Barry Prendergasts big week

[Demon 16]

Interesting read - again its a long article so Ill just post the link;

http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/crunch-time-for-demons-man/2009/11/20/1258219969392.html

Nice to know we've got possibly the best in this position during a period of such significant drafting activity for the club. He seems to have a very independant thought process and Ive heard from good sources that he has a high work ethic as well.

 

[SolidTiger]

"When I ask him the decision-making process involved in draft picks, he says, ''The other stakeholders have to be involved'' - that is, the coaching staff, the board of the club and the CEO."

I found this sentance int eh article interesting. Why would the board or the CEO have any input into who select? Are they looking at the marketablity of the player?

I personally think there should only be two main departments when it comes making a decision on who to select. The recruiting staff and the coaching staff. The coaching staff to decide what needs to be added to the list and the recruiting staff to find the best people to provide those needs. I can't see how the board or the CEO can have any valuable input.

 

[Demon Revival]

As long as he spits out the right player number on the night, I don't care.... Good luck Barry, the pressure will be on...

 

[Andy_Mac]

Im glad that these choices are not made in isolation. Personally i'm glad Chris C and even Big Jim will be part of the process. This draft will be the most important for Melbourne in my living memory. We have a chance to put a couple of big parts of the puzzle in place with 4 top 20 picks.

The team showed real potential towards the end of the year. A lot of teams and opposition fans sat up and took notice, particularly the Freo game when we were given an opportunity we belted the suitcases out of them. Running in numbers and piling the goal on.

Melbourne

 

[Dez!]

Thank God they aren't doing the top 10 live though, makes it absolutely certain there is no stuff ups with reading out picks 1 and 2.

BP was shaky with this last year.

 

[afterburner]

Why would the board or the CEO have any input into who select? Are they looking at the marketablity of the player?

I personally think there should only be two main departments when it comes making a decision on who to select. The recruiting staff and the coaching staff. The coaching staff to decide what needs to be added to the list and the recruiting staff to find the best people to provide those needs. I can't see how the board or the CEO can have any valuable input.

The board and CEO are charged with running the club. They are key stackholdes of the club and as such have a say in, and indeed are ultimately responsible for the long term success of the club.

The football dept can't live in isolation. Perhaps this was Richmonds downfall during the Wallace era?

 

[StingaArmstrong]

I would say the board would little input in who is drafted, but will most likely have to approve and "sign off" the choices as part of the board's management of the club.

 

[Mr Rude]

The board and CEO are charged with running the club. They are key stackholdes of the club and as such have a say in, and indeed are ultimately responsible for the long term success of the club.

The football dept can't live in isolation. Perhaps this was Richmonds downfall during the Wallace era?

Solid Tiger is correct, and you sir are wrong.

The recruiting staff are payed to do exactley that, recruit and get it right.

The board and CEO are there for totally different reasons, they should have no input on the drafting process of players. Prendergast, Harrington and the rest of the team are there to build us a list and should be left to do so in the manner they see fit. Im sure they can work out how many talls, fowards, backs, mids and rucks we have/need.

Imagine Jeff Kennett with that sort of power. Hawthorn probaley wouldnt have drafted Franklin because Jeff didnt like the name Lance.

Leave the people be to do the job there paid to do and have faith they will get it right.

And your Richmond comment about the Wallace era is a complete balls up. I think you will find Greg Miller had his head in nearly every office at Punt Rd trying to do a million jobs and that Terry made a lot of calls himself on who he wanted recruited to the club. A lot of busy bodies round the place really worked well for them.

 

[WattsGoodForYou]

Solid Tiger is correct, and you sir are wrong.

The recruiting staff are payed to do exactley that, recruit and get it right.

The board and CEO are there for totally different reasons, they should have no input on the drafting process of players. Prendergast, Harrington and the rest of the team are there to build us a list and should be left to do so in the manner they see fit. Im sure they can work out how many talls, fowards, backs, mids and rucks we have/need.

Imagine Jeff Kennett with that sort of power. Hawthorn probaley wouldnt have drafted Franklin because Jeff didnt like the name Lance.

Leave the people be to do the job there paid to do and have faith they will get it right.

And your Richmond comment about the Wallace era is a complete balls up. I think you will find Greg Miller had his head in nearly every office at Punt Rd trying to do a million jobs and that Terry made a lot of calls himself on who he wanted recruited to the club. A lot of busy bodies round the place really worked well for them.

I agree that the recruiters and definitely most knowledgeable and experts in what they , though i can see that consultation with the board would be important. Not in a sense of recruiting but more like a checking process, they may ask things like "why player X over player Y?" just to make sure things are tight and scenarios rehearsed. ThoughI would highly doubt they have any imput only if they thought a player may be a concern or incompatible with the club and its goals , like the Luke Ball situation for an exmaple or if a player had criminal issues. I would highly doubt though that if a board member didnt like a player for a petty reason i.e "People from Wattle Park are w***ers don't draft him" (Note people from Wattle Park are not w***ers my old man is from there), that it would have any infulence as they are seperate entities and with different jobs. Though in the end it is good to be informed so issues such as accomodation for interstate players and such can be assisted in organisation etc.

