VFL Past #65: Shaun McKernan 🐴 - Returns to the Dons

Remove this Banner Ad

I thought he'd been told he wouldn't be offered a contract and then there was that weird thing after his last game where some of us assumed he was retiring but it later came out he was telling the boys he'd been moved on. I dunno though. :shrug:
 
He was dropped about round 12 after a terrible run of form. He 'retired' after being told he wont be getting another contract. He did a speech in the change rooms after the last game, round 18, because all the boys were clapping, i think TBell was giving a speech too as that was the non-farewell game. Saints threw him a lifeline same as Frawley so he took it. 150k or whatever it is for a rookie contract, may as well.
 
Whether he departed of his own volition or was delisted, it ultimately doesn't matter in this context.

I don't want to blow the whole issue out as being any important than it is, but the entire point of getting feedback from departing players is to glean information that might help the club moving forward. The idea that a player's feedback is deemed less important because they're a) not very good, b) young or c) disaffected is pretty troubling if there's any truth to it.

The most uncomfortable and negative feedback is often the feedback you can ultimately learn most from. Now, sure - there might be circumstances that mean you ultimately judge a player's opinions are somewhat compromised by the manner of their time at the club or their departure, but not seeking it in the first place is hopeless.

Of course, the departure of a gun like Saad is what prompts the worst repercussions but who knows, it might just be a fringe player or a player who has battled mental health issues who really cuts to the heart of an issue and gives a club the most valuable insight. But we'll never know that if we pick and choose who to do exit interviews with.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Doss said:
Whether he departed of his own volition or was delisted, it ultimately doesn't matter in this context.

I don't want to blow the whole issue out as being any important than it is, but the entire point of getting feedback from departing players is to glean information that might help the club moving forward. The idea that a player's feedback is deemed less important because they're a) not very good, b) young or c) disaffected is pretty troubling if there's any truth to it.

The most uncomfortable and negative feedback is often the feedback you can ultimately learn most from. Now, sure - there might be circumstances that mean you ultimately judge a player's opinions are somewhat compromised by the manner of their time at the club or their departure, but not seeking it in the first place is hopeless.

Of course, the departure of a gun like Saad is what prompts the worst repercussions but who knows, it might just be a fringe player or a player who has battled mental health issues who really cuts to the heart of an issue and gives a club the most valuable insight. But we'll never know that if we pick and choose who to do exit interviews with.
Click to expand...
I would’ve thought that’s why you have exit interviews? That’s standard practice across all clubs as far as I know, and best practice in other workplaces too.

If you’re planning to interview 25% of the workforce and if your goal is to clear the air so that we can all move forward in 2021 (inside and outside the club) then proportional representation makes sense.

25% of the ones that left, stayed, 1st-4th years, senior players, support staff, coaches, etc etc. If I am selecting 3 out of 12 players who left the club then as I said I’d prioritise the ones who are actively leaving because of the culture. If the others also have something they want to say they should be welcome to though.

The other way to do it is to draw names out of the hat for a random sample but you may end up with a poor sample that way.

Having said that, if you wanted a truly independent perspective on everything that was wrong with the club you’d need a fully independent external review, which is not a new criticism. And in that case you probably interview everyone, leave no stone unturned.
 
Seems like he was having issues before the hub ...and he was not offered a contract by the club. To be honest with attitude like this he should’ve pissed off before the hubs...

“I wasn’t really looking forward to training, probably wasn’t really looking forward to being diligent with recovery. I just wanted to get in and get out, wanted to go home. This is even before COVID hit, to be honest.
Click to expand...
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
Not sure I understand what you’re asking and how it’s relevant
Click to expand...
I'm saying you'd probably be "pissing off" more players than just McKernan if that's the bar you set. Delisting the majority of the side is pretty much what I've been posting for years so it's probably a good idea, right?

The relevance is that maybe getting feedback off a guy like McKernan of why we've had players who don't want to commit themselves (maybe avoid the next Joe Daniher situation). We might even develop an understanding of why players seem to operate on an individual basis so often and team structures keep falling down?
 
Lore said:
I would’ve thought that’s why you have exit interviews? That’s standard practice across all clubs as far as I know, and best practice in other workplaces too.

If you’re planning to interview 25% of the workforce and if your goal is to clear the air so that we can all move forward in 2021 (inside and outside the club) then proportional representation makes sense.

25% of the ones that left, stayed, 1st-4th years, senior players, support staff, coaches, etc etc. If I am selecting 3 out of 12 players who left the club then as I said I’d prioritise the ones who are actively leaving because of the culture. If the others also have something they want to say they should be welcome to though.

The other way to do it is to draw names out of the hat for a random sample but you may end up with a poor sample that way.

Having said that, if you wanted a truly independent perspective on everything that was wrong with the club you’d need a fully independent external review, which is not a new criticism. And in that case you probably interview everyone, leave no stone unturned.
Click to expand...
I'd be asking those we sacked if they didnt get the best out of themselves because of something club related.

Those leaving coz of culture will have expressed themselves when asking for a trade, interviewing them as part of a review seems superfluous.

You don't have to do a full review to conduct exit interviews with everyone. We don't need to ask McGrath for example, hes still here. If he had issues he'd speak up (hopefully).
 
boncer34 said:
I'd be asking those we sacked if they didnt get the best out of themselves because of something club related.
Click to expand...
Not sure if that would work.

"Hey, you're fired. Our fault? Maybe. Tell us more."
 
DapperJong said:
Not sure if that would work.

"Hey, you're fired. Our fault? Maybe. Tell us more."
Click to expand...
Oh it's end up as a excuse fest for sure. But amongst the excuses you might get something useful. Can't hurt to ask.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

MY BOY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

eth-dog
VFL Senior #65: Oscar Duncan
Replies
0
Views
234
eth-dog
eth-dog
eth-dog
VFL Senior #55: Tom Phillips
Replies
1
Views
474
naraku
naraku
eth-dog
VFL Senior #54 Toby Murray
Replies
0
Views
454
eth-dog
eth-dog
B
VFL Game Day Round 4: Essendon vs Casey @ The Hangar, 2pm Sun 16 April 2023
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
ant555
ant555
eth-dog
VFL Game Day Round 7: Essendon vs Werribee, The Hangar, Sunday 07/05/23, 2:05 PM
Replies
17
Views
1K
ant555
ant555
eth-dog
VFL Game Day Round 1: Essendon vs GWS, The Hangar, Sunday 26/03/23 @ 2:05 PM
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
5K
TheGrizz
TheGrizz
eth-dog
VFL Past #67: Quinton Narkle - Joins Port Adelaide AFL in the mid-season draft - 31/5
Replies
13
Views
1K
Vindicater
Vindicater

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top