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:
Nuggs Bunny said:
Interested to see who they bring along as a consultant assuming the review will look at football operations as much as governance.
Click to expand...
Reckon EY will take a particular focus on engagement & the investment in people from the leaders.
Club needs everyone to connect from top to bottom, left to right.
 
Doss said:
If Madden is indeed departing voluntarily at this point, I don't think this augurs remotely well for the direction the head coach selection is going in.

I get a horrible feeling he's sensing where the wind is blowing and is leaving pre-emptively.

I've said previously in the last few days that the entire board, including Madden, should go, but the timing of this seems ominous to me.
Click to expand...
someone on here mentioned Madden was in line to succeed Brasher. With Brasher deposed and Barham in, can see why Madden leaves.
 
Lore said:
Just going to point out how actually terrible this is.

No respect for the hierarchy or Mahoney's position (the one they put him in by asking him to review his own department), and to leak it back to the guy concerned... like bloody hell, what were you expecting would happen by doing that, except to create friction unnecessarily between people that we all collectively need to be working well together? And that "ensuring the club is working well together" is in your job description as a board member?
Click to expand...

100%

Leaking from the boardroom is unforgivable.

The board member should be removed immediately if that’s what has happened.
 
Lore said:
Just going to point out how actually terrible this is.

No respect for the hierarchy or Mahoney's position (the one they put him in by asking him to review his own department), and to leak it back to the guy concerned... like bloody hell, what were you expecting would happen by doing that, except to create friction unnecessarily between people that we all collectively need to be working well together? And that "ensuring the club is working well together" is in your job description as a board member?
Click to expand...

Bunk Moreland said:
100%

Leaking from the boardroom is unforgivable.

The board member should be removed immediately if that’s what has happened.
Click to expand...
If the negative comments to the board were about Dodoro and have gotten back to Dodoro, then I reckon we have a pretty ****ing reasonable idea who the leaker was.

Clue, they really, really like red wine.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Duckworth said:
so the review backed in Rutten, but Barham sacked him anyway. What a knob.
Click to expand...
But unless I'm getting my wires crossed, Barham never supported the internal review and wanted to go external earlier in the year?
 
Lord Nicholson said:
But unless I'm getting my wires crossed, Barham never supported the internal review and wanted to go external earlier in the year?
Click to expand...
I believe you are right. But he didn't wait for the result of that review either.
 
citizen-erased said:
someone on here mentioned Madden was in line to succeed Brasher. With Brasher deposed and Barham in, can see why Madden leaves.
Click to expand...
Allen was VP and in line to succeed, not Madden. Madden and Wellman were the footy directors that set up much of what we have now and did the reviews and oversight of that on behalf of the board.

This new regime has thrown most of that out with little due process or consideration, so as a person of any integrity all four of the Brasher aligned rump might as well resign, whether or not they like what they think may come next.
 
Duckworth said:
I believe you are right. But he didn't wait for the result of that review either.
Click to expand...
But the whole cause of his breaking ranks was to pursue Clarkson, which you fundamentally can't do if you don't accept the incumbent. And there are clearly enough questions about Rutten's appointment and how that was ushered through, coupled with the philosophy of wanting to pursue a special talent who is free at that time.

You can also push for an external review of the football department and the club and that be separate from the pursuit of that senior coach. A review doesn't have to be one thing or the other. Barham and his eventual bloc were off Rutten from earlier in the year - the outcome of any Brasher-instigated review wasn't going to mean a damn thing if they took power. He wanted Clarkson, full stop, and if you want someone else for that job it means you can't seriously expect the incumbent to continue under any circumstance.

If it spells the demise of the Rutten bloc (incl Campbell, Wellman etc) then maybe its not the worst thing in the world, on the proviso that it kills the Sheedy/Hird nuffie bloc too... which it might not.
 
Lord Nicholson said:
But the whole cause of his breaking ranks was to pursue Clarkson, which you fundamentally can't do if you don't accept the incumbent. And there are clearly enough questions about Rutten's appointment and how that was ushered through, coupled with the philosophy of wanting to pursue a special talent who is free at that time.

You can also push for an external review of the football department and the club and that be separate from the pursuit of that senior coach. A review doesn't have to be one thing or the other. Barham and his eventual bloc were off Rutten from earlier in the year - the outcome of any Brasher-instigated review wasn't going to mean a damn thing if they took power. He wanted Clarkson, full stop, and if you want someone else for that job it means you can't seriously expect the incumbent to continue under any circumstance.

