Rumour Malthouse in 2012

[76woodenspooners]

I've heard a rumour that Malthouse has signed a contract for 2012.

There's been a mountain of media speculation about Malthouse in 2012 and where he'll be going, but I haven't seen so much as a Kim Duthie tweet about this one. So this is an exclusive - you read it here first!

My sources tell me that Malthouse will be staying at Collingwood and undertaking a new role titled "Director of Coaching". His contract for this role covers the years 2012 to 2014 inclusive.

This contract was apparently signed nearly 2 years ago!!! If it's true (and my sources are impeccable) then it seems strange that it hasn't been picked up by the media - they seem to be caught up with some merry goose chase about him going to Melbourne or Bulldogs or anywhere-but-Collingwood.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Pop Quiz: What do you reckon a "Director of Football" would do?

 

[mattys123]

Pop Quiz: What do you reckon a "Director of Football" would do?

Ask Mark Thompson.

 

[boxy2010]

Pop Quiz: What do you reckon a "Director of Football" would do?

Mentoring for all coaches current and future, pass on his knowledge to ensure its used for years to come

Create a framework/methodology for coaches to follow which will provide them with a foundation for success.

 

[Football God]

I'd say he'll still get to have a say giving "tips" to bucks for game plans

 

[Wooljay]

I may be confusing this with something else, but didn't everyone already know this..? He signed this contract in 2009 when the deal was penned with Buckley involved, and this was always going to be the succession plan. The only reason there is speculation is because there was an agreement with the club that they'd let him out of it if he didn't like the role once it was further developed.

Am I totally off the mark?

 

[Zahki]

The reason there is so much speculation is that practically every opposition supporter wants him to leave Collingwood. Half because they all want him to go to their club, and half because Malthouse staying with us while Bucks takes over coaching would be a massive boon for us. They're willing it to fail with everything they have.

Mick certainly wasn't happy with the arrangement at first but from hearing him in the media the past few weeks it definitely sounds like he's more comfortable with it now. I think he'll end up staying.

I may be confusing this with something else, but didn't everyone already know this..? He signed this contract in 2009 when the deal was penned with Buckley involved, and this was always going to be the succession plan. The only reason there is speculation is because there was an agreement with the club that they'd let him out of it if he didn't like the role once it was further developed.

Whoosh!

 

[Plogs]

I may be confusing this with something else, but didn't everyone already know this..? He signed this contract in 2009 when the deal was penned with Buckley involved, and this was always going to be the succession plan. The only reason there is speculation is because there was an agreement with the club that they'd let him out of it if he didn't like the role once it was further developed.

Am I totally off the mark?

Oh dear......

 

[HFF]

There's no doubt in my mind that Mick will still have an active match day role in the coaches box. There's talk that they are trying to nut this part out and should be finalised soon within a month but it will happen. It has to happen.

This is guaranteed.

The club will not just throw away 30 years of premium knowledge and experience because neither Mick nor Bucks want to "get in each other's way". They will learn (if they haven't already) to co-exist and bounce ideas off each other in order to take us to another level.

Eddie, Perty and Walshy would be well aware that Mick Malthouse in the coaches box on match day would be invaluable not only to Nathan but to also the assistants and the players themselves.

Mick Malthouse will not just be a "behind the scenes" man. He will very much still be at the forefront of everything we will be doing just without much of the pressure and spotlight.

 

[Zahki]

There's no doubt in my mind that Mick will still have an active match day role in the coaches box. There's talk that they are trying to nut this part out and should be finalised soon within a month but it will happen. It has to happen.

I agree. Mick won't stay unless he's actively involved, it probably means Bucks will have to share some parts of what would traditionally have been the head coaches role. It's very tough to find a role where he would have a say in the day to day issues of the club but still give Bucks enough autonomy, thats the challenge and it's once Ed brought upon himself, hope he's up to it.

 

[captainMyCaptain]

I heard he was off to melb and was hoping to bring dale thomas with him. That said until his role is clear with the pies or it is clear he is moving on the rumors will keep coming.

 

[Breakthelines]

This whole situation has come up because I think the club got a little worried that Bucks was gonna take a job at another club.

Then Mick goes and wins the flag and all the talk starts.

Mick should be Senior coach next year, Bucks another year as assistant then reassess for the 2013 season.

 

[HFF]

This whole situation has come up because I think the club got a little worried that Bucks was gonna take a job at another club.

Then Mick goes and wins the flag and all the talk starts.

Mick should be Senior coach next year, Bucks another year as assistant then reassess for the 2013 season.

This would be my preferred outcome, particularly if we went back-to-back. It just feels right and has that touch of sentiment about it which is always nice in footy.

Either way, I'm a believer that Mick will not leave anyhow.

 

[HFF]

I heard he was off to melb and was hoping to bring dale thomas with him. That said until his role is clear with the pies or it is clear he is moving on the rumors will keep coming.

This will not happen, particularly about Thomas leaving us to join a pissant club like Melbourne.

 

[Pie eyed]

The main functions of his role would have been nutted out before an agreement was reached and certainly before any contracts were signed.
Bucks, Mick, Eddie and more than likely Pert all understand the roles which Malthouse and Buckley will play come 2012.

If this was not the case none of them would have signed contracts.

That this is not obvious to anyone with the simplest understanding of business and contracts is amusing to say the least.


