Exactly. And after his botched effort to move from the Bulldogs to Sydney (not saying it was his fault, but he quit one job early before he had the other signed off) and the precious way he seems to have approached the current situation, I;m beginning to care less and less about Wallace.
Wallace - gone
- Thread starter macca23
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #27
What was Adelaide's preference? That is the more pertinent question. Wallace is the best man for the job, you should have been trying to convince him it would be a fruitful marriage.
- Feb 3, 2004
- 17,999
- 24,204
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- panthers, ukraine & broncos
As I just posted on the other wallace thread - I think this is Wallace making excuses. If he is not interested in an Interview, then he is not interested in the position. If Wallace has based his decision on what has been reported in the media and a phone call from Triggy then he is not the man for the job as he jumps to conclusions and is not willing to follow correct process for recruitment.
He is using the Sydney line as an excuse.
He is using the Sydney line as an excuse.
Cornesy asked Trigg that but Trigg wouldn't reveal specifics. He said he didn't want to reveal publicly who their order of preference. He said they are interviewing 4 more (not sure whether that means 5 all up inc. Wallace or they have already interviewed others too).
Trigg definately indicated that Wallace was a very high priority. Even after Wallace's decision Trigg said they made attempts with Wallace's manager to get him to Adelaide for further discussions.
I doubt we'll ever know now whether Wallace was the first preference or if they even had a first preference when Terry made his decision.
Indications are, and logic would suggest so anyway, that Wallace was very high up on the list of candidates.
****
- Feb 3, 2004
- 17,999
- 24,204
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- panthers, ukraine & broncos
Thanks for that **** - as some one stuck here in the UK and 5aa don't allow you to listen online I am royally stuffed trying to get information!
It appears that what I thought was correct that Wallace's ego wants him to be the only one in consideration and if you even show a little interest in anyone else he runs away.
It appears that what I thought was correct that Wallace's ego wants him to be the only one in consideration and if you even show a little interest in anyone else he runs away.
**** agree with just about everything you say in this thread.
But what gets me is if Wallace was as high up the list as quoted then maybe the AFC should not take no for an answer & go over to Melbourne to put the hard word on Wallace if that's what it takes.
sorry no, semantics only.
What should he have done tell Wallace that you are THE only candidate??????
You are making yourself look like know all when in fact you couldn't be further from the truth.
crowie
Club Legend
I think the whole process from the start has been a shambles, I don't think that Neil Craig should have been given the chance as the interim coach. I think the AFC should have installed a coach that would only be there until the end of the season, thus giving all the candidates a level playing field. At the end of the day I cant see why nine games would put you ahead of seven years with the Bulldogs, I think the boys club theory is very valid!
- Thread starter
- #37
I'm at a loss to understand why some people just can't see that this is where the AFC process has gone off the rails.
If Neil Craig was to be considered as a serious contender then it should have been on the basis of how he matched up with all other contenders at the time of Ayres' departure.
For the process to be seen as fair to all applicants, including Wallace, a non-applicant should have coached out the season.
All of the media cr*p that has been published since Ayres departure would have been avoided.
And nobody, but nobody, could have questioned the AFC for process or motives.
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,477
- 82,045
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
I heard somewhere (think Ch10 news) that AFC & Wallace were not an option because we were not willing to pay him enough. Surely this can't be the case as we are the club best placed to pay top $ for the best available coach...
- Oct 10, 2003
- 1,990
- 0
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
- Banned
- #40
Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
I heard somewhere (think Ch10 news) that AFC & Wallace were not an option because we were not willing to pay him enough. Surely this can't be the case as we are the club best placed to pay top $ for the best available coach...
Nah - it's because we only offered him a role as an assistant to Craig.
I am confused by all the pro-Wallace hype...Would Terry Wallace have been happy to be patient and pesist with Adelaide while we go through a lengthy rebuilding process ( 3+ years ), I doubt it !!!
I bet you in 3 years time he will give Hawthorn/Richmond the flick to move to a club with a stronger list to enhance his chances of winning a premiership...
Who the hell does he think he is..Did he really expect to just arrive at West Lakes and we would give him the job. What an ego this guy has...
Mind you, the pressure is now really on the Board and the CEO because if the Craig experiment doesn't work, they should all be shown the door...
I bet you in 3 years time he will give Hawthorn/Richmond the flick to move to a club with a stronger list to enhance his chances of winning a premiership...
Who the hell does he think he is..Did he really expect to just arrive at West Lakes and we would give him the job. What an ego this guy has...
Mind you, the pressure is now really on the Board and the CEO because if the Craig experiment doesn't work, they should all be shown the door...
Not true.Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
I heard somewhere (think Ch10 news) that AFC & Wallace were not an option because we were not willing to pay him enough. Surely this can't be the case as we are the club best placed to pay top $ for the best available coach...
Yeah, Mark Aiston's really got his finger on the pulse of the football world! Um, since Wallace's decision to go to Richmond has just been announced, and therefore he has declined to progress any further in discussions/interviews with Adelaide, how could anyone possibly know or claim that money was the dealbreaker?.Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
I heard somewhere (think Ch10 news) that AFC & Wallace were not an option because we were not willing to pay him enough. Surely this can't be the case as we are the club best placed to pay top $ for the best available coach...
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,477
- 82,045
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
Wasn't claiming it was by any means - just reporting what was said & all the backslapping that Craig was 1 step further to being permanently appointed as senior coach. Hopefully the truth will come out in due course ... & in the meanwhile the Craig5AAites will continue with their propoganda machine.
I don't know how you can believe anything Wallace says. Didn't he deny vehemently that he was going to Sydney at the time?
Only now does the truth come out some 2 years later.
Better off without him IMO. I just can;t see Ricetto & Mcleod biting and scratching and eye gouging.
Only now does the truth come out some 2 years later.
Better off without him IMO. I just can;t see Ricetto & Mcleod biting and scratching and eye gouging.
This is a good point - I hadnt thought of that - and would have made the scenario a bit different I guess.
Wallace was my 1st choice - so I am a bit disappointed - I kind of dont care really any more - good luck to whoever gets it! It will be Craig.
I personally don't see how that would have made a difference.
Some people have been saying for the last 2 years that Craig has been promised the job. If Mark Mickan was caretaker coach right now people would still be questioning the process and would still be saying Craig is a shoe-in, just like they were before Ayres left. I just don't see what difference that would have made.
Giving Craig the chance to coach at least gives some indication of how he will go about it. Sure, I don't think the Crows should put too much emphasis on his 9 weeks as caretaker but if you have the chance to have a look at him and see how he handles the media, how he goes about training, how he promotes youngsters, how he reacts tactically in games then why not?
Did Sydney do the wrong thing by appointing Roos as caretaker? Did the Bulldogs do the wrong thing by appointing Wallace as caretaker? Did the Kangaroos do the wrong thing by appointing Pagan as caretaker?
Of course not. This is common practice and I can't believe now - after the event that some people are being critical of this. Appointing second in charge is the obvious and right thing to do. And that's why it is such a regular occurrence.
****
