Its Time For Trigg To Resign.

[alex_is_on_fire]

Can you give some examples of big deals you've personally been involved in that were done verbally without any backup?

Coke, diet coke and fanta need to go in the coke machine and samboy Chips goes in the vending machine every night. I argued that it should be morning and demanded I get it in writing but I just got told to do it.

 

[jakey]

It was approved by the AFL in writing. The SANFL are soft. They forget who is putting money in their coffers. A knee jerk reaction because a ghetto club and some so called 'Legends' whinged.

Pardon the intrusion, but I reckon even you'd agree Riccuito and McDermott probably merit dropping the 'so-called' prefix?

 

[Cap]

Can you give some examples of big deals you've personally been involved in that were done verbally without any backup?



That's just not true

Any number of transactions.

I am smart enough to get things in writing subsequently

 

[Elite Crow]

They did do research, according to them. And in my opinion they got the decision to go ahead with it right. I honestly believe that the vast majority of SA footy pundits either liked the concept of the guernsey, or just didn't really care. What they probably underestimated was how loudly the few headline-hungry ex-players would scream, and how meekly the SANFL would roll over under the most minute amount of pressure from a tiny but vocal minority.


And I don't understand why people are making such a big deal out of not getting this in writing. The Tippett scenario was different in every conceivable sense. There we were trying to rescind an illegal clause. Here we were obtaining approval which was then publicly announced by the body that agreed to give the approval. There was no need whatsoever to obtain written approval when Whicker was going to head out and give a damn press conference about it. Having it in writing would have made literally no difference to this situation.

Should Trigg start keeping a written record of his trips to the men's room as well?


One thing this saga has highlighted for me is that, on a subliminal level, the ridiculous "clerical error" mentality has seeped into our own supporter base. People now think that the whole problem that caused Tippettgate was Trigg not having agreements in writing, rather than us agreeing to (and almost certainly initiating) illegal clauses in the first place.

Nigel Smart was asked on 5AA Friday morning and was very vague about the research they conducted, no one from the club has outlined what they did.

As for the dissent, it was more than just a vocal minority, personally I know neutral supporters who didn't agree with it. You had journos and legends such as Leith Mathews and Sheedy slam it.


Not sure why you keep comparing it to Tippett gate, these are two very different examples of incompetence. The benefit of having it in writing in this case was to have all the conditions agreed to. Stuff like confirming we could sell the jumpers with supporters names on it would have been covered.

As for the supporters who are critical of another incident, we should just accept we are the victims of bad luck again and it has nothing to do with the competence of our admin.

 

[cmndstab]

Nigel Smart was asked on 5AA Friday morning and was very vague about the research they conducted, no one from the club has outlined what they did.

Of course they haven't outlined their research processes. No club is ever going to do that. Not to mention it would be the most boring radio interview ever.

As for the dissent, it was more than just a vocal minority, personally I know neutral supporters who didn't agree with it. You had journos and legends such as Leith Mathews and Sheedy slam it.

With all due respect to Matthews and Sheedy, they've got nothing to do with the situation. Obviously I have no stats to back it up but I still believe it was a vocal minority - and a very small minority.

Not sure why you keep comparing it to Tippett gate, these are two very different examples of incompetence. The benefit of having it in writing in this case was to have all the conditions agreed to. Stuff like confirming we could sell the jumpers with supporters names on it would have been covered.

I'm not the one comparing it to Tippetgate. I've read probably 50 times in the last day alone, "haven't we learned anything from Tippettgate?!" I agree with you, the two are completely unrelated incidents, so I'm not sure why the Tippett saga keeps getting brought up as here.

And let's not be stupid here. Regardless of what we had in writing, the SANFL was going to roll over like a wet leaf. There's no way they didn't know our intentions for the guernsey.

As for the supporters who are critical of another incident, we should just accept we are the victims of bad luck again and it has nothing to do with the competence of our admin.

I'm all for accountability, but this incident having happened is entirely a black mark on the SANFL, not the Crows admin. There's just no feasible way you can paint it to be our fault. We conducted market research, got all of the approvals we need, had the bodies themselves announce it on radio, only to have them go back on their stated word 24 hours later in one of the most limp-wristed displays of capitulation I've ever seen. Yes, I agree that we do seem to "back the wrong horse" often, but that doesn't mean that every time we do, we should have been able to see it coming.

You can have a completely separate debate about how well you think we've handled the response to the situation, but that's about it.

