News Chris Pelchen quits!

Remove this Banner Ad

Im sure your all proud of your selves. he quit because of the $hite he was copping online, on sites like these. day after day more bloody pelican pictures!
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Joffaboy said:
This was the ominous paragraph AFAIAC

"...New Saints chief executive Matt Finnis has reshaped the club's management team in the three months he has been in charge and a club whose finances are closely watched by the AFL needs to make sure there is no duplication of roles. The way forward for the Saints appears to be with Bains overseeing list management as part of his COO role and a new football operations boss managing the rest....
Click to expand...

That's the best thing I have read all day
 
I think you mean PetraccaLENKO!
Winmar2Lockett said:
Well I just paid up my family membership (have to move seats due to the Level 2 Goal Zone decision) & can't wait to see the Raging Bull in action with thepoyz by my side!

I'm glad those highlights have been released...it might just stop the chinese whispers that have grown about CP's disposal based on the footage from a cyclonic day in Geelong.

Absolutely love his bravado...he's so much like Vossy in that regard. Back yourself, knock a few blokes over & kick a massive goal.

Can't wait til Nov 27... just have everything crossed that Trout calls out "Player 4444, Christian PETRACCA-LICIOUS!"
Click to expand...
 
One 2 Roo said:
Am I the only person that believes that it was simply a decision based on the fact that Pelchens job had been completed? His job as I see it, was to come in and make the hard calls in terms of what a list needs to look like to get us back to the top asap. He cut (be it unpopular or not) players that he felt weren't going to be part of the next tilt. Decisions that couldn't be made lightly, but never the less, had to be made.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't agree that the Pelchen job of list rejuvenation has been completed. He said himself the plan involved 18 top picks over 4 years - he's gone before we've even selected the 2nd batch of them; we are less than halfway through the period of hard decisions.

Our list is still in a terrible state, we are at the bottom for a reason, and whilst it's good to be positive about how young players can develop to suggest that just picking kids and backing ourselves in is job done, is mindless hype. Its putting your head in the sand.
Everyone else picks kids too, every year. We're coming from further back than everyone else, so we need more and better players. Newnes had a good year, but he's not all-Australian. Hickey looks a decent ruck, but he can't stay on the field. We probably don't even have 10 names that don't have some sort of question mark against them, and one of those would be Jack Steven, where opinion seems fairly split over letting him walk if it gets us pick 2 or helps bring in Cameron/Treloar.
Not only that but law of averages means some of our draft picks won't make it as we'd planned; the chances of nailing 18 picks is seriously low.

Anyway I've digressed... the job of list rejuvenation still has plenty to go. What I would say is that perhaps this recent shift suggests we won't stick to the draft as stringently, and might be more likely to go after a GWS player or even a free agent next year.
 
holllywood said:
All things considered, we still finished last. If the football department sat back and patted themselves on the back for a 'job well done' then THAT would be more concerning than a review into how things are run.
Click to expand...

They talked about doing the review back in the spring, perhaps before the season even began. This was Finnis' governance review, not a reaction to coming last. And bear in mind coming last in 2014 was pretty much one of the aims of last year's review!
Trying to think through it logically all I can come up with is that last year's was a half-assed "plan the pathway" review, which also pointed to Watters not fitting into it. This was the bigger wider-reaching structural review.
 
ike2112 said:
I certainly don't agree that the Pelchen job of list rejuvenation has been completed. He said himself the plan involved 18 top picks over 4 years - he's gone before we've even selected the 2nd batch of them; we are less than halfway through the period of hard decisions.

Our list is still in a terrible state, we are at the bottom for a reason, and whilst it's good to be positive about how young players can develop to suggest that just picking kids and backing ourselves in is job done, is mindless hype. Its putting your head in the sand.
Everyone else picks kids too, every year. We're coming from further back than everyone else, so we need more and better players. Newnes had a good year, but he's not all-Australian. Hickey looks a decent ruck, but he can't stay on the field. We probably don't even have 10 names that don't have some sort of question mark against them, and one of those would be Jack Steven, where opinion seems fairly split over letting him walk if it gets us pick 2 or helps bring in Cameron/Treloar.
Not only that but law of averages means some of our draft picks won't make it as we'd planned; the chances of nailing 18 picks is seriously low.

