Coach Justin Longmuir Pt 2

[sumavich]

I've got nothing against those fellas mentioned, just saying!
I mean West Coast have Ben Wyatt & Justin Langer and a few woke candidates as well.
Just asking, but I'm dead against Peter Bell having too much influence

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I don’t necessarily agree, but my perspective is from sitting on multiple company boards not sporting clubs. But influence and power are not the same ultimately the board is accountable for results and strategic direction, not general management.

I'll be perfectly honest and blunt, I am surprised to hear you have been on multiple boards after the thread you started following one bad game for the year...

I think on field and off-field results can be linked at a footy club but also very separate and a boards influence over onfield results limited solely to who they appoint in key positions. Soft firing Bell would indicate they think they got that wrong, we'll see who falls on the sword following the two new board members

 

[dockshark]

I was stoked to hear the news about the CEO of South32. I have put some feelers out to business friends about the lawyer, one reply was that they are very sharp. I thought it was a significant step forward for the club tbh. Worthy of the optimism thread!

I’ve had quite a bit to do with Nick. He’s a good operator, very experienced in complex industrial relations and associated areas. A very sharp mind, and able to see the bigger picture. I can certainly see him adding value.

But then as I recall from the other thread I am reactionary, moronic, and bunch of other pejoratives and what was it you said? ‘Know nothing about strategy’ So I’m sure you’ll be not at all interested in what I think.

 

[dockshark]

I'll be perfectly honest and blunt, I am surprised to hear you have been on multiple boards after the thread you started following one bad game for the year...

I think on field and off-field results can be linked at a footy club but also very separate and a boards influence over onfield results limited solely to who they appoint in key positions. Soft firing Bell would indicate they think they got that wrong, we'll see who falls on the sword following the two new board members

And I’ll be perfectly blunt in return. You and others jumped into a pile on rather than actually reading my posts. It wasn’t one bad game. It is a pattern of underperformance which I explained many, many times throughout the thread but people read what they want.

I am GAICD and have more than a decade of experience on boards. One thing I’ve become very skilled at is recognising patterns over time.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

And I’ll be perfectly blunt in return. You and others jumped into a pile on rather than actually reading my posts. It wasn’t one bad game. It is a pattern of underperformance which I explained many, many times throughout the thread but people read what they want.

I am GAICD and have more than a decade of experience on boards. One thing I’ve become very skilled at is recognising patterns over time.

But it was one bad game in the context of a season when every other game was positive and a significant improvement on last year and the year before that we made and won a final. Will the thread not look completely ridiculous if we make finals this year of which we are nowhere near out of the running yet?

You’d get less of a roll eye reaction if you posted at the end of the year or at least after a sustained period of bad games.

 

[dockshark]

I think on field and off-field results can be linked at a footy club but also very separate and a boards influence over onfield results limited solely to who they appoint in key positions.

I think perhaps it depends what you mean by influence. The boards is accountable for authorising and executing the strategy. In this context the club then hires operational leaders to deliver on the operational components of the strategy. The executive leaders are responsible to the board for delivering. The boards must hold the executive leaders to account for performance. The 2 areas can’t be divorced.

My issue, and the fundamental reason I started that thread is that the evidence is very, very clear. Our board and our executive have not been effective at delivering on the strategy that they developed, authorised, and issued. I want accountability and sorry I don’t think that makes me the nut job that some have tried to imply.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I think perhaps it depends what you mean by influence. The boards is accountable for authorising and executing the strategy. In this context the club then hires operational leaders to deliver on the operational components of the strategy. The executive leaders are responsible to the board for delivering. The boards must hold the executive leaders to account for performance. The 2 areas can’t be divorced.

My issue, and the fundamental reason I started that thread is that the evidence is very, very clear. Our board and our executive have not been effective at delivering on the strategy that they developed, authorised, and issued. I want accountability and sorry I don’t think that makes me the nut job that some have tried to imply.

