Eade and Craig are in demand

[bornadog]

By Kim Hagdorn

DUMPED AFL coaches Rodney Eade and Neil Craig are in high demand for radical football department appointments of new coaching director positions.

Eade remains in contention for Adelaide’s senior coacing position as well as Melbourne after interviews with both clubs early this month.

He is also certain to become a leading contender to be head coach at St Kilda after Ross Lyon stunned the Saints and AFL circles with his shock resignation late on Thursday.

But Eade, as a former Sydney and Dogs coach and four-times Hawthorn premiership player, is being hotly sought as leading AFL clubs adopt Collingwood’s controversial appointment of football director.

Eade and recently departed experienced Adelaide coach Craig are both being heavily courted to take a position that high powered Collingwood president Eddie McGuire has earmarked for his coaching guru Mick Malthouse.

Malthouse, 58, will not take any appointment with the Pies after he finishes this season’s finals late this month or on grand final day, win or lose, on October 1.

Eade, 53, is believed to have held preliminary discussions with the Magpies on the prospect of taking the famous black and white club’s new football department position.

The Pies have flagged for the past two years that Malthouse would be offered a director of coaching role to assist smooth transition in the controversial succession scheme that ascends playing great Nathan Buckley into Collingwood senior coach for next season.

Brisbane, Richmond, Adelaide, Melbourne and the Pies, as well as even Fremantle in the west, are all considering the innovative appointments of general managers to oversee emerging football departments under raw coaches.

Craig, 55, is renowned for his deep sports science background as well as his vast SANFL and AFL coaching port folio.

He has already held discussions with Brisbane and Richmond on a potential appointment as director of coaching along with Lions coach Michael Voss or the Tigers Damien Hardwick.

Craig is also now being touted as a possible appointment in a package coaching deal at Melbourne alongside former Collingwood playing star and current West Coast assistant Scott Burns.

The new strategic positions are designed to significantly increase football intellectual property by winning the services of highly regarded astute former coaches.

The appointments will be responsible for rapid advancement to developing coaches and their support staff as well even list management, recruitment and player development.

Designations of the comprehensive job descriptions range from director of football, to a more sophisticated tag of general manager of development and strategy.

A high priority ingredient is that the new appointment offers a senior coach a wide insight into modern playing and training techniques.

Eade and Craig have been considered among the finest in modern-day tactics and playing innovations.

[chef]

When was Eade ever in contention for the Crows or Demons jobs?

[ledge]

I think he will end up at Adelaide now doing something.

[Flamethrower]

Don't take the lack of media speculation about Eade as a sign that Adelaide and now St Kilda aren't into him big time.

[mjp]

I still don't understand what the 'Director of Coaching' is actually going to DO!

If the position truly is 'advisory', then first off - that is not a full-time role. And it certainly isn't a match-day role. And guys like Eade and Malthouse - who still clearly want to COACH are really, really, really bad choices for the role.

If the position is a 'doing' role, then wouldn't you want someone on the way up who is still prepared to work 80hours per week digging into details than a senior, big picture person who has already done the hard yards...

I don't get it. I look at other sports around the world and no-one else does this because they all know it leads to conflict. They have a General Manager (US) / Manager (Europe) who deals with list management issues (yes, a team are involved in this area), they have a head coach who is in-charge of the team (also the manager role in Europe I know) and the team of assistant coaches and they have a S&C group who has a direct report to the GM/indirect report to the coach.

What are these clubs thinking?

[bornadog]

I still don't understand what the 'Director of Coaching' is actually going to DO!

If the position truly is 'advisory', then first off - that is not a full-time role. And it certainly isn't a match-day role. And guys like Eade and Malthouse - who still clearly want to COACH are really, really, really bad choices for the role.

If the position is a 'doing' role, then wouldn't you want someone on the way up who is still prepared to work 80hours per week digging into details than a senior, big picture person who has already done the hard yards...

I don't get it. I look at other sports around the world and no-one else does this because they all know it leads to conflict. They have a General Manager (US) / Manager (Europe) who deals with list management issues (yes, a team are involved in this area), they have a head coach who is in-charge of the team (also the manager role in Europe I know) and the team of assistant coaches and they have a S&C group who has a direct report to the GM/indirect report to the coach.

What are these clubs thinking?

What are the positions in a football department?

* Head Coach
* Several assistants to the head coach
* Stats people, match day helpers on interchange bench, etc
* List manager
* Recruitment manager and recruiters
* Medicos - Doctor, physios, recovery people
* Trainers, and other helpers for match day, operational, logistics (organising match day local and interstate movement of equipment, transport etc etc)

These are all at the top of my head as I have never been involved in a club. Does the Footy director look after all this? If not who does?

Is the role a mentoring role for the Coach, but thats not full time as you say MJP

[mjp]

What are the positions in a football department?

* Head Coach
* Several assistants to the head coach
* Stats people, match day helpers on interchange bench, etc
* List manager
* Recruitment manager and recruiters
* Medicos - Doctor, physios, recovery people
* Trainers, and other helpers for match day, operational, logistics (organising match day local and interstate movement of equipment, transport etc etc)

These are all at the top of my head as I have never been involved in a club. Does the Footy director look after all this? If not who does?

Is the role a mentoring role for the Coach, but thats not full time as you say MJP

Footy manager or 'Manager Footy Operations' or whatever the club has decided to call it would do that today...and it is not as if Eade (for example) is going to go to Collingwood to act as a manager of the medical people. I am really confused about this little fad.

[The Underdog]

Footy manager or 'Manager Footy Operations' or whatever the club has decided to call it would do that today...and it is not as if Eade (for example) is going to go to Collingwood to act as a manager of the medical people. I am really confused about this little fad.

I think it's part of Collingwood's problem, they created this position to smoothly put Malthouse out to pasture but didn't really know what it would entail. Now it's backfired (in the best way) and they are sticking to their guns while still not knowing totally what he'll do. The industry being what it is, a bunch of other teams will follow, not knowing exactly what the role entails.

[Raw Toast]

I don't get it. I look at other sports around the world and no-one else does this because they all know it leads to conflict. They have a General Manager (US) / Manager (Europe) who deals with list management issues (yes, a team are involved in this area), they have a head coach who is in-charge of the team (also the manager role in Europe I know) and the team of assistant coaches and they have a S&C group who has a direct report to the GM/indirect report to the coach.

What are these clubs thinking?

So why don't AFL clubs move to the model of say a General Manager? I know the AFL is concerned already at the mentor/director coach position because it significantly increases the money being spent on football depts, and I presume the move to a GM structure would do this in a greater way.

But we know by now that while coaches are super-important, so is list management, fitness staff, sports scientists (!), medicos etc. So it makes sense to have someone with responsibility for everything, while the coaches just coach and are judged on that...

[comrade]

So why don't AFL clubs move to the model of say a General Manager? I know the AFL is concerned already at the mentor/director coach position because it significantly increases the money being spent on football depts, and I presume the move to a GM structure would do this in a greater way.

But we know by now that while coaches are super-important, so is list management, fitness staff, sports scientists (!), medicos etc. So it makes sense to have someone with responsibility for everything, while the coaches just coach and are judged on that...

Does that describe Fantasia's role?

[Raw Toast]

Does that describe Fantasia's role?

Perhaps, but one of the things about the GM is that they are clearly publicly responsible for the team, along with the coach. And apart perhaps from places like WOOF, Fantasia doesn't fill this role, and I suspect he's also not paid on the same level or above that of a HC.