Choco Gone

[Schulzenfest]

I agree. There's no way Choco wanted to leave. No way at all.

 

[PortBrillance]

pretty clear that he was sacked but to basicly call the President a liar is a total disgrace. Cornes you're a ****head

 

[Malibu#27]

[YOUTUBE]j9ENmPITHRY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]l5BSK2eZmUQ[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]KYgUrir76yQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Malthouse has his say.

It's an easy out to sack the coach

 

[b0ydman]

Yeah FSC & Boydman (the first offenders who spring to mind) have been unrelentingly, hysterically negative and irrational to the point of idiocy about him .

yeah, thats right, shoot the frikking messenger. its not like it wasn't totally, utterly broken at the club now was it

its not like we ended up losing 8 on the trot with no light at the end of the tunnel. grovelling on our knees to the afl to unzip a lifeline. watching crowds shrink players leave the club and ..shall i go on

you know, its not like it WASN'T glaringly obvious from GF2007....-119 points, that we were going backwards and sinking now was it? all this wasn't foreseeable when they reappointed him and we had 3 mid-year urgency whats happening reviews in a row?

how predictable was it? ask REH for his mid season predictions on PAFC each year. once the heavier grounds came we were toast but pig headded choco wouldnt accept that


i am assuming you are factoring in my glory days at The other fan site before they banned me cos i kept going on since 2007 GF about WHY we had to sack choco to save the club, plus my unrelenting posts here

So, to the point of idiocy vs to the point of complete and utter destruction of the club. hmm. yeah, i was prepared to be the banging drum. to just one day find out i couldnt log in to another fan forum simply cos i didn't speak the party line.

you're right. the LAST thing our board needed was hard core passionate fans being unrelenting about saving the club and avoiding a team being destroyed and mentally damaged tot he point of no resurrection. all was going swimmingly

i ask you, do you think the president and those board who were a) around and b) actually care for PAFC, would have had the urgency and confidence to walk choco last week is they didnt receive those emails and feedback from passionate supporters here urging them the fire the bullet?

there is nothing wrong with a subsequent expression of thanks for what choco did do for our club either. calling out TSW is sanctimoneous.

and there was nothing wrong with agitating to move him on for his and our sakes. unless i need to read the rules of posting here and they are a copy of another web forum whch seems to have unwavering RCG wearing as an article of faith.

i personally think that the only thing wrong through it all was pulling the string in ones back and repeating to oneself "i support choco" "the board know more than me" "the match selection committee know more than we do".

we all know where that got us. in fact i would go as far to say that those who tsk tsked the agitators ENABLED the rot to set it and choco to stuff the club up and then perpetuated it. listening to the dribble from them last year upon his reappointment "well i will support him now its in the best interest of the club". funny how it was not acceptable for me and others to stay committed from day 1 that his reappointment would be a disaster, but the board are allowed to change their mind

maybe if MORE people joined in a year ago and let their voices be known to the board he wouldn't have been re-appointed. ever consider that?


the only thing worth agitating for now is the removal of some people on the board. they CANNOT, i repeat they cannot walk choco after reappointing him in the circumstances they did, and not fall on some of their swords. if they remain it speaks volumes. but then that they reappointed him speaks volumes

as does the players and coaches accepting the match payment for the abominations on GF2007 and the 140th celebration/ humiliation. i think that speaks louder than the deficiencies choco had.

please tell me. what part was irrational?

 

[Portology]

'bullets, grovelling and abominations' to name a few.

I get your point, and I agree with what is behind your sentiments. I was not in favour of re appointing Choco last year myself. Thing is though, did you send a rambling email like your last post to the board yourself ? Did you ever think sending them that sort of orange-crayon-on-loo-paper rant did a lot to paint the anti-Choco people as hysterical and irrational and actually contributed to him being re-appointed because any legitimate part of your message is completely lost in the emotion and hate ?

Enjoy the game tonight - I hope

 

[bomberclifford]

Malthouse has his say.

It's an easy out to sack the coach

Mick says:

Is it going to bring them more members? No it won't.
Is it going to get them more sponsorship? I doubt it.

Sorry Mick, you're wrong.

These two reasons are EXACTLY why Choco had to go. Far more than any performance issues. Our current injury list that has caused our likely-to-continue losing streak was a convenient excuse to take action but it was always about the effect that Choco's tenure has had on the perception of the club, which has had a very real impact on membership and sponsorship.

