Mick vs Bucks Article

[Zahki]

Those of you who still read Inside Football will have seen the editorial this week about our coaching situation. The gist of the article was that apart from the possibility of everything going according to schedule, hitting 2012 doing the handover and Mick doing his 3 years as whatever the hell his new role is, there was one other option.

That is that Buckley - team man, football history student, Magpie loyalist - decides to sacrifice his own ambitions for one more year (or even two). He may consider that taking over a premiership team puts him on a hiding to nothing. A case of win the flag in the first year or be seen to fail.

...

Buckley has always been slotted for this job. He'll have it soon enough - and he can have it in more favourable circumstances, and with the gratitude of his club for averting a difficult, potentially damaging situation. Furthermore he'd have set an undeniable example of selflessness, loyalty and teamsmanship.

All up I thought it discussed the current arrangement surprisingly even handedly, without the histrionics that other publications resort to, to dramatise the situation. It's hard to argue against anything in it. The arrangement at the time was perfect, it gave Malthouse extra time to do what he could with the list he built, time he deserved, while making sure we had an option who would be embraced by the entire supporter base should he fail in those 2 years. The dilemma at the time, of Malthouse potentially winning a premiership and then the club being forced to switch from a proven premiership winning coach to an inexperienced assistant, favoured son as he may be, was seen as a 'good' problem to have. I don't think there's any dispute over the fact that Malthouse wants to go on and keep coaching, as much as he may deny it, it's certain he has his eye on McHales record, aside from that having just won a flag he's at the top of his game and probably enjoying himself more than ever now that huge amount of pressure would've been lifted slightly. Is it the right thing to do to adhere to the contract he signed in 2009?

Buckley too, will have considerations of his own. Taking over a side having won a flag in the past 2 years, he'll be taking the reigns right when the list will be hitting it's peak in terms of age. What if in 2012 we finish out of the top 4? What kind of backlash would there be for removing our premiership coach and replacing him without getting the results expected? I know it's all peaches and cream on here for many, it's a case of Buckley being too revered to fail, and personally I think he'll be a great coach, but it's not like it's a fait accompli that he's going to succeed in his first 3 years, after all, did Malthouse? The shpeshal eds who have complete and utter confidence now will be sinking their fangs in before the season ended, of that there is no doubt at all.

I think the article is correct on all counts, if it were to happen it would have to be of Buckleys own inititive and volition, there's no way the club could be seen to reneg on the deal without significant damage, especially considering the noises it made about Malthouse doing the exact same thing. If he doesn't then there is no choice but to go ahead and fulfil the conditions of the contract, the club pulling the rug from under one of it's own champions is something no-one wants to see and not a realistic scenario. But if he were to delay his ascension to the throne for 2 more years then Mick could finish coaching on his own terms (and be far less likely to move to a rival, that feeling of 'unfinished buisiness' gone), Bucks could take over with far less pressure to win a flag in his very first year and it would be a very favourable situation for all.

Food for thought.

 

[ksardog]

as far as im concerned if we win a premiership this year malthouse should continue in 2012 but if we dont bucks takes over. buckley knows he will have a good stint as senior coach when its his time but if it aint broke dont fix it. im sure both can put their pride aside and do whats best for the collingwood football club.

 

[mattys123]

All contracts will be fulfilled to their full, just you wait and see.

And god damn, no wonder I haven't read Inside Football in 15 years, what a load of shit.

NATHAN BUCKLEY IS COACHING COLLINGWOOD NEXT YEAR, that is 100% certain, no room for negotiation, no room for "rumour or innuendo".

You can "guess" what Mick's going to do, but he'll stay also, put your money on it.

 

[Jedi01]

'Inside St Kilda' annoys me every week I buy it, yet still do....

Crackers with his 'rumors page' every week, but never naming anyone involved is just a license to make up anything he feels.

 

[3066]

All contracts will be fulfilled to their full, just you wait and see.

And god damn, no wonder I haven't read Inside Football in 15 years, what a load of shit.

NATHAN BUCKLEY IS COACHING COLLINGWOOD NEXT YEAR, that is 100% certain, no room for negotiation, no room for "rumour or innuendo".

You can "guess" what Mick's going to do, but he'll stay also, put your money on it.

This.

Hey can you imagine Mick riding the boundary permanently on game days for those little one on one player tips - whoaa baby, me likely a lot.

 

[Markfs]

I'm surprised that this hasnt been written earlier. I was certainly thinking about it after we won the premiership.

I agree that there would be a lot of pressure on Bucks IFFFF we win the premiership this year. Personally, I dont like talk about winning two in a row, because we are miles from winning two in a row.

