Its Time For Trigg To Resign.

[MrKK]

Nobody knows or can say.

Many are sure its true, but don't know why

It sounds suspiciously like the list of Rendell stuff-ups - "just trust us, Trigg's done all of these great things, but we can't tell you what they were."

 

[MrKK]

Anyone worried that we might've done another side deal between Trigg & Board to minimise the penalties? Leopards, spots and all that.

Keep some things hush hush, Trigg and Harper take the blame in exchange for being looked after.

All fine except if that is the case, we have lied to the Commission and risk getting penalised all over again. Another ticking time bomb to worry about, and all it would take is one disgruntled Board member or administrator with knowledge to blow the whistle.

So we won't be able to sack anyone, ever.

Chapman chose his words carefully when it was going around. It was all about "getting the best possible result for the AFC" - never about exposing the truth and holding those responsible to account.

I think it's more likely that they confessed the truth to the Commission, and that truth being that many more people than Trigg and Harper knew about the deal. This explains both the heavy-handedness of the penalties (my hindsight opinion when compared to Melbourne's wet lettuce slap) and the refusal of Trigg and Chapman to talk about the hearing afterwards. This last bit never made sense to me - why wouldn't they be able to repeat their version of events from the hearing in public interviews afterwards? Maybe because it would've outed them as a pack of liars to their own supporters.

 

[JP Sauce]

I think it's more likely that they confessed the truth to the Commission, and that truth being that many more people than Trigg and Harper knew about the deal. This explains both the heavy-handedness of the penalties (my hindsight opinion when compared to Melbourne's wet lettuce slap) and the refusal of Trigg and Chapman to talk about the hearing afterwards. This last bit never made sense to me - why wouldn't they be able to repeat their version of events from the hearing in public interviews afterwards? Maybe because it would've outed them as a pack of liars to their own supporters.

Especially after people from the club kept repeating things like, and I'm paraphrasing here: "we'll share our side of things once the hearings are over and we're sure it will clear a lot of things up for our supporters."

The silence was deafening.

 

[craig crowing]

Well we learn we have overhaul in front office . Wow thats fantastic will that gain money to help pay fines or get draft picks back .
No of course not that will lead to more expense .
Like now when we have to pay Smart in this new role along with Chapman now saying he will stay on helping out because Trigg was over worked .
So not only do we get Trigg back after him lying to us and costing us valuable draft picks etc and massive costs and fines then now we are going to shell out probably another close to $mill. to sort out the mess he had created .
What a ------ joke . Unbelievable .

 

[Allefgib]

Straight from the ziggy report... I think the AFC should be reading these with great interest.

5) The CEO must be accountable for everything that happens within his organization.
Coaches cannot bypass him, and boards must work through him. If commercial priorities consume his time and attention, steps must be taken to ensure proper oversight of football operations.

6) The position of GM, Football Operations is an especially difficult one given subordinates and peers, eg coaches, can be charismatic alpha males who carry the weight of supporters' expectations on their shoulders. But this is a critical appointment requiring a strong capable individual who has the respect of the football staff and the support of the CEO.

7) Football clubs value having flexibility in their practices, staff who multitask, and the ability to adjust to circumstances. This is desirable but dynamic 'change management' requires discipline - clear expressions of changed accountabilities, updated job descriptions, confirmed reporting lines. And when positions are added to an org chart with full and dotted lines of responsibility or worse, left floating, the CEO must step in to clarify. Dual (or more) reporting lines can be a recipe for confusing communications. Responsibilities must be clear and employees held to account.

8) Bad news must be passed up the line quickly. Sometimes, organizations seem to have holding depots where issues await a fix while being shielded from upper management and the board. This is poor practice. Boards should ask the question 'what's keeping you up at night?' and follow up and monitor action on concerns. Boards should not resile from detailed interrogation of operations, including within the football department, even when times are good.

 

[ltdamn]

David Evans is putting himself up for re-election as President in the wake of the Ziggy report. Says the members have a right to vote on his future even though he's got another 3 years to serve.

Well.

 

[Heafy83]

David Evans is putting himself up for re-election as President in the wake of the Ziggy report. Says the members have a right to vote on his future even though he's got another 3 years to serve.

Well.

CLASSIC lol. So he does it when the members still don't have the full information and the club could not be found guilty of an offence as of yet. Shouldn't he wait until after the ASADA investigation is done in September.

 

[The Karma Bus]

CLASSIC lol. So he does it when the members still don't have the full information and the club could not be found guilty of an offence as of yet. Shouldn't he wait until after the ASADA investigation is done in September.

You didn't have the full information but apparently he is putting himself up for re-election in November..
Should all be done by then.. We hope

 

[Heafy83]

You didn't have the full information but apparently he is putting himself up for re-election in November..
Should all be done by then.. We hope

My bad..... sounded like straight away. I take it back then.

