Remove this Banner Ad

Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham - Statement from Barham addressing Merrett etc - 12/9

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
 
Last edited:
Mootsy said:
Barham said he wants to know why teams like the cats, Tigers and pies play so well, couldn’t he just have asked Caracalla and Rutten, lol, they were there!
Click to expand...
They probably told him but it sounded too much like hard work
 
Zach Package said:
Hardwick’s football philosophy aligns with Rutten’s so we would be in the exact same position we are now where the coach reckons we are miles away, the board thinks we should be contending and the list manager disagrees with what we need.

Seems like something we would do.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't Leppitsch's be similar from the time he spent with the Tuggers?
 
boncer34 said:
Tactical nous for mine is our most important requirement.
Click to expand...
Nah, the next coach needs to continue to try and drive cultural change and get them up to speed fitness-wise. It wouldn't surprise me if we go through a couple more coaches over the next few years because I don't think a single coach has the skills to fix the culture, fitness and implement a solid gameplan.
 
Old Campaigner said:
Wouldn't Leppitsch's be similar from the time he spent with the Tuggers?
Click to expand...

Leppa presents an interesting case.

Spat out by the system in kinda similar circumstances to truck really but has coached before and come from a couple of really good footy programs.

I would consider him a compromise because the lense is that we want an experience and we don’t seem to have an open mind but I wouldn’t mind it to be honest.

I’m not sure he does though, didn’t he rule himself out of applying for head coach roles at a point in time?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

ghostdog said:
It sounds like some kind of patron-client system but the club can't allow itself to be the client in that relationship.

Is it accurate to say coterie group people are attracted to the club as a way of enhancing their own perceived power and prestige?
Click to expand...
They are us with money and insider contacts - so Essendon nuffies on steroids.
 
Lore said:
I mean I don't know but I assume so - that and a love of the club. At the end of the day they're just fans with means.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, it's the club brand that gives the club the leverage to determine the level of involvement of the coterie groups. The laws of supply and demand can sort them out, as long as its the club playing that patron role.

For example, narrowing the number of people on the board means access to those people is limited, which increases the perceived value by association. It's not perfect because influence is still influence (legitimate elections are important), but at least narrowing means those entry points for influence are reduced.

The board then also has the scope to offer 'prestigious' sponsorship packages - these have value because they are unique, whatever they are - your family name engraved on a balcony handrail etc. The bottomline is that the club needs to have the gumption to change the system so it is not beholden to the demands of patrons. It must be able to say, this is what we can offer you. You choose.

That could begin to separate/limit coterie influence from club decision making while still incentivising close attachment to the club, if what they're after is glory and fame.
 
ghostdog said:
If that's the case, it's the club brand that gives the club the leverage to determine the level of involvement of the coterie groups. The laws of supply and demand can sort them out, as long as its the club playing that patron role.

For example, narrowing the number of people on the board means access to those people is limited, which increases the perceived value by association. It's not perfect because influence is still influence (legitimate elections are important), but at least narrowing means those entry points for influence are reduced.

The board then also has the scope to offer 'prestigious' sponsorship packages - these have value because they are unique, whatever they are - your family name engraved on a balcony handrail etc. The bottomline is that the club needs to have the gumption to change the system so it is not beholden to the demands of patrons. It must be able to say, this is what we can offer you. You choose.

That could begin to separate/limit coterie influence from club decision making while still incentivising close attachment to the club, if what they're after is glory and fame.
Click to expand...
It would take a tremendous strength to get the numbers to change that system – people will do anything to hold onto the power they have, up to and including withdrawing support and leaving the club in a financial hole.


You want to know why we can't get rid of the pokies? This is Exhibit A.
 
what i want to know is - how the heck have "we asked the players to do too much"
that was quite generous (and confusing) for Rutten to say post match

the players threw you under the bus this year with their incosistent (mostly poor) efforts and execution. if they've been asked to do "too much", i'd hate to see what happens when they are asked to do "less"
 
bacon buster said:
what i want to know is - how the heck have "we asked the players to do too much"
that was quite generous (and confusing) for Rutten to say post match

the players threw you under the bus this year with their incosistent (mostly poor) efforts and execution. if they've been asked to do "too much", i'd hate to see what happens when they are asked to do "less"
Click to expand...
He kind of expanded on it a bit later in the same press conference which clarified a bit – he was referring to asking them to front the club and answering questions from the media last week – both Merrett (on 360) and Hurley (retirement presser) fronted the media before Barham or Campbell. And then asking them to play good footy at the end of it.

