Opinion Jeff Kennett News, Media etc.

[Flukey!]

Pardon the interruption, but I ran for the Bulldogs board a few years back on an anti-pokies ticket. The club did everything to shut me down, including having CEO Ameet Bains ring me complaining that the election would cost the club $$$ . They censored my biography in the AGM election material . After my speech the other candidates spent a long time attacking me fir having the temerity to run for the position.

I only got a handful of votes but I’m glad I did it. We need more fans on club boards I hope you sling Ms Holdstock a vote. Footy clubs are democracies , if you are a member you’re as much a part of the club as Kennett.

I agree with you, just not this year.

The focus needs to be on getting Ian Silk elected.
Plus, there does not appear to be any immediate need for someone of her skills.

 

[RustyHawk]

I have no problem with the board moving Clarko on and paying out the $900K.

We do not offer Long Service Leave yet Clarko had been here 17 years. To me, seems a fair payout for his time and service. In fact, seems as others have said a bit light.

I love Clarko but he had to go. Even he admits he is 'burned out' which is why he is having this year off. His last 2 and probably last 3 years in charge have hardly been the best. 2020 was an abdominal season of crap football and season 2021 right up to the mid season break was heading the same way. It was only those last few games that showed what we can really do as a team on the field.

Time was up for Clarko and I for one am glad the board did what they had to do. It was a hard decision but the right decision.

Hey, you supporters who don't like can always go join a really successful AFL club like St. Kilda. Their due another premiership in the next 40 years so that will give you 39 years of bitching.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

How would you have achieved the result without paying out the $900k?

Not botch the handover plan and have Clarko coach this season.

 

[KermitJagger]

Not botch the handover plan and have Clarko coach this season.

It's all so simple

 

[Ned Ryerson]

The club tried to make it work but it didn't.
Sam wanted to be senior coach in his own right and the club didn't want to lose him to Collingwood.

It has zero to do with bad governance or financial recklessness.
Its simply a commercial decision.

Failing at the handover the way we did is poor governance. I mean when it was first announced Kennett couldn't wait to tell us that the handover was good governance and how things worked in the private sector - so for it to fail as spectacularly as it did within weeks would be a failure of said governance I'd have thought.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

It's all so simple

I never said it was. I was asked how it could have been avoided and that's the answer. I'm still content with Mitchell now being the coach - however the $900,00 black hole in the club finances for zero gain in the present environment isn't exactly a good thing for the club and it is an indictment on the present board and president.

 

[Rhayader]

Not botch the handover plan and have Clarko coach this season.

The powers that be at the club surely did some cost-benefit analysis and decided that, if it went that way, the cost of losing Mitchell was worth more than 900k.

We won’t know of that was a good call or a bad one for years. Even then, no one will know how Clarko would have performed over those years so

 

[Brant]

Not botch the handover plan and have Clarko coach this season.

I never said it was. I was asked how it could have been avoided and that's the answer. I'm still content with Mitchell now being the coach - however the $900,00 black hole in the club finances for zero gain in the present environment isn't exactly a good thing for the club and it is an indictment on the present board and president.

That's not a good outcome & it certainly isn't zero gain in the present environment. I'd rather drop $900k than waste another season.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

That's not a good outcome & it certainly isn't zero gain in the present environment. I'd rather drop $900k than waste another season.

I mean why couldn't there be a 'why not both' Old El Paso style deal here. If Collingwood and Carlton both played finals this year would we even have had the debacle that we did with the handover because external factors had forced our hand?

The cost at the moment is $900,000 - a disenchanted exodus of memberships could add to that. The article a month back suggested this was another six figure sum to hit the club - all at a time where we really can't afford to be pissing away money.

Everything is easy in hindsight, I'll grant you. However - I am not here to recreate the past, what I am saying is that members of the club who are posting here are more than entitled to not exactly love the failings that occurred this year and the financial impacts that come along with that. The board and president absolutely created the opportunity to be judged on it also because the PR from the club when it all came out was that the handover would absolutely work because it was good governance, and good governance is what we are apparently all about. That's fine - but when you put that out to the footy world and your members and you get found out to be utterly wrong within a matter of weeks - well members have a right to question the governance of the club.

