Foster, Robertson etc
-
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
@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
It's semi-fair. The cost of the replacement guys shouldn't be counted as an additional cost, just any incremental cost above what the current guys are getting. Meaningless number if we count both in any assessment of what to do from here.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster must go:
@BerniesCorner said in Foster must go:
I don't care if we lose against SA.
There’s nothing more that I hate than losing to the Boks.
Really???
I'd say they'd be the team that I can most tolerate losing to. Certainly preferable to England, Ireland, Australia, any other 6n team (though surprisingly I can deal with losses to the French ), Georgia, Samoa or Tonga, Spain or Portugal.
-
@voodoo said in Foster must go:
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
@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
It's semi-fair. The cost of the replacement guys shouldn't be counted as an additional cost, just any incremental cost above what the current guys are getting. Meaningless number if we count both in any assessment of what to do from here.
Yes exactly, you don't calculate the cost of paying someone out by also including the cost of the new hire. That's nonsensical.
As for the assistants, quite frankly considering their resumes they shouldn't be on particularly high salaries anyway.
-
The other cost not being considered is the damage to Silver Lake’s equity stake from the reputational damage to the AB brand. I think that is more substantial than the cost of paying out the contracts of the incompetent incumbents. Don’t underestimate the pressure coming to bear there.
-
@MrDenmore said in Foster must go:
The other cost not being considered is the damage to Silver Lake’s equity stake from the reputational damage to the AB brand. I think that is more substantial than the cost of paying out the contracts of the incompetent incumbents. Don’t underestimate the pressure coming to bear there.
We can only hope
-
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
@Crucial said in Foster must go:
Just a question. That initial squad was for the Ireland series only wasn't it? When does the new squad get announced considering that they are meant to fly out soon?
had the same thought this morning
any change has to be now, or we wait until October.
If they decide to wait until October i can see him staying the other 12 months unless we lose absolutely everything.
And we won't lose everything because we will beat Argentina because they're shit, and we will beat Australia at Eden Park because we always do. Hell, we may even beat the Boks in one of those matches on the basis that Rassie & Co may just be charitable enough to play their B team again. And if all or any of that happens, there will, from NZR's perspective, be enough improvement and "learnings" to show that keeping Fozzie on for the 2023 RWC is the most prudent course of action.
-
@Crucial said in Foster must go:
@Machpants said in Foster must go:
Just so we have facts not conjecture!
Jeez Lozza was shit as well and he wasn’t even fat.
Come back Wayne Smith!
-
@canefan said in Foster must go:
@nzzp said in Foster must go:
@Crucial said in Foster must go:
@nzzp said in Foster must go:
@Crucial said in Foster must go:
@nzzp said in Foster must go:
@Crucial said in Foster must go:
Oh god I’ve just realised that Gatland is still floating around.
If I was as evil as some other posters I could have started a thread titled “Gatland takes over”
Not trolling, but I'd have him in the AB setup in a heartbeat. He worked wonders with the Lions; mixed record with Wales but they were competitive with a limited set of players. He's got international experience, and would be a safe(ish) pair of hands.
Honest question: Foster vs Gatland, who ya got?
Which has the better Super Rugby coaching record?
Super and Tests are not the same game.
Who's got a better international record? (actually, that's a bloody goo dquestion - is Gatland's win percentage against T1 better than Foster's?)
Frankly, I think Gatland is a much better coach than Foster. for one, he can coach rush defence - something no one in NZ seems to do consistently.
Who’s going to do the Wazzaball hit ups?
he coached a scratch team to be super competitive with the ABs. That's impressive. He's clearly a good coach ... I don't get the animosity against him. Well, except for the Chiefs supporters
But even then, good coaches can have bad years.Kiwis don't like whingers.
Changing my post because...well...
But don't think Gatland could suddenly drop what he is doing... -
@voodoo said in Foster must go:
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
@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
It's semi-fair. The cost of the replacement guys shouldn't be counted as an additional cost, just any incremental cost above what the current guys are getting. Meaningless number if we count both in any assessment of what to do from here.
But surely the real cost, is, how well will the brand do over the next two years the way we are going?
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go:
But don't think Gatland could suddenly drop what he is doing...
He is still contracted to the Chiefs until 2023 but has spoken about going overseas again.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go:
@voodoo said in Foster must go:
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
@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
It's semi-fair. The cost of the replacement guys shouldn't be counted as an additional cost, just any incremental cost above what the current guys are getting. Meaningless number if we count both in any assessment of what to do from here.
But surely the real cost, is, how well will the brand do over the next two years the way we are going?
The brand is everything!
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@MN5 said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
God, I'd forgotten Vodanovich. Made Foster look like a genius.
Who is Alex McDonald ?
I bet he got some nasty letters in the mail that took days to arrive.
1949 would be the 4 Test tour to Sth Africa. Tough ask to win there with Saffa refs in those days, so he's excused.
Vodanovich was awful and the start a decade of dumping coaches every year or so as we bumped along the bottom. Just pray we aren't in the start of a run like that.
I think he (Donald) also had health problems and the altitude effed him up? In any case that appears to have been the tour from hell and they were bloody unlucky not to win one of those tests. Interesting fact, a bobbled ball was counted as a knock on back then.
-
@MrDenmore said in Foster must go:
The other cost not being considered is the damage to Silver Lake’s equity stake from the reputational damage to the AB brand. I think that is more substantial than the cost of paying out the contracts of the incompetent incumbents. Don’t underestimate the pressure coming to bear there.
Tbh I don't think those tards even care. They just see a wellknown brand to exploit like the Yankees or Chicago Bulls. And while we see the brand being thrashed by the Foster (who is also fat) dynasty, it will still remain strong and identifiable for a good while yet.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go:
@Crucial said in Foster must go:
@Machpants said in Foster must go:
Just so we have facts not conjecture!
Jeez Lozza was shit as well and he wasn’t even fat.
Come back Wayne Smith!
He's busy sorting out the Black Ferns. I'm afraid a new hero is required ☺️
-
-
@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?
I'm way behind on my Ferning. Post 312 of 517 ...
Any, to answer your question. No. Gets a free ride this year. And realistically to end RWC I'd appoint till end 2024.
This year taking over the team with no prep.
Needs to have full on crack at RWC, which can be forgiven if unsuccessful.
But if there bad results/performances continue, the excuses will have worn thin.Much like they have now.
-
@Crucial said in Foster must go:
Given that it is only 3 weeks until we go to SA what is the practical solution here if Foster goes?
A transition to Schmidt whereby he can make gradual changes to the systems in place?
It's either Schmidt commits to the RWC or he acts as a caretaker bringing in new systems and players in consultation with Razor, who then takes over for EOYT after getting his house in order.
One of the next problems then is assistants (who I truly believe are Fosters biggest mistake). Razor has his great team but can they move across to the ABs without derailing the Saders own succession plans? Is Schmidt initially saddled with the same muppets Foster put in place?
Our scrum is OK if not dominant (and dominant scrums mean little against these big teams - the refs still let them get the ball out while moving backwards). Therefore maybe Feek can stay.
The option of Schmidt and Razor working together worries me that it could be another Grizz/HartAgree with all of that, except I don't see a Grizz/Hart situation. They're not as unalike as those two, and neither would likely involve themselves if they weren't in full agreement. Unlike 1991 when it was imposed.
