Old Boys Club?

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

At last count, we have B Hart, Bickley, Clarke, Crowell, Robran, D Hart, Schwerdt, Bode, Moss and Biglands all on the payroll somewhere with John Reid trying to claw his way back in. It would be fair to say that we're a club that looks after its own.

It is easy to be critical of this aspect of the club (fun too) and the club has certainly copped it's share of criticism. I'm wondering though whether this criticism is justified.

We're a club that is only 20 years old. We don't have the histories and traditions other AFL clubs do. Is it necessary for our club to retain past-players around the club in order to build and create our culture?

Football clubs are built upon people and stories. How important is it to forge a link with our past, to ensure that experiences are passed down to the next generation and to build this club culture? Is it a good thing that we retain so many of our past players around the club in football and non-football roles?

Or are we just an old boys club with the decision-makers hell bent on giving their mates jobs?

 

[ftmch]

I think you make a good point re the culture issue.

The fact that we find it harder to bring and keep people over to Adelaide to live and work could also be a factor in us looking in our own back yard more than most.

 

[Allefgib]

Carl - they could at least disguise it better. Or explain the culture building philosohpy.. rather than just appointing people without going through an appropriate process. Aka the power with Primus this offseason.

 

[beartoo]

Has anyone done an anaylsis of other clubs? Do they also look to their own more than outside?

 

[Mego Red]

Interesting. I actually think you want to keep champions of the club around after their career has finished, as long as they can vaguely succeed in their new roles. Assistant coaches are probably the position that you most want to look outside for, but for other roles it makes a lot of sense.

 

[jo172]

I think it's entirely unjustified in minor roles so long as the person is qualified. I'm talking about the positions which have over time been filled by Crowell, Robran and even Bode's new position so long as their qualified. I think looking after your own well after retirement creates a good culture and gives an implication of loyalty to the present players in that the club doesn't just wash it's hands of you after you're past your football used by date.

Regarding Assistant Coaches, I feel yes and no. Assistant Coaches success is notoriously difficult to measure as no one can say with absolute certainty what they've been responsible for. I have no problem with Assistant Coaches being former club legends so long as their meeting their performance criteria. Also, most of these Assistant Coaches have spent time outside of the club meaning we're not running an immediate retirement plan. So long as the Assistant Coaches are being chosen on relative merit compared to an open field I see no problems.

People labour under an assumption there should be outside assistant Coaches to challenge Craig and provide new voices. This is undoubtedly true, however their key function is to be able to assist in implementing Craig's game plan. It stands to reason that people who played under it would be better at this. Ultimately it is Craig rather than the Assistants who should live or die by this.

 

[Vader]

Has anyone done an anaylsis of other clubs? Do they also look to their own more than outside?

This would be my question too.

My gut feel is that we have more than our fair share of ex-players as assistant coaches, but off-field we're probably no different from everyone else.

 

[Mismatched]

This would be my question too.

My gut feel is that we have more than our fair share of ex-players as assistant coaches, but off-field we're probably no different from everyone else.

Its an interesting one, when Craig took over he immediately brought in 3, relatively unknown assistant coaches who weren't former players in Pyke, Hamilton and Noble, we also brought the highly regarded Redden in as a part time ruck coach. I liked this approach, as he'd clearly gone out and sought the best people for the club, not just whichever former player was out of a job.

3-4 years ago however I thought it'd be nice if we made use of our former players a bit more. I think its good to have a few blokes around the club(in non-playing positions) who clearly have a love for our club and wouldn't treat their roles as "just another job".

However it now seems that he's gone the complete opposite way and filled his coaches box with 3 ex-players, with only 1 from elsewhere. Not to mention the multitudes in administrative or support roles. I don't have a problem with this if, as others have mentioned, they are the best people for the job and not just selected on name alone. I have enough faith in Craigy and Triggy that they wouldn't do this, but sometimes one does wonder.

