Why?

[chapmanmagic35]

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeexcellent!

So you think because Costa and Co made some brilliant moves financially 7 years or so ago we owe them their jobs for life?
Please, changes are needed at this club if we're to take the next step to glory. Sick of idiots continually accepting the garbage that comes out of the club.

Yes, let us just get rid of two people who are the benchmark for other clubs.

Thank god you do not run our club.

 

[Go Hoops]

Leaving Thompson in place but not extending his contract wouldn't give Bomber much security, he would feel like a dead man walking.

No way should we extend his contract. If he is to stay, he must earn any possible extension. That would mean a much better performance than than this year. A bit of passion wouldn't go astray either.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

So by "beyond" are you are saying that if they don't sack him after the review they should extend his contract?

Also, if they don't extend his contract aren't the board effectively saying that he doesn't have their full support - especially since his last contract renewal came a year before the contract was up.

Leaving Thompson in place but not extending his contract wouldn't give Bomber much security, he would feel like a dead man walking.

The whole situation is a mess and it ain't going to go away quickly.

What? No it doesn't. How many clubs extend their coach's contract like that anyway? We did it a couple years ago but our situation was totally different.

 

[Conan Troutman]

So by "beyond" are you are saying that if they don't sack him after the review they should extend his contract?

Also, if they don't extend his contract aren't the board effectively saying that he doesn't have their full support - especially since his last contract renewal came a year before the contract was up.

Leaving Thompson in place but not extending his contract wouldn't give Bomber much security, he would feel like a dead man walking.

The whole situation is a mess and it ain't going to go away quickly.

I think what Pants is saying (or how I took it anyway) is not about getting an extension now, but it should be assumed Bomber will coach in '08 until otherwise said. McMurrich on the other hand is assuming Bomber is already gone for the '08 season. What if we win the GF next year, surely Bomber would continue, and it throws McMurrich's current arguments out the window.

 

[The Hoops]

I think what Pants is saying (or how I took it anyway) is not about getting an extension now, but it should be assumed Bomber will coach in '08 until otherwise said. McMurrich on the other hand is assuming Bomber is already gone for the '08 season. What if we win the GF next year, surely Bomber would continue, and it throws McMurrich's current arguments out the window.

How can we assume that Bomber will coach in '08 when at this point in time we can not even assume he will coach in '07?

 

[Dont you hate pants?]

So by "beyond" are you are saying that if they don't sack him after the review they should extend his contract?

Also, if they don't extend his contract aren't the board effectively saying that he doesn't have their full support - especially since his last contract renewal came a year before the contract was up.

Leaving Thompson in place but not extending his contract wouldn't give Bomber much security, he would feel like a dead man walking.

The whole situation is a mess and it ain't going to go away quickly.

No- what I am saying (badly) is that if bomber is our 2007 coach, he doesnt need to hear that there will be an election held now because at the end of the 2007 season the board needs to be focussed on hiring a new coach for 2008...so he is effectively been told that he wont be coaching in 2008 despite any results. I would rather be in the coaching role with no contract in place for the following year, let any results speak for themselves with the potential to coach the following year compared to knowing that at the end of the season the board will be looking for a new coach. I'm not convinced that having the full support of the board means that his contract has to be renewed during an existing contract. For me it is having the freedom to do what he wants in terms of improving on-field performance no questions asked and without been under constant scrutiny.

 

[Dont you hate pants?]

I think what Pants is saying (or how I took it anyway) is not about getting an extension now, but it should be assumed Bomber will coach in '08 until otherwise said. McMurrich on the other hand is assuming Bomber is already gone for the '08 season. What if we win the GF next year, surely Bomber would continue, and it throws McMurrich's current arguments out the window.

Beautiful....yeah what they said!

 

[Conan Troutman]

How can we assume that Bomber will coach in '08 when at this point in time we can not even assume he will coach in '07?

Yeah we can't yet, but I don't think it matters when McMurrich's argument is about bringing forward board elections so we don't have to have board elections and replace the coach in the same year (2007). That means McMurrich is then assuming Bomber stays for next year, but is gone in '08. If Bomber stayed on in '08, it would make his argument for early board elections irrelevant.

 

[AM]

The few deficiencies of the board don't warrant the distraction and cost of bringing forward an election. And it would be a helluva loss if Cookie was to leave 'cos he'd had enough of all the disruption. There's no better CEO in the league and when you consider our sorry history at picking good CEO's we should do all in our power to keep him.

If fact, the only possible benefit of a premature board election is that McMurrich will get such a belting at the ballot box he won't ever stand again.

 

[AM]

No way should we extend his contract. If he is to stay, he must earn any possible extension. That would mean a much better performance than than this year. A bit of passion wouldn't go astray either.

GEELONG chief executive Brian Cook is recommending to the Geelong board that Mark Thompson be kept as senior coach next year.
Sources last night confirmed that Cook, who has overseen a lengthy and extensive review of the football department, was arguing that Thompson deserved the chance to complete his contract and coach the Cats in 2007.

