Malthouse

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You'll all enjoy it when his time at Carlton proves to be not much better than Denis Pagan's. They'll be chasing their arses and thinking it's still the 1970's for quite a while yet.

I'll enjoy it but no more than if Ratten was still in charge. I dont care who leads them to failure.

 

[Cory]

This Eddie and Mick saga is completely childish.

 

[jerry springer]

oh the humanity Mick!

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/malthouse-the-bitter-end-20130402-2h563.html#ixzz2PLlL9kTh

''They thought it was finished at the end at Collingwood. They were a little disappointed, a little bitter in many respects, I think, in the way it finished and [were] really done with football, really quite disappointed with humanity if you like,'' he said.

​

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/malthouse-the-bitter-end-20130402-2h563.html#ixzz2PLlL9kTh​

​

you were paid very well over a 11 year period. Stop being such a egotistical prima donna and grow up. So happy you are out of my club for good and you couldn't of chosen a better club to employ you that you can stain with your immature self-centered drivel.​

​

The best thing the Collingwood football club can do after this weekend is not even mention Malthouse's name until he is retired from coaching.It just feeds his ego​

 

[SprooseMoose]

Whatever the motivations behind the succession plan (keeping Bucks, Mick's alleged poor health, etc), I find it ridiculous that has the gall to play the victim here after he walked out on us, breaking a contract he never had to sign in the first place. If anyone should feel shafted it's the Pies, and not Mick Malthouse!

 

[dubber]

Im sliding with Malthouse in this tiff.

The whole succession plan was a massive **** up by Eddie. Purely designed to keep Buckley from coaching North as Eddies ego couldnt stomach Buckley coaching another team.

Malthouse role was not defined when the deal was 'apparently done' and obviously with Mick doing so well with the team in his last couple of seasons he didnt want to step aside after winning a premiership and grand final appearance. Fair enough if you ask me.

To suggest that Eddie has done nothing to agitate Mick and is therefore blameless is laughable.

You couldn't be further from the mark >

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/exp...t-nathan-buckley/story-fn6cisdj-1226611072103

It started in February 2010, when he kick-started two years of speculation about the succession plan by saying Buckley was not yet ready to coach Collingwood.

Back then his anger over signing the deal to become a coaching director in 2012 was either hidden or not evident.

''If I wasn't happy (with the contract), I wouldn't have signed it,'' he told the Herald Sun on February 6, 2010.

So is Mick a liar or full of crap or both? you can tell us what you think

In one of Malthouse's last games - the West Coast final during the failed premiership run of 2011 - he threw up a suggestion about shoring up the defence that was savagely torched by Malthouse as not the Collingwood way.

How it affected Buckley - fury, frustration, bitterness - is not known because even when Malthouse smashed his game plan he defused the situation with grace and wit.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/exp...t-nathan-buckley/story-fn6cisdj-1226611072103

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/exp...t-nathan-buckley/story-fn6cisdj-1226611072103

And that my friends is where Mick cost the flag in 2011, the man was too immersed in dealing with his emotions that he forgot to put the club first. Anyone who thinks Mick was thinking Collingwood first in 2011 is delusional.

 

[Bay Pie]

Im sliding with Malthouse in this tiff.

The whole succession plan was a massive **** up by Eddie. Purely designed to keep Buckley from coaching North as Eddies ego couldnt stomach Buckley coaching another team.

Malthouse role was not defined when the deal was 'apparently done' and obviously with Mick doing so well with the team in his last couple of seasons he didnt want to step aside after winning a premiership and grand final appearance. Fair enough if you ask me.

To suggest that Eddie has done nothing to agitate Mick and is therefore blameless is laughable.

Before taking sides, lets go back to 2009 when the succession plan was done. Mick agreed to it whether he liked it or not. Why not say to Eddie " I'm not happy with the deal" then either renegotiate or pull the pin then. He had 9 years at the club without a flag. How many other coaches have had that long and received a better deal then what MM got in 2009?

Let's not rewrite history. If Eddie had have known we'd win a flag in 2010, perhaps things may have been different in the 2009 deal but Ed has no time machine.

Mick had a locked in contract that he reneged on. Not only that, but made out he was the victim. He signed the deal willing in 2009 and then got the shits when the club wouldn't change it.

His attitude towards Bucks is totally unwarranted and his attitude towards the club shows exactly who he cares about.

Ed cares about the club. He's proven that in everything he's done.

Has MM done that?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

In all likelihood, Malthouse will not win a premiership in the 3-5 years he'd get at Carlton before they sack him, and then he can decide how he wants to be viewed by the fans of the Collingwood Football Club.

The references to his family being disappointed in humanity are simply laughable, and more interestingly he appears to be rapidly losing traction in the media because he is becoming so transparent.