Anyway I've digressed... the job of list rejuvenation still has plenty to go. What I would say is that perhaps this recent shift suggests we won't stick to the draft as stringently, and might be more likely to go after a GWS player or even a free agent next year.
Click to expand...

So if you had to delist 5 young players who would it be?
Personally I think we are flush with young players who are very likely. ( Weakest links from my point of view are Murdoch and Pierce ).
We dont have Sam Blease or Adam Simpson to delist.

Hickey. No significant injuries in 2012. Some minor injuries 2013. So he had some foot and knee problems in 2014 and he can't stay on the field.
Sorry your glass is way more than half empty.
 
So Pelchen was head of footy but he spent too much time on drafting and list management. Things that were really Bains' responsibility.
Meanwhile we need to spend more on the "sports" side of things but we don't have the cash.
Pelchen is being paid a fair whack, but we can do without him, so he heads for the door.

Are we buying it?
 
SaintsSeptember said:
So Pelchen was head of footy but he spent too much time on drafting and list management. Things that were really Bains' responsibility.
Meanwhile we need to spend more on the "sports" side of things but we don't have the cash.
Pelchen is being paid a fair whack, but we can do without him, so he heads for the door.

Are we buying it?
Click to expand...
The last story I believe is what the club puts out. I don't even know what "looking for a harder edge" for our head of football even means. I think he did a good job while he was here but for whatever reason he's gone, as long as we get a good replacement I'm satisfied.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SK_MD_#7 said:
Pelchen saying positive things about the club on 3AW currently.

3AW Sports Today ‏@3AWSportsToday 22s22 seconds ago
Pelchen says he wants to advise St Kilda fans the club is heading in the right direction and it won't be long before they're back at the top
Click to expand...
i miss you already peltch thankyou for stating we needed a new strategic plan and making the infamous 40 page document which may have saved us from total doom
 
hayes said:
I don't even know what "looking for a harder edge" for our head of football even means. I
Click to expand...

This has been pretty heavily discussed in this thread.

Basically it means they are looking for someone with more of a fitness and medical focus compared to a list management focus. That makes a lot of sense and doesn't mean that we will significantly shift from the plan Pelchen produced. They are not mutually exclusive.

SaintsSeptember said:
So Pelchen was head of footy but he spent too much time on drafting and list management. Things that were really Bains' responsibility.
Meanwhile we need to spend more on the "sports" side of things but we don't have the cash.
Pelchen is being paid a fair whack, but we can do without him, so he heads for the door.

Are we buying it?
Click to expand...

I take it as an indication that we don't have the cash for both Pelchen and a manager that is more fitness/health orientated. The club seems to think that at this point the latter is more important.

I don't see why people think that just because Pelchen is gone that his plan suddenly goes out the window or that we are shifting direction totally. Bains and Co. were probably heavily involved in the creation to the plan so I don't buy that Pelchen needs to be around to help them decipher it and make decisions.

We will be heavily targeting GWS kids next year and we would have been doing this even if Pelchen was still here. We were already trying to get some of them this year. We may change our plans for FA's in 2016 but that would only happen if we managed to snag some big giant fish. FA's in 2016 or Cameron next year is basically the same thing.
 
Periphery said:
This has been pretty heavily discussed in this thread.

Basically it means they are looking for someone with more of a fitness and medical focus compared to a list management focus. That makes a lot of sense and doesn't mean that we will significantly shift from the plan Pelchen produced. They are not mutually exclusive.



I take it as an indication that we don't have the cash for both Pelchen and a manager that is more fitness/health orientated. The club seems to think that at this point the latter is more important.

I don't see why people think that just because Pelchen is gone that his plan suddenly goes out the window or that we are shifting direction totally. Bains and Co. were probably heavily involved in the creation to the plan so I don't buy that Pelchen needs to be around to help them decipher it and make decisions.