There's a real lack of strong leadership at the club, at every level. We know the player leadership is lacking, but they have more courage than the would-be administrators.
 
Lore said:
He kind of expanded on it a bit later in the same press conference which clarified a bit – he was referring to asking them to front the club and answering questions from the media last week – both Merrett (on 360) and Hurley (retirement presser) fronted the media before Barham or Campbell. And then asking them to play good footy at the end of it.

There's a real lack of strong leadership at the club, at every level. We know the player leadership is lacking, but they have more courage than the would-be administrators.
Click to expand...
they haven't displayed that courage on the field this year

i don't buy that excuse anyway. what was the excuse for dialling in a putrid performance round 1?
 
Lore said:
It would take a tremendous strength to get the numbers to change that system – people will do anything to hold onto the power they have, up to and including withdrawing support and leaving the club in a financial hole.


You want to know why we can't get rid of the pokies? This is Exhibit A.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they'd have to be incentivised with something compensatory and substantial... not sure what that might be.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Lore said:
Yes, "your club is *ed and here is why" is really a plea for continuation of employment.

Cynicism is one thing but you're pushing it a bit far if you're not even going to read the article
Click to expand...
It was sour grapes. Worsfold wasn't doing the hard work. He was gifting games to a senior group of players based on reputation and/or wrongs of the past. Gimme more time, chemistry, gimme more time, learnings.

Coaches who lose don't last long, and that's industry wide.
 
eth-dog said:
The meltdown over Hinkley potentially being poached is quite amusing.

His tactical nous is pretty average but he's exactly the guy that we need. He took over Port and they went from a mediocre side that was conceding over 100 points a game for 5 years and then got them conceding approximately 80 ppg.

He also drives standards and is pretty much what we need right now. Need a tactically strong senior assistant to go with it but seriously.
Click to expand...

I wanted Clarkson for the same non footballing reasons. Might not achieve success with us but a strong enough personality to shake the shit out of this tree
 
It could also be interpreted as the higher ups expect too much from what is an average list. Getting pumped by Geelong is only a big deal if you think the team actually could be competitive with the top teams. if you think this is a team that should be rebuilding and is basically doing an accidental re-build anyway, getting pumped by the best team in the comp comes with the territory,
 
bacon buster said:
they haven't displayed that courage on the field this year

i don't buy that excuse anyway. what was the excuse for dialling in a putrid performance round 1?
Click to expand...
That's a completely separate discussion to the question of what the hell he meant by "asking too much of the players".


My opinion basically goes like this:

tl;dr Brayden Ham made us a better side but no one could stomach playing him ahead of the kids, because he's not the future.
  • Gameplan: We built our gameplan around the high pressure, high intensity tackle and harass game style of Richmond.
  • Tackle stats:
    • Last year we had 1327 tackles for the season, with the top 10 being Merrett (112), Snelling (99), Parish (90), Smith (78), Stringer (76), McGrath (66), Langford (57), McDonald-Tipungwuti (56), Guelfi (54), Cox and Heppell (tied on 47). So 681 tackles between them for the season.
    • This year, we had 1057 tackles for the season, with the top 10 being Shiel (83), Caldwell (81), Merrett (76), Parish (50), Guelfi (45), Stringer (45), Perkins (44), Redman (44), Hobbs (43), Laverde (43). That's a total of 554 tackles between them for the season.
  • Injuries: Taken together that's a significant drop off, and the fairly obvious thing to attribute that to is the fact Snelling (injured), Smith (injured/retired), Stringer (injured/out of form), Langford (injured), McDonald-Tipungwuti (out of form/retired), and Cox (injured) have all had significant time out of the game this year.
  • Recruitment: Meanwhile, we didn't bring in mids that will play the team game and tackle, and we knew our small forwards were an issue depth wise, with Walla and Smith were both looking like not being around much in 2022 and potentially beyond, but didn't bring any of those in during the off-season either. We tried to get Bobby Hill last off-season and failed. We eventually got Wanganeen (preseason rookie, injured) and Menzie (mid year draft, debuted in Round 20). That left us with a small forward line up of Waterman, Ham, Smith, Snelling, Guelfi, with Durham and Hobbs mucking in.
  • Player development: We then spent the better part of a year trying to play Guelfi as a forward, and it did eventually click for him, but it's not where he previously played the bulk of his footy and isn't enough to off-set the other losses. We also chose to get games into Perkins, Hobbs, Caldwell, Martin, Durham, rather than play Ham, who would at least have tackled and harassed.
All that taken together, it's not a coincidence that we win way more games while Snelling and Langford were in the team than without them.

