How do we come back from this?

Remove this Banner Ad

Bay62

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 28, 2014
6,068
10,435
AFL Club
Adelaide
The board is spending far too long deciding if they’ve done a good job and whether they’re justified in sticking around because they still have something to contribute.

Completely the wrong approach. The logic of their position is irrelevant. At some point you simply stand aside and let someone else have a crack. Regardless of whether you think you have done or could still do a good job.

I’ve posted this before: the same Glenelg board sacked five coaches looking for success before finally realizing maybe they were part of the problem and they just had to let someone else have a go. The next board all committed to a 5 year plan. In that time Mickan led them to a GF. They stayed another 2 years hoping to replicate it. President at the time Gary Metcalf said to me each year you just have another crack, and then at some point you move on and let someone else try. They did that and the new board under Nick Chigwidden eventually lined up all the pieces for a flag.

I was there through all of it. I saw it all unfold. I saw what needed to be done. I saw them do it.

And I realised: there’s no logic.

No matter how good you think you still are - Just. Let. Someone. Else. Have. A. Go.
 

WetCrow1991

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 23, 2016
9,276
8,527
AFL Club
Adelaide
2005-06, 2012 and 2016-17 were our biggest missed opportunities. At least one, if not two, of those seasons should've been flags, but we cocked it up one way or another. Roo getting suspended and Craig letting Harvey run wild in '05, coughing up a 4 goal half-time lead in the prelim in '06, blowing it against the Swans in '12, shitting the bed against the Eagles in '16 and denying us both a home QF and top 4, then, of course, the GF.
2002, even if we made the GF, I don't think we quite had it in us to beat Brisbane. 2008, as ******* annoying as that last game was, we were never in it. It was Geelong and the Hawks, gap, Bulldogs, another gap, and then us, Saints, North, Pies and the Swans.
That 2008 home elimination final against a very young Collingwood side, got embarrassed. Craig should have quit/been sacked then and there.
 

Mr_Moogle

Brownlow Medallist
May 29, 2011
13,968
20,646
SA
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt
The board is spending far too long deciding if they’ve done a good job and whether they’re justified in sticking around because they still have something to contribute.

Completely the wrong approach. The logic of their position is irrelevant. At some point you simply stand aside and let someone else have a crack. Regardless of whether you think you have done or could still do a good job.

I’ve posted this before: the same Glenelg board sacked five coaches looking for success before finally realizing maybe they were part of the problem and they just had to let someone else have a go. The next board all committed to a 5 year plan. In that time Mickan led them to a GF. They stayed another 2 years hoping to replicate it. President at the time Gary Metcalf said to me each year you just have another crack, and then at some point you move on and let someone else try. They did that and the new board under Nick Chigwidden eventually lined up all the pieces for a flag.

I was there through all of it. I saw it all unfold. I saw what needed to be done. I saw them do it.

And I realised: there’s no logic.

No matter how good you think you still are - Just. Let. Someone. Else. Have. A. Go.
Its a boys club. Not letting somebody else have a go is the whole point. They will do whatever it takes to retain their positions, even if the club burns down around them.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Brasher

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 3, 2006
6,262
6,138
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Indians
Its a boys club. Not letting somebody else have a go is the whole point. They will do whatever it takes to retain their positions, even if the club burns down around them.
This. My impression is that to secure a senior role in the workings of the AFC is a destination for many as opposed to the start of a challenging journey....and like any difficult challenge, it requires a willingness to challenge your own security or at the very least be prepared to be critiqued along the way.

It appears that retention of status and station within the club is the primary ambition of too many with the exception being the head coach who is (too) often set up as the scapegoat and not put in a postion to succeed (his supporting cast in the football department as an example). This attitude even extends to the playing group where a couple of years of high ladder position is seen as good enough to continue for the next 2-3 years being selected in the senior side despite medicore performances.

It took a Malcolm Blight to turn things on its head to deliver premierships to the club by dropping senior stallwarts, playing kids and direct challenges to the playing group.

Unless another Blight walks in the door and literally becomes bigger than the club for the short term then I don't hold much faith for any sustainable postiive change. I can't recall too many occassions where a senior management team responsible for an organisation's failure were the cataysts for such a turn around.
 

