I'd move Sydney and Tigers to "remain the same". Franklin, Reiwoldt and Lynch will all benefit from the new rules and that will keep them up there.
Saints will slide, IMO. Richo's tenure looks very shaky and Geary's recent comments make it even worse, suggesting there's a lack of connection between the players and the coach. Ratts in the background too. I just think they're too unstable to go anywhere but down and the Hannebury thing is a mistake.
There are two sides to the equation - the sides that will improve - markedly or modestly.
Those who will slip or stay static - ageing list, poor drafting, injury
Goes without saying CFC will be an improver. Question is how much!
Teams that will slide imo:
1. GC (lack of quality, losing Lynch, May) 2. Hawks (no Mitchell, ageing list). 3. Cats (Ablett coming 'home' was a mistake). 4. Sydney (Lance will stop being a force sooner than later, midfield not what it was, ordinary back line). 5. North (they over achieved in 2018). 6. Tigers too? Will Lynch add or detract from team balance? Will their ordinary ruck brigade finally come home to roost?
Teams that will remain same same:
7. Freo - losing Neale a huge loss. Hogan? meh....he doesn't seem overly interested in footy. 8. Brisbane (everybody loves them but don't see why their improvement should be anything near ours - guys like Robbo, Rich getting on, no Beams, no Rockliff - other than Neale who's A grade in their midfield?) 9. Port (just don't see it with these guys....they've bought players to get them a flag tilt but Watts et al aren't going to get them there). 10. Pies - overachievers in 2018 but kudos to them. 11. West Coast - hard to beat, especially in Perth. 12 Saints - another team where I simply don't see it - is Hanneberry getting $800k a year? Will he produce? Doubtful, very. All that paycheck will do is add to disharmony.... 13. GWS - still a force but will Kelly,Hopper,Coniglio be thinking about possible moves in 2020 and lack the required focus? 14. Bulldogs - middle of the road - lack class in numbers....
Improvers:
15. Dees (young blokes getting into the peak zone, Steven May). 16. Crows (only because they were so ordinary in 2018) - plenty of quality in that list. 17. Essendon (Shiel et al and Daniher back) - hate them but they'll make the 8. 18. The mighty Blues - again, how much can we improve rapidly (using our 2017 season as a relevant benchmark - won 6 games, 9 other games lost by 4 goals or less - beating GWS,Sydney, Pies,Essendon, Hawks and GC)?
That's a fairly good assessment. Not sure the Crow's will improve that much, if at all. I have them in the status quo category; at least I hope so.
1. If Carlton want Bolton gone, they will dismiss him and pay him out accordingly which will be all that matters (most contracted coaches end up in the same boat).
2. Any employee in these situations ends up in a situation of pain, and the employers move on pretty quickly if they wish (with some more hurdles to jump over to achieve it). IF the industrial relations process occur, all that usually amounts to is different termination conditions, and/or a shuffle of said staff into different roles to meet the conditions as laid out in the employment contract or agreement.
3. All of it is literally just semantics. The same dynamics between employer and employee are generally equal with other AFL senior coaches.
The way that it may, or may not, be likely play out is a separate issue. That coach and club have agreed to come together under a regime that provides a third party the power to determine whether a termination is unfair is not semantics. It's not a situation that clubs are used to being in.
I've been a fixed term contractor before. There is minimal difference to contract term aside from leave benefits and even then sometimes contractors get provisions for that dependant on the contract.
In the context of Bolton's security of tenure, that minimal difference may be rather significant. An independent contractor isn't protected against unfair dismissal; best he hope for is monetary compensation for the remaining term of the breached agreement. On the other hand, an employee is afforded a protection against unfair dismissal; monetary or reinstatement.
I think the key difference is that if nothing happens with a regular contract, the contract will expire and the person would no longer be the coach. A new contract would need to be negotiated.
With Bolts, if nothing happens he will continue to be our coach indefinitely, maintaining the same conditions he has now.
Whilst it will never remove speculation about his position, it does remove the time pressure that all the others have as they reach the end of their contract period.
It annoys me every time I read or hear a reference to his employment relationship communicated as though a non fixed term agreement is, by default, less certain that a fixed term agreement. The distinction on its own is irrelevant; depending on how its done it may be even more secure.