My prediction is that for the next 18 months, our club will lose more than it wins, but paradoxically, our membership numbers and sponsorship opportunities will both improve.

 

[Frank Spencer Clone]

Yeah FSC & Boydman (the first offenders who spring to mind) have been unrelentingly, hysterically negative and irrational to the point of idiocy about him and "sue him" is definitely dumbest thread ever but it is also a bit %^&*ing early for the canonization advocates like PeacefulWarrior to be making their case for sainthood while the wounds are still so raw. Please wait until we're up and running well at, oh, about 5-2 next May under next coach with some visible on field differences then think real hard about your case when starting the first "riding on Choco's shoulders" thread.

Now just steady down a tad there sunshine.
I don't mind people coming back at me with comments about my inaccuracy for certain details regarding Williams' coaching record, but I will call you for the use of such terms as hysterically negative and rrational to the point of idiocy.
As others have noted, I have watched the decline of this club through the Williams years, most markedly since 2007 but all through the journey.It's OK to focus on win loss ratios but it goes further than that. You have to ask yourself why our membership base didn't increase significantly during 2001 - 04 when we were at the peak of our onfield power? And why our crowds have been poor,and the constant butt of negative comment despite this run of winning form? And why we have struggled to attract sponsorship dollars despite all of the success in the same period?
Simply put - people want to watch attacking, attractive football, not negative defensive crud. And sponsors will be reluctant to pour in money to a club whose frontman will use the exposure of a premiership dais to air derogatory remarks about them.
Which all means this. The board had to act. Williams has been damaging the brand of his employer for years. If you or I did that, we'd be out the door in weeks. Three written warnings, and out. While the club was winning more games than it lost, Williams was able to avoid scrutiny on the other points, as soon as the losing cycle started he was always a dead man walking.
He has the ability to polarise people which in business is not a positive. His pigheaded attitude to selection, drafting, trading and his Gold Pass regime eroded confidence in the playing group resulting in the woeful thrashings we have been seeing of late. Once the side gets behid, they simply doubt their ability and roll over.
And I believe this is why Matthew Primus has been placed as caretaker coach as he is a much more personable identity who the club believes will galvanise supporters, members, players and sponsors.
The problem with most Chocophiles is they can't see the big picture. They see the 2004 flag and nothing else.

 

[Del80659]

can anyone shed some light on the cornes drill? chad better play his guts out for what choco's done for him.

 

[Forzaport]

These two reasons are EXACTLY why Choco had to go. Far more than any performance issues. Our current injury list that has caused our likely-to-continue losing streak was a convenient excuse to take action but it was always about the effect that Choco's tenure has had on the perception of the club, which has had a very real impact on membership and sponsorship.

My prediction is that for the next 18 months, our club will lose more than it wins, but paradoxically, our membership numbers and sponsorship opportunities will both improve.

MM wrote a great article that was ruined by those two lines. His point about the board not taking enough responsibility for their decisions was spot on.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

The way Essendon are going against West Coast, Choco could have a job by the end of the week.

 

[klem22]

Now just steady down a tad there sunshine.
I don't mind people coming back at me with comments about my inaccuracy for certain details regarding Williams' coaching record, but I will call you for the use of such terms as hysterically negative and rrational to the point of idiocy.
As others have noted, I have watched the decline of this club through the Williams years, most markedly since 2007 but all through the journey.It's OK to focus on win loss ratios but it goes further than that. You have to ask yourself why our membership base didn't increase significantly during 2001 - 04 when we were at the peak of our onfield power? And why our crowds have been poor,and the constant butt of negative comment despite this run of winning form? And why we have struggled to attract sponsorship dollars despite all of the success in the same period?
Simply put - people want to watch attacking, attractive football, not negative defensive crud. And sponsors will be reluctant to pour in money to a club whose frontman will use the exposure of a premiership dais to air derogatory remarks about them.
Which all means this. The board had to act. Williams has been damaging the brand of his employer for years. If you or I did that, we'd be out the door in weeks. Three written warnings, and out. While the club was winning more games than it lost, Williams was able to avoid scrutiny on the other points, as soon as the losing cycle started he was always a dead man walking.
He has the ability to polarise people which in business is not a positive. His pigheaded attitude to selection, drafting, trading and his Gold Pass regime eroded confidence in the playing group resulting in the woeful thrashings we have been seeing of late. Once the side gets behid, they simply doubt their ability and roll over.
And I believe this is why Matthew Primus has been placed as caretaker coach as he is a much more personable identity who the club believes will galvanise supporters, members, players and sponsors.
The problem with most Chocophiles is they can't see the big picture. They see the 2004 flag and nothing else.

