SFL DIV3 2014

Remove this Banner Ad

Move on lads both clubs will stay in div3 so you can both have a crack next year.do yourselves a favour go back train hard and play off next year, ensure that the on field stuff is hard and tough ( not cowardly) and make sure the other clubs supporters keep of the juice and other crap during the day and don't act like complete weak p@icks . Both clubs at fault all grow I and play footy it was a good game of footy unit the moron factor destroyed it
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Inner Circle said:
Ok, I'm not here to get into a tick-for-toe, but lets get our facts and information correct first before posting.

Mick Rossborough was pushed out of Sandown by the GM who openly stated he didn't want Mick to continue even thou the Board all agreed to offer Mick a 2-year deal, but the GM changed it to one year deal with a number of restriction and micro-manage conditions. None of the Senior Group of players were consulted with by the GM regarding Mick's coaching abilities and if he was the guy to take the club to the next step. - This is open common knowledge in the footy circles already.

Everyone will see the fall out of the GMs decision with a number of key player's, support staff and board members likely to walk away from the club at no fault of Mick's. He completed his current contract at Sandown, believed his position was unsecured and lacked trust and seeked a new challenge / job elsewhere to extend his coaching career past 2015. - Yes, its a paid job, a business decision to look after himself and his family, when is that ever a crime?

Mick was one of 6-7 I believe to apply for the Ashwood position as was selected as the "best candidate" by the club and the feedback from many at Ashwood past and present is positive, that show the "cred" he has as a Coach. Only 1 player went with Mick to Ashwood, the rest have all made inquiry's to follow and will make their own mind up where to play, but its unlikely many of them will stay at Sandown now. But if they do move to Ashwood, it just shows the connection, trust and support he has with the players, who were not consulted with by the GM remember.

I believe Mick's needs a senior premiership (for cred) before a move to Division 2, this is his best opportunity. $$$ as you put it was not part of any decision to stay or move. Security, trust and support made the decision easy and I believe the $ at Ashwood are less or on par with Sandown so the move wasn't about finance.

I hope this helps understand the situation.
Click to expand...

If what you say is correct (and thanks for clarifying) then first people to go are the committee. If they want one thing and then Phillips (a paid employee) to do this then they have no spine, no consultative process and no foresight as to the effect of one mans decision.
 
Last edited:
tigris said:
Sounds like a coach you wouldn't want at a club then, if players leave when he does. You can't keep a coach around forever, but you would hope to keep players around for their whole career if you can.
Click to expand...

Agree. Pretty pathetic of players to up and leave on this decision. All been around clubs with multiple coaches and commitee's making bad decisions, but you look like more of a bogan if you just up and leave at every change as shows a bloke of weak character in my book. Eventually a lot of those pea hearts usual go back to the club anyway but all like to spit the dummy and take their bat and ball home. Must be real strong characters in business and work as well I reckon.
 
Bounceback said:
If what you say is correct (and thanks for clarifying) then first people to go are the committee. If they want one thing and then Phillips (a paid employee) to do this then they have no spine, no consultative process and no foresight as to the effect of one mans decision.
Click to expand...
Nailed it Bounceback, 100% correct.
 
Isn't Brett Phillips responsible for most of Sandown's sponsorship through his corporate connections at SEN?
If he is, then the club is in a difficult position. Confront him, and he could walk, taking all the $$$ with him.
But you can't let 1 man rule the roost just because he brings all the money in either.
 
Dannerz said:
Isn't Brett Phillips responsible for most of Sandown's sponsorship through his corporate connections at SEN?
If he is, then the club is in a difficult position. Confront him, and he could walk, taking all the $$$ with him.
But you can't let 1 man rule the roost just because he brings all the money in either.
Click to expand...

that is an even more dangerous position for Sandown. Pay a bloke to bring in sponsors however if we get rid or him or he moves on then the 'investment' in him to build sponsorship vanishes. One would plan to employ a GM to secure long term club sponsors interested in the club, not the GM. If he walks and sponsors follow, then all the wages paid to him are just wasted.
 
QuietObserver21 said:
Interesting to observe that Dandenong flew under the radar in the past week and a bit appointing a new coach... http://sfl.com.au/coaching-announcement/

And while we're on the topic of Dandenong, kudos to Jake Ward who completed his 1,000km run from Sydney to Cranbourne. I remember reading about him in this year's record - glad to see he achieved it. http://cranbournenews.starcommunity.com.au/news/2014-10-16/epic-trek-on-hell-highway/

Credit where credit's due - $30,000+ for Breast Cancer
Click to expand...
Assuming Glenn Bundy will coach the twos again?
 
