Hmmm, this appears to be the classic double-edged sword.
Pro: Hird will instantly unify all factions of the club - coterie, board, players, sponsors and supporters, thereby allowing the club to move forward quickly.
Pro: Looking at how Hird conducts his business interests, we can safely assume that affective man-management is one of his key skills. This will ensure that a) he doesn't do a Voss and alienate players with his arrogance and b) he can make vital decisions regarding trades and drafting without affected players feeling that they had their papers stamped already.
Pro: As the greatest Bomber behind Reynolds, Hutchinson and Coleman, he doesn't need to sell the club to anyone, thereby allowing him to focus his energies on improving the playing list.
Con: Hird's ascent to the coaching position has shown he can be utterly ruthless (this can be good and bad).
His strong relationship with the board suggests he knew first-hand the pessimism regarding Knight's outlook. He would have known that his comments regarding wanting to coach the club at some stage would let the board know of his interest - and have the side effect of weakening Knights further. His absolving of responsibility afterwards did not change this, merely leaving us to figure out if he could sort out his business interests in a way that would allow him to coach the club.
I say this is a con because the whole episode suggests that Hird and the corterie groups are currently the strongest powerbrokers at Essendon, rather than the board who have been weak and pathetic throughout this sorry saga. This tail-wagging-the-dog approach doesn't help any club in the long run.
The board shouldn't have extended Knights' contract in the first place and they should have waited for the club to complete the "promised review". The board would then have credibility as to the sacking of Knights and given the club valuable information as to where improvements were needed. The board could then admit they made the wrong decision and everyone could move on.
Con: Can he coach? Can he coax more out of existing players? What is his playing philosophy? These are all unknowns. Essendon has taken a massive gamble when proven, respected (and successful coaches) in Richardson, Laidley and Williams were all available.
Conclusion: Congratulations to Hird for being willing to pull up his sleeves and put in to help improve a club dear to him and in turmoil. He will be a good communicator who can make decisions quickly and inspire the club. However if Hird fails, sacking a favourite son will put the club back years and spell the end of the current board. The best clubs are often stable ones and the turmoil surrounding Knights' downfall will be nothing like that if Hird eventually goes.
Caveat Emptor - buyer beware.
Pro: Hird will instantly unify all factions of the club - coterie, board, players, sponsors and supporters, thereby allowing the club to move forward quickly.
Pro: Looking at how Hird conducts his business interests, we can safely assume that affective man-management is one of his key skills. This will ensure that a) he doesn't do a Voss and alienate players with his arrogance and b) he can make vital decisions regarding trades and drafting without affected players feeling that they had their papers stamped already.
Pro: As the greatest Bomber behind Reynolds, Hutchinson and Coleman, he doesn't need to sell the club to anyone, thereby allowing him to focus his energies on improving the playing list.
Con: Hird's ascent to the coaching position has shown he can be utterly ruthless (this can be good and bad).
His strong relationship with the board suggests he knew first-hand the pessimism regarding Knight's outlook. He would have known that his comments regarding wanting to coach the club at some stage would let the board know of his interest - and have the side effect of weakening Knights further. His absolving of responsibility afterwards did not change this, merely leaving us to figure out if he could sort out his business interests in a way that would allow him to coach the club.
I say this is a con because the whole episode suggests that Hird and the corterie groups are currently the strongest powerbrokers at Essendon, rather than the board who have been weak and pathetic throughout this sorry saga. This tail-wagging-the-dog approach doesn't help any club in the long run.
The board shouldn't have extended Knights' contract in the first place and they should have waited for the club to complete the "promised review". The board would then have credibility as to the sacking of Knights and given the club valuable information as to where improvements were needed. The board could then admit they made the wrong decision and everyone could move on.
Con: Can he coach? Can he coax more out of existing players? What is his playing philosophy? These are all unknowns. Essendon has taken a massive gamble when proven, respected (and successful coaches) in Richardson, Laidley and Williams were all available.
Conclusion: Congratulations to Hird for being willing to pull up his sleeves and put in to help improve a club dear to him and in turmoil. He will be a good communicator who can make decisions quickly and inspire the club. However if Hird fails, sacking a favourite son will put the club back years and spell the end of the current board. The best clubs are often stable ones and the turmoil surrounding Knights' downfall will be nothing like that if Hird eventually goes.
Caveat Emptor - buyer beware.