We will be heavily targeting GWS kids next year and we would have been doing this even if Pelchen was still here. We were already trying to get some of them this year. We may change our plans for FA's in 2016 but that would only happen if we managed to snag some big giant fish. FA's in 2016 or Cameron next year is basically the same thing.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that.
It could mean that they want more specialists at a lower level ( such as high performance manager ) and that Pelchan's role can actually be downgraded to pay for it, or even be absorbed by someone like Bains.
Classic re-structure, cut out middle management.
 
Periphery said:
This has been pretty heavily discussed in this thread.

Basically it means they are looking for someone with more of a fitness and medical focus compared to a list management focus. That makes a lot of sense and doesn't mean that we will significantly shift from the plan Pelchen produced. They are not mutually exclusive.



I take it as an indication that we don't have the cash for both Pelchen and a manager that is more fitness/health orientated. The club seems to think that at this point the latter is more important.

I don't see why people think that just because Pelchen is gone that his plan suddenly goes out the window or that we are shifting direction totally. Bains and Co. were probably heavily involved in the creation to the plan so I don't buy that Pelchen needs to be around to help them decipher it and make decisions.

We will be heavily targeting GWS kids next year and we would have been doing this even if Pelchen was still here. We were already trying to get some of them this year. We may change our plans for FA's in 2016 but that would only happen if we managed to snag some big giant fish. FA's in 2016 or Cameron next year is basically the same thing.
Click to expand...
Don't think we are after one person to fill his role specifically. Think that his role will be shared amongst others..

Bevo= head of coaching
Pelc was head of football

Means we need another head of admin or something.

But what I got most from all this is Pelcs $$$ would be invested into the coaching and player development department.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
I'm not sure about that.
It could mean that they want more specialists at a lower level ( such as high performance manager ) and that Pelchan's role can actually be downgraded to pay for it, or even be absorbed by someone like Bains.
Classic re-structure, cut out middle management.
Click to expand...

The club has said Bains will be COO and perform the list management duties as part of that. We'd probably still need a head of football to go with the new head of coaching and I'd say that they want someone with more of a sports performance/fitness/health background.

felsty said:
Don't think we are after one person to fill his role specifically. Think that his role will be shared amongst others..

Bevo= head of coaching
Pelc was head of football

Means we need another head of admin or something.

But what I got most from all this is Pelcs $$$ would be invested into the coaching and player development department.
Click to expand...

Yes. From what I've read this is how I see it working out:

Bains: COO and list manager.
Bevo: Head of coaching - making sure all the coaches are working well and working on their development.
New person: Head of football - health,fitness,performance background. Makes sure all the footy s**t is working to get the best out of the players and people.
 
The way I see it, when they have their meetings it can be Finnis , the accounts guy, the media guy, and Pelchan. Or we get rid of pelchan and have a couple of extra footy guys. It seems to make sense. Big management structures suck. ( Should see the Automotive industry, I've never seen so many people calling themselves president ).
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Sorry your glass is way more than half empty.
Click to expand...

I think its madness that so many people can be so hyped up about a list that is quite clearly the worst in the league, and has 3 of our best players close to retiring (Fisher, Joey, Roo), and our other best player a 50/50 risk to head through Free Agency.
Huge optimism all because we drafted some kids. Ignoring that other clubs also draft kids!

SaintsSeptember said:
Hickey. No significant injuries in 2012. Some minor injuries 2013. So he had some foot and knee problems in 2014 and he can't stay on the field.
Click to expand...

Hope vs reality is probably key here. 15 games in 2 Saints seasons; this is our best ruck.
Does this sound minor to you - http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-12/saints-send-hickey-to-uk
Tendonitis and Bursitis were the main contributions to my career ending at 28 - realistically not being capable for the last two years of it.
I hope very much he is fixed and goes on to have a very successful Saints career, certainly Ive been enthused when he's been on the field.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
So if you had to delist 5 young players who would it be?
Personally I think we are flush with young players who are very likely.
Click to expand...