If it spells the demise of the Rutten bloc (incl Campbell, Wellman etc) then maybe its not the worst thing in the world, on the proviso that it kills the Sheedy/Hird nuffie bloc too... which it might not.
Click to expand...
If the goal was to pursue Clarkson (which I believe it was), surely you can't expect to be successful when you contact him so late. Giving other clubs 3 months, and yourself 3 days. Barham is either extremely arrogant or stupid (or both) to believe he could have achieved that.

I'm basing this off his comments, about having a responsibility to the club to try and get Clarkson... whilst also saying a lot of 'We'll have to work that out when he ultimately didn't get close."

I'm not sure what his end game here is, other than to get rid of Rutten.
 
bacon buster said:
so normally you take decisive action on one of the key roles being reviewed BEFORE the review?
righto
Click to expand...

Have you seen:
Yes Minister,
The thick of it,
The games,
Frontline,
The Wire
... etc etc.

No review is ever taken without frames of reference drafted and personal appointed that will lead to a predictable outcome. Because we don't live in a real open source democracy. We live in a world still clouded by monied interests.
 
Duckworth said:
If the goal was to pursue Clarkson (which I believe it was), surely you can't expect to be successful when you contact him so late. Giving other clubs 3 months, and yourself 3 days. Barham is either extremely arrogant or stupid (or both) to believe he could have achieved that.

I'm basing this off his comments, about having a responsibility to the club to try and get Clarkson... whilst also saying a lot of 'We'll have to work that out when he ultimately didn't get close."

I'm not sure what his end game here is, other than to get rid of Rutten.
Click to expand...
Not saying the outcome would have been any different but I don't think the Sheedy comments were part of the plan.

I think Barham was never sold on Rutten (he's not alone) but felt it was essential to at least try some brinkmanship to get Clarkson, especially in light of the Clarkson camp's earlier comments and how long the NM signing took. If there's a 1% chance of doing it and you don't think there's anything worth preserving in the current regime then go for it I guess. There is a version of events from the past week where it is all done much more cleanly and efficiently but the only way we don't wind up where we are now at this point in time is if the entire club abided by the decisions that were made to put these people into their positions. Given that there appear to be at least 3 major factions within the club we are a massive distance from that, which is a product of wet lettuce leaf leadership from Brasher and Campbell.
 
Lord Nicholson said:
Not saying the outcome would have been any different but I don't think the Sheedy comments were part of the plan.

I think Barham was never sold on Rutten (he's not alone) but felt it was essential to at least try some brinkmanship to get Clarkson, especially in light of the Clarkson camp's earlier comments and how long the NM signing took. If there's a 1% chance of doing it and you don't think there's anything worth preserving in the current regime then go for it I guess. There is a version of events from the past week where it is all done much more cleanly and efficiently but the only way we don't wind up where we are now at this point in time is if the entire club abided by the decisions that were made to put these people into their positions. Given that there appear to be at least 3 major factions within the club we are a massive distance from that, which is a product of wet lettuce leaf leadership from Brasher and Campbell.
Click to expand...

With the goal of removing Rutten (now achieved) and the Hail Mary of Clarkson now gone, what do you think is Barhams goal now?
I would at least hope it would be to go though a proper process to find a coach.
 
Duckworth said:
With the goal of removing Rutten (now achieved) and the Hail Mary of Clarkson now gone, what do you think is Barhams goal now?
I would at least hope it would be to go though a proper process to find a coach.
Click to expand...
I would like to dream that this is possible (it would be a first for the club in the modern era) and would like to think this is what he is after, but he will have to either subjugate or unify the other factions (the most dangerous probably being the Hird one since the Rutten lot are cooked).

What concerns me is that there are already preconceived notions about who this coach should be. Coaches with previous senior experience have won exactly none of the last 10 flags, and coaches who win premierships without having one won in their previous tenure, in living memory, are limited to Malthouse at WCE, Parkin's second Carlton stint (but he already had 3 in the bag and 2 at Carlton itself) and Blight who was within a kick of it in 89 anyway. So history is not kind to this notion and it appears to be based on the fact that Rutten didn't have experience, which is kinda ignoring the conceit that Rutten wasn't appointed via a serious process (Barham seems to think he was which doesn't bode well for what Barham thinks is a serious process)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Lord Nicholson said:
But unless I'm getting my wires crossed, Barham never supported the internal review and wanted to go external earlier in the year?
Click to expand...
Nobody supported the internal review. Everyone wanted an external review. Until Barham took control and was exposed as the guy who wanted an external review. Now we love the internal review. Bloody external review spits
 
Just want a quickly pose a thought that may have not gotten through a few of the tinfoil hats here:

- The internal review was announced by Brasher without any formal discussion with the board mid-season, which had reportedly a lot of people internally questioning it because it didn’t go far enough into looking into the club’s issues & we did one 18 months earlier that didn’t cause sustained long term change.