GREAT WRAP UP FSC

 

[bomberclifford]

MM wrote a great article that was ruined by those two lines. His point about the board not taking enough responsibility for their decisions was spot on.

It was a good article but those two points really stuck out and showed that Mick misunderstands the predicament we're in.

As far as the board taking responsibility for their decisions, when has *any* board ever taken responsibility?

Boards are only held accountable in a structure where they are answerable to a voting constituency and in our club's case, we the members are only in that constituency by proxy. Our board is answerable to two parties only—SSANFL and AFL—and they only care about us when it has an effect on their bottom line.

Until such time as our club is the holder of its own license, we will always have a board that is unaccountable to us the members.

 

[Rave Slave]

Apparently old Chocolate is being sounded out to see if he likes the colour 'navy'.

Not sure todays efforts will have done anything to change that either.

 

[finbarr]

Apparently old Chocolate is being sounded out to see if he likes the colour 'navy'.

Not sure todays efforts will have done anything to change that either.

Well he'll have to take the "look at all the high draft picks they've had in recent years" out of his excuse repertoire then. That will make his press conferences interesting.

 

[Portology]

Apparently old Chocolate is being sounded out to see if he likes the colour 'navy'.

Given Carlton have a culture of putting megastars on a pedestal, of being relatively forgiving of poor off field behavior and bad on field discipline for those on the pedestal, play with a rag tag team of small KPFs and a 'star studded midfield' yet still got reamed by Sydney, I can see why he'd be comfortable there. I can see what Choco sees: all that and a ready developed midfield too. What I don't see is what Carlton think they would get from Choco in addition to everything they already have.

 

[Schulzenfest]

There was a thread on their board listing a whole heap of Ratten's faults and suggesting they replace him with Choco. I found it funny that every single one of those faults was directly parallel to something Choco had done.

 

[Relativity]

The ironing of it. I remember Elliott saying Choco would never get a coaching job at Carlton back in about 2000 after they belted us.

 

[PortBrillance]

Good luck to him, I wanted him gone as much as anyone on here, but it would be good to see him stay in the game somewhere

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Among the Tredrea farewell, this piece from Choco about the end of his coaching career has slipped by quietly.

Nothing Can Prepare You For It

 

[Malibu#27]

Among the Tredrea farewell, this piece from Choco about the end of his coaching career has slipped by quietly.

Nothing Can Prepare You For It

And to think some port fans on another site were wNting to lynch him for this article before they read it.

I don't think he could have been more positive given the circumstances.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

It was a very balanced and generous piece.

 

[bomberclifford]

Great article and makes you really feel for Choc.

As maligned as he was in some sections of our supporter base, he was still a Port man to the bone.

Losing him, Tredders and, to a lesser extent Carr, in the space of a few weeks is a huge event in the club's history. Not necessarily bad but definitely momentous.

 

[Powerstufff]

A good fence repairing article.

 

[Steve Dore]

From A message to Members from Brett Duncanson received yesterday;

....
Mark has written a piece for the website which he has asked me to draw to the attention of our Members. You can read it right now at PortAdelaideFC.com.au by clicking here.

.....

We also understand you have many questions about our club and in particular Mark’s departure – some because of incorrect information presented outside the club. I will address some key issues for you:

• OUR club is financially responsible. We did not pay $1 million in our parting with Mark. The terms of his departure are confidential. But the agreement we have with Mark also is commercially responsible – and not out of line with what happens at other AFL clubs or other businesses.
• REGARDLESS of how anyone wants to put a label on Mark’s exit, it was a mutual agreement in the best interests of coach and club. As tough as it is for some to believe, there are times in football when decisions can be made in everyone’s best interests.
• WE did our best to keep our key stakeholders informed about the situation, which of course developed quickly.
• THE timing of the announcement was discussed with Mark, was the only practical option, prevented ongoing speculation, protected Mark’s family, and gave supporters the opportunity to farewell him from our club. Great clubs maintain a mutually respectful and welcoming relationship with their champions, and this has been achieved at our club.
• THE BOARD made the decision to re-appoint Mark last year based on information we considered at great length at the time. We decided – as many outside the club did – that Mark was the best coach for our club, in particular with other additional resources put in place. We take responsibility for that decision with no regrets. Clearly, however, it did not pan out as we’d hoped or planned.