Lethal didnt do this to Vossy...lets call a spade a spade MM!

[Lets Roar like '44]

Idiot, when will you and others comprehend the facts?

Mick signed this deal mid 2009. He was not a Collingwood premiership coach at the time. He also was coming off a prelim final flogging by 70+ points vs Geelong.

The real question everyone was asking at the time, who in their right mind would extend the contract of a coach for 2 years, after a decade without a flag at the one club, 16 years since his last flag and being absolutely humiliated in a prelim final?

I'll tell you who, Eddie McGuire.

He was treated like a king. Now, he is disrespecting everyone that believed in him and gave him the opportunity to solidify his legacy.

Did anyone seriosuly believe Mick, after 20 odd years coaching, would waste his time "advising" Buckley? Give me a break.

It was Eddies stupid succession plan that caused all this all because he didnt want his love child going anywhere else.

They could have changed the contract and left Mick as coach, we all saw what happened with Eddies "a contract is a contract" that he kept telling us every day on the radio- Mick is no longer there. So I guess "a contract IS NOT a contract"

Eddie didnt want to be proven wrong, and now he's lost the best coach in Australia.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Did anyone seriosuly believe Mick, after 20 odd years coaching, would waste his time "advising" Buckley? Give me a break.

It was Eddies stupid succession plan that caused all this all because he didnt want his love child going anywhere else.

They could have changed the contract and left Mick as coach, we all saw what happened with Eddies "a contract is a contract" that he kept telling us every day on the radio- Mick is no longer there. So I guess "a contract IS NOT a contract"

Eddie didnt want to be proven wrong, and now he's lost the best coach in Australia.

Rodney Eade
Mark Harvey
Neil Craig

They all expected it and liked the idea so much they did it

 

[twaters]

It's all out of our system now. Mick may have done us a favour to get us back to 'us versus them'. Let's circle the Bucks wagons, keep mum, and focus on the footy. Big Ed needs to concentrate on helping internal things (not airing them on breaky show) - let Mick reinvent history a bit - we all do it to some extent. Who cares? Let it be.

What's happening to Olympic Park re-dev? What are we doing wrong to have 3 ACLs? Hartley and JThomas may be back this week in the two's. Why don't we win more two's games? How are we going to sneak Stewart, Boland and Eddy all onto the primary list next year (as if). Are the rumours true that CFC is after a very big fish at end of year (to replace one that might get away)?

What's happened has gone. Let's win tomorrow....and the match after that.....

 

[themidlandmaster]

Rodney Eade
Mark Harvey
Neil Craig

They all expected it and liked the idea so much they did it

and Bomber Thompson!

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

How many of those above had just given their team its first Premiership in 20 years and then got sacked (sorry demoted)?

Eade- got the chop because he's no good, but still wants to be a coach- happy to be assistant
Thompson- left because he didnt want to be a senior coach anymore- happy to be assistant
Harvey- got the chop because Freo apparantly think he's no good- happy to go elsewhere and be assistant
Craig- got the chop because he's no good- happy to go elsewhere and be an assistant

Malthouse- got the chop because he just won a Premiership and then got a Grand Final.

 

[Quicky]

How many of those above had just given their team its first Premiership in 20 years and then got sacked (sorry demoted)?

Eade- got the chop because he's no good, but still wants to be a coach- happy to be assistant
Thompson- left because he didnt want to be a senior coach anymore- happy to be assistant
Harvey- got the chop because Freo apparantly think he's no good- happy to go elsewhere and be assistant
Craig- got the chop because he's no good- happy to go elsewhere and be an assistant

Malthouse- got the chop because he just won a Premiership and then got a Grand Final.

C'mon thats a loaded statement. At the time the succession plan was orchestrated Malthouse hadn't won anything for a decade. We were perennial bridesmaids. All things considered the extra two years, at the time, seemed pretty generous. You can argue it was a mistake to get rid of Mick once we won the premiership in 2010. But ultimately the club was honouring the agreement.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

C'mon thats a loaded statement. At the time the succession plan was orchestrated Malthouse hadn't won anything for a decade. We were perennial bridesmaids. All things considered the extra two years, at the time, seemed pretty generous. You can argue it was a mistake to get rid of Mick once we won the premiership in 2010. But ultimately the club was honouring the agreement.

Wrong. The agreement has Malthouse still being employed by Collingwood. Obviously the agreement changed at some point, so they could have easily changed it and kept Malthouse as coach.

As much as Eddie kept telling us "a contract is a contract, we all know it aint.

 

[burglerbaron]

Idiot, when will you and others comprehend the facts?

