Who's our Coach for 2014?

[Ray Button]

I've refrained from commenting thus far - ever since Angus Johnson and his band of idiots precipitated this crisis and its disturbing sub-plots.

I have, however, submitted my form to TLR for the EGM.

In the absence of Voss (how the hell could anyone dump him with his obvious passion for the job and increasing capabilities, for the off-chance that someone who obviously didn't want to be here might come on board?), I'm starting to warm to the idea of Leppitsch.

 

[Elixuh]

Leppa for mine. Ex-player... and a ranga. Can't ask for more.

Exactly. People who aren't well informed, when they see him on TV will think Vossy is still coaching. It'll be like nothing ever happened.

 

[Elixuh]

I've refrained from commenting thus far - ever since Angus Johnson and his band of idiots precipitated this crisis and its disturbing sub-plots.

I have, however, submitted my form to TLR for the EGM.

In the absence of Voss (how the hell could anyone dump him with his obvious passion for the job and increasing capabilities, for the off-chance that someone who obviously didn't want to be here might come on board?), I'm starting to warm to the idea of Leppitsch.

If there's nothing more to it than what's been reported on then its gross mismanagement and incompetence.

 

[POBT]

I viewed the Ratten sacking as being done with the reasoning (at the time) that he was unable to take them to the next level and that the team had kind of stagnated which was not acceptable given the depth of talent. If they're looking at experienced coaches then wouldn't hiring Ratten be completely inconsistent considering the reasoning given for sacking Voss?

That depends.

Can we assume that the club is following the same path of logic as it did when it sacked Voss? It could well be possible that, now they are assessing the options, they are a bit regretful that they had an adequate coach on the books. I guess we don't know but I don't think that it is necessarily the case that the similarities between Voss and Ratten's careers (and the justification for dismissing them) necessarily rules Ratten out.

There also wasn't a panel with significant expertise involved in the decision to sack Voss. That panel will be advising the board on the new coach. I'm not sure that we can assume that the panel will necessarily be bound by the board's thought processes. The fact that we are interviewing experienced former senior coaches (Craig), long term assistants (Tudor, Richardson), upcoming talent (Simpson and Leppa) and a former player (Leppa) suggests to me that the panel has an open mind.

Finally, I'm not sure that the Carlton results in 2013 don't vindicate Ratten in some respects. After all, they got their master coach and did no better.

Notwithstanding all of that, perception is a big problem for us at the moment and I think we are better off with the perception of a young and hungry coach than one who has tried and failed. That "failed coach" perception, fairly or unfairly, is how Craig and Ratten are perceived. As long as there isn't a big gap in capability, then we have to go with one of the assistant coaches in the mix.

 

[Elixuh]

That depends.

1. Can we assume that the club is following the same path of logic as it did when it sacked Voss? It could well be possible that, now they are assessing the options, they are a bit regretful that they had an adequate coach on the books. I guess we don't know but I don't think that it is necessarily the case that the similarities between Voss and Ratten's careers (and the justification for dismissing them) necessarily rules Ratten out.

There also wasn't a panel with significant expertise involved in the decision to sack Voss. That panel will be advising the board on the new coach. I'm not sure that we can assume that the 2. panel will necessarily be bound by the board's thought processes. The fact that we are interviewing experienced former senior coaches (Craig), long term assistants (Tudor, Richardson), upcoming talent (Simpson and Leppa) and a former player (Leppa) suggests to me that the panel has an open mind.

Finally, I'm not sure that the Carlton results in 2013 don't vindicate Ratten in some respects. After all, they got their master coach and did no better.

Notwithstanding all of that, perception is a big problem for us at the moment and I think we are better off with the perception of a young and hungry coach than one who has tried and failed. That "failed coach" perception, fairly or unfairly, is how Craig and Ratten are perceived. 3. As long as there isn't a big gap in capability, then we have to go with one of the assistant coaches in the mix.

1. I didn't mean to say that Ratten wont be looked at, there is a chance he may well indeed be our next senior coach. What I was merely saying was that from my perspective (without taking into account failing to get Roos etc) they've sacked the Voss for the reasons I've outlined and if they hire Ratten they'll be hiring a coach who was sacked from his previous senior coach role for primarily the same reasons. So I was more answering the initial posters question by making a comment on both the appropriateness of such an appointment as it relates to the whole dysfunctional administrative and executive saga at the Lions.

2. Where is the consistency? Wouldn't it be more logical to sack and hire senior coaches by using a similar process with regards primarily to the personnel that consider and the make these decisions?