Its not a case of wanting to delist people. It is pointing out the reality of hoping someone comes good vs the actual tangible play they have offered at AFL level (and/or indications from VFL).

I'm not gonna go through the whole list but I'll give some examples.

Blake Acres looks like a gun. But the reason he lasted to us was doubts about durability and time missed due to injury taking him out of the spotlight a bit. That he has been injured twice since indicates those durability concerns may have been accurate. Hopefully being on an AFL list will get him support to work through whatever issues his body has and it'll become more stable and durable, and if it does I think he'll be an excellent player. However right now I'd say it's too optimistic to say he's a gun and will be all-australian for 5 years. He might be a very very good player but never manage to play 100 games.

Tom Lee. I see myself laughing at other clubs fans, when they say "he's good at this, and he's good at that, he could be a game-breaker". And my favourite - "he's a matchup nightmare".
Matchup nightmare means you have a player that doesn't really fit. Maybe have a forward who is not really big enough to be a Full Forward type and not able to run through midfield to be a small forward. Majak Daw is a matchup nightmare. Jack Gunston is bandied around as an example of what the not-big-enough forward player could become. But the medium forward is very common; the number of success stories about them are few. Lee has not been helped by having fitness issues (I got the impression effort was related to that from Richo's pre/early season comments), and then being asked to do ridiculous things such as ruck. He is a good player and frankly I feel if he was at a club with a better list he would be a best-22 AFL player now. Imagine him playing off Hawkins with that Cats midfield hitting him on the lead. But he got landed with us, and at a bad time too, and I don't think we pushed him enough to begin with, then we've asked silly things of him, and now aren't in the position to put enough good players around him to just let him be a role player. I don't think he's going to be a success, I think he looks an unfortunate victim of circumstances.

Siposs. Said since watching him in a game last year that he's just not up to it - which I also said about Dunell, yet in preseason this year people were hyping him up to be an athletic medium forward (there's that thing again).

Newnes is looking really good, but at Half-Back.
Webster is looking pretty handy but I worry about him being taken advantage of 1-on-1. People keep saying he'll be an outside mid but if that's the case I'd like to see us actually give him a game there. Its optimism based upon no evidence whatsoever to say he'll be a winger for us in a finals team.
Shenton shows promise, but also likely has a ceiling. Good enough to be on the list but also nothing about him suggests midfield.
Geary I have long felt should be a mid, but the club seem determined to have him play at the back.
Wright longer-term looks more likely to play midfield, however I have concerns over how good a midfielder he'll be as whilst I love his style its not exactly 'polished'.

KPDs
We all know we're short on KPDs - Gwilt is gone as backup now too so realistically we're an injury away from Simpkin having to play or Dempster/Roberton having to play on the 3rd tall/resting ruck, none of which are good ideas. We also don't know if Bruce is a defender or forward. This is bound to be Fisher's last year, and realistically Simpkins' too. So this time next year we will have Delaney and maybe Bruce if he is a defender. No depth at all.
KPFs
We all know we're struggling here, and have been for a while. Look at threads from early-mid season, where optimism wasn't as high about White being the messiah. Tom Lee can succeed for us but in my opinion only as a role player supporting good players in a good structure. Roo will be gone in a couple years and the club is clearly looking at using him up the ground. Stanley's gone.
Say Lee gets injured in preseason. We're gonna go all year with Roo, White and ?; and that's if White is up to it, which I doubt for 20+ games. We clearly need to draft at least 1 KPF and this is the year to do it, as next year's is the "midfielder's draft" apparently.

Outside MID
Everyone keeps going on about it, our lack of spread kills us. Especially given we're wanting to play a running game - we need more legs and speed than other clubs but right now have less. Whilst there might well be players on our list capable of shifting to the wing, we have no tangible evidence of it even being worked on yet, let alone any success with it.
Savage was going to do it, but is now a HB. Milera was going to do it, but was never looking likely and has more or less gone. Eli might do it, but massive hype based on 4 games is the epitomy of what irritates me. Wright, Webster, Shenton, Acres - they might all be wingers. Or they might not.

