Meet Up Meet Matthew Richardson at the club

[Far Kern]

Who is this man and why has he stolen the name of one of heavens angels?

GM. I’ll guess that he got in first and your bloke had a big sook a few years later.

 

[AuntyBlindEye]

GM. I’ll guess that he got in first and your bloke had a big sook a few years later.

Come now. Richo never sooked. Not once. Never.

 

[Steve Dore]

I won't be at the meeting but can someone please ask about the buses.

 

[FishingRick04]

I think it’s easy to type here and vent and say it’s worthless what’s the point.

However for those who venture down and make an effort to articulate their concerns in person I’m sure will have added weight.

 

[agmsy]

Even the feedback KT received face to face about co-captains at the Inside Port Adelaide Live event in February was completely ignored.

In fairness, reversing the co-captains decision in this way would have set a very dangerous precedent. There are a many decisions, captaincy among them, that must be left to the football department. Having management intervene in these decisions on behalf of members/fans is a bad idea.

As much as I love our club's history and value it's traditions, if "we exist to win premierships", and a well run football program tells us that co-captains give us the best chance to win a premiership, then so be it.

The problem isn't that we appointed co-captains. The problem is that our football department is not well run. It's a mad house.

With no evidence to support their position, our football department anointed two players wholly undeserving of and unequipped for the captaincy. Their justification was that it gave us the best chance to win a premiership. We went from 10th with 12 wins in 2018 to 10th with 11 wins in 2019. So, either they were completely wrong and co-captains did not give us the best chance to win a flag, or we are so far off winning a flag that it wouldn't matter if we have one captain, two captain's, or 22 captains, and our footy dept is too inept to see and address the real issues.

I can't attend the Thursday evening meeting, but I am impressed by the staff who've made themselves available (particularly outside standard business hours, to accommodate members). I hope those who do attend can approach the session with a constructive attitude, and am keen to read a summary of what happens on the night.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I would love to attend this but family commitments don't allow for it.

I also feel bad that it's always Richo and Benny D who field these questions, when they aren't really in a position to answer them because they're football dept related, or board related. Those two do a brilliant job, and full credit for them for being willing to field questions from the angry mob.

 

[Pear1870]

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.

.

 

[It Just Is]

If true, offering captaincy in contract negotiations is a real get what you deserve moment.

 

[PowerLil]

If true, offering captaincy in contract negotiations is a real get what you deserve moment.

Even more so if he or his management have been 'shopping'.

 

[Steve Dore]

In fairness, reversing the co-captains decision in this way would have set a very dangerous precedent. There are a many decisions, captaincy among them, that must be left to the football department. Having management intervene in these decisions on behalf of members/fans is a bad idea. ....

Not sure if serious.

Having one captain wearing the #1 was a Port Adelaide Football Club tradition. Destroying long standing club traditions should not be up to the football department or in this case one man, Ken Hinkley. A man that would not even have been at the club to destroy that long standing tradition if not for the incompetence of Koch and his board.

The co-captains decision had not been officially announced and KT and the club administration new it was very unpopular with the members. That is why KT gave his "one captain wearing the #1 is just an out of date fashion" speech at the Inside PA Live event.

The administration and, more so, the board are there to protect the club's traditions from the whims of here today gone tomorrow employees and contractors.

... As much as I love our club's history and value it's traditions, if "we exist to win premierships", and a well run football program tells us that co-captains give us the best chance to win a premiership, then so be it. ...

Based on what evidence do you claim that having co-captains gives us the best chance of winning a premiership?

Do Richmond have co-captains? Do West Coast?

Or are you just basing this on the say so of Ken Hinkley? What evidence has he presented to support this theory?

Don't be fooled, the appointment of co-captains had nothing to do with winning games of football. It was because the players did not want Hinkley's choice of captain and Hinkley did not want the players' choice.

"We'll convince them purely through results" - Hinkley, February 2019.

How'd that work out?

 

[El Zorro]

If true, offering captaincy in contract negotiations is a real get what you deserve moment.