 

[Elite Crow]

Stabby, you sure we did market research? When Smart was asked had we completed research he avoided it first time around, when asked again he gave a fluffy answer that was not overly convincing. And it's not a ridiculous question to ask or answer, organisations often back up a decision they've made with details of research undertaken, it's an answer that can take a whole 30 secs.

 

[cmndstab]

Stabby, you sure we did market research? When Smart was asked had we completed research he avoided it first time around, when asked again he gave a fluffy answer that was not overly convincing. And it's not a ridiculous question to ask or answer, organisations often back up a decision they've made with details of research undertaken, it's an answer that can take a whole 30 secs.

Well, I can only take their word for it. I wasn't present when they did the market research, no, but they did say they did.

I suppose they could have been lying but I don't really have any reason to assume they were.

 

[Elite Crow]

Well, I can only take their word for it. I wasn't present when they did the market research, no, but they did say they did.

I suppose they could have been lying but I don't really have any reason to assume they were.

When did they say they did market research?

 

[Mattrox]

I think all the comments from those involved in other clubs need to be taken with a grain of salt. Competing agendas.

The fact the WCE wore a state jumper in 2007 invalidates all the Victorian faux outrage.

We were easy targets and they took a whack. We absolutely needed to tell them to mind their business as they don't know what they are talking about. We did not even try to stand up to the bullying.

Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk

 

[Croweater78]

I think all the comments from those involved in other clubs need to be taken with a grain of salt. Competing agendas.

The fact the WCE wore a state jumper in 2007 invalidates all the Victorian faux outrage.

We were easy targets and they took a whack. We absolutely needed to tell them to mind their business as they don't know what they are talking about. We did not even try to stand up to the bullying.

Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk

I agree 100%.

And forget market research, we are a footy club, not a car manufacturer.

 

[cmndstab]

When did they say they did market research?

I'm almost certain I heard either Trigg or Chapman (possibly both?) mention in their recent press conferences/radio interviews that they conducted market research while deciding whether or not to go ahead with the guernsey.

The message I got from it was that the research, while (presumably) accurately reflecting the general public, did not take into account that very particular members of the footy public have much louder voices than other. Chris McDermott having a whinge makes a bigger splash than 1000 faceless fans, and they obviously didn't spend enough time checking with those public names.

 

[King Elvis]

Of course they haven't outlined their research processes. No club is ever going to do that. Not to mention it would be the most boring radio interview ever.

Guarantee you they would've if it would make them look better.

 

[Elite Crow]

Trigg and Chapman may have said it but I didn't hear it. I did hear Smart though before they both spoke and he was not all convincing that they had done any besides talk amongst themselves

 

[craig crowing]

What happened to the overview which included Smart appointment that was done by Chapman and board to ensure that the club would ensure professionalism and avoid putting club in a embarrassing situation again after the Trigg - Tippett saga.
Yes EC looks like it was a brainstorm to get back at AFL - Power which failed badly without any research etc etc.

 

[Sanders]

Any number of transactions.

I am smart enough to get things in writing subsequently

I didn't want a number just an example

And if you followed up in writing (as you now claim) that's different to what you originally claimed.

 

[FR0GGY]

I'm almost certain I heard either Trigg or Chapman (possibly both?) mention in their recent press conferences/radio interviews that they conducted market research while deciding whether or not to go ahead with the guernsey.

The message I got from it was that the research, while (presumably) accurately reflecting the general public, did not take into account that very particular members of the footy public have much louder voices than other. Chris McDermott having a whinge makes a bigger splash than 1000 faceless fans, and they obviously didn't spend enough time checking with those public names.

I thought it was the opposite, that Trigg said they didn't do any research, but in hindsight maybe the should have rung some people,

 

[King Elvis]

I didn't want a number just an example

And if you followed up in writing (as you now claim) that's different to what you originally claimed.

0 is a number.

 

[Elite Crow]

I thought it was the opposite, that Trigg said they didn't do any research, but in hindsight maybe the should have rung some people,

Trigg did say they should have asked some players. Can't remember him mentioning other research.

Smart was not at all convincing when "grilled" by "Jane Reilly" that they had done any besides talk amongst themselves.

 

[Sanders]

0 is a number.

Oh you

 

[Crowbots are dead]

I'm not throwing Smart under the same bus as Trigg and Chapman just yet.

Agreed but I shudder to think of him at our CEO in waiting as the media like to call him. He has a long way to go for that. He's always been arrogant and jury's out on whether he can harness that effectively.

 

[Crowbots are dead]

I work in big business I do big deals. Some agreements are in verbal agreements which hold as much legal sway as written

If I could work for the AFC I would. Wouldn't you?