I’ll say then that I apologise for my remarks because I don’t totally disagree that the board is stale but I think your timing might have been off and / or it was worded a bit fanatically given the reaction. Sorry for being a dick

 

[dockshark]

But it was one bad game in the context of a season when every other game was positive and a significant improvement on last year and the year before that we made and won a final. Will the thread not look completely ridiculous if we make finals this year of which we are nowhere near out of the running yet?

You’d get less of a roll eye reaction if you posted at the end of the year or at least after a sustained period of bad games.

Well I don’t really agree that either of the games in Adelaide were positive, and certainly the Port game was in my view pretty poor, against a Port Adelaide that was playing equally poorly (and I watch Port live quite a bit)

No, the thread will not look completely ridiculous if we scrape into the finals and make up the numbers in year 4 of a 5 year strategy where the key strategic objectives was 2 premierships and 80000 members.

Make the finals and make up the numbers or miss the finals. There’s limited material difference beyond getting some finals experience into the players. Don’t get me wrong, I hope we make the finals for that reason, but in my mind it in no way invalidates my broader point that as a membership we should not be satisfied with where this club is against its own published strategy and we should be placing more collective pressure on our board for answers.

 

[poshman]

I’ve had quite a bit to do with Nick. He’s a good operator, very experienced in complex industrial relations and associated areas. A very sharp mind, and able to see the bigger picture. I can certainly see him adding value.

But then as I recall from the other thread I am reactionary, moronic, and bunch of other pejoratives and what was it you said? ‘Know nothing about strategy’ So I’m sure you’ll be not at all interested in what I think.

I did say the part about the post being reactionary as it came across that way. I enjoy talking strategy in business and the club and your statements lacked insight into recent culture vs historic culture. Even now you are discussing trends, and to do so we would need to assign timeframes and define what we mean to have a robust and healthy discussion. Which I would enjoy.

I also asked you questions which I don't remember you answering about culture, success and how we define each. You may have answered and I missed it. In which case, I apologise.

I do appreciate your feedback on Nick. It builds on what I have been told and means the club has secured a couple of top operators, which is something we all want for the club.

 

[dockshark]

I’ll say then that I apologise for my remarks because I don’t totally disagree that the board is stale but I think your timing might have been off and / or it was worded a bit fanatically given the reaction. Sorry for being a dick

thanks…I think my initial post could have delved a bit deeper into what I was trying to communicate and I thought the timing was kind is strike while the iron is hot. But I seemed to have misread the room which is fine. I’m a big boy and I’ve taken much worse beatings in actual board rooms!

 

[poshman]

Well I don’t really agree that either of the games in Adelaide were positive, and certainly the Port game was in my view pretty poor, against a Port Adelaide that was playing equally poorly (and I watch Port live quite a bit)

No, the thread will not look completely ridiculous if we scrape into the finals and make up the numbers in year 4 of a 5 year strategy where the key strategic objectives was 2 premierships and 80000 members.

Make the finals and make up the numbers or miss the finals. There’s limited material difference beyond getting some finals experience into the players. Don’t get me wrong, I hope we make the finals for that reason, but in my mind it in no way invalidates my broader point that as a membership we should not be satisfied with where this club is against its own published strategy and we should be placing more collective pressure on our board for answers.

We can take this back into that thread if you like. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here and have said today and last year that the strategic objectives have failed and action needs to be taken.

Bell accrued too much power under Alcock in my opinion. It was part of the issues at the club in RL's last two seasons and part of my concern in the hiring process of Longmuir.

The question now that he has been moved aside (and hopefully moved on in the near future) and the board has had change, is what further needs to happen?

I have said as a club we have no business targeting DEI goals when we have achieved so little of the core objectives of the club.

 

[dockshark]

We can take this back into that thread if you like. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here and have said today and last year that the strategic objectives have failed and action needs to be taken.

Bell accrued too much power under Alcock in my opinion. It was part of the issues at the club in RL's last two seasons and part of my concern in the hiring process of Longmuir.