Seems Cookie agrees with you GH - just 2007. Presuming Jake Niall is on the money, that is.

 

[Mooney_d'King]

What if - Geelong is very successful next year.
What if Bomber doesn't want to continue after that success - you know, quit while you're ahead. He deserves our respect, despite our personal disappointments this year and I don't think what Bomber wants to do has even been considered.

 

[AM]

Don't you think you should have a really substantial reason before you put the club to the trouble, expense and disruption of an early election? I am yet to hear a substantial reason for bringing the election forward.

Also, according to Dwayne Russell, at least one of the groups has been casting around in order to get worthwhile candidates and has been knocked back right, left and centre. Russell was himself asked and said no way. So in the extremely unlikely event of Costa's crew losing we could end up with a second rate or untried board, the loss of a terrific CEO, and for what?

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Losing the board doesn't lose you Cook, necessarily and in fact I think a new board would be desperate to keep him. Everyone knows he is one of the best administrators in the country and he is an employee of the footy club which is different to being a board member.

As great as Costa has been as president for us he has taken his eye off the ball this season when things started going sour and too much has happened at the footy club this year without his knowledge. I feel his extended holiday was justified disappointment, that went way too far when we needed hands on deck down there.

The real question is not when the elections are to be held, thats an issue sure but more of a side issue....do we want this board for another three seasons....thats what we all should be focusing on...and then that explains exactly why they are considering bringing the elections forward...do we want to wait till December to do it...? From what I can gather as well as getting personal up front explanations from board members thats what all this is about...

I personally dont think its as crazy as what you are making out, to me it could even be a considered and reasonable approach....and I am not involved in it...thats just my opinion...

In what regard?

 

[AM]

I'm extremely doubtful Cookie would stay if Costa was defeated in an unnecessary election. And unless there is a substantial reason for an early election, why would you risk it. I have no doubt the current board would not extend Bomber's contract beyond 2007 when a board election is due at the end of that year. It would be irresponsible and that is something no one could accuse this board of. Some of it's predecessors, yes, but not this one. It's a red herring.

 

[WE Are Geelong]

I'm extremely doubtful Cookie would stay if Costa was defeated in an unnecessary election. And unless there is a substantial reason for an early election, why would you risk it. I have no doubt the current board would not extend Bomber's contract beyond 2007 when a board election is due at the end of that year. It would be irresponsible and that is something no one could accuse this board of. Some of it's predecessors, yes, but not this one. It's a red herring.

Again, I understand the logic of what you are saying and in a more ideal sense I would agree with you...this board has been 'reluctant' is the nicest way I can put it, to deal with serious issues that faced the club internally and off the field this season, issues that seriously effected our on field performances...this is what the board is there to actually do, so if they haven't been irresponsible....what's another word you would call it?

I don't think it is a red herring, I have four different sources...all separate and not connected...more or less saying the same thing...

 

[The Hoops]

The few deficiencies of the board don't warrant the distraction and cost of bringing forward an election. And it would be a helluva loss if Cookie was to leave 'cos he'd had enough of all the disruption. There's no better CEO in the league and when you consider our sorry history at picking good CEO's we should do all in our power to keep him.

If fact, the only possible benefit of a premature board election is that McMurrich will get such a belting at the ballot box he won't ever stand again.

This will not happen because McMurrich will not be standing as a candidate. Get past who is presenting the petition and see the reasons behind it.

 

[AM]

Get past who is presenting the petition and see the reasons behind it.

And they are? Something substantial, please. Not unsubstantiated make believe like possible extensions to Bomber's contract.

 

[The Hoops]

And they are? Something substantial, please. Not unsubstantiated make believe like possible extensions to Bomber's contract.

Firstly, I never said lets extend Bombers contract I was just trying to find out what Pants meant concerning Bomber coaching for '07 and beyond.

The reasons behind McMurrich's call for an EGM (not to be confused with the Loney/Whitham petition) are that he thinks members desere the chance to question the running of the club in light of its protracted review and failure to make this year's finals.

He thinks the board has shown deficiencies and seeing that the board has scope for 2 more members maybe we should add to it to cover these areas (thus requiring a spill of the board). He highlights football and communications with the media as the problem areas. According to the club constitution he has the democratic right to ask these questions and that is what he is doing.

Also, with Costa already declaring that '07 will be his last year and the board up for election, why replace the board and then have the new board review bomber in the same year (depending on this years review). Unless GFC plan ahead we could be looking at replacing a board and coach (or coaching staff) and maybe even a captain after next year (again if he is not replaced after this years review). Do we sit back and let Costa and the current board leave us in that position? This future situation needs to be thought about now not next year when its too late - succession planning is just as important at board and management level as it is within the playing group of a club.

