Its Time For Trigg To Resign.

[Slippery Pete]

Trigg did NOT want Rendell gone. You can faff about as much as you like but you are just plain wrong on that.

What the hell does this mean?

 

[Allefgib]

Lasted 3 weeks before he opened his mouth.

What did he do and how did the pies handle it?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So either Vlad is lying and forced Trigg to sack Rendell or Trigg is lying and wasn't forced to sack Rendell.

Which one of these people is a proven liar?

Both

 

[Sanders]

You can use the "disgruntled former employee" line to fob it all off......


Like Vlad did last week.

Who knew it was all so easy? Just sack someone, call them disgruntled and crisis averted!

Simple

 

[Sanders]

Whether that would do us any good is unknown though. Trigg may well be an absolute gun at whatever he is employed to do. Keep in mind the "CEO" title is a title. It is not an oracle of meaning.

Oooh its unknown. You're a deep deep thinker, always posing the difficult philosophical questions.

 

[jenny61_99]

Was he sacked?

No. Did I say he was? And of course, going by the train of thought in here... how could they sack Rendell for opening mouth and changing feet when Eddie Everywhere had made a far worse gaff than Rendell ever could and was still at the helm!

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

No. Did I say he was? And of course, going by the train of thought in here... how could they sack Rendell for opening mouth and changing feet when Eddie Everywhere had made a far worse gaff than Rendell ever could and was still at the helm!

You tried very hard to imply he was.

Lasted 3 weeks before he opened his mouth.

If this wasn't implying he was sacked, I don't get the point in making this comment.

 

[jenny61_99]

You tried very hard to imply he was.

If this wasn't implying he was sacked, I don't get the point in making this comment.

He lasted three weeks before he opened his mouth. comprehension not your strong suit?

 

[ManInTheArena]

He lasted three weeks before he opened his mouth. comprehension not your strong suit?

I don't recall the event, but regardless, has he done it since?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

He lasted three weeks before he opened his mouth. comprehension not your strong suit?

Yet opening his mouth whist at the Adelaide Crows was the prime catalyst to getting him fired.

 

[jenny61_99]

Yet opening his mouth whist at the Adelaide Crows was the prime catalyst to getting him fired.

You make it sound like a) he was sacked the first time he did it. He wasn't. And b) what he said should have no consequences. I never thought he deserved to be sacked, but as I said at the time, we were given no choice.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

You make it sound like a) he was sacked the first time he did it. He wasn't. And b) what he said should have no consequences. I never thought he deserved to be sacked, but as I said at the time, we were given no choice.

Hence poor leadership.

We had every choice but chose not to support our employee.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Who knew it was all so easy? Just sack someone, call them disgruntled and crisis averted!

Simple

Most afc supporters are disgruntled with trigg.

Solution is simple

 

[crowded house]

You make it sound like a) he was sacked the first time he did it. He wasn't. And b) what he said should have no consequences. I never thought he deserved to be sacked, but as I said at the time, we were given no choice.

Rubbish. The CEO of the AFC is the one who makes the choice as to whether he was sacked or not. The AFL didn't sack him, the AFC did. Even if 'pressured' from the AFL it is still was the AFC's choice.

Using the 'given no choice' excuse is just an admittance of soft leadership. Either make the decision to sack him, do it and then cop it or don't sack him, but at least own your own bloody decision.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

You make it sound like a) he was sacked the first time he did it. He wasn't. And b) what he said should have no consequences. I never thought he deserved to be sacked, but as I said at the time, we were given no choice.

There is always a choice.

Great leaders generally make the right choices & do the right thing for the good of their organisation.

Trigg is nowhere near a great leader.

He is so out of his depth & if truely had afc's best interests - he would walk from the CEO's role.

 

[Cap]

There is always a choice.

Great leaders generally make the right choices & do the right thing for the good of their organisation.

Trigg is nowhere near a great leader.

He is so out of his depth & if truely had afc's best interests - he would walk from the CEO's role.

But kane, our admin is working towards the most well regarded for compliance in the AFL!!!!

 

[jenny61_99]

There is always a choice.

Great leaders generally make the right choices & do the right thing for the good of their organisation.

Trigg is nowhere near a great leader.

He is so out of his depth & if truely had afc's best interests - he would walk from the CEO's role.

It was a BOARD decision based on Vlads demands, FFS.

 

[crowded house]

So you admit that it was our decision though?
What on earth does 'Vlad's demands' mean? Absolute cop out. Not owning your decision as a board or CEO is pathetic.

Also if it is the case that CEO had no say in the decision then obviously they shouldn't be CEO, and if the board is so easily influenced out of the best interests of the club then they shouldn't be the board.

 

[Elite Crow]

It was a BOARD decision based on Vlads demands, FFS.

So our whole board is ****ed then

 

[ManInTheArena]

Interesting how we couldn't keep Rendell quiet but Collingwood can. Mates culture maybe.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

It was a BOARD decision based on Vlads demands, FFS.

Then the board can go too!

Bottom line is the current "leadership" have taken afc from being a powerhouse to middle of the road club - making plenty of poor decisions along the way. Trigg is a major player in this & does not have the necessary skills to be CEO. He is out of his depth & the Adelaide oval agreement is just the latest example of poor stewardship under his management.. But yes I agree the board should be cleaned out too.

 

[Elite Crow]

I wonder if the board thinks they are doing a good job, jenny can you ask Triggy?

 

[WAG]

I wonder if the board thinks they are doing a good job, jenny can you ask Triggy?

Can you also ask him if he thinks he's doing a good job too.

 

[cmndstab]

I'm not sure what to think about the Adelaide oval agreement. Aren't Port bound by the same agreement? And isn't the consensus that their CEO is doing a great job?

Is the current lack of profit just a short term thing, ie while first-run expenses are incurred during the changeover to Adelaide oval? Or are they projected to continue unless something changes?

 

[Brenton Davy]

I'm not sure what to think about the Adelaide oval agreement. Aren't Port bound by the same agreement? And isn't the consensus that their CEO is doing a great job?

Is the current lack of profit just a short term thing, ie while first-run expenses are incurred during the changeover to Adelaide oval? Or are they projected to continue unless something changes?

Please stop being the voice of reason Stabby. You are spoiling everyone elses fun!

Besides, YOU HAVE WORK TO DO!!!!!!!!!

You know what I mean!