The question now that he has been moved aside (and hopefully moved on in the near future) and the board has had change, is what further needs to happen?

I have said as a club we have no business targeting DEI goals when we have achieved so little of the core objectives of the club.

Fair enough, yeah this discussion whilst interesting is pretty off topic here.

 

[poshman]

I’ll say then that I apologise for my remarks because I don’t totally disagree that the board is stale but I think your timing might have been off and / or it was worded a bit fanatically given the reaction. Sorry for being a dick

dockshark I echo this - sorry if I was a jerk.

 

[Purple Jesus]

Eh, tevs. How's that coach tho?

 

[Jaffar]

My feeling is the club is run by the Chair, CEO and Coach with input from the WAFC. The evidence is that all three seem to disappear at around the same time, probably when the WAFC have had enough. The board members continue to stick around and lick stamps.

Bell tried to intervene in this system, was not successful, and was pushed aside.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

My seconded apology for the page but sorry for being a hypocrite but I think that discussion has run its cause and we can move back on track. I think general leadership is within the spirit of the thread but lets at least try to bring it in line with JL

 

[WilloTree]

Tabs drop off with injury was fairly predictable. He was starting to suffer with his back and he wasn't 22 or 23. Regarding losing players, Bell did a number on the list and to be fair to the Executives, they have begun the process of moving him on. We made mistakes with the list and we over estimated our AFLW team. And by the looks of it they are in for a rough year this year as well.

The strategic plan has failed, they should own it and there should be a review.

If we make some good decisions from here we have an amazing decade of sustained success ahead!

Not sure how Bell is responsible for players moving on. Not disagreeing, but I haven't read anything that says that he's the reason. There seems to have been a lot of 'going home' factors and a couple who didn't want to play for Ross Lyon. One of two left for money, and a couple were moved on as bad-eggs/salary dumps.

Also, it's a pretty long bow to say in one sentence he 'did a number on the list' and then say we have an amazing decade ahead. Wouldn't he be at least in part responsible for putting together the list that fills you with confidence?

Seems a bit like a witch-hunt to me.

 

[poshman]

Not sure how Bell is responsible for players moving on. Not disagreeing, but I haven't read anything that says that he's the reason. There seems to have been a lot of 'going home' factors and a couple who didn't want to play for Ross Lyon. One of two left for money, and a couple were moved on as bad-eggs/salary dumps.

Also, it's a pretty long bow to say in one sentence he 'did a number on the list' and then say we have an amazing decade ahead. Wouldn't he be at least in part responsible for putting together the list that fills you with confidence?

Seems a bit like a witch-hunt to me.

The biggest and most obvious blunder by Bell was Acres. He low balled him and could have extended logue. There is an argument to be made that Lachie wouldn't have gone if he had a proper list position and security.

I am completely convinced we have an amazing decade ahead. I did not say perfect or that we had been perfect in getting to that position. It seems as though the leadership at the club agrees with me, given Bell has been moved.

I am not sure how anything I said was a witch hunt given he had already been moved out of his position of power. Can you clarify what you mean?

 

[poshman]

Not sure how Bell is responsible for players moving on. Not disagreeing, but I haven't read anything that says that he's the reason. There seems to have been a lot of 'going home' factors and a couple who didn't want to play for Ross Lyon. One of two left for money, and a couple were moved on as bad-eggs/salary dumps.

Also, it's a pretty long bow to say in one sentence he 'did a number on the list' and then say we have an amazing decade ahead. Wouldn't he be at least in part responsible for putting together the list that fills you with confidence?

Seems a bit like a witch-hunt to me.

We could also take this to the other thread to keep this about Longmuir. Sorry to have responded in this one.

 

[DeadEyeJye]

The biggest and most obvious blunder by Bell was Acres. He low balled him and could have extended logue. There is an argument to be made that Lachie wouldn't have gone if he had a proper list position and security.