Another point that I would like to make is that I have a feeling that Bucks had a significant input into last years premiership. Aside from all the roman legions etc, it was the forward line (who he coached) that brought the forward pressure on the saints. I dont think it was a coincidence that we improved the zone in Buck's first year. I think Bucks might think that he has proven his loyalty in helping Mick get the premiership. He doesn't have to do more by standing aside for another year.

In the end, I would prefer no more discussion on this subject. If the two men make a private arrangement that is ok'd by the club, then ok. But I dont want magpie supporters putting pressure on Bucks to "demonstrate his loyalty".

 

[mwalker]

I mentioned this possible scenario (unlikely but possible) in a different thread awhile back and it still makes sense to me.

I would not even consider it a huge sacrifice on Bucks part either. He WILL coach us, whether it be next year or the year after or the year after that. There is nothing surer at Collingwood.

It solves a very tricky situation where it looks like Mick would like continue coaching (not saying he will break his contract. In fact I think Mick's word is his bond and he has said he is staying at Collingwood). But no-one wants the Director of Coaching to be thinking of greener pastures. So do we let him go and get someone else passionate about being at the pies or was it a position to just keep Mick at the club?

And you are right, if we win the premiership next year Bucks would virtually have to win the flag to just break even and this is a very tough ask for a first year coach.

 

[TradeDraft]

'Inside St Kilda' annoys me every week I buy it, yet still do....

Crackers with his 'rumors page' every week, but never naming anyone involved is just a license to make up anything he feels.

Good for a Laugh and he does get the Odd one Right

 

[Ed D]

For those saying Buckley has to wait, what happens if we win 3+ flags in a row?

 

[Zahki]

NATHAN BUCKLEY IS COACHING COLLINGWOOD NEXT YEAR, that is 100% certain, no room for negotiation, no room for "rumour or innuendo".

Nothing is 100% certain. You should know, you were talking how it was a sure thing we'd be playing Essendon and not West Coast a week ago.

 

[mattys123]

Nothing is 100% certain. You should know, you were talking how it was a sure thing we'd be playing Essendon and not West Coast a week ago.

Yeah, but that was due to shitty AFL scheduling, not a legally binding contract(s) that has been signed by 2 professional football coaches and an AFL football club.

Mick Malthouse will coach his last senior game of football for Collingwood at the end of this season, it is certain, because other wise you are looking at breaking legally binding contracts, that all 3 parties (Collingwood, Mick and Bucks) would have to be "in on".

It won't happen, and I'm sick of any talk about Buckley not being our coach from 2012 on.

You can speculate all you want about Mick going elsewhere, because it's a little bit of a different situation (only 2 parties have to agree to break the contract, he won't be a head coach, etc etc).

As I said, and as I will say, and as Eddie McGuire, Gary Pert, Mick Malthouse and Nathan Buckley have stated publicly on a number of occasions, NATHAN BUCKLEY WILL BE OUR COACH IN 2012, it is a certainty (barring medical problems for the great man maybe).

 

[Jedi01]

Yeah, but that was due to shitty AFL scheduling, not a legally binding contract(s) that has been signed by 2 professional football coaches and an AFL football club.

Mick Malthouse will coach his last senior game of football for Collingwood at the end of this season, it is certain, because other wise you are looking at breaking legally binding contracts, that all 3 parties (Collingwood, Mick and Bucks) would have to be "in on".

It won't happen, and I'm sick of any talk about Buckley not being our coach from 2012 on.

You can speculate all you want about Mick going elsewhere, because it's a little bit of a different situation (only 2 parties have to agree to break the contract, he won't be a head coach, etc etc).

As I said, and as I will say, and as Eddie McGuire, Gary Pert, Mick Malthouse and Nathan Buckley have stated publicly on a number of occasions, NATHAN BUCKLEY WILL BE OUR COACH IN 2012, it is a certainty (barring medical problems for the great man maybe).

Of course I agree that Buckley will be coach in 2012.

However you seem to have missed the main point of the article;
"That is that Buckley - team man, football history student, Magpie loyalist - decides to sacrifice his own ambitions for one more year (or even two)."

If all parties agree, it is not breaking a contract.

 

[Zahki]

Alright putting aside the issue of whether it will happen, do you think it's the right thing? I mean as of right now, do you believe that had no contract beend made or signed in 2009, that Mick should be placed in another role and Buckley made head coach based just on the last season?

What about if in 2012 Collingwood slides to 5th and drops out in a prelim? You'd have no nagging thoughts about it?

Note that I don't necessarily believe these outcomes to be likely (though possible), I'm just playing devils advocate to spur some discussion.

I definitely think that Bucks is going to be under some seriously intense pressure to deliver in his first year. He can probably handle it of course but he could easily avoid it by allowing Malthouse to ride this wave then take over the side at a lower ebb than it is at now, he WILL be coach, that is certain. And as Jedi said, it has to be his decision of course. The club isn't going to pressure him to do it, it's entirely up to Buckley.

