Opinion Matthew Nicks: Adelaide's Coach (Part 3) - The Biggest Loser

[1970crow]

Fixture ratings are a complete waste of time ....everyone thought COLL would be a tough fixture matchup ....no-one knows who's on the up or slide

More important are the number of 5, 6 day breaks .....interwoven with interstate trips

A few years ago, the statistics on short breaks showed them to not be any disadvantage whatsoever. But if they were back to back, then win likelihood plummeted for the second match. So as long as you followed it up with a 7 day break it made no difference at all. Might have changed, probably hasn’t though.

 

[1970crow]

Not here to defend Nicks or shine his shoes, but as several others on this board and thread have said, at club board level you have a pretty conservative (arguably narrow minded board) who possibly have told Nicks to not play the likes of Curtin and other talented kids on your list until they have served an lengthy SANFL apprenticeship, I think that happened to Fogarty and Thilthorpe (although in the later case that probably was a prudent decision given his previous unlucky run of injuries)

This is just my gut feeling that your club's board and admin may have too much of an influence on the Crows match committee and somewhat hindering Nicks hand somewhat

I am just suggesting this cause i have seen this.type of board levelling meddling at Carlton many times in the past.

I think Nicks is very likely to go at the end of 2025 unless you play finals, but I also believe he had been hamstrung to an extent, in an ideal would, I think Nicks would have given the likes of Curtain and a couple of your other talented kids more games, I feel like your board is not giving him the leeway to do.

Just my 2 cents. Best of luck for the off season and next year.

You’re half right, we are a philosophically flawed club, it’s embedded in our DNA. Reality though is that Nicks was employed because he aligned with our philosophies. The ones that don’t are spat out or leave as soon as they can.

 

[1970crow]

They should have just cut their losses because they then would have only had to pay him for until May 2025 and would have only had to have worn a smallish salary cap hit in 2025

Now we're locked in for all of 2025 and if it's a repeat season then we're stuck with him on the books for 2025 and likely all of 2026.

We don’t get AFL special assistance funding, we’d have to pay out his full contract.

 

[119others]

We don’t get AFL special assistance funding, we’d have to pay out his full contract.

Are you saying receiving AFL assistance determines whether a coach is paid out in full or only the mandated 6 mths?

I don’t believe that’s correct. My understanding is more Snr (successful and long standing) coaches can negotiate to take OUT the 6 mth provision (see Simpson at Eagles) but don’t believe it’s correlated to AFL assistance or nor. Happy to be proven wrong

 

[Geoffa32]

We don’t get AFL special assistance funding, we’d have to pay out his full contract.

Shouldn't be much more than $400k....

 

[1970crow]

Are you saying receiving AFL assistance determines whether a coach is paid out in full or only the mandated 6 mths?

I don’t believe that’s correct. My understanding is more Snr (successful and long standing) coaches can negotiate to take OUT the 6 mth provision (see Simpson at Eagles) but don’t believe it’s correlated to AFL assistance or nor. Happy to be proven wrong

It is made very clear that the payout limit is only for “AFL funded clubs”. AFL funds all clubs a fixed amount, but what they’re referring to is the clubs who require extra funding to stay afloat. We are not one of those clubs.

 

[1970crow]

Are you saying receiving AFL assistance determines whether a coach is paid out in full or only the mandated 6 mths?

I don’t believe that’s correct. My understanding is more Snr (successful and long standing) coaches can negotiate to take OUT the 6 mth provision (see Simpson at Eagles) but don’t believe it’s correlated to AFL assistance or nor. Happy to be proven wrong

Read this, it makes it pretty clear. The only change since then is extending 6 months to 12 months.

AFL insists on six-month payout clauses for coaches

New guidelines to AFL-funded clubs limits payouts regardless of the length of contracts. But the coaches' association believes it gives incompetent boards a ''get-out-of-jail-free'' card.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Gtowncrow]

Not here to defend Nicks or shine his shoes, but as several others on this board and thread have said, at club board level you have a pretty conservative (arguably narrow minded board) who possibly have told Nicks to not play the likes of Curtin and other talented kids on your list until they have served an lengthy SANFL apprenticeship, I think that happened to Fogarty and Thilthorpe (although in the later case that probably was a prudent decision given his previous unlucky run of injuries)

This is just my gut feeling that your club's board and admin may have too much of an influence on the Crows match committee and somewhat hindering Nicks hand somewhat

I am just suggesting this cause i have seen this.type of board levelling meddling at Carlton many times in the past.

I think Nicks is very likely to go at the end of 2025 unless you play finals, but I also believe he had been hamstrung to an extent, in an ideal would, I think Nicks would have given the likes of Curtain and a couple of your other talented kids more games, I feel like your board is not giving him the leeway to do.

Just my 2 cents. Best of luck for the off season and next year.

Every single avenue of enquiry about coaching appointments, board football meddling and potential yoking of the coach always ends up pointing to the precise same cause ..

Roo.

Club champ as a player but proving to be a f#####g massive impediment to the club now. Totally untenable.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

You know the same people that coddle Nicks are going to throw tantrums when potential trades nominate another club because they don't want to play under a loser coach. They won't make the connection.

 

[119others]

Read this, it makes it pretty clear. The only change since then is extending 6 months to 12 months.

AFL insists on six-month payout clauses for coaches

New guidelines to AFL-funded clubs limits payouts regardless of the length of contracts. But the coaches' association believes it gives incompetent boards a ''get-out-of-jail-free'' card.

www.theage.com.au

Many thanks, that IS very clear (assuming no subsequent changes in last 4 years)

The new guideline mandates a maximum six-month settlement to any sacked coach at an AFL-funded club regardless of the length of his contract.

So Kenny can get paid out for 6 mths salary (as Power a “financially dependent” club) but Nicks has 2 years payable if we sack him?

Cheers

 

[1970crow]

Many thanks, that IS very clear (assuming no subsequent changes in last 4 years)

The new guideline mandates a maximum six-month settlement to any sacked coach at an AFL-funded club regardless of the length of his contract.

So Kenny can get paid out for 6 mths salary (as Power a “financially dependent” club) but Nicks has 2 years payable if we sack him?

Cheers

the 6 months is now 12 months. That changed late last year or early this year.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

You know the same people that coddle Nicks are going to throw tantrums when potential trades nominate another club because they don't want to play under a loser coach. They won't make the connection.

Bookmarked !

So far you have an "F" for trades completed in the last 3 years

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Bookmarked !

Like you've ever read a book.