 

[afterburner]

Solid Tiger is correct, and you sir are wrong.

The recruiting staff are payed to do exactley that, recruit and get it right.

The board and CEO are there for totally different reasons, they should have no input on the drafting process of players. Prendergast, Harrington and the rest of the team are there to build us a list and should be left to do so in the manner they see fit. Im sure they can work out how many talls, fowards, backs, mids and rucks we have/need.

Imagine Jeff Kennett with that sort of power. Hawthorn probaley wouldnt have drafted Franklin because Jeff didnt like the name Lance.

Leave the people be to do the job there paid to do and have faith they will get it right.

And your Richmond comment about the Wallace era is a complete balls up. I think you will find Greg Miller had his head in nearly every office at Punt Rd trying to do a million jobs and that Terry made a lot of calls himself on who he wanted recruited to the club. A lot of busy bodies round the place really worked well for them.

You really have no idea how a professional organisation runs do you?

At no stage has anyone made claims that the board and CEO have some sort of Veto power over who is picked in the draft. Your comment on Kennett shows you somehow have this belief though...

The board and the CEO set the direction of the club. Within this is the scope that the recruiting dept must abide by. They are ultimately responsible to the board for they decisions they make because the board appoint them.

Leadership and culture comes from the top. Prendigast's job is pick the players he feels are the best for the football club at each selection. The board is charged with ensuring these players best fit with the long term vision, culture and future of the club. To suggest the board, in setting this leadership are not stakeholders in this decision shows a lack of understanding in how a professionally run organisation ensures long term success.

The board are responsible to the members, and would be negligent in their duties if they were not part of this process. Their role is not to do the recruiting, but to ensure the recruiting is following the process they set for success. If this success is not acheived, the members vote them out.

Richmond failed because Miller had no long term plans to build the list. Wallace picked who he felt was best because he was coaching to save his job. Your post, whilst attempting to disagree with me, reinforces my point.

Cheers

 

[RandB]

I agree that the recruiters and definitely most knowledgeable and experts in what they , though i can see that consultation with the board would be important. Not in a sense of recruiting but more like a checking process, they may ask things like "why player X over player Y?" just to make sure things are tight and scenarios rehearsed.

This is the most likely scenario that BP was referring to when he used the term "involved". He can't just jot down some player names in a book and wait 'till draft day to call them out without the club having endorsed his processes. Even though BP ultimately makes the decisions, it is the club that is selecting these players, not BP. From that pov there has to be some sort of club solidarity otherwise BP is potentially hanging himself out to dry - I think it is important that everyone is on the same page. I doubt his decision making process would be compromised on the available talent although simpler decisions like 1 and 2 Scully/Trengove or Trengove/Scully may fall to the club.

 

[Mr Rude]

You really have no idea how a professional organisation runs do you?

At no stage has anyone made claims that the board and CEO have some sort of Veto power over who is picked in the draft.Your comment on Kennett shows you somehow have this belief though...

The board and the CEO set the direction of the club. Within this is the scope that the recruiting dept must abide by. They are ultimately responsible to the board for they decisions they make because the board appoint them.

Leadership and culture comes from the top. Prendigast's job is pick the players he feels are the best for the football club at each selection. The board is charged with ensuring these players best fit with the long term vision, culture and future of the club. To suggest the board, in setting this leadership are not stakeholders in this decision shows a lack of understanding in how a professionally run organisation ensures long term success.

The board are responsible to the members, and would be negligent in their duties if they were not part of this process. Their role is not to do the recruiting, but to ensure the recruiting is following the process they set for success. If this success is not acheived, the members vote them out.

Richmond failed because Miller had no long term plans to build the list. Wallace picked who he felt was best because he was coaching to save his job. Your post, whilst attempting to disagree with me, reinforces my point.

Cheers

1)
Pretty obvious our last few boards, President and CEO's dont have any idea either then do they?

2)
Oh yeah they were fantastic for us under Paul Gardner. Really responsible financially and on field they crippled us. And they only left because Jimmy had the balls to tell them to leave.
Members dont know half the goings on at board level they just paint the pretty picture for us and tell us (the members) the postives until it gets so dire like it has for us for the last 2 years.

3)
Is that right? Is that why they selected Deledio, Oakley-Nicholls, Pattinson, Myer, Polo, Hughes, Reiwoldt and Tambling. All top 20 picks. Is that trying to save your job? Not like they have traded away any draft picks of substance for expierenced players.
Give me a break that is just flat out shite recruiting.

 

[afterburner]

1)
Pretty obvious our last few boards, President and CEO's dont have any idea either then do they?

2)
Oh yeah they were fantastic for us under Paul Gardner. Really responsible financially and on field they crippled us. And they only left because Jimmy had the balls to tell them to leave.
Members dont know half the goings on at board level they just paint the pretty picture for us and tell us (the members) the postives until it gets so dire like it has for us for the last 2 years.

3)
Is that right? Is that why they selected Deledio, Oakley-Nicholls, Pattinson, Myer, Polo, Hughes, Reiwoldt and Tambling. All top 20 picks. Is that trying to save your job? Not like they have traded away any draft picks of substance for expierenced players.
Give me a break that is just flat out shite recruiting.