 

[Brant]

I mean why couldn't there be a 'why not both' Old El Paso style deal here. If Collingwood and Carlton both played finals this year would we even have had the debacle that we did with the handover because external factors had forced our hand?

The cost at the moment is $900,000 - a disenchanted exodus of memberships could add to that. The article a month back suggested this was another six figure sum to hit the club - all at a time where we really can't afford to be pissing away money.

Everything is easy in hindsight, I'll grant you. However - I am not here to recreate the past, what I am saying is that members of the club who are posting here are more than entitled to not exactly love the failings that occurred this year and the financial impacts that come along with that. The board and president absolutely created the opportunity to be judged on it also because the PR from the club when it all came out was that the handover would absolutely work because it was good governance, and good governance is what we are apparently all about. That's fine - but when you put that out to the footy world and your members and you get found out to be utterly wrong within a matter of weeks - well members have a right to question the governance of the club.

Hoping that Carlton & Collingwood play finals in the same year is a plan fraught with danger!

100% agree with the last part & I'll go further than 'question' it - I'll call it sh*t (for whatever my commentary is worth). I'm not sure the word 'governance' should ever have been used throughout the whole ordeal, but I know it was a buzz-word for the regime & so it was bound to find its way in there somehow...

It was evident in 2017 that we had a pretty big problem. 2018 seemed to correct it & but for some terribly-timed injuries, we may have further papered-over the crevice that was forming just below the surface. 2019, we were straight back to 2017 garbage & we somehow found a way to be worse since then. I don't think there could've been Tacos for Everyone (Old El Paso) - as amazing as that would've been if it worked (or toxic if it didn't).

I think the Board had to try for the transition thing though, at least to exercise the option & not just concede to paying out the cash. Result is the same, but I'm glad they at least tried it. I actually find it really weird how many people criticise both the payout & the failed transition; don't offer a solution & don't seem happy that the club even tried to be creative & come up with an idea - no matter how unlikely it was (given the people & commitments involved).

 

[Pessimistic]

That's very optimistic of you, Pessimistic, but there's not much to suggest he was magically going to snap out of the 2017, 2019, 2020 & 2021 trend (2018 the outlier).

in another thread, schwabby was derided internally in 2004 too. 11 players from that list played in a premiership a few seasons later

Anyway I just don’t get the approach where posters are saying ‘needed to spend a few years with early picks’ and then see. - We were right and the proof is we will spend a few years at the bottom of the ladder?

which is it?

or ‘ Clarko tried to short cut the rebuild’ we needed him to go so we can short cut the rebuild.

 

[Off The Couch]

And here was me thinking that the original post was “what’s another 100k in the scheme of things”

 

[cryptor]

People keep sooking about Clarko's $900k.
He was contracted so he had to be paid out. Its not that hard to understand.
Plenty of clubs have done it before us and it will happen plenty of times again.

It only bites now because of the soft cap.
In a normal year it would be 1.2% of revenue.
#perspectiveiseverything

It doesn't matter how or why the payout came about. The fact is that it's $900k of dead money on this board's watch and in the context of my post it was in relation to their ability to say to a board challenger with a straight face that the cost of $100k for an election would be a waste of money.

A $900k payout now may have been necessary for the longer term benefit of the club. Likewise a $100k board election could also - but at a ninth of the cost.

 

[Mercy Seat]

I think the Board had to try for the transition thing though, at least to exercise the option & not just concede to paying out the cash. Result is the same, but I'm glad they at least tried it. I actually find it really weird how many people criticise both the payout & the failed transition; don't offer a solution & don't seem happy that the club even tried to be creative & come up with an idea - no matter how unlikely it was (given the people & commitments involved).

The issue I have and a lot of supporters seem to as well is that, if reported correctly (Caro, Jake Niall, Tom Morris, etc), the club weren’t really that interested in making the transition work. They wanted Sam to coach next year but didn’t want to sack clarko and pay him out. So settled on a middle ground charade of a succession plan with various club people leaking to the press we didn’t want him next year.

I agree with most posters, there really wasn’t a way to get this to work without a payout. But the farcical 3-4 weeks of leaks from both sides was where the “good governance” angle is lost on me.