Dannerz said:
Isn't Brett Phillips responsible for most of Sandown's sponsorship through his corporate connections at SEN?
If he is, then the club is in a difficult position. Confront him, and he could walk, taking all the $$$ with him.
But you can't let 1 man rule the roost just because he brings all the money in either.
Click to expand...

Lol, money?, sponsors? - Only if you all knew of the financial position of Sandown. NO ONE would be saying anything about what he has done in a positive light and more about what he did in a negative sense. It's all an illusion from the outside, solid outer shell, but there is nothing or very little holding it together as there is no foundation or supporting beams. A real deck of cards!

Deception, beguilement, deceit, bluff, mystification and subterfuge are acts to propagate beliefs of things that are not true, or not the whole truth (as in half-truths or omission). Deception can involve dissimulation,propaganda, and sleight of hand, as well as distraction, camouflage, or concealment.
 
It is very amusing to read half the stuff on this forum and the character assassinations of people and wrongly reported facts. Simply factual is the following - a review was done into the Sandown Senior Coaching Position with Mick in his 4th year. A recommendation by Brett Phillips GM (who conducted the review) was for a change of coach for 2015. The Board not unanimously decided to go against that recommendation and reappoint Mick (very close call) for 1 more year. In a conversation that took place between Mick and Brett, Brett decided to be honest with Mick, stating he had recommended change, but he would support Mick, because he was here for the club and understood he couldn't get everything his own way in every situation that requires a vote. Mick wasn't pushed out at all, he won enough voltes to be reappointed and would of got the support of Brett. Mick could of requested to the board, I don't want the GM here if he has voted against me. Mick also didn't like the contract because it was only for 1 year, and was adamant it had to be for 2, which the club would of been wrong to do to take him to 6 years on the back of winning 2 finals out of 8 in 4 years and also many other factors. Mick did a good job, taking over when the senior team was at a low ebb. In terms of the senior players being consulted, committees of clubs make the decision who coaches. Let just say (like in every situation in life), Mick had his supporters and detractors. Brett knew how the players felt, but people (players) very close to the situation will often have a different view from the those a bit on the outside. Running a local footy club is not easy, and Sandown is no different in terms of trying to set the club up to be sustainable financially. In his 4 years he has delivered on new Lights, a new Pavilion about to start, and overseen the growth into Netball, All Abilities and the formation of a Junior Development Pathway. The two finals pieces of the plan are to deliver a Premiership and to get the club debt free and financially sound. The club is far from being a basket case financially. That is just an outline of what he has done, and in terms of getting paid he has been the guinea gig as the first club to have a GM, so has put more of his own money in, than what he has got paid. Brett is a quality person, who wants to see Sandown succeed and sometimes you have to make tough assessments. He could of spat the dummy and walked out and didn't. Players are entitled to follow a coach if they want, but they shouldn't abuse the club who reappointed their coach.
 
So cutting to the chase, Mick wanted 2 years and club offered 1 year. Fair call on the club after 4 years +1. Strange the club backed Mick for 4 years and he couldn't back them for 1. Not AFL Mick in demanding 2 years, should have just run with the 1 rather than spitting the dummy. I believe one from our club keen to coach them so good luck.

End of the day the players will be the barometer of the outcome.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Inside Word said:
It is very amusing to read half the stuff on this forum and the character assassinations of people and wrongly reported facts. Simply factual is the following - a review was done into the Sandown Senior Coaching Position with Mick in his 4th year. A recommendation by Brett Phillips GM (who conducted the review) was for a change of coach for 2015. The Board not unanimously decided to go against that recommendation and reappoint Mick (very close call) for 1 more year. In a conversation that took place between Mick and Brett, Brett decided to be honest with Mick, stating he had recommended change, but he would support Mick, because he was here for the club and understood he couldn't get everything his own way in every situation that requires a vote. Mick wasn't pushed out at all, he won enough voltes to be reappointed and would of got the support of Brett. Mick could of requested to the board, I don't want the GM here if he has voted against me. Mick also didn't like the contract because it was only for 1 year, and was adamant it had to be for 2, which the club would of been wrong to do to take him to 6 years on the back of winning 2 finals out of 8 in 4 years and also many other factors. Mick did a good job, taking over when the senior team was at a low ebb. In terms of the senior players being consulted, committees of clubs make the decision who coaches. Let just say (like in every situation in life), Mick had his supporters and detractors. Brett knew how the players felt, but people (players) very close to the situation will often have a different view from the those a bit on the outside. Running a local footy club is not easy, and Sandown is no different in terms of trying to set the club up to be sustainable financially. In his 4 years he has delivered on new Lights, a new Pavilion about to start, and overseen the growth into Netball, All Abilities and the formation of a Junior Development Pathway. The two finals pieces of the plan are to deliver a Premiership and to get the club debt free and financially sound. The club is far from being a basket case financially. That is just an outline of what he has done, and in terms of getting paid he has been the guinea gig as the first club to have a GM, so has put more of his own money in, than what he has got paid. Brett is a quality person, who wants to see Sandown succeed and sometimes you have to make tough assessments. He could of spat the dummy and walked out and didn't. Players are entitled to follow a coach if they want, but they shouldn't abuse the club who reappointed their coach.
Click to expand...