 

[Allefgib]

Good on him I say.

Triggy - you're up.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Good on him I say.

Triggy - you're up.

No way Triggy would go to a members vote as he would have less chance than Gillard getting re-elected!

 

[JP Sauce]

No way Triggy would go to a members vote as he would have less chance than Gillard getting re-elected!

I could actually see Trigg getting re-elected pretty comfortably to be honest.

 

[Heafy83]

I could actually see Trigg getting re-elected pretty comfortably to be honest.

So could I. Depends who he was up against.

 

[ltdamn]

My bad..... sounded like straight away. I take it back then.

I missed the November part too although it's less about the timing and more about the fact Essendon's powers that be realise the supporters are their customer base, instead of a minor commercial inconvenience who need to be told what's good for them and flat out lied to.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Don't forget guys that at clubs where the members get the right to vote, they don't hire or fire the CEO - they hire and fire the president and chairman and the board and then they hire and fire the CEO.

So Ian Robson is the equivalent at Essendon as Steven Trigg is at the Crows. David Evans is the same as Rob Chapman.

So even if we got a new board, they may still decide to keep Trigg on.

 

[spenze]

So even if we got a new board, they may still decide to keep Trigg on.

It's like the man is...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think it's more likely that they confessed the truth to the Commission, and that truth being that many more people than Trigg and Harper knew about the deal. This explains both the heavy-handedness of the penalties (my hindsight opinion when compared to Melbourne's wet lettuce slap) and the refusal of Trigg and Chapman to talk about the hearing afterwards. This last bit never made sense to me - why wouldn't they be able to repeat their version of events from the hearing in public interviews afterwards? Maybe because it would've outed them as a pack of liars to their own supporters.

That would certainly ring true and I hope this is the case

 

[brucetiki]

No way Triggy would go to a members vote as he would have less chance than Gillard getting re-elected!

Given the minority of Crows Members that actually have voting rights are likely to be the ones who gave him the standing ovation and hero worship, if we did have the power to hire and fire the board, they'd be voted in in a landslide, who would then endorse Trigg in the role, making his tenure more safer than ever.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Given the minority of Crows Members that actually have voting rights are likely to be the ones who gave him the standing ovation and hero worship, if we did have the power to hire and fire the board, they'd be voted in in a landslide, who would then endorse Trigg in the role, making his tenure more safer than ever.

I was thinking if all Crows members had voting rights, as most I know want him out. The vocal ones at the last AGM were plants & are in the minority who deleriously think Trigg's position is some how still tenable after this monumental stuff up.

 

[Cleric]

Especially after people from the club kept repeating things like, and I'm paraphrasing here: "we'll share our side of things once the hearings are over and we're sure it will clear a lot of things up for our supporters."

The silence was deafening.

This for me was the biggest kick in the guts from the club. We were told not only by the club but its sprukers in the media that they were innocent and they would open up everything and explain it to the supporters. Well when it was finalised the AFC refused to say anything. And the piss weak appologists for the Crows like Rowie and Cornes didnt push or ask another question when Triggy refused to talk about it in his radio interview. So we were fined hundreds of thousands lost our highest paid player for nothing and lost draft picks for two years and Chapman and Triggy say "**** you supporters we dont owe you any explanation so piss off"
This is why we didnt renew our memberships and wont until Trigg and Chapman are gone.

 

[Allefgib]

I was thinking if all Crows members had voting rights, as most I know want him out. The vocal ones at the last AGM were plants & are in the minority who deleriously think Trigg's position is some how still tenable after this monumental stuff up.

If there is a vote, and all members are allowed to vote, then alot of folks who can't be bothered with the AGM and other events these days would be likely to get off their arse if they feel they can actually have an impact.

 

[Cap]