 

[jerry springer]

If true..............I shouldnt be surprised actually. Typical MM

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...t-nathan-buckley/story-e6frg6n6-1226611072103

To put it bluntly, Malthouse made it evident that he was boss, and Buckley was very much the work experience kid.

Like using team meetings to assert his authority, urging Bucks to do things like ''get the lights'' before a presentation before the team, pointedly asking menial tasks of the man who would one day be senior coach.

Or in pre-season training sessions when AFL umpires helped out, cutting short conversations because he had to ''go and see what Bucks was doing'' with his players. As in go and fix what Bucks was most likely buggering up.

Those close to the action say Buckley's conduct was impeccable, holding his tongue and calmly serving out his time under his former coach.

In the coaches box, he resembled an Easter Island statue, determined to show little emotion yet still help execute Malthouse's game plan to the letter.

In one of Malthouse's last games - the West Coast final during the failed premiership run of 2011 - he threw up a suggestion about shoring up the defence that was savagely torched by Malthouse as not the Collingwood way.

How it affected Buckley - fury, frustration, bitterness - is not known because even when Malthouse smashed his game plan he defused the situation with grace and wit.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...t-nathan-buckley/story-e6frg6n6-1226611072103

Just staggering.

 

[dayna36]

Micks family was disappointed he stopped coaching??? CRAP!!!..a relo of mine just married Troy Malthouse his son (mad magpie supporter) at one BBQ he told me stories about his dad and felt sorry for players that weren't on his XMAS card list..but the interesting point is that his entire family WANTED him to give up coaching because they were worried about his health SO MM comes out and joins the media stating family is so important to him he can't wait to have more time to spend with his wife, kids and grand kids LIAR..LIAR after speaking to Troy I started to see through his rubbish..this week is not about him he says.. SO..HE DOES HEAPS OF MEDIA and uses that to cry and turn his back on eddie handing out the olive branch PISS OFF MICK

 

[Running Bull]

Those close to the action say Buckley's conduct was impeccable, holding his tongue and calmly serving out his time under his former coach.

I just heard Bucks on the radio talking down the hype about the game on the weekend, explaining how he had nothing but respect for Mick and how much he learnt from him as a player and an assistant coach.

Bucks; all class, the complete opposite of Mick and it must be tearing Mick apart. The worst thing that Buck and Eddie can keep doing to Mick is keep being nice to him, it just highlights what a knob he is.

 

[Markfs]

Im sliding with Malthouse in this tiff.

The whole succession plan was a massive **** up by Eddie. Purely designed to keep Buckley from coaching North as Eddies ego couldnt stomach Buckley coaching another team.

Malthouse role was not defined when the deal was 'apparently done' and obviously with Mick doing so well with the team in his last couple of seasons he didnt want to step aside after winning a premiership and grand final appearance. Fair enough if you ask me.

To suggest that Eddie has done nothing to agitate Mick and is therefore blameless is laughable.

There's been a lot of opinion exhibited in these pages, but the notion that the club came up with the "succession plan" merely to get Buckley in the coaching position, is one of those urban legends that is not only wrong but can be proved to be wrong. To state the obvious, the plan wasn't put into place after the premiership but in July 2009. The football side wasn't travelling that well.

In the 2007 season, we had lost to Geelong twice and to the only time that we played Hawthorn.
In the 2008 season, we had a great win against Geelong but had been crushed twice by Hawthorn, although we had a couple of good wins against St. Kilda.
In the 2009 season, we lost our only games to Geelong and Hawthorn.

It should also be noted that the decision on the plan was evidently made in July 2009, which was a month or so after successive massive losses to St. Kilda and Carlton.

All in all, by mid 2009 it looked like Hawthorn practically "owned" us. The Clarko cluster was running rings around Malthouse's stubborn adherence to man-on-man. It wasn't much better with Geelong. We had a night out with them in 2008 when everything went right, but most of the time, all we could manage were honourable losses.

It looked to me and to many people that the next wave of coaches had won out over Malthouse's commitment to traditional defensive football. Clarko, Woosha and Roos coached premiership sides and guys like Malthouse, Sheeds and Pagan were either gone or halfway out the door.

To me, the succession plan offered a number of things:

- it gave Malthouse a 2 year window to get his premiership with the players that come into the club after grand final losses in 2002/3.
- it provided surety to Buckley
- it kept the wolf pack at bay because they were howling for Malthouse's blood
- it gave a commitment to Malthouse that the club would back him 100% for the next 2 years
- it gave Malthouse a gracious way to slide into retirement in his new coaching role.

I suspect that when Eddie explained the plan to Malthouse, all Malthouse heard was that the club would give him 2 more years. At that stage, he had been coaching for 17 years without a premiership......yes his last premiership had been 17 years earlier with West Coast. Patience was wearing out around the club and he knew it. He signed on the dotted line and probably thought to himself that if he won the premiership, the club would be likely to tear the agreement apart.

