Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@PecoTrain said in Foster must go:
If we have little to no confidence in Foster developing the team, why leave him in-place to leave a mess for his successor when the chances of RWC are largely independent of the current coaching team? At worst we start to move forward again...
Genuine question. If Foster is replaced - and I think he should be - and the new coach drops more than one game in the TRC and/or loses a game on the EOYT (more than possible the way England, Wales & Scotland are playing at the moment), he will have done no better, or possibly worse, than Foster in 2021.
What do we do then? Do we sack the new coach and look for another to turn things around in time for Sept 2023?
Obviously not. The new coach’s mandate should be to come in and arrest the current slide and try get this current crop of players to the stage where they don’t embarrass themselves at the World Cup next year. Whoever comes in will have I imagine quite a bit of goodwill for volunteering to take on the difficult task of turning around this shitshow, and probably because he will have shown some coaching ability in the past so people will immediately believe he can actually turn things around (and hopefully so do the players). The damage to this team may be irreparable and impossible to turn around, but we may as well try, right?
> So if it turns out the new bloke's not a great success and doesn't do any better than Foster? What do we do then?
Don't think it's viable to just accept that level of performance, keep the new bloke in place, blame it all on Foster and effectively shrug our shoulders and say "at least we tried". Need a bit more planning than that surely.
Contract only to RWC. Only 13 + months of pain.
One plus to a coach replacement is teams in 2023 will be totally surprised.
And anyway right now the problem is more: what if the new coach is as ineffective as Foster?
IMHO there is only one NZ coach at that level not called Mark and he is the current AB coach (and his assistants).@nostrildamus said in Foster must go:
Contract only to RWC. Only 13 + months of pain.
To the end of '22 only. Then a full review to see what the best way forward is. Maybe extend to RWC23, accept it wasn't just the coaching and plan for the next 4 years.
And anyway right now the problem is more: what if the new coach is as ineffective as Foster?
IMHO there is only one NZ coach at that level not called Mark and he is the current AB coach (and his assistants).
You may be right. In which case there's zero issue in demanding a significant improvement and giving the guy 6 or 9 Tests to prove he's better. We'd be paying more than tiddlywinks for a coach who, unlike Foster, has a proven track record of winning so there's really no excuse.
-
@Unite said in Foster must go:
So 6pm in NZ and still nothing from NZR?
Their media operation is world-class though
-
@Unite said in Foster must go:
So 6pm in NZ and still nothing from NZR?
Their media operation is world-class though
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Unite said in Foster must go:
So 6pm in NZ and still nothing from NZR?
Their media operation is world-class though
-
@Frank said in Foster must go:
There is basically not a single good argument for Foster staying.
Fuckin none.There might be if neither Razor or Joe want to pick up a dirty nappy.
@Crucial said in Foster must go:
@Frank said in Foster must go:
There is basically not a single good argument for Foster staying.
Fuckin none.There might be if neither Razor or Joe want to pick up a dirty nappy.
Which does make you wonder why the likes of Jamie Joseph were a bit less than keen.
-
@Unite said in Foster must go:
So 6pm in NZ and still nothing from NZR?
Not sure what you are expecting, unless they’ve changed team naming’s to Monday and no one told us.
When’s the RC squad named?
If it’s about the future of the coach, I’m certainly not expecting anything new today. In terms of media cycle today is the ‘wash up from the game’ day.
-
Newshub claimed that they've been informed by "sources" that sacking Foster would cost $3M to $4M.
@Tim said in Foster must go:
Newshub claimed that they've been informed by "sources" that sacking Foster would cost $3M to $4M.
That’s classic spin right there.
-
Newshub claimed that they've been informed by "sources" that sacking Foster would cost $3M to $4M.
@Tim said in Foster must go:
Newshub claimed that they've been informed by "sources" that sacking Foster would cost $3M to $4M.
Foster then would seem to be far better at defining contract terms than coaching the ABs.