Mick signed this deal mid 2009. He was not a Collingwood premiership coach at the time. He also was coming off a prelim final flogging by 70+ points vs Geelong.

The real question everyone was asking at the time, who in their right mind would extend the contract of a coach for 2 years, after a decade without a flag at the one club, 16 years since his last flag and being absolutely humiliated in a prelim final?

I'll tell you who, Eddie McGuire.

He was treated like a king. Now, he is disrespecting everyone that believed in him and gave him the opportunity to solidify his legacy.

thats a very simplistic view as well, though.

don't forget, the backdrop to all of this was that Buckley was out the door and off to North as senior coach. that's what drove mcguire as much as anything. 'cept he knew that malthouse was on the right track, and bucks wasn't ready, so the whole thing was a cobbled together compromise.

but if eddie really thought giving mick another two years was the right thing - and clearly he did because he did it - then he should have known that if it worked as wanted he'd be offloading a premiership coach. No-one in their right mind effectively sacks the best coach in the game from a position he doesn't really want to give up, but the decisions made two years ago - effectively a gamble against the success they actually wanted - locked them into a stupid decision. If malthouse has done anything wrong, imo it was agreeing to the two-year contract. He never really thought 2 years would see him out, if he had he wouldn't have bothered with those two years. And if eddie thought Bucks wasn't ready, then Malthouse actually did them a massive favour by agreeing to effectively act as a caretaker coach before stepping aside and in doing so preventing Buckley ending up at North, which was clearly unnacceptable to Ed. There is no doubt at all that the club owe Malthouse a thank-you at least as big as he owes them.

So Mcguire telling Malthouse that his gameplan was now out of date and he's yesterdays man was utter insanity from an egotistic and bombastic character and a case of re-writing history far more than anything malthouse has said.

Everyone in this current saga is a "victim". A victim to hedging bets on future events by three very powerful forces without the forsight to realise that the best possible outcome on the field would mean an irreconcilable course of action off it.

At least Bucks has kept his mouth closed. very wise, and i admire him greatly for it. a touch of class indeed. Ed would do well to learn something from him. Telling a guy who won you a flag two years ago and 3 runners up in the last decade that he has no friends at the club is hyperbolic stupidity.

 

[StillWaiting5689]

Mick has always been bitter towards things he doesn't like, this goes back a long time. I guess we could hope he wouldn't make comments about Collingwood but really no one should be surprised he is.

The sad part is that I reckon he would be happy as larry we have struggled early in the season. It will be interesting to see what happens when we start to get ourselves back on track (hopefully soon).

It's disappointing how it has all turned out, Mick did a lot of good for the club and in return the club did a lot of good by him, a shame it couldn't have ended better even if he did walk out on the club.

 

[Quicky]

Wrong. The agreement has Malthouse still being employed by Collingwood. Obviously the agreement changed at some point, so they could have easily changed it and kept Malthouse as coach.

As much as Eddie kept telling us "a contract is a contract, we all know it aint.

You're wrong and showing your ignorance regarding the situation. The agreement was for five years. Malthouse got two as senior coach and three as director of coaching. The two years as senior coach was honoured by both the club and Malthouse. The club would have honoured the three years as director of coaching but Malthouse decided to withdraw from the contract. The club allowed this as there is no point having an employee, especially in a business as cut throat as the AFL, that isn't wholly committed to the cause.

Of course the club could have changed its mind and retained Malthouse as coach. But that would have required us not to honour the contract and deal with the associated legal issues of breaking a contract. This had the potential to be even more divisive. At the time the deal appeared to be the right decision. History will say that we won a premiership shortly after. I think you would be naive to think that the decision didn't play a significant role in this.

 

[forwardflanker]

I just listened to the interview and if that is all they've got on Malthouse then this is one of the most ridiculous beat ups ever. I just can't see anything Malthouse said in that interview that was unreasonable. He certainly didn't speculate and I didn't detect anything spiteful. I think the prez (and I'm normally a fan has to bear a lot of blame here). I didnt like his comments on triple M at all. If he wanted to publically have a crack at Malthouse he should have publically done it in a press conference as President of the Collingwood football club not on his radio show!!! As president, I cant see why he would want to put fuel to the fire on pretty much an irrelevelent issue. What is done is done. Nathan Buckley is now coach of Collingwood. The irony here is it's Ed's comments on MMM, not Malthouse's, which are primarilly responsbible for stoking the fire and placing more pressure on Buckley imo

 

[Checkside35]

Have a listen to the ring ins. Best coach in the land. Now, I liked him but his record is 5 Gfs and 1 win.
The trolls would be laughing at this record had MM still been the coach however since the reigns were handed over to Buckley, they're all lauding MM as the sacrificial lamb. Would these be the same knobs who are calling the 2010 flag a Bradbury flag, saying we only be the Saints and it even took two goes etc? Yep.