Inside MID
You can never have too many. We almost ran out last season at times, there was at least one week where we had no Saints inside mids playing at Sandy (more or less the weeks Ross, Curren and Jones were playing). I am not convinced at all on Seb Ross, and whilst I agree he is going to take a little time I do think this is the year that excuse doesn't hold any more.

We are going to draft 4 players this year, and 9 more in 2015/16 according to the Pelican blueprint. I'd say the hope is that out of those 13 players, 11 or so are gonna be best 22 when we get back into Finals footy. That means there are still more Saints players to get shifted on - both to get us those extra picks, and to be replaced by someone better.

Dunell might be the best example of how Saints fans, as eternal optimists (given the dearth of sustained success in our past), will see great things in a player where there are none. They'll take the strengths of a player and project them as something that will grow even better, and dismiss weaknesses of a player as something that will be developed with time (or magically disappear when they hit 50 games). Someone literally has to stink it up twice before fans decide maybe that list spot should be freed up.
 
ike2112 said:
Its not a case of wanting to delist people. It is pointing out the reality of hoping someone comes good vs the actual tangible play they have offered at AFL level (and/or indications from VFL).

I'm not gonna go through the whole list but I'll give some examples.

Blake Acres looks like a gun. But the reason he lasted to us was doubts about durability and time missed due to injury taking him out of the spotlight a bit. That he has been injured twice since indicates those durability concerns may have been accurate. Hopefully being on an AFL list will get him support to work through whatever issues his body has and it'll become more stable and durable, and if it does I think he'll be an excellent player. However right now I'd say it's too optimistic to say he's a gun and will be all-australian for 5 years. He might be a very very good player but never manage to play 100 games.

Tom Lee. I see myself laughing at other clubs fans, when they say "he's good at this, and he's good at that, he could be a game-breaker". And my favourite - "he's a matchup nightmare".
Matchup nightmare means you have a player that doesn't really fit. Maybe have a forward who is not really big enough to be a Full Forward type and not able to run through midfield to be a small forward. Majak Daw is a matchup nightmare. Jack Gunston is bandied around as an example of what the not-big-enough forward player could become. But the medium forward is very common; the number of success stories about them are few. Lee has not been helped by having fitness issues (I got the impression effort was related to that from Richo's pre/early season comments), and then being asked to do ridiculous things such as ruck. He is a good player and frankly I feel if he was at a club with a better list he would be a best-22 AFL player now. Imagine him playing off Hawkins with that Cats midfield hitting him on the lead. But he got landed with us, and at a bad time too, and I don't think we pushed him enough to begin with, then we've asked silly things of him, and now aren't in the position to put enough good players around him to just let him be a role player. I don't think he's going to be a success, I think he looks an unfortunate victim of circumstances.

Siposs. Said since watching him in a game last year that he's just not up to it - which I also said about Dunell, yet in preseason this year people were hyping him up to be an athletic medium forward (there's that thing again).

Newnes is looking really good, but at Half-Back.
Webster is looking pretty handy but I worry about him being taken advantage of 1-on-1. People keep saying he'll be an outside mid but if that's the case I'd like to see us actually give him a game there. Its optimism based upon no evidence whatsoever to say he'll be a winger for us in a finals team.
Shenton shows promise, but also likely has a ceiling. Good enough to be on the list but also nothing about him suggests midfield.
Geary I have long felt should be a mid, but the club seem determined to have him play at the back.
Wright longer-term looks more likely to play midfield, however I have concerns over how good a midfielder he'll be as whilst I love his style its not exactly 'polished'.