Way to go to answer none of my points.....

I didn't realise that BP was discussing our draft picks with the previous board. Can you point to the section in the article where it demonstrates that?

I agree the previous administration did a lousy job, hence the previous part! As I mentioned they are accountable to the members, and guess what? The members voted them out, myself included.

As for Richmond, again you helped me enhance my point. With no clear strategy, seemingly no communication, and a proven history of no leadership at board level, they had eight top 20 picks (according to your list above) and all bar 1 are duds. You are defending them fairly vehemently though, so I'm forced to ask, are you actually a Richmond supporter?

Richmond have played in three final series in my lifetime. They are the model of what not to do.

But that's all off topic. BP is the head of recruitment, not the only recruiter we have. Others at the club, the CEO, the president, and the board included have a right to be part of the process to ensure BP is covering all bases. It is not their role to second guess his decisions, but it is their role to hold him accountable for his selections and ensure he has followed a rigorous process prior to any names being called out. That is how you run an organisation, and that is all he is saying in the article.

 

[Mr Rude]

Way to go to answer none of my points.....

I didn't realise that BP was discussing our draft picks with the previous board. Can you point to the section in the article where it demonstrates that?

I agree the previous administration did a lousy job, hence the previous part! As I mentioned they are accountable to the members, and guess what? The members voted them out, myself included.

As for Richmond, again you helped me enhance my point. With no clear strategy, seemingly no communication, and a proven history of no leadership at board level, they had eight top 20 picks (according to your list above) and all bar 1 are duds. You are defending them fairly vehemently though, so I'm forced to ask, are you actually a Richmond supporter?

Richmond have played in three final series in my lifetime. They are the model of what not to do.

But that's all off topic. BP is the head of recruitment, not the only recruiter we have. Others at the club, the CEO, the president, and the board included have a right to be part of the process to ensure BP is covering all bases. It is not their role to second guess his decisions, but it is their role to hold him accountable for his selections and ensure he has followed a rigorous process prior to any names being called out. That is how you run an organisation, and that is all he is saying in the article.

Im not defending them at all, all im trying to say is too many cooks spoil the broth. Richmond clearly had that.

 

[Demon 16]

I would think that the board pretty much empowers the football department to control these types of football decisions.

The main areas I could see them 'being invloved' are to observe that the recruiting staff are being diligent in their processes and application. After all the board has effectively emplyed them and must make sure they are doing a good job.

And also on the odd occasion they may consider a certain player to be not appropriate for the culture or image of the club - nothing to do with footballing abilities or matters. An example might be drafting a player who has had multiple drink driving offenses when the club is on the verge of arranging a sponsorship agreement with the TAC.

Or Troy Taylor being considered worthy of pick 18 on football ability but the board rules him out as he has significant violent and criminal convictions on his record. Just an example.

 

[Mr Rude]

I would think that the board pretty much empowers the football department to control these types of football decisions.

The main areas I could see them 'being invloved' are to observe that the recruiting staff are being diligent in their processes and application. After all the board has effectively emplyed them and must make sure they are doing a good job.

And also on the odd occasion they may consider a certain player to be not appropriate for the culture or image of the club - nothing to do with footballing abilities or matters. An example might be drafting a player who has had multiple drink driving offenses when the club is on the verge of arranging a sponsorship agreement with the TAC.

Or Troy Taylor being considered worthy of pick 18 on football ability but the board rules him out as he has significant violent and criminal convictions on his record. Just an example.

If Taylor somehow slipped to 34 would you guys be for it?

Id love him at 18 but cant see that happening.

 

[Demon 16]

If Taylor somehow slipped to 34 would you guys be for it?

Id love him at 18 but cant see that happening.

Would be tempting on football ability.

Armed robbery and only a couple of years ago so its not like hes just gone and stolen a Freddo frog at the age of 11 or something. Pretty serious stuff and we've got a young group remember. With limited information Id be more likely to pass.

 

[master bate]

Would be tempting on football ability.

Armed robbery and only a couple of years ago so its not like hes just gone and stolen a Freddo frog at the age of 11 or something. Pretty serious stuff and we've got a young group remember. With limited information Id be more likely to pass.

But how old was he at the time? If a 16 year old or whatever he was is doing that stuff it is not a great reflection on his character but it is just as much a part of who he was associating with. Put the same kid who has matured in 2 years into an AFL system with Aaron Davey and co and I don't think he'll make as great a mistakes.

 

[Demon 16]

But how old was he at the time? If a 16 year old or whatever he was is doing that stuff it is not a great reflection on his character but it is just as much a part of who he was associating with. Put the same kid who has matured in 2 years into an AFL system with Aaron Davey and co and I don't think he'll make as great a mistakes.

Yeh maybe more likely that he'd turn the corner than not, but I wouldnt want to gamble too heavily on it - if it went wrong it could be very ugly. Its not like hes touted as the next Tom Scully or Jack Watts.

Maybe a good project for Freo at pick 20? Ive heard West Coast have no interest.