Pretty sure that was part of the negotiations to convince Boak to stay.

 

[Forzaport]

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.

.

I reckon this wouldn't be too far from the truth. It really shows a lack of leadership within the club to allow such a culture destroying decision.

 

[agmsy]

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.

Organisationally, don't the players sit within the football department?

Not sure if serious.

Once management starts interfering with the football department, it can be damaging, and difficult for them to stop. That sort of interference is what saw Jack Watts debut in the Queen's Birthday game, for instance.

Based on what evidence do you claim that having co-captains gives us the best chance of winning a premiership?

None, because I didn't claim that. "If" was the operative word in that sentence.

How'd that work out?

Either you missed or misunderstood the second to last paragraph of my post.

If a statement is made but then not qualified, I question the statement.

Again, I said that our handling of the co-captains decision was not evidence based. "So be it" is predicated on the expectation that a well run football department would be able to justify their decision.

 

[Pear1870]

Fair enough. I prefer the sentence to read "a well run football department WOULD justify their decision". Deleting three words " be able to". It implies choice .
.

 

[Steve Dore]

Organisationally, don't the players sit within the football department?



Once management starts interfering with the football department, it can be damaging, and difficult for them to stop. That sort of interference is what saw Jack Watts debut in the Queen's Birthday game, for instance.



None, because I didn't claim that. "If" was the operative word in that sentence.



Either you missed or misunderstood the second to last paragraph of my post.



Again, I said that our handling of the co-captains decision was not evidence based. "So be it" is predicated on the expectation that a well run football department would be able to justify their decision.

Management protecting time honoured club traditions is not "interfering with the football department".

What part of having co-captains increased our chances of winning the flag in 2019 did I misunderstand?

 

[El Zorro]

Any updates on how this went from those attending? FishingRick04

 

[manureid]

Any updates on how this went from those attending? FishingRick04

Thursday.

 

[agmsy]

What part of having co-captains increased our chances of winning the flag in 2019 did I misunderstand?

I never said it did.

I said it either decreased our chances, or it had a negligible effect because we are not close to winning a flag.

 

[Steve Dore]

I never said it did.

I said it either decreased our chances, or it had a negligible effect because we are not close to winning a flag.

So Hinkley trashed 148 years of tradition for no noticeable gain. You are saying it actually had a negative impact. This is why I find your idea of having football departments make these far reaching decisions totally unacceptable.

 

[Portwon]

Thank you for organising this and to Matt for attending.

I would be so up for this but currently travelling. Would be keen for any further opportunities if or when the come up. Would love the opportunity to calmly yet forcefully express my thoughts as someone who has gone from highly to barely engaged over the last three or so years.

I too have my doubts about things changing but I commend the effort and attempt. He cant answer or fix some or most of the issues that will be raised but another forum/outlet to express concerns and ensure they are aware of discontent that won't disapate without action adds to the pressure. Communication ongoing and in different forms never hurts.

Hopefully one of the attendees can provide an update if they feel comfortable.

 

[agmsy]

So Hinkley trashed 148 years of tradition for no noticeable gain. You are saying it actually had a negative impact. This is why I find your idea of having football departments make these far reaching decisions totally unacceptable.

Hinkley is manifestly incompetent. Our football department is manifestly incompetent. A manifestly incompetent football department serving as the fiefdom of a manifestly incompetent head coach cannot be a well run football department.

I never said co-captains was a decision I was happy for our football department to make.

 

[bomberclifford]

As much as I'd love to, I have some other stuff I need to attend to at that time.

Hope it goes well FishingRick04 I look forward to the updates here.

 

[Steve Dore]

..
I never said co-captains was a decision I was happy for our football department to make.

In response to my post regarding the co-captains decision;

..... There are a many decisions, captaincy among them, that must be left to the football department. Having management intervene in these decisions on behalf of members/fans is a bad idea. ....

 

[agmsy]

In response to my post regarding the co-captains decision;

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.

 

[El Zorro]

Thursday.

Apologies, I thought it was yesterday.