The media are no doubt aware of this and will simply contiue to nag on the subject until one outlet gets given the scoop from the club.

All the speculation about other clubs, other contracts etc is just window dressing and column filling from the journo's.

 

[Quicky]

The main functions of his role would have been nutted out before an agreement was reached and certainly before any contracts were signed.
Bucks, Mick, Eddie and more than likely Pert all understand the roles which Malthouse and Buckley will play come 2012.

If this was not the case none of them would have signed contracts.

That this is not obvious to anyone with the simplest understanding of business and contracts is amusing to say the least.


The media are no doubt aware of this and will simply contiue to nag on the subject until one outlet gets given the scoop from the club.

All the speculation about other clubs, other contracts etc is just window dressing and column filling from the journo's.

What this dude said.

 

[captainMyCaptain]

I might be wrong here but didnt mick say a few days ago he needed to sit down with bucks and work out what his role would clearly involve.

 

[Hardas]

Seems clear ffrom Bucks' interviews that he will definitely take over next year - he's ready to go.

Sure as I can be that Mick will be there at least one year [not convinced he will do too well with not having the final word in decision-making].

Anybody think that MM as 'bench coach' giving instant feedback to players etc might be intriguing for him, while Bucks and his team work the moves?

 

[DermiesLuvChild]

I've heard a rumour that Malthouse has signed a contract for 2012.

There's been a mountain of media speculation about Malthouse in 2012 and where he'll be going, but I haven't seen so much as a Kim Duthie tweet about this one. So this is an exclusive - you read it here first!

My sources tell me that Malthouse will be staying at Collingwood and undertaking a new role titled "Director of Football". His contract for this role covers the years 2012 to 2014 inclusive.

This contract was apparently signed nearly 2 years ago!!! If it's true (and my sources are impeccable) then it seems strange that it hasn't been picked up by the media - they seem to be caught up with some merry goose chase about him going to Melbourne or Bulldogs or anywhere-but-Collingwood.

Both Malthouse & Bucks signed 5 year contracts.
Bucks as assistant coach for 2 years (2010-2011) then senior coach for 3 years (2012-2014).
Malthouse as senior coach (2010-2011) & then Director of Football (2012-2014).
The media speculation is that his services (as a senior coach) will still be in high demand, hence Malthouse will be tempted away from Collingwood (end 2011) to be a senior coach at Melbourne or Doggies (Carlton prob will stay with Ratten now).
I think he will give the Director job a go for 12 months (2012) & then re access if its working for him (& the club).
He will earn more $ at Collingwood without the pressure (match day & match prep). Also must factor in his age & whether he has the desire to 'start' again at a new club.
If it was his choice then I am sure he wud prefer to remain senior coach of Collingwood in 2012.

 

[Zahki]

Whoosh again!

 

[PieNSauce]

There's no doubt in my mind that Mick would prefer to be coaching Collingwood next year. The question is whether he wants to go to a club and start what he has previously said would be a 5+ year project at his age. Given the potential pitfalls as well as the lack of security of such a move I have no doubt that he has/will give the Collingwood role very serious consideration before he would field other offers. Let's be fair, Mick's no spring chicken and there are major positives to a managerial role at Collingwood where his reputation as a coach will not suffer as it might elsewhere. How many other clubs will spend the sort of money Collingwood does on their football department? Answer: None! IMO being part of a dynasty that you created and will forever be credited with has serious attraction.

P.S. Serious lulz at the 747's in this thread!

Edit... see bolded. Clarifies my statement.

 

[Ed D]

I know this is a tongue in cheek thread but on a serious note can the Dees or Dogs even afford to not only pay out his contract with the Pies ($1mil a year) but pay him enough to want to coach their team?

 

[mattys123]

I know this is a tongue in cheek thread but on a serious note can the Dees or Dogs even afford to not only pay out his contract with the Pies ($1mil a year) but pay him enough to want to coach their team?

Simply put, no, bluntly put, HELL NO.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Um, I made a mistake with relaying the rumour - MM's new role should have read "Director of Coaching" (Apologies to Geoff Walsh - did not mean to imply that he wasn't remaining deserved Football supremo).

Gee, I hope the TV networks are able to correct the mistake before they go with it on the evening news - otherwise I'll be very embarrased.

Sorry folks, my bad.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I wouldn't have thought it'd be too hard for both of them to keep busy without them getting in each others way...

Buckley - tactical review and matchups of week-to-week games. Chairing match committe. Match-day coaching. Week-to-week player review. ie: Buckley is responsible for week to week performance. Would have "the boss" role of the other coaches.

Malthouse - strategic approach to the season as a whole. Strategic definition of coaching roles. Research coaching methodologies and roles and bringing them to the club. Would have "the mentor" role of the other other coaches. Any matchday participation in the box would be purely as an observer - having him meddling in any matchday decisions would undermine his "big picture" strategic role. Any participation in match committee is with consideration to the big picture stategic objective of winning a premiership.

I think this kind of demarcation would play to the strengths and wonts of both men. Interestingly, I find it curious that much is being made in the media of potential conflict between Buckley and Malthouse's roles - I would have thought potential overlap between Malthouse and Walsh's roles would have also been a big concern - although I guess as far as the media is concerned, Walsh is more behind the scenes and isn't as big a headline.