Meet Up Meet Matthew Richardson at the club

It would also have set the precedent that, under sufficient pressure from members, the club is happy to flip-flop on any matter, on- or off-field.
1. I fail to see how its an ironclad universal precedent.
2. So what if it is.
3. Whims of AFL appointed board members are happening anyway.

That probably feels exciting when you remember BF's push to get Fishing Rick onto the board, but it also means you risk handing the keys to the Facebook Mums and happy clappers.
PAFC is already all about Facebook Mums and happy clappers and have been for years, thats the precedent thats dangerous and it already happened.
 

agmsy

All Australian
Sep 28, 2014
868
2,753
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
1. I fail to see how its an ironclad universal precedent.

"Slippery slope". Either the football department keeps lying down, or it sets up an unproductive and acrimonious spill.

2. So what if it is.

If it's an ironclad, universal precedent, that empowers the board to interfere with team selection in pursuit of short-term commercial goals.
 
"Slippery slope". Either the football department keeps lying down, or it sets up an unproductive and acrimonious spill.

If it's an ironclad, universal precedent, that empowers the board to interfere with team selection in pursuit of short-term commercial goals.
It feels like we’re already most of the way towards unprecedented mismanagement, except that its taking the form of board non-interference at a point that they absolutely should be stepping in and doing something (eg, piss KT off)
 
Yes.

Co-captains was a bad decision that our football department should not have made. But, once that mistake was made, the CEO or board directly intervening to appoint a sole captain would have been worse. It would have undermined the authority of the eventual captain, and undermined the coaches, players, or both. As though that group needs any further challenges to cohesion and function.

It would also have set the precedent that, under sufficient pressure from members, the club is happy to flip-flop on any matter, on- or off-field. That probably feels exciting when you remember BF's push to get Fishing Rick onto the board, but it also means you risk handing the keys to the Facebook Mums and happy clappers.
BS decisions should be overturned by the board and CEO. That doesn't mean you change every decision because of the facebook crowd - most are bloody happy clappers not road ragers, so that probably says something there.

The board has to intervene in more footy department stuff for the next 2 years, to fix up all the * ups. Probably should start once a few board members go and the newbies come in and are given the mandate to fix things up.

No better example of this than the Golden State Warriors. A basket case for 30 odd years but have made the last 5 NBA championship playoffs, the first time since the Celtics in the 1960's made 5 in a row - actually made 10 in a row from 1957-1966. Not even the Lakers or Chicago made it 5 in a row, or other great Celtic teams post 1966. Lots of 3's and 4's in a row, but no 5's in a row.

For the fuller story I copied the Wall Street Journal April 2016 article, that the Australian reproduced, when they were on the verge of beating Chicago's record 72-10 regular season in 1996, in the following post in the NBA thread on the BDC board.


How Golden State Warriors stepped outside the arc to change game

In 2010, Joe Lacob, a longtime partner at Silicon Valley venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers bought the Warriors - Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers are the biggest Venture Capital firm in Silicon Valley - have been for 40 years, so anyone from there was going to tinker.

It wasn’t long before Lacob, who is 60 years old, installed a basketball brains trust akin to a board at one of his companies. The team’s executives are always communicating — a group text message hums on their phones during games — and every decision brings vigorous debate. But from the beginning, the Warriors brass placed an unusually strong emphasis on numbers.

The data dive yielded many insights, but the Warriors eventually zeroed in on the three-point line. NBA players made roughly the same percentage of shots from 7m as they did from 7.3m. But because the three-point line ran between them, the values of those two shots were radically different. S
hot attempts from 7m had an average value of 0.76 points, while 7.3m shots were worth 1.09.

Lacob wasn’t the only team owner in sports to delve into statistics — baseball has been doing it for years — and the Warriors weren’t the first NBA team to see the potential of the three-pointer. Starting in the 1990s, a string of teams with brutally effective defences had prompted teams like the Phoenix Suns and San Antonio Spurs to search for different ways to score, and that meant shooting more three-pointers. More recently, as the data improved, it became clear that teams weren’t taking nearly enough of them.

The difference between the Warriors and everyone else was what the team decided to do with this information.

