TOPIC:

One thing we are all missing here is $! Coaches (good coaches) cost money! The decision is based on our preference to pay coaches or players! We already have senior coaches in assistant positions so the addition of a 50k coach is money the club simply does not have if we wish to add an experienced coach!

Perth do not have a sponsor willing to cough up the doh like some other clubs do. Regardless of what we think McMahon and his assistants suit our business model from a $ value and if we wanted a change then Marty would- need to go!

Lucifer wrote: One thing we are all missing here is $! Coaches (good coaches) cost money! The decision is based on our preference to pay coaches or players! We already have senior coaches in assistant positions so the addition of a 50k coach is money the club simply does not have if we wish to add an experienced coach!

Perth do not have a sponsor willing to cough up the doh like some other clubs do. Regardless of what we think McMahon and his assistants suit our business model from a $ value and if we wanted a change then Marty would- need to go!

I dont buy that(excuse the pun).
Are you saying that we will only appoint second rate no name coaches because thats all we can afford.
The fact that the wafl can be used as a stepping stone to the next level is enough of a sweatner to get good people apllying plus i think we could still pay good coin for a coach.
Dont the wafl(or used to ) contribute a percentage towards the coaches wage???
Regardless i wont buy this "woe is us" mentallity!!

30plusyeardrought wrote:

Lucifer wrote: One thing we are all missing here is $! Coaches (good coaches) cost money! The decision is based on our preference to pay coaches or players! We already have senior coaches in assistant positions so the addition of a 50k coach is money the club simply does not have if we wish to add an experienced coach!

Perth do not have a sponsor willing to cough up the doh like some other clubs do. Regardless of what we think McMahon and his assistants suit our business model from a $ value and if we wanted a change then Marty would- need to go!

I dont buy that(excuse the pun).
Are you saying that we will only appoint second rate no name coaches because thats all we can afford.
The fact that the wafl can be used as a stepping stone to the next level is enough of a sweatner to get good people apllying plus i think we could still pay good coin for a coach.
Dont the wafl(or used to ) contribute a percentage towards the coaches wage???
Regardless i wont buy this "woe is us" mentallity!!

I guess if you get a second rate coach you do deserve to finish where we have on the ladder in the last three years.

Am I saying we will only appoint coaches we can afford? Yes that's exactly what I am saying!

Lucifer, the club has to live within it's means and that sadly requires it to strike a delicate balance between money spent on coaches and money spent on players.
Personally, I would err on the side of players. The appointment of a senior coach is the prime concern and for a club with our means a casual rather than a full time appointment is prudent.
Then the backup staff (ie assistants) could be restricted to #2 with one of those being the ressies coach. A major problem IMO is the danger of "too many chiefs and not enough indians" resulting in confusion for players getting mixed messages. At WAFL level there is no need for a plethora of chiefs and for most clubs there is not the means to support it

It seems to me that the club thinks that, on one hand DM is the man for the main job, but, on the other hand, see the need to provide too much back-up just in case. Bottom line is the club does not have total confidence in the appointment.

Certainly, with a costly appointment of a senior coach of the ilk of Darren Harris you would not need a lot of backup.

So, for mine, make some savings on the coaching appointments and spend those savings on players.

Thers no doubt this coach is the cheap option but i recon we could do better.
This coach imo has shown over 3 years that he cant really lift this team to be a finals team.
How many more years do we give him before this board is convinced of the same!

30plusyeardrought wrote: Thers no doubt this coach is the cheap option but i recon we could do better.
This coach imo has shown over 3 years that he cant really lift this team to be a finals team.
How many more years do we give him before this board is convinced of the same!

I can't disagree with you 30+. I am just amazed that having stated that the position would be advertised the club just went ahead and re-appointed him on a one year term with an option of another year. That option surely must have a pretty high KPI attached.

smokey wrote:

30plusyeardrought wrote: Thers no doubt this coach is the cheap option but i recon we could do better.
This coach imo has shown over 3 years that he cant really lift this team to be a finals team.
How many more years do we give him before this board is convinced of the same!

I can't disagree with you 30+. I am just amazed that having stated that the position would be advertised the club just went ahead and re-appointed him on a one year term with an option of another year. That option surely must have a pretty high KPI attached.

It was the easy option Smokey.
The KPI's would surley be that he must have a better than 50% win/loss ratio by round 6(or after 6 games played),anything less than 4 and 2 and he should be out the door!

30+ yes a good idea but if like this past season we are on track later on to make finals and we blow it again then out the door. Main KPI should be play finals and win at least one. Out in straight sets not acceptable.

smokey wrote: 30+ yes a good idea but if like this past season we are on track later on to make finals and we blow it again then out the door. Main KPI should be play finals and win at least one. Out in straight sets not acceptable.

Absolutely Smokey!