As far as the second issue is concerned, Malthouse's role after the succession was never defined because he could never agree to anything. If you look at Rodney Eade now, there is NO way that Malthouse would take a back seat to another coach like that. He might call himself a "team man" but the team has to be his team or he's going to grab the ball and go home.

Just a final word about today's claim by Malthouse that the club's actions hurt his family....... well I almost choked on my brekky. It was Malthouse who told the media before his decision to return to Carlton, that it was HIS decision and his decision alone about whether he would come back to coaching. Talk about a long suffering wife. I would also like to remind the Malthouse family that they haven't been living on the poor side of town for the last decade. Malthouse should remember that when he is shooting arrows at the club, he is shooting them also at the 70,000 people who pay memberships and at the hundreds of people who work as volunteers for the club.

 

[Poseidon]

Just read through the whole thread.
I wish we'd ban him from speaking to the media for the remainder of his time at Carlton.

 

[PieNSauce]

If their was a process which you are alluding too. Why were no other names linked to the job? There is no evidence to suggest that Eddie and the board even considered another candidate other than Buckley.

You are delusional to think that Eddie didn't hugely influence the decision. North had promised Buckley their head coaching position. Eddie had to do something drastic to stop his love child being seen in another teams colours.

It's is pretty clear cut and Malthouse unfortunately got shafted so Eddie can get his way.

That's pure speculation and flies in the face of pretty much everything Eddie has done since becoming President. If you choose to endorse the line taken by the opposition supporters then I guess that's your choice but precious few here will agree. I think someone may be delusional but it sure isn't me!

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

Everything is pure speculation on this forum. The only two people who know the real story is Malthouse and Eddie.

You can quote my comments as much as you want, it is not going to change my opinion on the topic. I respect Malthouse for what he has done for the club and can sympathise with him that Eddie got rid of him because he wanted to put his boy into the top job, despite Mick leading the club to three straight grand finals including 1 premiership.

Time will tell if Eddie made the right decision.

 

[Thommo 42]

he didn't lead us to 3 straight grand finals, he lead us to 2 and his childish behaviour cost us the 2nd one.

when the deal was done we were 3-6 in his 9th season as coach of the Pies and 17th season as a senior coach without a Premiership - despite coaching the 2 best resourced clubs in the country in those 17 years.

He was very lucky to be coaching in 2010.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Except that none of that is true. When the ink was dry on the contract MM hadn't led us to any GFs since 2003.

Unless you are not a believer in our legal system, which is fodder for a different thread on an altogether different forum.

 

[KrakFiend]

Mick Floghouse... seriously, regardless of 2010 the guy is an absolute dick.

Cry me a river. This is what you get from some people who never really got to see the world from any point of view but football clubs. Football clubs are like high schools, very easy for some to never grow up.

Don't be fooled because he watches the history channel in his many hours off during the week, the bloke is a bimbo.

 

[piepark]

There's been a lot of opinion exhibited in these pages, but the notion that the club came up with the "succession plan" merely to get Buckley in the coaching position, is one of those urban legends that is not only wrong but can be proved to be wrong. To state the obvious, the plan wasn't put into place after the premiership but in July 2009. The football side wasn't travelling that well.

In the 2007 season, we had lost to Geelong twice and to the only time that we played Hawthorn.
In the 2008 season, we had a great win against Geelong but had been crushed twice by Hawthorn, although we had a couple of good wins against St. Kilda.
In the 2009 season, we lost our only games to Geelong and Hawthorn.

It should also be noted that the decision on the plan was evidently made in July 2009, which was a month or so after successive massive losses to St. Kilda and Carlton.

All in all, by mid 2009 it looked like Hawthorn practically "owned" us. The Clarko cluster was running rings around Malthouse's stubborn adherence to man-on-man. It wasn't much better with Geelong. We had a night out with them in 2008 when everything went right, but most of the time, all we could manage were honourable losses.

It looked to me and to many people that the next wave of coaches had won out over Malthouse's commitment to traditional defensive football. Clarko, Woosha and Roos coached premiership sides and guys like Malthouse, Sheeds and Pagan were either gone or halfway out the door.

To me, the succession plan offered a number of things:

- it gave Malthouse a 2 year window to get his premiership with the players that come into the club after grand final losses in 2002/3.
- it provided surety to Buckley
- it kept the wolf pack at bay because they were howling for Malthouse's blood
- it gave a commitment to Malthouse that the club would back him 100% for the next 2 years
- it gave Malthouse a gracious way to slide into retirement in his new coaching role.

