my liking.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

That name is way too close to being a burger piffing Pennywise, for my liking.

But the skivvy!

 

[MyManLynch]

But the skivvy!

Don't lie...you had one...

 

[jmac70]

Don't lie...you had one...

I had a yellow one to go with my bowl cut.

 

[jmac70]

I'm looking forward to reading Ed's reply.

 

[Chameleon75]

The New Magpies...Ranald McDonald...
View attachment 406324

When did we have Peter Moon as president?

 

[MyManLynch]

I had a yellow one to go with my bowl cut.

I wore a black number during winter to avoid wearing a school tie.

 

[jdpie]

Given the off handed nature of your comment are you able to explain why that's even remotely acceptable? As the manager of our current coach it is a huge conflict of interest, but that being said he has a big say. When our new CEO is announced I'm confident that a pattern will emerge. The whole place is corrupt.

Corrupted not corrupt. One is reflective of an underlying pathology, the other is a statement about the current predicament.