Clarkson Re-Signs

[Hawkk]

I suggest the reason why its a 3 year deal instead of 2 is to cover against the Gold Coast factor - don't they come into the competition after the 2010 season?

Covering the bases and not risking losing an important commodity to the new franchise, if he isn't performing I doubt the club will be concerned about paying his 400-500k out and searching for a new coach early. Although the way he has developed the list, he deserves a 3 year deal and a significant wage increase

 

[H2F]

clarko is a legend! Well done to him

Really hope he got the big $$$$ coz he deserves them for what he has done and for taking on the job for way less money than all the other afl coaches.

Also congrats to Piggy, if he was weak he would have given in to the foot stomping from his old mate and you guys would have Ayres now

FootyFreak I luv ya because you can tear anyone a new one, but the key to it is knowing more about footy than anyone on here which some people seem to miss ...

you are spot on as usual mate ...

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

If a coach is given a 3 year contract extension and they get sacked or don't get their contract re-newed at the end of the 3 years, that does mean it wasn't the right move at the time, and essentially means he didn't deserve to be offered it if he wasn't good enough to have his club in a better position after that 3 years.

You are essentially arguing that no coach deserves a three year deal....and that is utter hogwash.

Oh, and as for your Pratt/Lewis comment from earlier....you brought that up and not I.

 

[BW]

Pratt/Lewis was brought up when people started bringing North into the argument for no reason at all. I didn't actually say a thing about the incident either.

Do I think any young coach who isn't proven in finals warrants a 3 year contract extension a third into a season? Yep, that'd be my view. Obviously I think 3 years is longer in footy then most. So what.

 

[footyfreak]

I'll back you up BW. I don't agree with your point, but i understand what you are saying and it has its merits. It's your opinion and it is fair enough.

No need for people to go ballistic over your opinion but hey, this is big footy so what would you expect.

 

[cs61]

Pratt/Lewis was brought up when people started bringing North into the argument for no reason at all. I didn't actually say a thing about the incident either.

Do I think any young coach who isn't proven in finals warrants a 3 year contract extension a third into a season? Yep, that'd be my view. Obviously I think 3 years is longer in footy then most. So what.

You refuse to acknowledge that Clarkson could warrant three years in other ways.

Do you think Hawthorn should let Clarkson go? I wouldn't have thought that.

So if Clarkson demands three years, are you saying not to re-sign him? To say no, 2 or nothing?

Once again, Clarkson is in the position of power given what he's done, and has every right to demand three years, especially after paying him so lowly for 4 years, it isn't a big risk to suddenly give him an extra year.

Not even slightly.

If what you are suggesting happens, and he fails in 09 and 10 incredibly badly, so what? Its not the club is in a position where they can't afford to pay him out. And that is still a massive hypothetical, and looks unlikely at this stage that he will bomb at badly given what he has achieved to date. Many rate him up there, and was voted best coach by the players last year. 3 years is suitable in every way you look at it, except for speculation of maybe the wheels could fall off, which is based on absolutely nothing but a hypothetical situation.

The decision to create a stable club, and show faith to the person far outweighs your only continued point about the fact he hasn't proved himself in finals yet, because there a whole lot more to it than that.

 

[BW]

You refuse to acknowledge that Clarkson could warrant three years in other ways.

Do you think Hawthorn should let Clarkson go? I wouldn't have thought that.

So if Clarkson demands three years, are you saying not to re-sign him? To say no, 2 or nothing?

Once again, Clarkson is in the position of power given what he's done, and has every right to demand three years, especially after paying him so lowly for 4 years, it isn't a big risk to suddenly give him an extra year.

Not even slightly.

If what you are suggesting happens, and he fails in 09 and 10 incredibly badly, so what? Its not the club is in a position where they can't afford to pay him out. And that is still a massive hypothetical, and looks unlikely at this stage that he will bomb at badly given what he has achieved to date. Many rate him up there, and was voted best coach by the players last year. 3 years is suitable in every way you look at it, except for speculation of maybe the wheels could fall off, which is based on absolutely nothing but a hypothetical situation.

The decision to create a stable club, and show faith to the person far outweighs your only continued point about the fact he hasn't proved himself in finals yet, because there a whole lot more to it than that.

