: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:27 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

I'm at the stage where I wouldn't be against seeing a change in the coaching team as things currently stand. But I'd rather the club waited until a credible and experienced option became available. I'm not in favour of sacking the coach and paying out compensation and then being left to pick between a few coaches such as Millward/Harrison who didn't exactly cover themselves in glory at their last clubs.

I personally feel we should begin thinking long and hard about possible options for 2010. Ok it's a gamble because fans will become disheartened if results continue to be poor. But there is no short term miracle answer and we lack an assistant capable of undertaking a caretaker role until the end of the year.

Steve Folkes, John Lang & Graham Murry.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:30 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

I'm at the stage where I wouldn't be against seeing a change in the coaching team as things currently stand. But I'd rather the club waited until a credible and experienced option became available. I'm not in favour of sacking the coach and paying out compensation and then being left to pick between a few coaches such as Millward/Harrison who didn't exactly cover themselves in glory at their last clubs.

I personally feel we should begin thinking long and hard about possible options for 2010. Ok it's a gamble because fans will become disheartened if results continue to be poor. But there is no short term miracle answer and we lack an assistant capable of undertaking a caretaker role until the end of the year.

No, you've got it ALL WRONG! Can't you see that we just have to sack the coach, empty the coffers by paying him the rest of his salary to the end of the year in compensation, and send for the tooth fairy to bring us the pot of dosh - likely at least twice the size - to bring in a replacement who - if they were that good - would not be looking for another club (or at least ours) anyway? What sensible, reasonable person could possibly take issue with that well-thought out and financially practicable strategy?

I always had you down as one of the most sensible posters on here, but how on earth you expect anyone to go along with such an extreme, knee-jerk, ill-considered proposal as you have put forward is beyond me! You need to appreciate that the "hang 'em high" brigade really do know best...no really...

And the scary thing is, some on here will actually see it that way!

Re: Macca... You decide!!! : Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:34 pm  

eddievan wrote:

Paul Johnson wanted a $HITLOAD OF MONEY WHICH COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED

More to the point, PJ's injury record meant the club could simply not justify keeping him on a senior player's salary - IIRC he was available for just over 50 of the well over 90 games he could have played in. Funnily enough, the Wire fans have bemoaned for ages the injury issues with PJ (and Sicknote Bridge for that matter).

Re: Macca... You decide!!! : Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:37 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

More to the point, PJ's injury record meant the club could simply not justify keeping him on a senior player's salary - IIRC he was available for just over 50 of the well over 90 games he could have played in. Funnily enough, the Wire fans have bemoaned for ages the injury issues with PJ (and Sicknote Bridge for that matter).

26 appearances out of a possible 56 in his last two seasons here.

Re: Macca... You decide!!! : Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:38 pm  

redeverready wrote:

26 appearances out of a possible 56 in his last two seasons here.

Was it that few? Sort of proves the point, I guess.

Re: Macca... You decide!!! : Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:45 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Was it that few? Sort of proves the point, I guess.

Yes 15 games in 2005 and a 11 in 2006.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:46 pm  

redeverready wrote:

Steve Folkes, John Lang & Graham Murry.

Would be an interesting choice, but he has been linked with a few jobs over here. Why has he never come over?

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:48 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

Would be an interesting choice, but he has been linked with a few jobs over here. Why has he never come over?

AFAIK he's only ever been linked never directly approached as he's been contracted to the Bulldogs.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:53 pm  

I would only sack a coach if:

1) I had a much better replacement lined up to take his place; or

2) I had a highly promising, or very experienced, assistant who I was happy to promote to a caretaker role whilst I found a replacement; or

3) He had done something totally outrageous that demanded instant dismissal; or

4) My club had such stature and pulling power that I knew there would be a long queue of coaches begging for his job.

Not sure that the Bulls fit into any of these categories.

I still think that ideally MacNamara should be given until June/July, but I'd be surprised if Hood wasnt going through his phonebook checking the numbers of various coaches' agents.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:55 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

I would only sack a coach if:

1) I had a much better replacement lined up to take his place; or

2) I had a highly promising, or very experienced, assistant who I was happy to promote to a caretaker role whilst I found a replacement; or

3) He had done something totally outrageous that demanded instant dismissal; or

4) My club had such stature and pulling power that I knew there would be a long queue of coaches begging for his job.

Not sure that the Bulls fit into any of these categories.

I still think that ideally MacNamara should be given until June/July, but I'd be surprised if Hood wasnt going through his phonebook checking the numbers of various coaches' agents.

I think you'd be surprised the amount of interest if the job became open.