 

[Checkside35]

So Mcguire telling Malthouse that his gameplan was now out of date and he's yesterdays man was utter insanity from an egotistic and bombastic character and a case of re-writing history far more than anything malthouse has said.

Telling a guy who won you a flag two years ago and 3 runners up in the last decade that he has no friends at the club is hyperbolic stupidity.

I don't know how closely you watched the Pies last year but teams like Carlton, Hawthorn, West Coast were getting closer. Hell, even your mob got close on ANZAC day. With a bit more polish those results could have been reversed. Geelong dismantled us 3 times. Round 8 should have been a blowout. The last round was an annihilation regardless of the so-called cue in the rack mentality. I remember thinking of Carlton 'f..ck these pricks a busting us open, free blokes everywhere.

Being runners up is what the rest of the footy world bags us about therefore why would the GF appearances without the cup be good enough? They aren't.
20 and 2 in 2011 means a whole lot of nothing if you don't come home with the silverware. The writing was on the wall, the only ones who couldn't see it where MM, his fans and the rest of the footy public who love to troll and didn't really watch the Pies games last year. As for his friends at the club, Ed said that he could lose friends, not that he didn't have any. He knows that MM gets pretty nasty when backed into a corner and starts potting people. That could potentially lose you friends, yes? Pre-emptive strike before MM burns his bridges at the club, IMO.

 

[Old Spice]

The facts are that the clubs success, like any club, is built around a multitude of factors: injuries, recruiting, form, youth development, team selection, fitness and conditioning, line coaches, game plans, personnel to fit games plans, other teams' development, fixtures etc.

The problem with this whole mess is that everything seems to be being sheeted home to the uber-mensch who controls it all. Mick has to earn a living as a media commentator and in that respect has to have some rationale for Collingwood's mixed beginnings.

The issue I have is that Mick seems to be putting all his eggs on Buckley's face, inadvertantly or not. The change of game style became an inevitable necessity as the 2011 season wore on. The knock-on from that was always going to effect performance - more 1-on-1s, an exposure of poor disposal, a lack of penetration by kick or ball-carrying - and in addition to that we've had a depleted list.

Neither of those problems were Buckley's fault, nor are they Micks. Buckley is working with what he's inherited, but I have to say that it's dissapointing, although not surprising Mick wouldn't come out and rattle off some other salient factors like injury, the exit of experienced line coaches, the relative paucity of youth development over the least two years (compared to Geelong who had a 2011 policy of playing their kids 4 games a season) and so on - a more complete picture.

He's still potting Buckley though by saying Davis would still have been there had he been senior coach. Leon and Bucks from what I understand always had a superb relationship. Unless Mick was moonlighting in Geoff Walsh's position, he can't make such assertions. It's another slight on Bucks.

Mick can say what he wants and will do, but Leigh Matthews I think handled things in just the same way Bucks would.

And I'm not really sure why Ed is seen badly for stating the game plan had been outclassed. It clearly had and he was simply taking his cue from Mick and the reality of the situation.

To Bucks' credit, he has stayed silent and comes out squeaky clean. Shows he's not reactive, like Matthews, and that's a great quality for a coach to have.

 

[Visions]

I just hope that MM doesn't eventually go down the same path of another past Collingwood legend, Tony Shaw, while in his media stint, that is, being a tool.

 

[PieNSauce]

Idiot, when will you and others comprehend the facts?

Mick signed this deal mid 2009. He was not a Collingwood premiership coach at the time. He also was coming off a prelim final flogging by 70+ points vs Geelong.

The real question everyone was asking at the time, who in their right mind would extend the contract of a coach for 2 years, after a decade without a flag at the one club, 16 years since his last flag and being absolutely humiliated in a prelim final?

I'll tell you who, Eddie McGuire.

He was treated like a king. Now, he is disrespecting everyone that believed in him and gave him the opportunity to solidify his legacy.

This!

How many of those above had just given their team its first Premiership in 20 years and then got sacked (sorry demoted)?