-
@Unite said in Foster must go:
So 6pm in NZ and still nothing from NZR?
Not sure what you are expecting, unless they’ve changed team naming’s to Monday and no one told us.
When’s the RC squad named?
If it’s about the future of the coach, I’m certainly not expecting anything new today. In terms of media cycle today is the ‘wash up from the game’ day.
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster must go:
When’s the RC squad named?
SENZ said Thursday today.
Why, as a fan, you may want to know when things are happening is weird. Like, don't you just cre about memes on twitter?
-
Newshub claimed that they've been informed by "sources" that sacking Foster would cost $3M to $4M.
@Tim said in Foster must go:
Newshub claimed that they've been informed by "sources" that sacking Foster would cost $3M to $4M.
for a 16 month early termination? seems legit...
-
@Crucial said in Foster must go:
@Frank said in Foster must go:
There is basically not a single good argument for Foster staying.
Fuckin none.There might be if neither Razor or Joe want to pick up a dirty nappy.
Which does make you wonder why the likes of Jamie Joseph were a bit less than keen.
I'd say more money than NZR were offering, or did he play in the same team as Robinson and didn't want him as a boss?
If NZR have to pay a guy, supposedly 3 or 4 times his annual salary for sacking him in a job that is all about performance and results and this team is achieving neither, then they need to look at the hiring process and thier contracts.
-
Newshub claimed that they've been informed by "sources" that sacking Foster would cost $3M to $4M.
@Tim said in Foster must go:
Newshub claimed that they've been informed by "sources" that sacking Foster would cost $3M to $4M.
Depends how you add it up. Maybe 18 months payout for Foster (NZRs fault) and 18 months for the new guy.
If Schmidt he’s already on a contract so the increase won’t be a full salary. Then there’s the assistants to pay out. -
@Crucial said in Foster must go:
TV3 reckons Razor is reluctant. Schmidt is the man and the assistants are goneburger
Fuck. Really like to know why.
-
@Tim said in Foster must go:
Newshub claimed that they've been informed by "sources" that sacking Foster would cost $3M to $4M.
Depends how you add it up. Maybe 18 months payout for Foster (NZRs fault) and 18 months for the new guy.
If Schmidt he’s already on a contract so the increase won’t be a full salary. Then there’s the assistants to pay out.@Crucial said in Foster must go:
@Tim said in Foster must go:
Newshub claimed that they've been informed by "sources" that sacking Foster would cost $3M to $4M.
Depends how you add it up. Maybe 18 months payout for Foster (NZRs fault) and 18 months for the new guy.
If Schmidt he’s already on a contract so the increase won’t be a full salary. Then there’s the assistants to pay out.yeah fair point
-
I'd say more money than NZR were offering, or did he play in the same team as Robinson and didn't want him as a boss?
If NZR have to pay a guy, supposedly 3 or 4 times his annual salary for sacking him in a job that is all about performance and results and this team is achieving neither, then they need to look at the hiring process and thier contracts.
@taniwharugby said in Foster must go:
I'd say more money than NZR were offering, or did he play in the same team as Robinson and didn't want him as a boss?
If NZR have to pay a guy, supposedly 3 or 4 times his annual salary for sacking him in a job that is all about performance and results and this team is achieving neither, then they need to look at the hiring process and thier contracts.
They don’t. That will be total cost. Pay out old guys. Pay new guys
The bit the media miss is that they have to pay someone anyway.
Even if they ignore the new costs it’s what ? Three maybe four salaries for 16 months. Sounds about right -
Maybe this is just a big ruse on Fosters part to get a big payout without having to do the work. Getting fat was all part of the plan.
@chimoaus said in Foster must go:
Maybe this is just a big ruse on Fosters part to get a big payout without having to do the work. Getting fat was all part of the plan.
He has a contract. If I had a contract and it was cancelled I would expect it to be paid out unless there were clauses that said otherwise. No need to defame the guy by inference that he is holding them over the fire.