Games Snelling played in:
4 point win over Adelaide
10 point loss to West Coast (in WA)
9 point win over Sydney
10 point win over Brisbane (in Brisbane)
48 point win over Gold Coast
4 point loss to Collingwood
48 point win over North Melbourne
27 point loss to the Giants (in Sydney)

Games Snelling didn't play in:
66 point loss to Geelong
22 point loss to Brisbane
29 point loss to Melbourne
48 point loss to Fremantle
11 point loss to Collingwood
32 point loss to Western Bulldogs
27 point win over Hawthorn
58 point loss to Sydney (in Sydney)
32 point loss to Richmond
16 point loss to Port Adelaide (in Adelaide)
26 point loss to Carlton
35 point win over St Kilda
84 point loss to Port Adelaide
66 point loss to Richmond


You can point to changes in game plan mid-year and a bunch of other stuff, but really I think that is the crux of it.
 
yodellinhank said:
It was sour grapes. Worsfold wasn't doing the hard work. He was gifting games to a senior group of players based on reputation and/or wrongs of the past. Gimme more time, chemistry, gimme more time, learnings.

Coaches who lose don't last long, and that's industry wide.
Click to expand...
Ad hominem is a fallacy. You might not like the messenger, but the messenger wasn't wrong.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Lore said:
That's a completely separate discussion to the question of what the hell he meant by "asking too much of the players".


My opinion basically goes like this:

tl;dr Brayden Ham made us a better side but no one could stomach playing him ahead of the kids, because he's not the future.
  • Gameplan: We built our gameplan around the high pressure, high intensity tackle and harass game style of Richmond.
  • Tackle stats:
    • Last year we had 1327 tackles for the season, with the top 10 being Merrett (112), Snelling (99), Parish (90), Smith (78), Stringer (76), McGrath (66), Langford (57), McDonald-Tipungwuti (56), Guelfi (54), Cox and Heppell (tied on 47). So 681 tackles between them for the season.
    • This year, we had 1057 tackles for the season, with the top 10 being Shiel (83), Caldwell (81), Merrett (76), Parish (50), Guelfi (45), Stringer (45), Perkins (44), Redman (44), Hobbs (43), Laverde (43). That's a total of 554 tackles between them for the season.
  • Injuries: Taken together that's a significant drop off, and the fairly obvious thing to attribute that to is the fact Snelling (injured), Smith (injured/retired), Stringer (injured/out of form), Langford (injured), McDonald-Tipungwuti (out of form/retired), and Cox (injured) have all had significant time out of the game this year.
  • Recruitment: Meanwhile, we didn't bring in mids that will play the team game and tackle, and we knew our small forwards were an issue depth wise, with Walla and Smith were both looking like not being around much in 2022 and potentially beyond, but didn't bring any of those in during the off-season either. We tried to get Bobby Hill last off-season and failed. We eventually got Wanganeen (preseason rookie, injured) and Menzie (mid year draft, debuted in Round 20). That left us with a small forward line up of Waterman, Ham, Smith, Snelling, Guelfi, with Durham and Hobbs mucking in.
  • Player development: We then spent the better part of a year trying to play Guelfi as a forward, and it did eventually click for him, but it's not where he previously played the bulk of his footy and isn't enough to off-set the other losses. We also chose to get games into Perkins, Hobbs, Caldwell, Martin, Durham, rather than play Ham, who would at least have tackled and harassed.
All that taken together, it's not a coincidence that we win way more games while Snelling and Langford were in the team than without them.

Games Snelling played in:
4 point win over Adelaide
10 point loss to West Coast (in WA)
9 point win over Sydney
10 point win over Brisbane (in Brisbane)
48 point win over Gold Coast
4 point loss to Collingwood
48 point win over North Melbourne
27 point loss to the Giants (in Sydney)

Games Snelling didn't play in:
66 point loss to Geelong
22 point loss to Brisbane
29 point loss to Melbourne
48 point loss to Fremantle
11 point loss to Collingwood
32 point loss to Western Bulldogs
27 point win over Hawthorn
58 point loss to Sydney (in Sydney)
32 point loss to Richmond
16 point loss to Port Adelaide (in Adelaide)
26 point loss to Carlton
35 point win over St Kilda
84 point loss to Port Adelaide
66 point loss to Richmond


You can point to changes in game plan mid-year and a bunch of other stuff, but really I think that is the crux of it.
Click to expand...
May need to reconsider leaving Snelling out of my 2023 best 22. :think:
 
Most of us have probably heard what Buckley said before, but here’s the transcript:
The other, Nathan Buckley, declared he has so little attraction to the role he could not be swung by a conversation with the club hierarchy.

