Should Daniel Anderson be our coach in 2011?

[bartman]

Gronk funnily enough I would regard a coach who chose to leave as being the architect of his own demise, and nothing to do with the board.

I would also see a caretaker coach not being reappointed as not havin been discarded or removed by the board in any real way.

And lastly, I would certainly view a coach who still has his job as not having been "burnt".

So just to clarify, I am of the view that every
single example he gave actually tends to show that the club has not in fact burnt through those 4 coaches.

ON first read, I too thought you were agreeing with me? :sarcasm:

But the point is more how the coachs feel, not how you or I might regard it.

Smith - felt burnt and walked early.
JT - felt burnt and made his feelings publicly known at the next opportunity (tunnel confrontation).
Hagan - left one year early, into semi-retirement.
DA - lots of talk on here, when it should be support for him to see out his final year of his contract and see what results we can as a club, without petty board-election distractions.

Not exactly a tale of internal stability, but anyone saying anything critical about the current board all get tarred with your one simplistic brush.

 

[bartman]

even though Hagan was already appointed for 2007?

What was JT thinking, we'd null and void Hagans deal before he even took over? :lol:

Really? Maybe my memory is giving out, but I thought the club held interviews after they'd decided Smith wasn't getting another contract, and Taylor and Matt Cameron (both assistant coaches at the time) got interviews in their bid to take over? I thought this all occurred before Hagan was appointed, as there were opinions put on here that given Taylor's results at the time, he was hard done by to get pipped?

 

[fish eel]

Really? Maybe my memory is giving out, but I thought the club held interviews after they'd decided Smith wasn't getting another contract, and Taylor and Matt Cameron (both assistant coaches at the time) got interviews in their bid to take over? I thought this all occurred before Hagan was appointed, as there were opinions put on here that given Taylor's results at the time, he was hard done by to get pipped?

Yes.

My recollection is that Michael Hagan was appointed prior to Brian Smith leaving, let alone JT coming on board. Could be wrong though I believe the interview JT had was prior. The decision not to renew Smith was made in the off season, and Hagan appointed for 07 either in the same off season or very early into it anyway. My memory, anyway. So in that context, no way Taylor was ever going to be anything other than stop gap.

 

[fish eel]

Here is an article from March 06 Bart that references Hagan had already been appointed

http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/nsw/summer/200603/s1586850.htm

 

[BissyB]

I still believe DA should stay

 

[Maroubra Eel]

I still believe DA should stay

Don't worry. It has already been confirmed he is staying.

 

[BissyB]

Don't worry. It has already been confirmed he is staying.

hooray

 

[bartman]

Here is an article from March 06 Bart that references Hagan had already been appointed

http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/nsw/summer/200603/s1586850.htm

Thanks, I had a quick web search but came up empty.

My mistake about JT then.

Maybe I'm confusing it with JT looking to continue on in his Eels assistant role, and being peeved that Hagan brought in Fairleigh, resulting in JT's shift to Souths?

 

[fish eel]

Thanks, I had a quick web search but came up empty.

My mistake about JT then.

Maybe I'm confusing it with JT looking to continue on in his Eels assistant role, and being peeved that Hagan brought in Fairleigh, resulting in JT's shift to Souths?

yeah, I think JT signed on pretty early in the year with souffs also, not sure of timelines but doesnt really matter I guess

 

[Wise Old Eel]

I get the feeling the club is trying to force DA out but in a sly way. I haven't read this whole thread just the last page but from what I am hearing DA did not want Webb and Maitua they were Ozzy's signings. So if DA does not have control over who is signing I see it that the club is trying to upset or force DA out of the job.

I agree. I am sure I read another thread on this forum where someone asked Daniel Anderson which players were signed because HE wanted them. The answer was "2, Poore & Shackleton". Every other signing or player we are rumoured to be courting comes from the Osborne puppet.

To me it looks like the puppet master/s (whoever they are) have Osborne by the short & curlies. It appears they do not want Anderson there for whatever reason & they are trying to make things as tough as they can for him in house - while, at the same time, advising the media they are trying to help him. But really, they seem to be setting things up for his replacement (whether that be 2011 or 2012). The rumours I hear (& I emphasise they are RUMOURS) all indicate Ricky Stuart is at the top of the list.

I hope they are wrong. Anderson may well make them look foolish next year. A review of the 2011 season in May is just unrealistic. They may say they are not renewing his contract, then announce the new coach for 2012 & then Anderson sticks it up them & wins the comp. If he IS a deadman walking, I hope it pans out that way.

WOE

 

[Suitman]

LOL. I've heard it all now.
The club will shoot itself in the foot by buying players it doesn't need just to make the coach look bad so they can sack him.
Some of you lot are seriously f**ked in the head.

Suity

 

[boxhead]

LOL. I've heard it all now.
The club will shoot itself in the foot by buying players it doesn't need just to make the coach look bad so they can sack him.
Some of you lot are seriously f**ked in the head.

Suity

I don't believe it either, but what everyone is saying that if it is true-and it is ridiculous granted-then it would be truly indicative of how mentally geniused our board is....

 

[Eels Dude]

I don't believe it either, but what everyone is saying that if it is true-and it is ridiculous granted-then it would be truly indicative of how mentally geniused our board is....

I think anyone who even contemplates that it could be true is perhaps mentally geniused themselves.

 

[boxhead]

I think anyone who even contemplates that it could be true is perhaps mentally geniused themselves.

People are allowed to think what they think, honestly the board seems to be so self righteous that it wouldn't really surprise me if they did something as stupid or moronic as this.....of course it isn't true however.

 

[Suitman]

People are allowed to think what they think,

Nobody has argued that point. :?

Suity

 

[boxhead]

Nobody has argued that point. :?

Suity

I was responding to Eels Dude "anyone who even contemplates that it could be true is perhaps mentally geniused themselves" comment.
I don't think that's what he meant of course.

EDIT: :lol: Just thought of the Mortimer rage in concerns to your comment....."People are allowed to think what they want"-
-"no he's useless" "no he can play" "no he sucks" "no you suck!" :lol:

 

[Djay]

Somethings going on...

 

[Suitman]

I was responding to Eels Dude "anyone who even contemplates that it could be true is perhaps mentally geniused themselves" comment.
I don't think that's what he meant of course.

EDIT: :lol: Just thought of the Mortimer rage in concerns to your comment....."People are allowed to think what they want"-
-"no he's useless" "no he can play" "no he sucks" "no you suck!" :lol:

Congratulations on your 1000'th post.

Suity

 

[CrazyEel]

I think anyone who even contemplates that it could be true is perhaps mentally geniused themselves.

Either geniused as you say or just so obsessively agenda driven they invent intrigue and subterfuge when none exists.

 

[Bigfella]

The silliest part of it is that the board could sack him regardless.