http://www.indaily.com.au/#

Kevin Naughton – Opinion
ON one side of the border an internal misjudgement that oversaw a messy player contract deal resulted in the suspension of a club CEO and staffer, huge fines and future draft penalties.
On the other side of the border a “rapid diversification into exotic supplements, sharp increase in frequency of injections, the shift to treatment offsite in alternative medicine clinics, emergence of unfamiliar suppliers, marginalization of traditional medical staff etc (that) combined to create a disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the Club”… sees the CEO, coaches, medicos and chairman all keeping their jobs.
In the latter case, involving Essendon, the AFL has been at great pains to allow independent investigations to run their course, including the Essendon-commissioned Switkowski report handed down yesterday.
In the former case, Adelaide, AFL officials and forensic accountants descended on the club, explanations were demanded and penalties imposed as the investigation was run and wrapped before the festive season.
While it’s often dangerous to compare separate cases and their respective outcomes, the gap between the handling of the Adelaide and Essendon cases appears to be enormous.
In the clearer light of today, Adelaide’s deal to underwrite third party payments for player Kurt Tippett when they re-signed him at the end of 2009 appears insignificant when contrasted to the unchecked “pharmacologically experimental environment” that saw substances injected into young men.
Adelaide Football Club CEO Steven Trigg, who verbally cancelled the Tippett deal when he became uneasy about it, has had to endure a public shaming, a six-month suspension and loss of income while Essendon officials just keep on keeping on.
The only common factor in the two cases is that the goings on at either club were not brought to the attention of the clubs’ boards – something which in the corporate world would almost certainly result in dismissal.
Steven Trigg has made it clear he is indebted to his board for its faith in him and will repay it in spades.
Essendon’s reaction to the Switkowski report appears to be a shrug of the shoulders.
Asked about the finding – that a ”disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged” had emerged at Essendon – senior assistant coach Mark Thompson said on Fox Footy: ”If that’s what [the report] says, then it must be true.”
On the player’s side of the agenda, a young Kurt Tippett was found to have received illegal payments that were not disclosed to the AFL and despite the fact his affairs were handled by a manager, he was held personally responsible and suspended from the opening 11 rounds of the 2013 home-and-away season.
Over at Essendon there is a push for the players to be deemed to have acted within the broad spectrum of a club culture, absolving them of individual responsibility.
Yet the rules governing doping in sport make it clear the athlete is responsible for every substance that goes into their body.
Adelaide Football Club’s head was slammed into the ground within days of the Tippett saga emerging.
Essendon, meanwhile, plays on, undefeated, with a full player list and pleas from the AFL for patience.
That’s despite the report by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski, that found:
· Failures in structures and accountability surrounding the club’s supplements program from November 2011 to August 2012.
· A disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the club.
· Concerns over club Medicare claims for blood tests sourced by outside medical staff – which will be left to the main ASADA-AFL investigation to probe.
· A letter from long-time Essendon club doctor Bruce Reid outlining concerns over the supplements program went missing.
"At a club level, this is not an area for risk management but for zero tolerance," Zwitskowski concluded said.
"A club’s pharmacology skills should not normally be independently and secretly developed as a source of competitive advantage.
"And an arms race for the most sophisticated molecules must be prohibited."
Why is then, that we get the feeling that Essendon will waltz through the 2013 season untouched by this scandal?

It begs the questions

1) Have we been to harsh on Trigg?
2) Should the anger be at the board and CEO for not ensuring a delayed response such as the ride Essendon are getting
3) is the AFL a bunch of pricks who in reality, have been heavy handed with us but too scared to act against Essendon?
4) Was I incorrect in my assumption that Essendon has acted better than Adelaide in all of this? or have Essendon managed to look better than Adelaide during their own debacle?
5) If no draft sanctions are given to the Dons, should Adelaide appeal?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

http://www.indaily.com.au/#
It begs the questions

1) Have we been to harsh on Trigg?
2) Should the anger be at the board and CEO for not ensuring a delayed response such as the ride Essendon are getting
3) is the AFL a bunch of pricks who in reality, have been heavy handed with us but too scared to act against Essendon?
4) Was I incorrect in my assumption that Essendon has acted better than Adelaide in all of this? or have Essendon managed to look better than Adelaide during their own debacle?
5) If no draft sanctions are given to the Dons, should Adelaide appeal?

1. No, we haven't. Most CEO's would not keep their job with a stuff up this huge. Scalps whouls also go at Essendon!
2. Yes & No. The Board tried to do the right thing & be honest with the AFL ... but that just gave the AFL the opportunity to reem us & set an example. Compare that to the Dees too... Our Board has been pitifully weak. I can only assume because they knew what was really going on & they are covering their own arses. Certainly AFC's best interests have not been looked after in this saga & it is the footy department & supporters that will suffer.
3. Yes, though if Essendon players are found guilty of taking banned substances, it will be taken out of the AFL's hands.
4. I think AFC have acted more honestly than Essendon (not saying they have acted badly), but AFL takes advantage if you don't stand up for yourself.
5. Given what Essendon has done ha tarnished the AFL's image more than what the Crows did, it will be a joke if their penalties are less ... but nothing surprises me with the Fat Controller in charge.

 

[Mattrox]

We got draft sanctions for draft tampering.

They won't get draft sanctions. Fines, perhaps bans of players involved, bans of officials involved..... etc. Or it will get covered up by the AFL as an unfortunate misunderstanding. ....

 

[MRB37]

Well I imagine the difference between the AFL's handling of the two incidents is that the Essendon case has greater potential for harm than Adelaide's. With ours, the damage could be contained to the Crows and the individuals involved in the incident, whereas the Dons case could potentially have league wide ramifications.