Opposition supporter still lurking. For the record I still think round 3 is too early to write off a season and don't believe in sacking coaches mid season either, so hope to see Bucks given the year before any decision is made.
I must admit, I do find the 2009 succession plan one of the AFL's most fascinating moments in history. What is amazing to me though is how the man who conceived and implemented it manages to escape any responsibility for the choices he made as President and the impact that has had on the footy club.
My mind boggles at Eddie saying, in round 3!, that he would have no problems sacking Bucks if he thought it was best for the club. Is there anyone on this earth who can sack Ed or is he essentially the boss of Collingwood for life? This is a man who thought sacking [or having a "succession plan"] MM at the hight of Premiership mode was the best decision for the club. What evidence is there other than Ed's opinion is there that this was the right call? He's made some huge calls, and yes that might be his job. But if footy clubs are all about accountability, why is it no-one gets to hold him accountable for how those calls turn out?
I think its very unfair that a decision made by Ed is always reduced to a trashing of the reputations of 2 great servants of the club who were both dealt a raw hand, by him.
Mick took the club to 4 Grand Finals and delivered a Premiership. His legacy speaks for itself, I don't begrudge him at all for being bitter or taking pot shots at the President of the club because in the history of the game no individual has been asked to swallow a more bitter pill than coaching his last game in a losing GF when you 100% want to keep coaching, are committed to coaching and have the players. To me its one of the most heartbreaking stories in footy.
Similarly, Bucks build a legacy as a player as an all time great. Its a shame for him that he probably won't go on to be a career coach or have the sort of impact as a coach that he would of wanted. The way I remember it, in 2009 he was hungry to be a Senior coach and there were opportunities at other clubs and was not seeking to usurp MM at all, but keen to pursue those other opportunities. He told Eddie as much and Eddie decided that Nathan Buckley being involved with a club other than Collingwood was unacceptable. In Ed's estimation Mick was done as a coach and the future of Collingwood was under Nathan Buckley.
Unfortunately for Ed, Mick proved he very much still had what it takes and promptly broke a 20 year Premiership drought, then immediately backed it up finishing top of the ladder and returning to the GF in 2012. I very much doubt that after that Nathan would of resisted if the succession plan was revisited in light of the extraordinary events that followed signing that deal. But Eddie had complete confidence the success was sustainable without Mick. Was it?
What would of happened at any other club is probably Bucks getting a senior job at another club and cutting his teeth for 2 or 3 years while Micks Premiership window closed and he was allowed to leave the game on his terms. Collingwood are then in the market for a senior coach and an uncontracted Bucks comes back to Collingwood to great fanfare and importantly, a more experienced and capable operator. Its actually quite extraordinary that that is not how it happened. The reason it didn't was because the risk of Bucks having huge success at another club and not wanting to come back [which i think history suggests wouldn't of happened] was judged more likely by Eddie than the 2012 team not performing to the same level in 2013 without the coach that built it. That to me was incredibly suspect judgement, the foolishness of which is supported by the 5 year slide since.
Now its 2016 and the members are getting impatient and Eddie says he'll not hesitate to sack Bucks if things don't improve. Did Nathan Buckley appoint himself? Did MM walk away from the game because he didn't want to coach anymore? Who is ultimately responsible for the performance of the team more than Eddie?