- Said review was then done INTERNALLY by the head of the football department Josh Mahoney with support of the football directors that seems to have said “Nup, things are good here”. Because you’re hardly going to review yourself negatively and taint your reputation whilst possibly getting the flick?

- New guy comes in, initial press conference and behaviour with Rutten was well below what you would expect, but with a mandate of change and building off the internal review with getting opinions from outside the day-to-day operations with the club & scoping the industry for best practice, which is commonplace amongst all well performing organisations.

- Rutten gets the flick, which through sensationalism on here has become to the level of giving Norm Smith the sack. Yes, could have been treated better of course & deserved better, but very hard to point out where we are progressing & not massively regressing over the past 12 months.

- Simon Madden considers walking from the board and that’s a disaster despite the fact that he hasn’t played in 30 years and has been part of the issue? Plus he hardly conducts himself in interviews as an insightful visionary on modern football, rather preferring an “I remember when” approach.
(Yes all time club legend, very good guy & 378 games more than I’ve played)

How about we actually see what the external review delivers in terms of recommendations & any subsequent changes before we completely trash it the premise of it? If it produces no changes and it’s more of the same, by all means rip him to shreds as deserved. We all have pointed out there’s some rotten eggs in the club (old boys club mentality as a starting point), which an external review should point out and provide action for this to be recrified and yet some of us are trashing it because the department who reviewed themselves said they were sweet??

Have we all become so used to complaining over the last 18 years that the first performance induced external review in recent memory is still a cause for complaint rather than some optimism?
 
thebigboy said:
Just want a quickly pose a thought that may have not gotten through a few of the tinfoil hats here:

- The internal review was announced by Brasher without any formal discussion with the board mid-season, which had reportedly a lot of people internally questioning it because it didn’t go far enough into looking into the club’s issues & we did one 18 months earlier that didn’t cause sustained long term change.

- Said review was then done INTERNALLY by the head of the football department Josh Mahoney with support of the football directors that seems to have said “Nup, things are good here”. Because you’re hardly going to review yourself negatively and taint your reputation whilst possibly getting the flick?

- New guy comes in, initial press conference and behaviour with Rutten was well below what you would expect, but with a mandate of change and building off the internal review with getting opinions from outside the day-to-day operations with the club & scoping the industry for best practice, which is commonplace amongst all well performing organisations.

- Rutten gets the flick, which through sensationalism on here has become to the level of giving Norm Smith the sack. Yes, could have been treated better of course & deserved better, but very hard to point out where we are progressing & not massively regressing over the past 12 months.

- Simon Madden considers walking from the board and that’s a disaster despite the fact that he hasn’t played in 30 years and has been part of the issue? Plus he hardly conducts himself in interviews as an insightful visionary on modern football, rather preferring an “I remember when” approach.
(Yes all time club legend, very good guy & 378 games more than I’ve played)

How about we actually see what the external review delivers in terms of recommendations & any subsequent changes before we completely trash it the premise of it? If it produces no changes and it’s more of the same, by all means rip him to shreds as deserved. We all have pointed out there’s some rotten eggs in the club (old boys club mentality as a starting point), which an external review should point out and provide action for this to be recrified and yet some of us are trashing it because the department who reviewed themselves said they were sweet??

Have we all become so used to complaining over the last 18 years that the first performance induced external review in recent memory is still a cause for complaint rather than some optimism?
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is complaining about the external review itself given we all wanted one. It’s moreso that the process of sacking and instating a new coach is being done seperate to the external review. We’re already seeing issues with the coaching appointment process with the restriction of possible candidates. Going for Clarkson and expecting him to sign with us “because we’re a big club” who will beat out months of work from North in 3 days is more of the same thing they’ve done in the last 15 years.

Melbourne, Collingwood and Richmond were in this exact position over the last 6 years and each of them favoured stability (at least throughout the football department) over reactionary decisions.

How it should have looked like is to make an announcement of an external review and leave it at that. No contacting Clarkson, no sacking Rutten, just an announcement. Gives the club some time to properly plan their next course of action out.

Now the club is a complete embarrassment that would have prospective coaching candidates completely put off.
 
JayJ20 said:
I don’t think anyone is complaining about the external review itself given we all wanted one. It’s moreso that the process of sacking and instating a new coach is being done seperate to the external review. We’re already seeing issues with the coaching appointment process with the restriction of possible candidates. Going for Clarkson and expecting him to sign with us “because we’re a big club” who will beat out months of work from North in 3 days is more of the same thing they’ve done in the last 15 years.

Melbourne, Collingwood and Richmond were in this exact position over the last 6 years and each of them favoured stability (at least throughout the football department) over reactionary decisions.