I suspect that when Eddie explained the plan to Malthouse, all Malthouse heard was that the club would give him 2 more years. At that stage, he had been coaching for 17 years without a premiership......yes his last premiership had been 17 years earlier with West Coast. Patience was wearing out around the club and he knew it. He signed on the dotted line and probably thought to himself that if he won the premiership, the club would be likely to tear the agreement apart.

As far as the second issue is concerned, Malthouse's role after the succession was never defined because he could never agree to anything. If you look at Rodney Eade now, there is NO way that Malthouse would take a back seat to another coach like that. He might call himself a "team man" but the team has to be his team or he's going to grab the ball and go home.

Just a final word about today's claim by Malthouse that the club's actions hurt his family....... well I almost choked on my brekky. It was Malthouse who told the media before his decision to return to Carlton, that it was HIS decision and his decision alone about whether he would come back to coaching. Talk about a long suffering wife. I would also like to remind the Malthouse family that they haven't been living on the poor side of town for the last decade. Malthouse should remember that when he is shooting arrows at the club, he is shooting them also at the 70,000 people who pay memberships and at the hundreds of people who work as volunteers for the club.

Could not have said it better. I hope history records this as the basis for why he had to go.

Great work.

 

[Cee_jay]

Malthouse is just digging his his own hole deeper with this "humanity" rubbish.

Were it anyone other than Eddie, Bucks and Collingwood on the other side, he'd already be considered a mainstream joke for the way he's conducted himself.

Bucks, on the other hand, has been diplomatic and just got on with the job, to his absolute credit.

He wont admit it, most likely, but should we get up on Sunday I bet he'll be grinning inwardly quite a bit.

 

[domus]

Everything is pure speculation on this forum. The only two people who know the real story is Malthouse and Eddie.

You can quote my comments as much as you want, it is not going to change my opinion on the topic. I respect Malthouse for what he has done for the club and can sympathise with him that Eddie got rid of him because he wanted to put his boy into the top job, despite Mick leading the club to three straight grand finals including 1 premiership.

Time will tell if Eddie made the right decision.

Three straight Grannies cause we almost lost the unlosable one against St Kilda! No credit in that.
Clearly, logically presented facts and countless examples of Malthouses' lies and back flips aren't enough to overcome your apparent antipathy towards Bucks.

You mention the grand finals as though Malthouse had achieved them before he was offered the succession contract. We were struggling badly at the time and he had had 9 years at the helm. Would you have more respect for Eddie if he had reneged on the contract because circumstances had changed? Maybe that's the way you operate in life. I like people who honour their words-something Malthouse has never done. When his lips move he is lying.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

You mention the grand finals as though Malthouse had achieved them before he was offered the succession contract. We were struggling badly at the time and he had had 9 years at the helm. Would you have more respect for Eddie if he had reneged on the contract because circumstances had changed? Maybe that's the way you operate in life. I like people who honour their words

Amen... o-rama.

 

[jmac70]

I am sorry to say that Mick is an ego-maniac. There is no other explanation for his behaviour since leaving the club. Twelve years is more than almost every coach gets. He should look back on his time with us as a privilege instead of with bitterness.

Will his attitude change when the Blues sack him?

Even after coaching the Blues he could still have been welcomed back. I am not so sure now.

 

[dansa]

I have no time for MM.

But I prefer to focus on the way Buckley has handled himself during the whole sorry saga. The man's professionalism and dignity has really contrasted MM and shown him up for what he his.

It just confirms that the right decision was made.

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

Three straight Grannies cause we almost lost the unlosable one against St Kilda! No credit in that.
Clearly, logically presented facts and countless examples of Malthouses' lies and back flips aren't enough to overcome your apparent antipathy towards Bucks.

You mention the grand finals as though Malthouse had achieved them before he was offered the succession contract. We were struggling badly at the time and he had had 9 years at the helm. Would you have more respect for Eddie if he had reneged on the contract because circumstances had changed? Maybe that's the way you operate in life. I like people who honour their words-something Malthouse has never done. When his lips move he is lying.

Not sure why you are mentioning Buckley. I have no beef with him. My main criticism is Eddie is putting his ego before the best interests of the club. Replacing a proven premiership coach with an untried assistant coach with no prior head coaching experience to take charge of a team smack bang in the middle of a premiership window is not in the best interests of the club IN MY OPINION.

 

[jmac70]

Not sure why you are mentioning Buckley. I have no beef with him. My main criticism is Eddie is putting his ego before the best interests of the club. Replacing a proven premiership coach with an untried assistant coach with no prior head coaching experience to take charge of a team smack bang in the middle of a premiership window is not in the best interests of the club IN MY OPINION.

At the time the agreement was reached Malthouse had not coached a premiership for 15 years. How much time has to go by before you are no longer considered a proven premiership coach?