3. I've made comment on this before, but given where our club sits in its development (as compared with Melbourne who are apparently using the same model), I would agree with the appointment of an assistant coach to the senior coach role - given of course it is thoroughly considered by the senior coach selection panel.

 

[Betty Noir]

I've refrained from commenting thus far - ever since Angus Johnson and his band of idiots precipitated this crisis and its disturbing sub-plots.

I have, however, submitted my form to TLR for the EGM.

In the absence of Voss (how the hell could anyone dump him with his obvious passion for the job and increasing capabilities, for the off-chance that someone who obviously didn't want to be here might come on board?), I'm starting to warm to the idea of Leppitsch.

Yeah me too... I'm well and truly on board. Wind his seat down a couple of inches... and no one will know it's not Vossie.

 

[POBT]

Why should the panel be consistent with the board?

Moreover, if the approach to assessing your previous coach is subsequently found to be flawed, wouldn't it be sensible to change your approach when assessing your new coach?

If I'm on that panel, I'd want to know why the club dismissed Voss. But I wouldn't be bound by that thinking.

 

[Angus72]

I like the idea of Leppa as coach also and has been an assistant for a few years now but my only fear is burning another favourite son. How many seasons did he serve as an assistant to Leigh Matthews ?

 

[Elixuh]

Why should the panel be consistent with the board?

Moreover, if the approach to assessing your previous coach is subsequently found to be flawed, wouldn't it be sensible to change your approach when assessing your new coach?

If I'm on that panel, I'd want to know why the club dismissed Voss. But I wouldn't be bound by that thinking.

I acknowledge what's happened cannot be changed unless time travel is possible. What I'm questioning and what I think should be considered is using a similar process (i.e. a panel similar to what's being used now) to both review senior coaches, so to either retain or let go, and to hire new senior coaches.

I honestly don't know how the clubs gotten itself into this predicament. We need to question the inconsistency in their approach - making an assessment and decision to sack a coach and then organising a somewhat independent panel to assess, consider and hire a new coach. Why would you allow the board to sack Voss because they don't think he can take the group further and then have a panel (possibly) hire someone who was let go from their previous position for the same reasons - its not a question of whether the panel should be consistent with the board, its overwhelmingly apparent that they shouldn't. What I'm taking issue with is the consistency of the entirety of the process, so from assessing and sacking the coach to hiring a new coach.

EDIT: I'm considering future circumstances where we need to review our senior coach and whether we should change the process to be more consistent with how we hire senior coaches. I'm not commenting on what should have happened or what should happen in this instance as it's obviously far too late for that. I only refer to Ratten with regards to what's happening now as an example.

 

[acuguy]

I have little to no interest where the coach played or if he ever played, I just want the best candidate, maybe they should interview John Blair!

 

[Kernel Kurtz]

I acknowledge what's happened cannot be changed unless time travel is possible. What I'm questioning and what I think should be considered is using a similar process (i.e. a panel similar to what's being used now) to both review senior coaches, so to either retain or let go, and to hire new senior coaches.

I honestly don't know how the clubs gotten itself into this predicament. We need to question the inconsistency in their approach - making an assessment and decision to sack a coach and then organising a somewhat independent panel to assess, consider and hire a new coach. Why would you allow the board to sack Voss because they don't think he can take the group further and then have a panel (possibly) hire someone who was let go from their previous position for the same reasons - its not a question of whether the panel should be consistent with the board, its overwhelmingly apparent that they shouldn't. What I'm taking issue with is the consistency of the entirety of the process, so from assessing and sacking the coach to hiring a new coach.

EDIT: I'm considering future circumstances where we need to review our senior coach and whether we should change the process to be more consistent with how we hire senior coaches. I'm not commenting on what should have happened or what should happen in this instance as it's obviously far too late for that. I only refer to Ratten with regards to what's happening now as an example.

I Think we are all asking how did we get ourselves in this predicament or should I say how did the board get us here..
The only thing that comes to mind is that The Board or someone on the board thought it was a done deal with Roos ,only for Roos to back away at the last minute. I think somebody got cocky or they simply got Sharfted by Roos.

Back on Ratten , it was the Carltons board that decided he was not the coach to take them to the next level, for what ever reason. It was their opinion he was a failure to do this. This dosen't mean the Brisbane Lions also see Ratten as been a failure , it is all about justifying what has happened and the circumstances surrounding their previous appointment of senior coach.
Like I said in my first post on Ratten he may not be right for us, I certainly wouldn't be too objective at this stage for an assistant coach , say Leppa come in with a mentor.