You don't need to keep saying how good Clarkson is. I never argued otherwise and absolutely agree. And you keep talking in hypotheticals (as am I). It's just as hypothetical to argue he will dominate in the next 3 years then to say he won't. Of course their are circumstances that the footy public aren't aware of which are just speculated upon. If I knew them all I might actually have a different view. But you can only argue what you actually know and what is reasonable to assume. I think its reasonable to assume that Clarkson wouldn't walk if he wasn't given 3 years. I don't even think he would be disenfranchised by it (as long as a suitable pay increase was given).

I'm not suggesting he will fail in 09 & 10 & 11 in the slightest. Never have. In fact, I think he'll prove himself as a great coach in those years. From that position I would believe he would justify a longer extension. Not now. Not when you're going to be in a position that Clarkson is unproven and inexperienced in (deep in finals). Not that a 2 year extension isn't a massive compliment and reward for the guy anyway (and the length of probably most contract extensions these days anyway). Clarkson would be one of a few or the only one to get a 3 year extension to a running contract. Certainly the only one not to have the experience in that situation. I don't see why suggesting 2 instead of 3 is such a stupid & offensive thing to say, when Hawthorn are going against what would be the normal trend in giving him 3, not 2. It's not like a contract can't be renewed again before it expires.

 

[takethepain]

So if Clarkson shouldn't have been given a 3-year deal BW, which coaches in the league should be given 3-year extension deals?

 

[BW]

None.

 

[cs61]

You don't need to keep saying how good Clarkson is. I never argued otherwise and absolutely agree. And you keep talking in hypotheticals (as am I). It's just as hypothetical to argue he will dominate in the next 3 years then to say he won't. Of course their are circumstances that the footy public aren't aware of which are just speculated upon. If I knew them all I might actually have a different view. But you can only argue what you actually know and what is reasonable to assume. I think its reasonable to assume that Clarkson wouldn't walk if he wasn't given 3 years. I don't even think he would be disenfranchised by it (as long as a suitable pay increase was given).

I'm not suggesting he will fail in 09 & 10 & 11 in the slightest. Never have. In fact, I think he'll prove himself as a great coach in those years. From that position I would believe he would justify a longer extension. Not now. Not when you're going to be in a position that Clarkson is unproven and inexperienced in (deep in finals). Not that a 2 year extension isn't a massive compliment and reward for the guy anyway (and the length of probably most contract extensions these days anyway). Clarkson would be one of a few or the only one to get a 3 year extension to a running contract. Certainly the only one not to have the experience in that situation. I don't see why suggesting 2 instead of 3 is such a stupid & offensive thing to say, when Hawthorn are going against what would be the normal trend in giving him 3, not 2. It's not like a contract can't be renewed again before it expires.

That really didn't make much sense, or do your argument much justice.

 

[wahawk]

I'll back you up BW. I don't agree with your point, but i understand what you are saying and it has its merits. It's your opinion and it is fair enough.

No need for people to go ballistic over your opinion but hey, this is big footy so what would you expect.

i dont think anyone is going ballistic over BW's opinion.

it's probably more the fact that the same drivel comes out in every post.

if BW wants to have an arguement then argue , but dont repeat the same shit over and over when others are making good points.

there is no rational , there is no logic to what BW is saying.

to say that there is no coach worthy of a 3 year contract is not rational or logical. there was no explanation as to why no coach was worthy , just that no coach should get a 3 year contract.

others here have pointed out that HFC may have gone 3 years to cover against GC team , or any other team for that matter. or that he deserved 3 years because he's done a brilliant job so far. no-one can really deny that he's done everything asked of him and more, so far

 

[wahawk]

Not now. Not when you're going to be in a position that Clarkson is unproven and inexperienced in (deep in finals). Not that a 2 year extension isn't a massive compliment and reward for the guy anyway (and the length of probably most contract extensions these days anyway). Clarkson would be one of a few or the only one to get a 3 year extension to a running contract. Certainly the only one not to have the experience in that situation. I don't see why suggesting 2 instead of 3 is such a stupid & offensive thing to say, when Hawthorn are going against what would be the normal trend in giving him 3, not 2. It's not like a contract can't be renewed again before it expires.

How many premiership coaches are actually proven when they get their first premiership?

How do you become a proven coach? By being a premiership coach?

Contracts can be renewed before they expire.Just like they can be broken before they expire.It's happened many times in AFL by both parties(clubs and players) But if AC is offered another job (and he wants that job) then HFC is back to looking for a new coach. 3 years gives both parties some sort of stability, some sort of confidence in each other.