How it should have looked like is to make an announcement of an external review and leave it at that. No contacting Clarkson, no sacking Rutten, just an announcement. Gives the club some time to properly plan their next course of action out.

Now the club is a complete embarrassment that would have prospective coaching candidates completely put off.
Click to expand...

All well and good, however timing is an issue. You can’t run a 4-6 week external review & then a 4 week coaching search. Takes us past trade week and into late October before appointing anyone. Would be horrific for 2023 planning & attractive a strong support staff and having them in place by preseason in November. Hence why ideally it should have been run mid-year rather than Brasher taking the easy option.

They all did stick with stability and add key people around them. They also had key pillars in place off field & IRRC less factional issues. That doesn’t mean that is the only option. Carlton & Collingwood from last year are far closer to where things are here. Off-field dramas leading to instability that needs to be dealt with to clear air for the playing group to succeed.

Do we really want to be St.Kilda going through a second internal review in a row?
 
thebigboy said:
All well and good, however timing is an issue. You can’t run a 4-6 week external review & then a 4 week coaching search. Takes us past trade week and into late October before appointing anyone. Would be horrific for 2023 planning & attractive a strong support staff and having them in place by preseason in November. Hence why ideally it should have been run mid-year rather than Brasher taking the easy option.

They all did stick with stability and add key people around them. They also had key pillars in place off field & IRRC less factional issues. That doesn’t mean that is the only option. Carlton & Collingwood from last year are far closer to where things are here. Off-field dramas leading to instability that needs to be dealt with to clear air for the playing group to succeed.

Do we really want to be St.Kilda going through a second internal review in a row?
Click to expand...
See that’s the thing. We didn’t need to search for another coach. That’s why this whole fiasco is the dumbest and most unnecessary thing the club has done since the saga.

Do the external review, put the recommendations in place. Give Rutten support from a list management perspective. If we’re still bad next year, then we have plenty of time to search for a new coach and nobody sees the club as a complete rabble. This is why good management and leadership is one that doesn’t rush when making decisions.

None of this was necessary.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

fishardansin said:
Have you seen:
Yes Minister,
The thick of it,
The games,
Frontline,
The Wire
... etc etc.

No review is ever taken without frames of reference drafted and personal appointed that will lead to a predictable outcome. Because we don't live in a real open source democracy. We live in a world still clouded by monied interests.
Click to expand...

or as they say, you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to...
 
fishardansin said:
Have you seen:
Yes Minister,
The thick of it,
The games,
Frontline,
The Wire
... etc etc.

No review is ever taken without frames of reference drafted and personal appointed that will lead to a predictable outcome. Because we don't live in a real open source democracy. We live in a world still clouded by monied interests.
Click to expand...
Of course. But you’re not really hiding those interests if you sack someone before the review

Mostly, football reviews are just virtue signalling to appease members and media.

Let’s hope ours is more virtuous than that
 
BomberManU said:
But clearly Rutten wasn't going to be there next year, it's only the Clarkson circus that has caused the issues. Would it be any more palatable sacking Rutten part way through next season, if things didn't improve? He'd lost a number of players, and the important ones as far as holding the team together, according to FC. (For the record, I think he was treated terribly by the club - should have been told Monday and if he wanted to coach the last game, that would be up to him with the support of the club)
Click to expand...
Clearly it’s not the players that re-committed to him and they form the nucleus of the next possible premiership. I don’t care about the players who’ve been in the system of mediocrity for so long. Rutten could have started phasing them out. There must be a time when the tail stops wagging the dog. They’re either in or out.

Also, it’s far better to do it next year than this year because prospective coaches and trade targets aren’t going to be put off by the state of the club. The club is entering a trade period in total shambles which is the last thing this club needs to bounce back from a disappointing year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Lore
  • Locked
Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham
37 38 39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
19K
Lore
Lore
DapperDon
Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Andrew Wealshy - Ted Richards joins the board
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
474
Views
24K
jannissary
jannissary
VelvetSledge
  • Locked
MVP 2025 BigFooty Essendon Board POTY Award - Zach Merrett wins Number 7!
Replies
23
Views
3K
VelvetSledge
VelvetSledge
Lore
  • Poll
Win Prizes The Scales 2025 Essendon Board Poster of the Year - Congratulations Doss!
Replies
17
Views
1K
doug85
doug85
Lore
  • Locked
Win Prizes The Scales Essendon Board Poster of the Year 2025 - Nomination Thread
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
bommer16
bommer16
Harlequin
AFL Autopsy RND 12: Beaten By The Lions
2 3 4 5
Replies
119
Views
5K
windyhill
windyhill
I Remember Bluey
News Fujitsu and Essendon co-major partnership concludes after 12 years
Replies
7
Views
492
DapperDon
DapperDon

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top