As Jo mentions this is a really hard thing for us as supporters to measure or evaluate, as it really is impossible to know the extent of the involvement of assistant coaches.

 

[afc1991]

As Jo mentions this is a really hard thing for us as supporters to measure or evaluate, as it really is impossible to know the extent of the involvement of assistant coaches.

Indeed. Carl raises a fair point but without inside knowledge I reckon its impossible for us to know. Much easier to evaluate a senior coach than his henchmen I reckon.

If goody were to return in a coaching role I wonder how that would be viewed given that he will have had some experience outside the club.

 

[Wood_Duck]

The straw that broke the camels back for me was the management position we created for David Noble to get him out of the coaches box.

The ever burgeoning head count at West Lakes is getting a bit over the top. Interestingly in 2008 we made a profit of just over a million dollars. In 2009 we made about 90 thousand. The only difference between the two numbers was the extra million we spent on staff in 2009.

Im willing to bet that in 2010 we spent nearly an extra million over and above 2009.

 

[writeoff]

Are the past players being used to lure or retain sponsorship money? Are they present at meetings with current or potential sponsors just for the 'feel good' factor of getting up and close with players? In other words is this more of a marketing strategy by the club?

 

[jo172]

The straw that broke the camels back for me was the management position we created for David Noble to get him out of the coaches box.

The ever burgeoning head count at West Lakes is getting a bit over the top. Interestingly in 2008 we made a profit of just over a million dollars. In 2009 we made about 90 thousand. The only difference between the two numbers was the extra million we spent on staff in 2009.

Im willing to bet that in 2010 we spent nearly an extra million over and above 2009.

Serious.

You're saying revenue didn't drop in 2010 at all?

The only change is astonishing!

 

[Wood_Duck]

Serious.

You're saying revenue didn't drop in 2010 at all?

The only change is astonishing!

I said nothing about the revenue in 2010. One would expect it to be down on previous years though.

The revenue in 2008 and 2009 was pretty much the same though.

 

[marvin]

At Collingwood, they've got Buckley and Licuria as assistants, Tarkyn Lockyer as their VFL coach (replacing Gavin Brown), Justin Crow (2 games 2004) as rehab coach, and of course Gary Pert as CEO. [They also have a Jason Taylor as national recruiting assistant, who may or may not be the same Jason Taylor who played 4 games in the mid 1990s].

That's just from the "official" staff list from the club (noting that Crowell, for example is not on the AFC list on their website).

 

[jo172]

I said nothing about the revenue in 2010. One would expect it to be down on previous years though.

The revenue in 2008 and 2009 was pretty much the same though.

Then you were being stupid or disingenuous.

Saying that profit dipped and the only difference was an increase in staff payments indicates that revenue must have been stagnant.

What you meant to say is that profit dipped and we spent more on staff (which is an assertion which you haven't proved). If revenue also dipped you can hardly solely blame any drop in profit for increased staff spending.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Then you were being stupid or disingenuous.

Saying that profit dipped and the only difference was an increase in staff payments indicates that revenue must have been stagnant.

What you meant to say is that profit dipped and we spent more on staff (which is an assertion which you haven't proved). If revenue also dipped you can hardly solely blame any drop in profit for increased staff spending.

It appears you are a deadset clown and cannot read. The difference between the financial years of 2008 and 2009 were excatly as I stated. WTF are you actually arguing? Seariously smart arse what are you actually arguing, the auditors got the financials wrong?

 

[jo172]

It appears you are a deadset clown and cannot read. The difference between the financial years of 2008 and 2009 were excatly as I stated. WTF are you actually arguing? Seariously smart arse what are you actually arguing, the auditors got the financials wrong?

Ah that's my bad, i misread the years

 

[Wood_Duck]

Ah that's my bad, i misread the years

Then I take it back. You are nor clown, nor smart arse.

 

[jo172]

Then I take it back. You are nor clown, nor smart arse.

I was being a smart-arse