For many years after James Naismith invented basketball in 1891, the prevailing view was that the most important area of the court was near the basket. From Wilt Chamberlain’s finger-rolls in the 1960s to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s sky hooks in the 1970s to Jordan’s soaring dunks in the 1990s, the NBA was the dominion of players who owned the rim.
But once the analysis was done - how do you fit it around the players you have and who do you go and recruit?
When the Warriors, under their previous owners, drafted Curry in 2009, he wasn’t a prototypical NBA superstar. Though his father, Dell, had played in the NBA, Stephen Curry was so lightly recruited out of high school that he had attended tiny Davidson College near his hometown of Charlotte, North Carolina. He only emerged as a tantalising NBA prospect after his team made an improbable run to the regional finals of the 2008 NCAA tournament.

Even after his first two seasons with Golden State, Curry wasn’t a sure thing. Still, as the team’s new executives settled on their plan to exploit the three-point line, they became convinced Curry would be their centrepiece.
But as they built the team from the analysis the tech milionaires reckon they have to sack the coach to find one that can take advantage of their game plan and get the players to implement it - ie a guy who shot a lot of 3 pointers.
By the time the 2014-15 season began, the Warriors had padded their roster with Australian Andrew Bogut, a 213cm (7ft) centre who protects the rim and shores up their defence; the position-defying Draymond Green, the steal of the 2012 draft; and rangy guards Andre Iguodala and Shaun Livingston, whom they acquired in free agency. “They complemented shooting, even though they’re not shooters,” Myers said.

The Warriors then had a chance to trade for one of the league’s premier players, Minnesota Timberwolves forward Kevin Love. The move would have been a no-brainer for most basketball people. But the Timberwolves wanted a player in return whose departure would have scuttled the Warriors’ master plan. “They kept asking for Klay, and we kept saying no,” Lacob said. “We weren’t going to trade Klay, and they weren’t going to do a deal without Klay.”

The team doubled down on its three-point plan by replacing coach Mark Jackson with Steve Kerr, a member of five NBA championship teams who had retired with a 45.4 per cent shooting rate on three-pointers, the highest in league history. It was his first NBA coaching job.
And they keep recruiting and playing 3 point shooters

But the Silicon Valley boys and new coach kept tinkering.

And just like Rinus Michels found Cruyff to carry out Total Football, the Warriors found Steph Curry

The owners know other teams will try and find a way to stop them and beat them, but they know it wont be overnight.


I'm sick of failure. I want our leader to do what Joe Lacob, get the board to be a brains trust and go and solve our problems, because our football department has stuffed up for too long and proved they can't fix up the * ups.

It doesn't have to be forever, do it for a couple of years, set up the right model, get the right game plan to fit the right players we have and add to them, get the right coach, and then everything else takes care of itself and the board becomes hands off and a good corporate governance structure is restored.
 
Last edited:
Sep 20, 2007
8,115
12,244
Dungeon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
It's a way to wipe out 10 trouble makers in one hit.
But how could the Port Club do it without arousing suspicion...
1571809475609.png
 
It's a way to wipe out 10 trouble makers in one hit.

Or it’s a way to let people voice their concerns in a face to face manner and articulate genuine care or concern.

It’s easy to sit here and type away Hinkley is s**t, it’s another thing to invest ones own time to articulate Hinkley is shot
 
Oct 12, 2007
30,501
52,049
The Hills
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Or it’s a way to let people voice their concerns in a face to face manner and articulate genuine care or concern.

It’s easy to sit here and type away Hinkley is s**t, it’s another thing to invest ones own time to articulate Hinkley is shot

Easy Rick!

It is a great thing you are doing and if I could be there I 100% would.

I'm just having fun.

Let Mathew eat first though.
 
Or it’s a way to let people voice their concerns in a face to face manner and articulate genuine care or concern.

It’s easy to sit here and type away Hinkley is s**t, it’s another thing to invest ones own time to articulate Hinkley is shot
Driving to Alberton to tell Ben and Matt in person that Hinkley is s**t will have exactly the same effect as posting it here. They: 1) already know and 2) can't do anything about it.
 
Driving to Alberton to tell Ben and Matt in person that Hinkley is s**t will have exactly the same effect as posting it here. They: 1) already know and 2) can't do anything about it.
Who is stupid enough to do that?
 