 

[BW]

it's probably more the fact that the same drivel comes out in every post.

if BW wants to have an arguement then argue , but dont repeat the same shit over and over when others are making good points.

there is no rational , there is no logic to what BW is saying.

No need to get childish about it. All I've done is counter arguments. Just because its essentially the same basic thing I'm arguing doesn't mean I'm being repeditive. I'm just replying to each response. If I'm being repeditive its because I'm being asked or questioned about the same thing by different posters or questioned about the same thing from the same poster.

to say that there is no coach worthy of a 3 year contract is not rational or logical. there was no explanation as to why no coach was worthy , just that no coach should get a 3 year contract.

And why isn't it rational or logical? It's not a baseless comment. By giving someone a 2 year extension less than a 3rd into a season, I deem that for all intensive purposes, a 3 year contract. We all know Clarkson will ultimately be judged on the next 15 rounds and finals, not the first 7 rounds. Clarkson, now, effectively has a 4 year contract. No?

Saying noone should get a 3 year contract (which isn't actually what I said, I said extension) just goes to show that its a general opinion I have, not one targetted at Clarkson. Not that I don't think a 3 year extension isn't appropriate in some scenarios (Williams a few years ago, Malthouse and Sheedy years ago, Clarkson in 2 years if things go right for him in that time).

others here have pointed out that HFC may have gone 3 years to cover against GC team , or any other team for that matter. or that he deserved 3 years because he's done a brilliant job so far. no-one can really deny that he's done everything asked of him and more, so far

I don't know why Clarksons record to date keeps getting brought up. Obviously I agree 100%. This is about the next few years. The years in which he should play in multiple finals series, which is an aspect of his coaching we can't yet judge. And of course their are good reasons why a 3 year extension is a good thing. Just like their are good reasons a 2 year extension is a good thing. Absolutely agree the security and feeling of worth he gets from 3 years is a positive. Covering the GC team is a a good point too, even if they will have a coach by 2010 anyway. I still think 2 years was best after considering both sides of the argument, though. Obviously I'm not the best person to make that judgement, but thats not the point.

How many premiership coaches are actually proven when they get their first premiership?

How do you become a proven coach? By being a premiership coach?

And you wonder why I'm being repeditive! By taking part and having success in finals (3 or 4 of them) not just 1, is how you largely prove yourself. Building a list into a premiership contender is just one aspect of proving yourself. Turning that into actual success is the next step. So in saying that, yes, most coaches are proven when they win their 1st premiership. They just aren't ultimately successful until the 1st flag.

Contracts can be renewed before they expire.Just like they can be broken before they expire.It's happened many times in AFL by both parties(clubs and players) But if AC is offered another job (and he wants that job) then HFC is back to looking for a new coach. 3 years gives both parties some sort of stability, some sort of confidence in each other.

Exactly the same point can be argued for a 2 year extension. We just have different views on what is a long term contract in football.

 

[MadMaxx]

Meh. You would sign gun players to 3 these days. Hell, I'd sign Buddy or Hodge for 5. And we would have to wear that in the salary cap for those years if anything went Holland'esque.

I have no issues with 3 for a good up and coming coach as well. Especially as the only repercussions for a dramatic failure (unlikely as it is) is financial. There is no cap for coaching staff, hence the risks to the club and the future is minimal.

Clarko has earnt it. For all the reasons posted above. Good effort to the club for sorting this out in such a professional and efficient manner.

 

[That's deliberate]

He is clearly in the top 3 in his profession in the land.

He has built a team/club and a game plan from the ground up exactly what the new teams entering the competition would be looking for.

He is a young coach and in his 4 years as Coach has PROVEN without a shadow of a doubt he is the ULTIMATE professional at what he does in preparing a side for battle...don't give a toss about win/loss record that takes care of itself..as it is.

He is the Ultimate LEADER....with a plan.

2 new teams coming into the competition within 3 years.

Lets just give him a 1 year extension ey?

It is quite clear from some of the comments on this board that most have not been in a position to hire leaders in any sort of organisation whatsoever...

Al Clarkson has a PROVEN record at Hawthorn, we have had ample time to observe his behaviour , methodolgy and commitment to the club, we are extremely pleased with the onfield progress of the Team and we are extremely comfortable in Clarkson ability to LEAD the club in the medium and long term future.

A 3 year extension is warranted and is in line with prior commitments we have made to Clarkson in previous contracts....end of story.