 

[hawk65]

A lot has been said about the Clarkson $900,000 payout but as he was contracted till the end of 2022, maybe we should look at the real figure as the difference between what Sam was being paid as an assistant coach and what he is being paid as a 1st year senior coach. I would hazard a guess the difference is less than $900,000?

 

[hawk65]

A lot has been said about the Clarkson $900,000 payout but as he was contracted till the end of 2022, maybe we should look at the real figure as the difference between what Sam was being paid as an assistant coach and what he is being paid as a 1st year senior coach. I would hazard a guess the difference is less than $900,000?

 

[Brant]

A lot has been said about the Clarkson $900,000 payout but as he was contracted till the end of 2022, maybe we should look at the real figure as the difference between what Sam was being paid as an assistant coach and what he is being paid as a 1st year senior coach. I would hazard a guess the difference is less than $900,000?

Pretty sure we've replaced Sam as an Assistant Coach though, so that cost still remains

 

[Hawkboy62]

A lot has been said about the Clarkson $900,000 payout but as he was contracted till the end of 2022, maybe we should look at the real figure as the difference between what Sam was being paid as an assistant coach and what he is being paid as a 1st year senior coach. I would hazard a guess the difference is less than $900,000?

I thought that Clarko was on about $1.2 million and that the $900k payout was a negotiated amount, but spread over 2 years for soft cap purposes. In theory we are better off financially, and certainly our rebuild will be faster and more focused without the distraction of the succession. We are paying 450k per year over the next two years for Clarko not to coach us in 2022 but Sam will not be on big bucks yet, although there will likely be incentives in his contract.

Anyway we have not had to skimp on recruiting support staff for Sam. Unlike the Tigers this year, where the 100k AFL fine for the Stack/ Coleman-Jones incident, reportedly cost an assistant their job. Agreeing to move on GW helped there as Clarko and he were big ticket items in our soft cap. There seems a lot of criticism and very little praise over the way the club has been run, but overall the management has been sound, but less so the former direction of list management.

IMO Clarko bears as much blame for the media fiasco of the botched succession plan/handover as Kennett. Certainly the leaks of internal club discussions to Caro probably came from Clarko's manager. Clarko seemed to have run his race with this group so time for a change, with a highly promising new coach available. Sections of the media seem to be gloating at our failure, (Kane Corner, I'm looking at you), but seem strangely silent about the poor financial performance, and coaching of other clubs.

I'm bullish about next year, but I suppose the supporters of 17 other clubs are too. New blood on our board, a new coach, our best draft hand for years. What's not to like about next year?

 

[Pessimistic]

Pretty sure we've replaced Sam as an Assistant Coach though, so that cost still remains

are box hill coaches inside or outside the soft cap?

 

[Brant]

are box hill coaches inside or outside the soft cap?

Would be outside, I'd have thought, but I don't know.

Might depend if they have a dual role, like Development Coach (HFC) & Box Hill Coach?

Fair chance all clubs would be exploitng this if it were a loophole though, so I got no idea.

 

[Tassie Cryptik]

are box hill coaches inside or outside the soft cap?

Box Hill isn't Hawthorn.

 

[HairyO]

Box Hill isn't Hawthorn.

Which is why no Hawthorn players play for Box Hill...

 

[Buzz Hawk]

I never said it was. I was asked how it could have been avoided and that's the answer. I'm still content with Mitchell now being the coach - however the $900,00 black hole in the club finances for zero gain in the present environment isn't exactly a good thing for the club and it is an indictment on the present board and president.

But could it have been avoided though?
Mitchell seemingly had an offer on the table from Collingwood and was set to leave unless he was given the senior gig with us for ‘22.
It was obviously a fiasco after the board decided on Sammy and that’s where I take issue with Kennett and co.
It was always going to come to the eventual outcome, the botching of the handling of the outcome is what irks so many of us.

 

[Rhayader]

Jeff Kennett: ‘I’m not dead’ as Hawthorn agitators back Ian Silk

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/j...-agitators-back-ian-silk-20211124-p59buy?btis

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Angry Jeff knows the end (of his tenure as president) is nigh.