Shaz2012

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 15, 2012
7,535
7,953
AFL Club
Adelaide
Uhhhh, what?
You are pretty excited about our future
IF
"somehow"
[something] happens that fixes the mess that is the Crows? Somehow. Something.

If, somehow, something happened so that the Crows became consistently competitive, respected by their foes, and won just one Flag in the next five years, i'd be delighted.
The core problem is how (see thread title).
How do they get there, from the horror show of yesterday?
Yes. Somehow. As in unforeseeable change. Barack Obama and Donald Trump as presidents were unthinkable depending on your point of view. The Arab spring, the BLM and me too movements.

So yes, somehow, something that I cant see where it will come from or how it will happen. But if the apricot slicers are somehow unhappy enough, for long enough, then I don't think the crows boys club is important enough (or have enough balls themselves) to withstand a few hundred angry grandparents for any length of time.
 

davos44

All Australian
May 24, 2008
937
1,084
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
SA Redbacks, Adel United
Well duh




pay attention. 2020 draft is the most compromised in history!!
Oh okay, more compromised than 2010-2013 drafts where GWS and Gold Coast took the bulk of first round picks. This draft is more compromised?

I have breaking news for you: were going to finish last next year as well, hence the term "period".
 

Mr_Moogle

Brownlow Medallist
May 29, 2011
13,968
20,646
SA
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt
Seriously, nothing gets solved sitting on ones arse at home whinging and complaining. No point not paying your membership ticket, there is always someone waiting to replace you.
I'm not sure this would remain true if we continue to produce this level of footy.
 

Jarman3

Premiership Player
Oct 22, 2013
3,525
6,967
AFL Club
Adelaide
This. My impression is that to secure a senior role in the workings of the AFC is a destination for many as opposed to the start of a challenging journey....and like any difficult challenge, it requires a willingness to challenge your own security or at the very least be prepared to be critiqued along the way.

It appears that retention of status and station within the club is the primary ambition of too many with the exception being the head coach who is (too) often set up as the scapegoat and not put in a postion to succeed (his supporting cast in the football department as an example). This attitude even extends to the playing group where a couple of years of high ladder position is seen as good enough to continue for the next 2-3 years being selected in the senior side despite medicore performances.

It took a Malcolm Blight to turn things on its head to deliver premierships to the club by dropping senior stallwarts, playing kids and direct challenges to the playing group.

Unless another Blight walks in the door and literally becomes bigger than the club for the short term then I don't hold much faith for any sustainable postiive change. I can't recall too many occassions where a senior management team responsible for an organisation's failure were the cataysts for such a turn around.
Even then, though - Blight only cleared out the football side of things. And back then, that's all that was needed. It's hard to imagine it now, but there was a time when we were actually a very well administered football club. That all collapsed the day they signed a dodgy deal with Kurt Tippett and it has been an accelerating downhill slide ever since.

Bringing in a Blight-style figure as senior coach now would not have the impact it had then because he would be stymied by the weight of the dead wood above him. Blight only really had to fix on-field issues. Today, we can't even begin to fix our on-field issues until we sort out the off-field ones, and that is above a coach's pay-grade. Chairman, board, CEO first, then worry about the football side of things. To be honest, I kind of don't mind if Nicks is a nothing sort of coach. Better that than actually squandering a good one on our club in its current state. I'd rather wait a few years then bring in a good coach when we're actually in a position to get the benefit of it.
 