None, and that includes Mick. The deal was done before the 2010 premiership which many might argue had as much to do with some pretty fancy recruiting as well as the succession plan. Distortion of the facts rarely bolsters an argument so poorly as it does yours.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

All you Collingwood people can believe whatever makes you sleep easy at night. Fact- you got rid of the best coach. Fact- you replaced him with Buckley. The good news is, as my club has found out, is that you will have at least 3 years of Bucks to endure. All the very best

 

[PieNSauce]

All you Collingwood people can believe whatever makes you sleep easy at night. Fact- you got rid of the best coach. Fact- you replaced him with Buckley. The good news is, as my club has found out, is that you will have at least 3 years of Bucks to endure. All the very best

All you non-Collingwood supporters can believe whatever makes you sleep easy at night. Fact - We implemented a change that other clubs have followed on the back of 10 years where we failed to capture the ultimate prize. Fact - we got rid of a coach who some believe needed a massive kick in the pants in order to attain the ultimate prize and we supported him with the best facilities and two recruits without whom many believe we would not have stood a chance in 2010. The good news is that there is nothing to indicate that Bucks will suck like your coach.

 

[Snoop Dog]

All you Collingwood people can believe whatever makes you sleep easy at night. Fact- you got rid of the best coach. Fact- you replaced him with Buckley. The good news is, as my club has found out, is that you will have at least 3 years of Bucks to endure. All the very best

Well lets be fair......MM would have had 2 more GF's if he didnt have to play a club that was allowed to spend an additional 15% on its players......

Anyway, Robbo article this morning is spot on.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

But Mick's gameplan DID get figured out, that's why he had to change it in the prelim and then in the grand final.

So remind all us 'ignorant Collingwood supporters' how Eddie is somehow wrong in that statement?

Honestly, this has all come to a head because we won the flag.

Mick most likely didn't want to coach by the end of 09, Eddie didn't want him to go, but didn't want to lose Bucks to another club either, so he organised the deal. Best of both worlds.

All of a sudden Mick wins a flag and thinks "Hey, maybe I can go a bit longer" but it was too late by then.

Say what you will about Eddie Maguire, but he doesn't lie. His biggest problem? He supports people who do. Malthouse being one of them. Malthouse is a KNOWN liar, not Maguire.

If Ed says Mick came to him in 09 and said "I've had enough", then that's what happened.

Or have all non-Collingwood supporters already forgotten "I never called Milne a rapist"?

 

[Snoop Dog]

Mick wanted out and then wanted back in bc he finally won the premiership......end of story.

 

[the distributer]

The facts are that the clubs success, like any club, is built around a multitude of factors: injuries, recruiting, form, youth development, team selection, fitness and conditioning, line coaches, game plans, personnel to fit games plans, other teams' development, fixtures etc.

The problem with this whole mess is that everything seems to be being sheeted home to the uber-mensch who controls it all. Mick has to earn a living as a media commentator and in that respect has to have some rationale for Collingwood's mixed beginnings.

The issue I have is that Mick seems to be putting all his eggs on Buckley's face, inadvertantly or not. The change of game style became an inevitable necessity as the 2011 season wore on. The knock-on from that was always going to effect performance - more 1-on-1s, an exposure of poor disposal, a lack of penetration by kick or ball-carrying - and in addition to that we've had a depleted list.

Neither of those problems were Buckley's fault, nor are they Micks. Buckley is working with what he's inherited, but I have to say that it's dissapointing, although not surprising Mick wouldn't come out and rattle off some other salient factors like injury, the exit of experienced line coaches, the relative paucity of youth development over the least two years (compared to Geelong who had a 2011 policy of playing their kids 4 games a season) and so on - a more complete picture.

He's still potting Buckley though by saying Davis would still have been there had he been senior coach. Leon and Bucks from what I understand always had a superb relationship. Unless Mick was moonlighting in Geoff Walsh's position, he can't make such assertions. It's another slight on Bucks.

Mick can say what he wants and will do, but Leigh Matthews I think handled things in just the same way Bucks would.

And I'm not really sure why Ed is seen badly for stating the game plan had been outclassed. It clearly had and he was simply taking his cue from Mick and the reality of the situation.

To Bucks' credit, he has stayed silent and comes out squeaky clean. Shows he's not reactive, like Matthews, and that's a great quality for a coach to have.

I don't think he's potting Bucks at all, all's he's said is Bucks is strong willed and is using a different game plan that will take the players time to get their heads around, he's never said it's wrong.

As for the Leon thing, Mick tried dancing around the question but they kept coming back to it, alll's he said is if he was still coach he would be very confident Leon would still be there as they had great respect for one another, and i believe him.

When asked about reasons for the GF defeat, he gave his opinion, he said Swan was beaten by Ling (surely Swan himself knows this, it's no secret), a critical error by Tarrant at a crucial stage and an umpiring error at a crucial stage, you can say mick forgot about playing an injured Jolly and Reid, but those decisions were already made and surely the selection commitee/and the 2 players themselves have to take some of the heat for that.

MM is allowed to have an opinion, possibly more than anyone on why we lost the 2011 flag.