Will he? I'd guess no. Bucks wants to coach, he could've been at North or Richmond by now and I have no doubt he wants to be up on that dais holding the cup asap, taking over a premiership side at it's highest point gives him a great chance to do that. He'll know better than anyone what will happen if he doesn't deliver, so I suspect that will drive him even more.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

I will continue to laugh at the media, trying to turn Collingwood winning back-to-back flags into some sort of "problem"...

 

[Ed D]

The only way it's going to happen is if Mick, Bucks & Eddie all sit down and say that's what they want to do. Whether people from the outside think something should or shouldn't happen is irrelevant.

 

[Swooop]

Must admit I've wondered this aswell, if, and only if, we happened to win the flag this year.

That possibly Bucks just MAY be tempted to go to Eddie and MM and suggest they put the takeover on ice for 12 months.

I think it would have to come from Bucks himself and no-one else.

Whilst I think it's very unlikely to occur, I do think the possibility exists and also I do think the idea has a lot of merit, for reasons outlined above ( by previous posters)

Beautiful dilemma to have if we get to that point

 

[Maggie5]

The way I see it is that despite having the best facilities, support staff etc MM hadn't won a premiership at the stage that the succession plan was put in place. The club (Eddie) put together a plan (like most successful organisations) should, all parties agreed and signed on the dotted line. That is the end of it. We can discuss what if as much as possible, what if we hadn't won the premiership last year?
I think that MM will keep to the agreement and that his role of working with the younger members will suit him and I am sure he is keen to do it and also spend time with his growing family. Collingwood can only get stronger.

 

[Bay Pie]

'Inside St Kilda' annoys me every week I buy it, yet still do....

Crackers with his 'rumors page' every week, but never naming anyone involved is just a license to make up anything he feels.

Hahaha. I think exactly the same thing but don't bother buying it as much as I used too. Crackers Keenan reads Pies forums, then writes tid bits stating they are from his spies or inside sources. Rarely is he right, but occasionally close.

It's the weekly Russell Holmsley 'go into bat for St.Kilda' article and Nathan Burkes somehow linking everything to St.Kilda.

Thank god for Mick Ellis and Jim Main. Jim doesn't like the Pies but he doesn't offer up biased guff when discussing us.

With Bucks v MM article. Why would Bucks handover the senior coaching role of back to back premiers, should that happen, with a still very young list and most likely start favourites again?

I understand the notion of Bucks stepping aside for MM, but on the flipside for the team, a possible contented, stale and complacent team is reinvigorated by a new enthusiastic, fresh voice.

The media will continue to dig at this all year as much as the GWS speculation. We know who's going to be coach next year, media beat ups wont change that fact.

 

[Zahki]

The media will continue to dig at this all year as much as the GWS speculation. We know who's going to be coach next year, media beat ups wont change that fact.

It's not a dig at all. I see a lot of defensive responses suggesting that people are assuming the article is anti-Collingwood because it's discussing our coaching situation, this isn't true. The article is distinctly pro-Collingwood and discusses how good the deal that was brokered was for the club. I know the initial reaction for people reading about these scenarios is to fold their arms and say "The club says it's that way so it's that way and thats all there it to it! Harumph" but there's really no need to get so defensive about it.

 

[Bay Pie]

It's not a dig at all. I see a lot of defensive responses suggesting that people are assuming the article is anti-Collingwood because it's discussing our coaching situation, this isn't true. The article is distinctly pro-Collingwood and discusses how good the deal that was brokered was for the club. I know the initial reaction for people reading about these scenarios is to fold their arms and say "The club says it's that way so it's that way and thats all there it to it! Harumph" but there's really no need to get so defensive about it.

I didn't mean that. Re reading what I wrote, I see how it could be construed that way.

What I meant was the media will continue to 'dig this up' ie The MM handover to Bucks and continually talk about it, when it has been discussed on plenty of occasions and basically put to bed what will happen. Being Collingwood and 2 high profile footy personalities in MM & Bucks, it will continue to get air time.

I dont doubt it is a possibility and no doubt has merit but I just can't see Bucks wanting to do that.

 

[Paddywhackers]

I am a huge Malty fan, best coach in the business, but I reckon, our list is that good in 2011, it shouldn't matter, even if Sheedy was coaching us, we'd still be flag favourites.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I've been thinking this for ages, and called SEN months ago and said the same and they completely dismissed the idea.

But from what I've heard of Nathan Buckley and his personality, he seems the type to do something just like this.

I mean, even if he gives it up for one more year, he STILL takes over a premiership list in 2013.

 

[Pie eyed]

I am a huge Malty fan, best coach in the business, but I reckon, our list is that good in 2011, it shouldn't matter, even if Sheedy was coaching us, we'd still be flag favourites.

If Sheedy was coaching us we would not have a list.