Bags

Rookie
Oct 12, 2019
32
56
AFL Club
Adelaide
The point that this club has never had a sustained period of success, lets say a five year period which delivers ar least two flags, is well made.
This rebuild must aim at, and deliver, a period of success.
First, a new chairman should bring new direction and ideas
The coaches box needs a complete overhaul. Nicks needs an experienced assistant. Worsfold, Allan Richardson, McCarthy, Voss. Someone who knows what it’s like to be a head coach.
Then the playing list needs an injection of elite talent, and this should come over the next couple of drafts with the first top five picks in the clubs history.
This all may seem obvious, and it is. It’s a formula that has been deployed by clubs that have enjoyed sustained periods of success in the past. No better example than Richmond right now.
The club may be at a low point now, but already we have a strong, young on field leader in Doodee, some impressive young talent in Hamill, McPherson, Jones, Fogarty, McAsey.
Top this up with high picks, developed properly by an improved coaching panel, and we will be competitive again. And hopefully, successful.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Murray2503

Brownlow Medallist
May 10, 2016
11,188
9,201
AFL Club
Adelaide
Its a boys club. Not letting somebody else have a go is the whole point. They will do whatever it takes to retain their positions, even if the club burns down around them.
It we ould be very interesting to see the crowd numbers in an uncompromised year. A year where we would be back to the extended quarters which would be producing 100 point losses instead of 70. I would presume we would be getting crowds of 30k and declining fast. The only thing this club cares about is money and customers turning up. If 20k started turning up each week the AFL would clear the board within a few weeks. Covid is hiding the true incompetence of our board and SLT. It won't be hidden forever.
 

jenny61_99

Premium Platinum
Feb 22, 2006
55,389
46,314
Brisbane
AFL Club
Adelaide
New “survey” has been sent out to all AFL club members with options for membership next year. Also what you’d like to see. My closing suggestion:

Stop looking for gimmicks. This isn’t about the “match day experience” this is about the football. Stop putting money into this useless by-product and put it into the football department. Let’s get good assistants to back up this new coach. Let’s make FOOTBALL the priority and not whether Johnny Member has a nice time when he’s there. IF we are playing good footy, nobody will care about the other stuff.
 

Anzacpaul

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 26, 2015
6,683
9,388
The Land of Apricot Slice
AFL Club
Adelaide
New “survey” has been sent out to all AFL club members with options for membership next year. Also what you’d like to see. My closing suggestion:

Stop looking for gimmicks. This isn’t about the “match day experience” this is about the football. Stop putting money into this useless by-product and put it into the football department. Let’s get good assistants to back up this new coach. Let’s make FOOTBALL the priority and not whether Johnny Member has a nice time when he’s there. IF we are playing good footy, nobody will care about the other stuff.

What the hell is with the garbage "package options"?

They're all crap.
 

Jarman3

Premiership Player
Oct 22, 2013
3,525
6,967
AFL Club
Adelaide
What the hell is with the garbage "package options"?

They're all crap.
Yeah I'm looking at it right now... WTF is going on there? $600 or $450 membership with access to 3 home games? Or $100 with 0 home games? WTF?

Is this assuming the COVID thing is still ongoing next season (fair assumption, I suppose)? I wish they would actually say that's the assumption, or are these options for an actual membership in a normal sort of season?
 

Tas

Premium Gold
Dec 23, 2002
54,521
39,757
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
The board is spending far too long deciding if they’ve done a good job and whether they’re justified in sticking around because they still have something to contribute.

Completely the wrong approach. The logic of their position is irrelevant. At some point you simply stand aside and let someone else have a crack. Regardless of whether you think you have done or could still do a good job.

I’ve posted this before: the same Glenelg board sacked five coaches looking for success before finally realizing maybe they were part of the problem and they just had to let someone else have a go. The next board all committed to a 5 year plan. In that time Mickan led them to a GF. They stayed another 2 years hoping to replicate it. President at the time Gary Metcalf said to me each year you just have another crack, and then at some point you move on and let someone else try. They did that and the new board under Nick Chigwidden eventually lined up all the pieces for a flag.

I was there through all of it. I saw it all unfold. I saw what needed to be done. I saw them do it.

And I realised: there’s no logic.

No matter how good you think you still are - Just. Let. Someone. Else. Have. A. Go.
I think that is the one positive of my club's constitution which mandates a maximum term of 3 terms of 3 years for directors. There are pros and cons, if you have someone really good as a director it is a shame to lose them to a maximum term, but a major benefit is someone can come in make changes that are required because they are not worried about how popular the changes are if they are required. If someone can effectively be a director for decades will they make the hard calls which might risk the longevity of their position?