I am completely convinced we have an amazing decade ahead. I did not say perfect or that we had been perfect in getting to that position. It seems as though the leadership at the club agrees with me, given Bell has been moved.

I am not sure how anything I said was a witch hunt given he had already been moved out of his position of power. Can you clarify what you mean?

To be honest, I'm ambivalent toward Bell but, Acres only really looks like a total howler in hindsite. Its not like we delisted him, just offered a contract reflective of his output over the last contract, although to be fair he probably tried to be a bit clever about it and I think everyone is happy to say it was a mistake but that happens sometimes.

Logue was being squeezed into the team in a position that was completely wrong for him and realistically it would have been irresponsible to match the roos offer, even if we did have the money to do it.

Neale was already out the door - sure the signature wasn't literally on the paperwork but he would have already committed verbally. (Also, when there was talk of Neale potentially returning to Freo prior to the birth of his first child, many posters on this site flipped out - so sure of themselves he wouldn't even make the 22 haha.) Further, I'm happy to put up my hand and say at the time, I was prepared to release Neale to get the pick for Hogan - clearly I was wrong though!

 

[pK75]

I know this is the JLo thread, but I honestly believe the reason Bell was moved sideways was due to his falling out with colon Young and the effect of that was losing Lobb, Acres and Logue in the same offseason as Mundy retires after we had just made finals for the first time in 8 years. Lobb was fine as we brought in Jackson, but Logue and Acres were both casualty’s of the feud which we couldn’t afford given our list demographic. The fact we lost Henry and Hamling the following year, reinforced that the Young fiasco really did hurt us.
Reading between the lines, JLo also didn’t appreciate the impact Bell was having around the players, match committee and just overlooking everything JLo was doing.
Having said all of that, Garlic has now firmly put the ball in JLo’s court and said “we’ve made the changes you requested, it’s time to deliver” which is why this year is make or break for him regardless of the one year extension.

 

[dropbear101]

Yeah bloody woke merchant bankers.

i used to work at a bank. it kinda true. very happy to mention diversity, equity, climate change.

but don't mention class, divesting, inequality or unaffordable..etc

made me very cynical tbh.

 

[WilloTree]

To be honest, I'm ambivalent toward Bell but, Acres only really looks like a total howler in hindsite. Its not like we delisted him, just offered a contract reflective of his output over the last contract, although to be fair he probably tried to be a bit clever about it and I think everyone is happy to say it was a mistake but that happens sometimes.

Logue was being squeezed into the team in a position that was completely wrong for him and realistically it would have been irresponsible to match the roos offer, even if we did have the money to do it.

Neale was already out the door - sure the signature wasn't literally on the paperwork but he would have already committed verbally. (Also, when there was talk of Neale potentially returning to Freo prior to the birth of his first child, many posters on this site flipped out - so sure of themselves he wouldn't even make the 22 haha.) Further, I'm happy to put up my hand and say at the time, I was prepared to release Neale to get the pick for Hogan - clearly I was wrong though!

Were you? Have you seen the season Jesse is having?

 

[DeadEyeJye]

Were you? Have you seen the season Jesse is having?

Yeah, six years later. Have the seen the 6 years Lachie has produced in that same time? And I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Hogan would be producing the same output had we carried him this whole time, and still been giving him opportunities in the team six years later...

 

[Paracleet]

This snippet from a foxsports article sort of supports my contention below I think. Our problems are just as much outside in the collective midfield as they are forward.

Circling round to us I think to take the next step it's just as important we get improved performance from our outside mids and flankers as it is to improve our non key goalkicking forward stocks. Will that improvement come from progression from existing payers? Improved team cohesion? Trades? Game plan changes?* All four?

*Personally I'd like to see Longmuir work on a system that allows for pushing the zone up chasing turnovers a bit more often. Just a little bit more risk. I don't mind being defense first, particularly since so many other teams are going the other way at the moment, but you can go too far.