Smoke and Mirrors is the classification of this post. - The real proof will be in the fall out at Sandown. Time will tell regarding playing numbers and if they can keep 3 "competitive" teams on the park in 2015.
 
Inner Circle said:
Lol, money?, sponsors? - Only if you all knew of the financial position of Sandown. NO ONE would be saying anything about what he has done in a positive light and more about what he did in a negative sense. It's all an illusion from the outside, solid outer shell, but there is nothing or very little holding it together as there is no foundation or supporting beams. A real deck of cards!

Deception, beguilement, deceit, bluff, mystification and subterfuge are acts to propagate beliefs of things that are not true, or not the whole truth (as in half-truths or omission). Deception can involve dissimulation,propaganda, and sleight of hand, as well as distraction, camouflage, or concealment.
Click to expand...

Can't wait for the movie to come out...will there be a book series as well????
 
Bounceback said:
So cutting to the chase, Mick wanted 2 years and club offered 1 year. Fair call on the club after 4 years +1. Strange the club backed Mick for 4 years and he couldn't back them for 1. Not AFL Mick in demanding 2 years, should have just run with the 1 rather than spitting the dummy. I believe one from our club keen to coach them so good luck.

End of the day the players will be the barometer of the outcome.
Click to expand...
Trust me mate, i know for a fact Mick was pushed out. Im not going to get into arguments on here nor go through all the minor details but here are just a few facts, Mick was told MID season by the GM that he wanted someone else to coach going forward, and didnt think he could take the group any further. it is more to do with the fact that can or can't you work with someone who won't back you, than a 1 year or 2 year deal. The GM also went against the board with the decision and the fall out has led to some significant people on the board to resign. Think of the implications of not having the full backing of the GM, i wouldn't do it either. And to add to that the contract offered was below any offered the previous 4 years, which i would of thought was an insult after the job he has done and considering how Sandown were travelling prior to him coaching. Not a powerhouse, but a solid competitive team who were a more than a match for anyone in the division on their day. i can also tell you if Mick had left for $$$ then he wouldn't be coaching Ashwood as he was offered another coaching position on more money. Just goes to show how little people know.
 
I'll be honest, I have barely read more than a sentence into any of these massive posts about Sandown or there coach leaving. Why is it such a big deal? No offence but it's a bloke who hasn't coached a flag so therefore he hasn't done really done anything, Sandown to the general on looker had no real game plan or structures? Nothing that was obvious anyway, I dont care how good he spoke to the players or how they looked up to him without a game plan or structure your wasting your time. He is going to a club that has fallen from the top division to one of the worst in the lowest division... and he is maybe taking a couple of decent players with him? ashwood will need more than just a couple to be any good next season !! Why is there so much interest here? The only storyline should be, what are Ashwood thinking!
 
Bounceback said:
So cutting to the chase, Mick wanted 2 years and club offered 1 year. Fair call on the club after 4 years +1. Strange the club backed Mick for 4 years and he couldn't back them for 1. Not AFL Mick in demanding 2 years, should have just run with the 1 rather than spitting the dummy. I believe one from our club keen to coach them so good luck.

End of the day the players will be the barometer of the outcome.
Click to expand...
That's all mick ever does is cry like a baby
 
localfoots said:
I'll be honest, I have barely read more than a sentence into any of these massive posts about Sandown or there coach leaving. Why is it such a big deal? No offence but it's a bloke who hasn't coached a flag so therefore he hasn't done really done anything, Sandown to the general on looker had no real game plan or structures? Nothing that was obvious anyway, I dont care how good he spoke to the players or how they looked up to him without a game plan or structure your wasting your time. He is going to a club that has fallen from the top division to one of the worst in the lowest division... and he is maybe taking a couple of decent players with him? ashwood will need more than just a couple to be any good next season !! Why is there so much interest here? The only storyline should be, what are Ashwood thinking!
Click to expand...