We saw the problem with James Brayshaw as our Chairman, he was critical in surviving the GC fiasco but he wasn't a very good chairman, his popularity made it almost impossible to remove him and he made a string of horrible decisions, like appoint Brad Scott (a friend of his) as coach without a proper review process and kept extending him despite significant flaws, he also hand picked many of the director positions and vetoed anyone he didn't like getting on the board, used his popularity to block any constitutional change which would make it harder for the board to sell games or move the club (to Tasmania). Our saving grace was the maximum term. He had to retire. As soon as he retired Scott was told he wouldn't be extended, massive review of the football department from recruitment, coaching to development.

I am sure people at the top are doing everything in their power to do good for the club, but sometimes the leadership is the problem and I think it is probably healthy for a club to have limited terms so people can come in and have a period of time to make changes, sometimes unpopular ones, and just get it done.
 

jenny61_99

Premium Platinum
Feb 22, 2006
55,389
46,314
Brisbane
AFL Club
Adelaide
Yeah I'm looking at it right now... WTF is going on there? $600 or $450 membership with access to 3 home games? Or $100 with 0 home games? WTF?

Is this assuming the COVID thing is still ongoing next season (fair assumption, I suppose)? I wish they would actually say that's the assumption, or are these options for an actual membership in a normal sort of season?
Remember, this is from the AFL, not from AFC.
 

Bay62

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 28, 2014
6,068
10,435
AFL Club
Adelaide
I think that is the one positive of my club's constitution which mandates a maximum term of 3 terms of 3 years for directors. There are pros and cons, if you have someone really good as a director it is a shame to lose them to a maximum term, but a major benefit is someone can come in make changes that are required because they are not worried about how popular the changes are if they are required. If someone can effectively be a director for decades will they make the hard calls which might risk the longevity of their position?

We saw the problem with James Brayshaw as our Chairman, he was critical in surviving the GC fiasco but he wasn't a very good chairman, his popularity made it almost impossible to remove him and he made a string of horrible decisions, like appoint Brad Scott (a friend of his) as coach without a proper review process and kept extending him despite significant flaws, he also hand picked many of the director positions and vetoed anyone he didn't like getting on the board, used his popularity to block any constitutional change which would make it harder for the board to sell games or move the club (to Tasmania). Our saving grace was the maximum term. He had to retire. As soon as he retired Scott was told he wouldn't be extended, massive review of the football department from recruitment, coaching to development.

I am sure people at the top are doing everything in their power to do good for the club, but sometimes the leadership is the problem and I think it is probably healthy for a club to have limited terms so people can come in and have a period of time to make changes, sometimes unpopular ones, and just get it done.
Good thinking, I didn’t realise that. Thanks👍
 

Brasher

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 3, 2006
6,262
6,138
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Indians
I think that is the one positive of my club's constitution which mandates a maximum term of 3 terms of 3 years for directors. There are pros and cons, if you have someone really good as a director it is a shame to lose them to a maximum term, but a major benefit is someone can come in make changes that are required because they are not worried about how popular the changes are if they are required. If someone can effectively be a director for decades will they make the hard calls which might risk the longevity of their position?

We saw the problem with James Brayshaw as our Chairman, he was critical in surviving the GC fiasco but he wasn't a very good chairman, his popularity made it almost impossible to remove him and he made a string of horrible decisions, like appoint Brad Scott (a friend of his) as coach without a proper review process and kept extending him despite significant flaws, he also hand picked many of the director positions and vetoed anyone he didn't like getting on the board, used his popularity to block any constitutional change which would make it harder for the board to sell games or move the club (to Tasmania). Our saving grace was the maximum term. He had to retire. As soon as he retired Scott was told he wouldn't be extended, massive review of the football department from recruitment, coaching to development.

I am sure people at the top are doing everything in their power to do good for the club, but sometimes the leadership is the problem and I think it is probably healthy for a club to have limited terms so people can come in and have a period of time to make changes, sometimes unpopular ones, and just get it done.
I think this model with its strengths and weaknesses is the only realistic way forward for the AFC...however, instead of the chairman, the role should be the all powerful, fixed term, Head of Football. Currently I suppose this is Roo but he has two flaws being 1) maybe not of the capacity/capability to deliver on the role and 2) too many deep seated relationships (at board and football department level) that look to take priority over hard decisions.

