Can I ask what it is that makes you believe that Eddie gets to be president for life not to mention what makes you think he makes decisions unilaterally? I've never seen evidence of that other than Eddie haters who take joy in saying it without any shred of evidence.
I respect what he's done for the club. There's no denying his leadership improved the clubs brand, bottom line, memberships. And also, delivered a Premiership. He's a wildly successful President but it does seem he has made football department decisions which are more or less unilateral.
I have no problem with accepting that in 2009 the way he saw it Mick needed to be transitioned out of he senior job and that Bucks was the dream replacement from a marketing pov who other clubs were circling. But its nothing other than objective to say that if Ed though Mick was no longer up to the job he was proved wrong. And if he thought Bucks could seamlessly take over a team that finished 1st in 2011 and build on that success he has been proved wrong again. No need to hate on Mick or Bucks or Ed because all have been great servants of the club and whats history is history, but clearly the club in this moment is not where it wants to be so its not unreasonable to wonder how that came to be and look for accountability.
In 2009 a decision was made, and I can see that that decision in Eds eyes would of been what he thought was the best decision to make. History shows your President probably underestimated the ability of Mick to continue coaching at the elite level and probably overestimated the ability of Buckley to coach to the same level, and that that had an impact on the clubs performance post 2011. I'm not saying Eddies useless sack him, I was just saying its a bit unfair he's on TV is round 3 saying he wouldn't hesitate to sack the coach [even if it was taken out of context] when no-one is asking what would be an equally legitimate question: who made him coach?

