Malthouse Megathread

Remove this Banner Ad

danielnajdek said:
If he wanted to stay so desperately he would've signed by now and not request a ridiculous amount of money.
Click to expand...

Everyone seems to misunderstand the situation and keep thinking its about $$$$.

It's not about the money, the financials have been agreed upon with Collingwood, it is the length of the deal. We are offering 4, Cloke camp want 5 years. That is the sticky point.

So as you can see, they aren't far off at all reaching an agreement. A little bit of give and take, here and there and a deal should be concluded at the appropriate time.
 
danielnajdek said:
Name these occasions.
Click to expand...

I believe he was quoted by the Herald Sun as wanting to stay at Collingwood in an article about he and his Dad participating in a car rally. He also said he would like to stay during the infamous footy show interview.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

loki04 said:
I reckon Choco Williams is the best available coach, always rated him and the way he gets his teams to play.
Click to expand...

This is who I was thinking and mentioned to a co-worker.

Younger than Malthouse, probably more driven right now, and also won a flag with a far less resourced club, with the board virtually against him the whole time.

Mick won 1 with the COMPLETE OPPOSITE conditions.
dalethomas13 said:
Everyone seems to misunderstand the situation and keep thinking its about $$$$.

It's not about the money, the financials have been agreed upon with Collingwood, it is the length of the deal. We are offering 4, Cloke camp want 5 years. That is the sticky point.

So as you can see, they aren't far off at all reaching an agreement. A little bit of give and take, here and there and a deal should be concluded at the appropriate time.
Click to expand...

This. But at the same time, it's the fact that this is the sticking point that makes me think we shouldn't bother with Cloke.

Why? Because if Cloke was confident he'd still be playing well in 5 years, he would have agreed to the '4 years with a performance based activation clause for the 5th year' deal we offered.

Obviously he knows he'll probably be gone by then, so he wants to guarantee himself a top wage for shit performance.
 
Why does **everything** have to come back to Travis Cloke?

What's the link between Mick Malthouse possibly / probably / definitely / likely / unlikely going to Carlton and Travis Cloke possibly / probably/ definately / likely / unlikely going to Carlton???
 
I think Malthouse is a great coach. Is he a legend? History will give greater insight.

Is he tarnishing his legacy and potentially skewing significantly how he is viewed in the future? I believe so yes.

His public statements from then vs now are too much at odds and if he did go to Carlton it would really create a negative picture of him in 10-20 years when he is remembered.
I think if he did go it would be a terrible move on his behalf so I would suggest the following logically.

A) If he needs the money for whatever reason then do it. Coach Carlton.
B) If the above is not true then he should be more concerned with his legacy and how he will be viewed in the future. As such coaching Carlton would go a significant way towards creating a legacy that feel would not be flattering.

I think Ross Lyon is a good example. He will perhaps have tarnished legacy but if he is to be believed he did genuinely need the money so I think that kind of sorts itself.

From all reports Mick absolutely does not need the money. It will end up being washed out as
- Bitter old man
- Very Sheedy like....
- Flip flopper (past statements aren't reconcilable with current)
- He runs the risk of not doing so well as a coach as he is currently remembered....

Or he could coach a premiership and be considered one of the best coaches ever in AFL. But that one is really the only upside and a LOT of downside.

EDIT: I actually am beginning to think he will NOT coach again given today and yesterdays comments about his family all in tears etc. Sounds to be like he's walking it back.

If however he does end up doing it even after all this oh my family is in tears then honestly WTF. He was on record saying if it effects his family a lot then no way. Sounds like he's already admitted it has.
 
danielnajdek said:
Quotes? Links?
Click to expand...

Attaching a link is beyond technical expertise sorry. I did re-read the article however and I was incorrect. There is no direct quote from Trav but it certainly gives the impression that he wants to stay. I honestly believe this and maintain that he is being treated unfairly by some supporters.
 
jmac70 said:
If he was going anywhere else I don't think Eddie would give a stuff. The Blues will probably try and poach both Cloke and Buttifant. Eddie is letting them know that we will not allow this to happen without one hell of a fight. I read in The Age that if Mick takes the job it will be the first time a Collingwood senior coach has coached the Blues. The hatred of the Blues must be embraced by all Collingwood supporters. I wish they had gone under when they were broke.
Click to expand...

Agree. I do not want MM to coach at Carlton, I don't care what arguments people have here about him.

He is a premiership coach, and that means he will always be highly marked in Collingwood's history.

I f**king hate Carlton!
 
The onus is on the person making the claim to support themselves or rightly be called out. Since you have refused 4 times now I don't need to say anymore
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jonbe54 said:
First place I'm not ur mate, second place I don't care what a lazy bugger like you thinks one way or another.

How much plainer do you want it?
Click to expand...
Although your reply is to another poster, what I find most amuzing is when "blokes" call each other "mate". Your reply was good - but people need to understand when calling someone a mate, you are referring to a "shag" :)
Mate may refer to one of the following meanings based on the generic dictionary definitions of the word:
  • One of a pair of animals involved in mating
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate
 
loki04 said:
I reckon Choco Williams is the best available coach, always rated him and the way he gets his teams to play.
Click to expand...
HIs recent record does not bare out your opinion.
Not that I have any animosity toward Chocko, he is a Collingwood Captain after all. Malthouse will never have that.
 
Pie eyed said:
HIs recent record does not bare out your opinion.
Not that I have any animosity toward Chocko, he is a Collingwood Captain after all. Malthouse will never have that.
Click to expand...

Imo his record at port bettered Malthouses time with the pies, Choco little board support had sweet fa funds and crap facilities.

He had a side get 3 top of the ladder finishes then a flag, then dipped then back to a GF within 3 years then gone.

I am also of the belief that he is largely responsible for the style that GWS goes about it all their kids put their head over it and attack the game (obviously not able to compete yet but he would of been a better choice to lead them then Sheedy).

People will bring up how they should of made more GF's under him early days but Collingwood just matched up well vs them and both times it was our club who brought about their demise ( 1 in a prelim the other sent them to the other side of the draw which dented their confidence), bet they are glad we didn't make it in 04.
 
eddiebankbalance said:
Although your reply is to another poster, what I find most amuzing is when "blokes" call each other "mate". Your reply was good - but people need to understand when calling someone a mate, you are referring to a "shag" :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate
Click to expand...


Learn 2b Aussie Maaaate!

Aussie slang > Wiki or any Pom version of the Dictionary meaning!:thumbsu:
 
Grysillimsux76 said:
There is no need to get upset now, ad hominems aren't very nice
Click to expand...

You will have better luck banging your head against a brick wall than getting anywhere with your qustion.

Its a bit late for Eddie to hit the panic button on this now. Ratten is gone so the cheats already have their man. He also panicked when Bucks was about to sign at North Melbourne a few years ago and came up with the Doc role with no defined job descrition.
 
Grysillimsux76 said:
There is no need to get upset now, ad hominems aren't very nice
Click to expand...
'Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem.'

Nothing like a bit of ad hominem to spice up a discussion!
 
That was weird, siren went as Buddy having a shot on goal and umpire interrupted by saying, "siren went" you gotta have a set shot - "WEIRD"! Never seen that before.
 
MyManDawes said:
'Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem.'

Nothing like a bit of ad hominem to spice up a discussion!
Click to expand...
MyManDawes said:
'Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem.'

Nothing like a bit of ad hominem to spice up a discussion!
Click to expand...

Thankfully the mods took care of it and the offending posts are deleted.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Malthouse Megathread

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top