Looking back on the past year can you honestly tell me that the GFC have communicated information to the members and general public very well. The whole Bertollochi affair was handled poorly by the club. This coupled with the Costa backflip on Bombers tenure as coach and then the review process that has dragged on highlights the communication issues. The football side of things speaks for itself I think.

 

[AM]

With all due respect TH [and I know you have the best interests of the club at heart] there is nothing substantial enough to warrant an early election.

I'm not discomforted by the time its taking to finalise the review. I'd rather have something thorough than something half baked. I expect the review to cast light on why we missed the finals, as well as many other issues of concern. Let's wait and see what Cookie presents before indulging in speculataion.

Statements like, "He highlights football and communications with the media as the problem areas" are generalisations. Some substance would be nice. He certainly has every right to ask questions. That doesn't require a spill, just some specifics.

If a major well administered sporting organisation can't cope with electing a new board and undertaking a review of the playing operations, it is poorly run. The board is primarily there to set policy, plan, oversee and make decisions. The grunt work is done by the administration. And whilst we all have some gripes about differing things, our club rates very highly in terms of well run sporting organisations. That wasn't the case just a few years back.

You specifically mention the Bertolacci matter. Very soon after his departure he instituted legal action against the club. It then became sub judice and it would have been grossly irresponsible for the club to be making comment.

 

[The Hoops]

With all due respect TH [and I know you have the best interests of the club at heart] there is nothing substantial enough to warrant an early election.

I'm not discomforted by the time its taking to finalise the review. I'd rather have something thorough than something half baked. I expect the review to cast light on why we missed the finals, as well as many other issues of concern. Let's wait and see what Cookie presents before indulging in speculataion.

Statements like, "He highlights football and communications with the media as the problem areas" are generalisations. Some substance would be nice. He certainly has every right to ask questions. That doesn't require a spill, just some specifics.

If a major well administered sporting organisation can't cope with electing a new board and undertaking a review of the playing operations, it is poorly run. The board is primarily there to set policy, plan, oversee and make decisions. The grunt work is done by the administration. And whilst we all have some gripes about differing things, our club rates very highly in terms of well run sporting organisations. That wasn't the case just a few years back.

You specifically mention the Bertolacci matter. Very soon after his departure he instituted legal action against the club. It then became sub judice and it would have been grossly irresponsible for the club to be making comment.

And that's why McMurrich hasn't tabled his petition just yet...he is also waiting for the outcomes of the board. It doesn't hurt for the board to know that members are disconcerted and I suspect that is why the review has grown and been delayed. Either way we should know more on Monday.

 

[malvern]

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeexcellent!

So you think because Costa and Co made some brilliant moves financially 7 years or so ago we owe them their jobs for life?
Please, changes are needed at this club if we're to take the next step to glory. Sick of idiots continually accepting the garbage that comes out of the club.

Aaaaaahhhhhh, mr change-for-changes-sake - doesn't matter what the alternative is as long as we change something - or everything....

The thing is with getting rid of people is that you have to replace them. To date I haven't seen you provide a sound alternative that will provide improvement.

I'll tell you right now that Cook is one of the best Managers/Administrators going around. If he does a review and then makes a reccommendation then I would back him to the hilt.

The EGM is a waste of time and money.

 

[AM]

The EGM is a waste of time and money.

Hear,hear! You have to have bloody good reasons to spend $50 grand on something like that.

What a pity some couldn't wait until they were in full possession of the facts before racing off with petitions. Let's see what Cookie has to say on Monday.

 

[-Charlie-]

I don't really understand all this stuff about EGM's and everything but surely the club knows what is best for the club. Why do members want to get in the way? The club wants a premiership (no dah) and I'm glad the members have a chance to voice their oppinions but I don't really see how it will help the club for the future.

I agree Jess. Members are supposed to support their club, but they don't need to get so upset and want to take things into their own hands.
Sometimes I think Geelong is like one of those towns in America, that relies on their football team to win everything, and if they don't everyone hates them.
If you're so sick of Geelong losing, barrack for another club.

 

[Catman]

I agree Jess. Members are supposed to support their club, but they don't need to get so upset and want to take things into their own hands.
Sometimes I think Geelong is like one of those towns in America, that relies on their football team to win everything, and if they don't everyone hates them.
If you're so sick of Geelong losing, barrack for another club.

Oh dear. Thank you for showing us yet again why Geelong has a culture problem.

 

[AM]

Denis McMurrich "holds fire" on EGM petition. Scot Palmer's "Punch Lines in the Sunday HS today:

After discussions with club officials on Friday, the convenor of the petition, former vice - president, Denis McMurrich, has decided to "hold fire" on lodging a call for an extraordinary meeting within 21 days.

Mr McMurrich was to have lodged his petition on Tuesday, but said "A members' meeting is scheduled for October 11. I am now satisfied with the board's determination and greatly increased vigour to get it right"

Thankfully, good sense has prevailed.