I understand but if you were faced with a situation where the other party holds the intellectual property and you are wanting to form as agreement where you can commercialise this, as well as the fact that the entire deal is going to attract media interest and public scrutiny I think you would be rushing for pen ,paper, laptop etc...

 

[Geoffa32]

Not sure why people are debating whether we had the "ok" in writing or not.

Leigh Whicker has come out and said he got it wrong. Wednesday he publicly endorsed us wearing the jumper, Thursday night he had to rescind the decision after the media frenzy and new found state pride that has been forgotten since 1999. It seems he alone made the decision and gave our club permission. Makes you wonder what other SANFL decisions are made this way, particularly given the monopoly of Encore Catering within the SANFL.

The AFL too have pretty much admitted they allowed us to wear the jumper and then did not like it after the media frenzy.

Our club had done the right thing. There is no debate as to whether we had permission to wear this jumper. We did. And any "proof" is irrelevant as there was no way we were wearing that jumper once the media frenzy started. Even if we had an iron clad contractual agreement drafted by a QC. These two organisations need to look at their internal controls and decision making.

 

[Crowbots are dead]

Not sure why people are debating whether we had the "ok" in writing or not.

Leigh Whicker has come out and said he got it wrong. Wednesday he publicly endorsed us wearing the jumper, Thursday night he had to rescind the decision after the media frenzy and new found state pride that has been forgotten since 1999. It seems he alone made the decision and gave our club permission. Makes you wonder what other SANFL decisions are made this way, particularly given the monopoly of Encore Catering within the SANFL.

The AFL too have pretty much admitted they allowed us to wear the jumper and then did not like it after the media frenzy.

Our club had done the right thing. There is no debate as to whether we had permission to wear this jumper. We did. And any "proof" is irrelevant as there was no way we were wearing that jumper once the media frenzy started. Even if we had an iron clad contractual agreement drafted by a QC. These two organisations need to look at their internal controls and decision making.

Leigh has backed away from this a little and is saying whilst he supported it but he was not aware of the crows commercialisation of the jumper and was surprised that it was announced when it was. I don't blame crows for misjudging the sentiment on this one however the act that a complex arrangement such as this was done in conversation when it has many ways of going pair shaped is poor risk management. I agree that the incident is nothing like tippetgate however one of the lessons from it was to follow due process and ensure documentation is in order. Our failure to do this again exposed us to confusion in the public eye. Also smart needed to be prepared for some backlash from port. It was a certainty. If his premeditated plan was to say "I don't are" then he has showed himself to be a arrogant moron lacking any strategic skill. If he was caught off guard and not prepared then that is even worse! He comes out of this looking pretty ordinary IMO

 

[Mike Smyth]

Leigh has backed away from this a little and is saying whilst he supported it but he was not aware of the crows commercialisation of the jumper and was surprised that it was announced when it was. I don't blame crows for misjudging the sentiment on this one however the act that a complex arrangement such as this was done in conversation when it has many ways of going pair shaped is poor risk management. I agree that the incident is nothing like tippetgate however one of the lessons from it was to follow due process and ensure documentation is in order. Our failure to do this again exposed us to confusion in the public eye. Also smart needed to be prepared for some backlash from port. It was a certainty. If his premeditated plan was to say "I don't are" then he has showed himself to be a arrogant moron lacking any strategic skill. If he was caught off guard and not prepared then that is even worse! He comes out of this looking pretty ordinary IMO

Yep it really concerns me that Smart appears to be our CEO in waiting. Even before this weeks issue, I wasn't a fan. He does come across as arrogant and his public speaking skills are average at best. Can a club win a premiership with an administration as weak as ours?

 

[King Elvis]

Leigh has backed away from this a little and is saying whilst he supported it but he was not aware of the crows commercialisation of the jumper and was surprised that it was announced when it was. I don't blame crows for misjudging the sentiment on this one however the act that a complex arrangement such as this was done in conversation when it has many ways of going pair shaped is poor risk management. I agree that the incident is nothing like tippetgate however one of the lessons from it was to follow due process and ensure documentation is in order. Our failure to do this again exposed us to confusion in the public eye. Also smart needed to be prepared for some backlash from port. It was a certainty. If his premeditated plan was to say "I don't are" then he has showed himself to be a arrogant moron lacking any strategic skill. If he was caught off guard and not prepared then that is even worse! He comes out of this looking pretty ordinary IMO

We think we're still in an amateur competition, where you act in good faith and take words at face value; that isn't the case anymore - our admin need to grow up and start acting like professionals.