IF, and it is a big IF, the existing board allowed that position to be the grand emperor of all things football operations then we have a chance. The board would play no role in football operations other than to measure success. The board can then concern itself with the corporate governance role it should focus on.

The role is easy to measure (WINS) and all roles report to this position. Head Coach, Fitness and Medical, List Management, Talent Identification, SANFL Team. I don't care if they then recruit their second cousin twice removed to be head coach....ultimately their will be single accountability for all decisions relating to football performance. No diluted accountability like the camp fiasco.

Only problem I see with this is if/when the Head of Football does something that upsets AFL house and they react by putting pressure on our AFL elected board.
 

Jarman3

Premiership Player
Oct 22, 2013
3,525
6,967
AFL Club
Adelaide
Remember, this is from the AFL, not from AFC.
That makes marginally more sense, but it still doesn't explain what assumptions are being made around some of those memberships. I just can't imagine there being a universe where any supporter of any club is willing to pay $600 for a 3 game membership.
 

Tas

Premium Gold
Dec 23, 2002
54,521
39,757
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
I think this model with its strengths and weaknesses is the only realistic way forward for the AFC...however, instead of the chairman, the role should be the all powerful, fixed term, Head of Football. Currently I suppose this is Roo but he has two flaws being 1) maybe not of the capacity/capability to deliver on the role and 2) too many deep seated relationships (at board and football department level) that look to take priority over hard decisions.

IF, and it is a big IF, the existing board allowed that position to be the grand emperor of all things football operations then we have a chance. The board would play no role in football operations other than to measure success. The board can then concern itself with the corporate governance role it should focus on.

The role is easy to measure (WINS) and all roles report to this position. Head Coach, Fitness and Medical, List Management, Talent Identification, SANFL Team. I don't care if they then recruit their second cousin twice removed to be head coach....ultimately their will be single accountability for all decisions relating to football performance. No diluted accountability like the camp fiasco.

Only problem I see with this is if/when the Head of Football does something that upsets AFL house and they react by putting pressure on our AFL elected board.
All football clubs are boys clubs, supporters only realise/notice it when they aren't winning. We can forgive a lot of tomfoolery if the team is playing decent football and is having a crack at finals but when it is well off it then it is a lot more noticeable.

I like Ricciuto, was a fantastic player and when he has talked about football or the Crows in particular he seems to be knowledgeable and is level headed. He spoke about the challenges for rebuilding the list what the process is going to look like, I guess how successful that is going to be hinges on how well the recruiters do in getting the right players for the club. The question is how much influence does he have at the club in relation to recruitment and development and if the right mix of people exist at the club.

You could have the perfect person in charge, calling the shots, making changes, but at the end of the day they are at the mercy of people underneath them and how well they can do their job; from recruiters, to developers, coaches and players. I think the way you sell it is as important as the changes themselves. I think Chris Fagan was a great pickup for Brisbane, he changed their club's attitude of accepting/complaining about players leaving to creating the environment where they wanted to stay and attracted other players. They had a string of potatoes before him who made the problem worse.

A lot about football is luck based, it doesn't matter who you recruit be it staff or players, you don't really have a crystal ball knowing who is going to execute. We pretty much sacked everyone associated with our recruitment and development staff, who knows where the blame lay for a lack of results, we don't know if we will get a better result from different people, as supporters it seems the draft is a lucky dip, everyone tries to rate the talent but it is ultimately dumb luck which of these kids has it in them to be a star.

You just want to be in a position that if you hit enough diamonds out of all that coal that you can hold on to them, Roo made some good points about the money some of the players wanted and there is a big risk factor when it comes to recruiting kids from out of state, however, most clubs generally do not lose too many players they don't want to let go. I am not sure if there has been much introspection in terms of what has caused players to look elsewhere. I mean, we offered shitloads of cash to some players and they took massive unders to stay where they were. I don't think money alone is the problem.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Top Bottom