KPDs
We all know we're short on KPDs - Gwilt is gone as backup now too so realistically we're an injury away from Simpkin having to play or Dempster/Roberton having to play on the 3rd tall/resting ruck, none of which are good ideas. We also don't know if Bruce is a defender or forward. This is bound to be Fisher's last year, and realistically Simpkins' too. So this time next year we will have Delaney and maybe Bruce if he is a defender. No depth at all.
KPFs
We all know we're struggling here, and have been for a while. Look at threads from early-mid season, where optimism wasn't as high about White being the messiah. Tom Lee can succeed for us but in my opinion only as a role player supporting good players in a good structure. Roo will be gone in a couple years and the club is clearly looking at using him up the ground. Stanley's gone.
Say Lee gets injured in preseason. We're gonna go all year with Roo, White and ?; and that's if White is up to it, which I doubt for 20+ games. We clearly need to draft at least 1 KPF and this is the year to do it, as next year's is the "midfielder's draft" apparently.

Outside MID
Everyone keeps going on about it, our lack of spread kills us. Especially given we're wanting to play a running game - we need more legs and speed than other clubs but right now have less. Whilst there might well be players on our list capable of shifting to the wing, we have no tangible evidence of it even being worked on yet, let alone any success with it.
Savage was going to do it, but is now a HB. Milera was going to do it, but was never looking likely and has more or less gone. Eli might do it, but massive hype based on 4 games is the epitomy of what irritates me. Wright, Webster, Shenton, Acres - they might all be wingers. Or they might not.

Inside MID
You can never have too many. We almost ran out last season at times, there was at least one week where we had no Saints inside mids playing at Sandy (more or less the weeks Ross, Curren and Jones were playing). I am not convinced at all on Seb Ross, and whilst I agree he is going to take a little time I do think this is the year that excuse doesn't hold any more.

We are going to draft 4 players this year, and 9 more in 2015/16 according to the Pelican blueprint. I'd say the hope is that out of those 13 players, 11 or so are gonna be best 22 when we get back into Finals footy. That means there are still more Saints players to get shifted on - both to get us those extra picks, and to be replaced by someone better.

Dunell might be the best example of how Saints fans, as eternal optimists (given the dearth of sustained success in our past), will see great things in a player where there are none. They'll take the strengths of a player and project them as something that will grow even better, and dismiss weaknesses of a player as something that will be developed with time (or magically disappear when they hit 50 games). Someone literally has to stink it up twice before fans decide maybe that list spot should be freed up.
Click to expand...

I agree that we don't know at AFL level which kids will make it yet.
Siposs really needs to make an impact this year, surely even if he's injured it wont save him. He needs to get on the park and do something.
Ross has the occasional good game but really hasn't shown significant improvement this last season.
Pierce?
Murdoch. He either needs to get more of the ball or do more with it when he has it.
Saunders has probably improved more than Ross has.
Newnes , he's a gop at the minimum.
Wright. Not yet
Webster, Has improved and is close to being a proven thing.

It was Dunstan and Billings that pushed me past the depression.
After this draft we'll have pretty much the core of a young team with a couple of very good players.
 
Pelchen was on 400K per annum, which may have been okay when he was appointed but is now exhorbidant. Back then he was head of football, which was a role that was all encompassing.
Now we have pro scouts, a list manager and who analyses not only ours but every other list.
We also have four full time and 9 part time recruiters, psychologists, health and fitness staff etc that have made his role redundant.
Our CEO is also a sports admin guru, something we didn't have when he was appointed. He obviously came to the view that CP was expendable and easily replaced by someone who is a better candidate and a lot cheaper.

NB plus he's a prick and ego maniac loudmouth, but I don't want to include that in my post :)
 
Last edited:
SaintsSeptember said:
So Pelchen was head of footy but he spent too much time on drafting and list management. Things that were really Bains' responsibility.
Meanwhile we need to spend more on the "sports" side of things but we don't have the cash.
Pelchen is being paid a fair whack, but we can do without him, so he heads for the door.

Are we buying it?
Click to expand...

Essentially this year's moves reverse what was done in the prior 18 months (other than Watters dismissal).

So if I believe the official line from St Kilda, the 2014 review says the 2013 review was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

crasha301
Discussion Nick Walsh, Head of High Performance and Conditioning quits
11 12 13 14 15
Replies
370
Views
15K
George
George
George
Toast Merry Christmas Sainters 🎄🎅
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Joffaboy
Joffaboy

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top