LF I suppose I see it differently as still playing and may look at going on the committee in future years. The machination of a paid GM at a club, especially a Division 3 club is very interesting and provides some key learnings for clubs thinking of doing the same. I mean really how many clubs expecially metro have employed a GM(realise in country the % is high) I would say <5%.

The Sandown revelations provide key questions and answers to a few things if : 1) the GM brings their own sponsors who could leave when they do 2) should GM have a massive influence on the coaching department/selection 3) consultive process between board and GM 4) KPI's of the GM, end of day a Div 3 club is not a multi national conglomerate but a simple suburban club providing sport to a hundred or so footballers and netballers. Really is a GM needed at this level or warranted as again, been around footy a long time and a lot of clubs are successful on the back of hard working volunteers than some overpaid GM looking at things to justify their position.

No, the Sandown story is very interesting and could well decide if other clubs going down the same path in spending $$ on a position they know little about. You can 'rubber neck' the situation however if you are interested in the way clubs operate and collect / spend money then the Sandown story could be a classic.
 
Bounceback said:
So cutting to the chase, Mick wanted 2 years and club offered 1 year. Fair call on the club after 4 years +1. Strange the club backed Mick for 4 years and he couldn't back them for 1. Not AFL Mick in demanding 2 years, should have just run with the 1 rather than spitting the dummy. I believe one from our club keen to coach them so good luck.

End of the day the players will be the barometer of the outcome.
Click to expand...

BB, I think you will find there was no dummy spitting and the exit was in all terms very controlled from both parties from all reports with this forum adding more "fire" than there really was. At the end of the day, your not happy, walk away. I think Mick knew of the work that needed to be done at Sandown to win a premiership and 1 more year wasn't going to cut it and wanted to secure 2015 & 16 to win a flag. History shows it's not easy to build a premiership side, new players in, old players out each season, Mount has proven that over the last few years. Luck plays a bigger roll than the bloke who talks to the players. Regardless, the decision was made and I think personally he has a better chance of success at Ashwood than Sandown. Its just my opinion, but Ashwood looks steps ahead of Sandown off the field and has a better platform to launch from. I could be wrong, but that my opinion and time will tell.
 
williemayshays said:
Trust me mate, i know for a fact Mick was pushed out. Im not going to get into arguments on here nor go through all the minor details but here are just a few facts, Mick was told MID season by the GM that he wanted someone else to coach going forward, and didnt think he could take the group any further. it is more to do with the fact that can or can't you work with someone who won't back you, than a 1 year or 2 year deal. The GM also went against the board with the decision and the fall out has led to some significant people on the board to resign. Think of the implications of not having the full backing of the GM, i wouldn't do it either. And to add to that the contract offered was below any offered the previous 4 years, which i would of thought was an insult after the job he has done and considering how Sandown were travelling prior to him coaching. Not a powerhouse, but a solid competitive team who were a more than a match for anyone in the division on their day. i can also tell you if Mick had left for $$$ then he wouldn't be coaching Ashwood as he was offered another coaching position on more money. Just goes to show how little people know.
Click to expand...
Do you make it a habit of writing non factual info mate? Who are you? Don't waste everyone's time with lies. Mick was offered an additional year by the board, simple and no one can dispute that, regardless of what the GM's recommendation was. It's a democracy. Mid season Mick was told his position was being reviewed not that he wasn't wanted. No one can dispute that as well. Report the facts if your going to jump on here!!! And for all the comments from various people about the GM set up at Sandown and how it has worked, do some research!!! instead of speculating. So many mis reported comments.
 
Inside Word said:
Do you make it a habit of writing non factual info mate? Who are you? Don't waste everyone's time with lies. Mick was offered an additional year by the board, simple and no one can dispute that, regardless of what the GM's recommendation was. It's a democracy. Mid season Mick was told his position was being reviewed not that he wasn't wanted. No one can dispute that as well. Report the facts if your going to jump on here!!! And for all the comments from various people about the GM set up at Sandown and how it has worked, do some research!!! instead of speculating. So many mis reported comments.
Click to expand...

IW, no use coming on here telling us to do the research if YOU know the facts. Why not post them to avoid the speculating, if you do in fact know the facts. All we are doing is summarising the posts which vary greatly.
 
oldnuts said:
bigfooty..100% accurate 0% of the time haha. I dont think james hird got as much attention. a division 3 coach has moved on get over it. all this ribbish speculation is helping no one. its a joke how much attention this is getting to be honest.
Click to expand...

Maybe the best post written..... Lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top