“But I’d have a chat to them about what I think they need,” Buckley offered on Sunday.

“And I certainly hope they don’t think that just changing the bloke in the senior coach role is going to make all the difference.

“It’s not the way ... (it) is not going to go from where you were to where you want to be.”

While there are only 18 senior coaching positions available in the AFL, Buckley said the Bombers are now in the unique and unedifying position of having to sell themselves to their applicants.

“They need to prove to the person who’s going to go and step in there that they’ve got their ducks in a row,” he said on Fox Sports.

“And I don’t think they have at the moment.”
Click to expand...

AFLCA CEO speaks:
AFL Coaches Association chief executive Alistair Nicholson suggested the rare opportunity to get back into the caper will not entice a veteran coach to immediately sign on.

“All coaches were watching this very closely last week, especially experienced coaches who have an understanding around the politics around football clubs and the emotion and how boards do things,” he told Fox Sports.

“They’ll be wanting to understand what’s the direction, what’s the alignment and most importantly what’s the expectation?

“There’ll definitely be, even before people put their hand up to be part of a process, a lot of work to try to understand that.”
Click to expand...

Lyon has also spoken, I think this is the most interesting part:
Ross Lyon, who had a 65.6 per cent win percentage prior to four losing seasons at the end of his Fremantle tenure, has been linked to nearly every vacant coaching role in the AFL in his three seasons on the sidelines.

But the 55-year-old did not sound like a man ready to jump at the chance to join Essendon when he reacted to Rutten’s sacking on Sunday.

Lyon said the “vibe” is that the powerful Kevin Sheedy wants a club man in James Hird, Mark McVeigh or Dean Solomon, and “good luck to them” if they go down the path of a past player.

“They just need to get unified, because the football people on the board came back with a report that backed in Rutten and the football (department),” Lyon said on Triple M on Sunday.

“So that wasn’t taken - the people in power to make football decisions, they need to leave.

“To be honest, if I had have been a part of that report and then they did what they did, I’d just pack up and go. Pack up and go because you’ve clearly made poor decisions.

“I just think they need unification and it can’t be the coach. It’s been Knights, it’s been Hird and Thompson, it’s been Worsfold and Rutten.

“It can’t be five coaches. But what’s culture? Simply, how we do things on a daily basis.

“What people don’t understand is the money in football department roles, the snouts in the troughs, that’s the reason it’s so political. Because people fight hard to protect their snout in the trough.”

Lyon’s comments came in the same hour he opened up on the contract dispute with St Kilda’s board that led to his shock defection to Fremantle in 2011.
Click to expand...

Browne says Mahoney safe:
7NEWS Melbourne’s Tom Browne understands Essendon football boss Josh Mahoney is safe following the club’s reviews.
Click to expand...
Campbell also safe:
Chief executive Xavier Campbell is also believed to be secure despite arguing
Click to expand...
7news.com.au

Essendon’s Rutten payout revealed as rival coach goes public with one-time offer

The cost of sacking Ben Rutten is significant - but the full impact of the Bombers’ dysfunction is also beginning to emerge.
7news.com.au 7news.com.au
 
If Mahoney is safe hopefully that means the Dodo is going to be made extinct
 
Lore said:
Most of us have probably heard what Buckley said before, but here’s the transcript:


AFLCA CEO speaks:


Lyon has also spoken, I think this is the most interesting part:


Browne says Mahoney safe:

Campbell also safe:

7news.com.au

Essendon’s Rutten payout revealed as rival coach goes public with one-time offer

The cost of sacking Ben Rutten is significant - but the full impact of the Bombers’ dysfunction is also beginning to emerge.
7news.com.au 7news.com.au
Click to expand...
It looks like the senior candidates will vet themselves as they clearly know what the club is cooking up. Nobody wants to he the 2022 Choco.
 
Old Campaigner said:
Nah, the next coach needs to continue to try and drive cultural change and get them up to speed fitness-wise. It wouldn't surprise me if we go through a couple more coaches over the next few years because I don't think a single coach has the skills to fix the culture, fitness and implement a solid gameplan.
Click to expand...
I wish Roos would be interested for 2-3 years purely for culture. I know I know, he lives OS etc etc. I can dream dag nam it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top