The way I heard the process of deciding on the co-captain issue is somewhat different than the football department being too involved as stated / presumed. Six months before Boak resigned as captain, I was told in confidence that he was prepared to resign the captaincy in order for Wines to re-sign his contract during 2018 and as a carrot, the captaincy offer was used to gain the signature which was supported by the coach. When the time came, unnamed people did not consider Wines quite ready for the role, and suggested a co-captaincy arrangement. I was told the team selected the other. Both were then approved by the football department. One captain was wanted by the coach, the other wanted by the players. The club sent out feelers re co-captains but had no intention of listening to members because the promise and decision had already been made, even prior to a skiing accident.


The club has never explained in any detail exactly how having co-captains could increase the chance of more wins or playing finals, winning a premiership. They just said it would in the hope of silencing the members and supporters due to the very unpopular decision. If a statement is made but then not qualified, I question the statement. For me, so be it is not quite good enough.

.
People pleasing 101 - you try to please everyone and you will please no one
 

agmsy

All Australian
Sep 28, 2014
868
2,753
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
BS decisions should be overturned by the board and CEO.

I'm very much in favour of data-driven decision making, and I'm familiar with the power of analytics in sport.

Assuming we could construct a footy brains trust, and operate it outside of the football department soft cap, what data would they refer to when reviewing proposals like a co-captaincy model? There's no historical precedent.

You have to reliably forecast the effect of retiring the number 1 guernsey on fan engagement and memberships (probably over multiple years). The impact (good or bad) of co-captains on the playing group. The expected blowback if you overrule an already professionally delinquent coach. The impact that loss of agency (real or perceived) may have on a playing group already subject to the toxicity of an environment that, for instance, conflates "young and talented" with "lazy or bad for the group". Above all, how does the net effect translate into wins and losses?

If you can't measure these things, a decision overruled by the board is no more data-driven than the co-captains catastrophe we arrived at in the first place.

I'm sick of failure. I want our leader to do what Joe Lacob, get the board to be a brains trust and go and solve our problems

As are we all. The sooner we replace our leader (be that coach or chairman) with somebody not pathologically afraid of anyone smarter than them, the better.
 
I'm very much in favour of data-driven decision making, and I'm familiar with the power of analytics in sport.

Assuming we could construct a footy brains trust, and operate it outside of the football department soft cap, what data would they refer to when reviewing proposals like a co-captaincy model? There's no historical precedent.

You have to reliably forecast the effect of retiring the number 1 guernsey on fan engagement and memberships (probably over multiple years). The impact (good or bad) of co-captains on the playing group. The expected blowback if you overrule an already professionally delinquent coach. The impact that loss of agency (real or perceived) may have on a playing group already subject to the toxicity of an environment that, for instance, conflates "young and talented" with "lazy or bad for the group". Above all, how does the net effect translate into wins and losses?

If you can't measure these things, a decision overruled by the board is no more data-driven than the co-captains catastrophe we arrived at in the first place.



As are we all. The sooner we replace our leader (be that coach or chairman) with somebody not pathologically afraid of anyone smarter than them, the better.
If they were prepared to appoint co-captains then why not appoint co-coaches, co-ceos co-chairmans. Where is the data to say that shouldn't be tried?
 
Oct 12, 2007
30,501
52,049
The Hills
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I'm very much in favour of data-driven decision making, and I'm familiar with the power of analytics in sport.

Assuming we could construct a footy brains trust, and operate it outside of the football department soft cap, what data would they refer to when reviewing proposals like a co-captaincy model? There's no historical precedent.

You have to reliably forecast the effect of retiring the number 1 guernsey on fan engagement and memberships (probably over multiple years). The impact (good or bad) of co-captains on the playing group. The expected blowback if you overrule an already professionally delinquent coach. The impact that loss of agency (real or perceived) may have on a playing group already subject to the toxicity of an environment that, for instance, conflates "young and talented" with "lazy or bad for the group". Above all, how does the net effect translate into wins and losses?

If you can't measure these things, a decision overruled by the board is no more data-driven than the co-captains catastrophe we arrived at in the first place.



As are we all. The sooner we replace our leader (be that coach or chairman) with somebody not pathologically afraid of anyone smarter than them, the better.
In a data driven environment you would measure all seasons from all teams with co-captains results against all teams with single captains.

You would conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that a co-captain model enhanced the chances of premiership success.

This would then be countered with the loss of membership revenue and the very real evidence that a clubs financed have an impact on results and the data would show a clear course of action.

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Back