 

[adey115]

It is an interesting point....

Non-Football people (ie the Board) decided to give Vossy the chop.
Those non-Football people now invite a collection of football people (ie. the committee including Matthews, Warren etc) to help decide as to who the new coach should be.

Why the change in method? Prepared to chop without Football knowledge, but not prepared to hire without Football knowledge?

This to me screams out why the Board thought Roos was in the bag. Fair to say that every man and his dog thinks that Roos was the next best available, because he's a recent premiership coach who wasn't currently coaching. You didn't need to be a "Football" person of any stature to decide that.

I don't think the Board were in a position to decide that an untried coach would be better than Voss - but they THOUGHT they were good enough to decide that Roos would be better than Voss, because 99% of the world would think that after 5 years of Voss at the helm. Hence, they were under the impression that getting Roos was a shoe-in. Hmmm, how did they get that impression?

As per Williams public comments - who was in charge of courting Paul Roos? And who wasn't inclusive in the process?

Angus.

 

[adey115]

Back on Ratten , it was the Carltons board that decided he was not the coach to take them to the next level, for what ever reason. It was their opinion he was a failure to do this. This dosen't mean the Brisbane Lions also see Ratten as been a failure , it is all about justifying what has happened and the circumstances surrounding their previous appointment of senior coach.
Like I said in my first post on Ratten he may not be right for us, I certainly wouldn't be too objective at this stage for an assistant coach , say Leppa come in with a mentor.

There is a similarity with what Carlton did.

Their Board decided that an available premiership coaching legend was available, and that 99% of the world would think that Malthouse was a likely better coach than Ratten.

The difference - Carlton got their man. We didn't.

(mind you - the Carlton Board also contains people with decent Football experience. We don't. Imagine Sticks Kernahan talking to Malthouse, versus Angus talking to Roos, and you get the picture as to the difference in the courting process)

 

[POBT]

Imagine Sticks Kernahan talking to Malthouse

Stand by your man.

 

[adey115]

What would Angus have sung then POBT, prior to pouring a bottle of Penfolds Grange over his head at completion.....

"Roosy, are you lonesome tonight...."
"Hey Paul(ahhhhh), we want to marrry yooooouuuuu...."

Hmmm.

 

[acuguy]

I don't buy the whole non football person thing. Everyone who is has an interest in the game is a football person. I think it is more of a decision thing.

 

[adey115]

I think we're the only club in the league without an experienced AFL person either on the Board or as CEO. The only club. Add in that we've got the smallest Board in the League to my knowledge in six people.

I personally believe having one person with in depth AFL knowledge either on the Board or as CEO is essential. Otherwise we're asking people with business acumen to be making decisions that deeply effect the football department. Having some in depth experience in that area absolutely counts, and in my eyes its why every club has someone with high level experience either on the Board or as CEO.... except us.

 

[Apex61]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/ne...oaching-position/story-fndv8d6r-1226717993216

Get your microwave ovens ready boys.

 

[Grimreepah]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/ne...oaching-position/story-fndv8d6r-1226717993216

Get your microwave ovens ready boys.

Craig was just interviewed on 4BR. Said that he rates Mark Neeld highly, and would be looking to get him as an assistant if he were to get a coaching gig.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Craig was just interviewed on 4BR. Said that he rates Mark Neeld highly, and would be looking to get him as an assistant if he were to get a coaching gig.

Don't even joke about that.

 

[Lockie]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/ne...oaching-position/story-fndv8d6r-1226717993216

Get your microwave ovens ready boys.

I think I will be bunkering down in my bomb shelter if this happens. Richardson said on 3AW tonight that he is committed to staying at Port.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Craig was just interviewed on 4BR. Said that he rates Mark Neeld highly, and would be looking to get him as an assistant if he were to get a coaching gig.

"u wot m8?"

 

[Eons]

This just gets worse and worse. Apart from this nearly every club board is talking about how they're talking to Lions players. It's become a frenzy, can't wait for it all to be over.

 

[luthor]

Craig was just interviewed on 4BR. Said that he rates Mark Neeld highly, and would be looking to get him as an assistant if he were to get a coaching gig.

FFS

....and we are seriously considering Craig as the man to take us to the next level.?

Unless of course the "next level" is the sub-basement.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Not sure if it means anything but Alan Richardson was just interviewed on channel 7 here in Adelaide and said he has no intention of leaving Port next year when asked about senior coaching.