Petition/Letter to the Club demanding an external review (now with PDF link in OP)

Remove this Banner Ad

adelaidecrows said:
Malcolm Blight may have won us two premierships, however lets face facts. He was widely hated by the playing group, we were hardly the best team in the competition either of those premiership years and he traded Modra (the best forward our club has ever had) for a misguided thought process on how the game would be played then walked away because he cant be bothered fixing his mistake. He was sacked by St Kilda for being s**t and well his efforts on the gold coast board probably leave a little to be desired considering where they are. So basically Malcolm, your rant was the stupidest argument ive heard against a review and I am not sure based on your track record you know what makes a strong club at all in the modern game.

An external review was always needed. The one thing always said about the Adelaide Football Club was that it didn't feel like a club. It felt very corporate and it was the first thing Phil Walsh wanted to change. The good thing about an external review is the findings will be presented to the board and the board can implement the best bits. Some people are questioning the people on the review but it doesn't matter. If it can highlight some culture issues, mistakes in our high performance program, our coaching setup as well as the setup of the administration and cultures I can't see it as a bad thing. People are saying this is weak and pathetic by the club, however it actually is a point of strength to admit there are weaknesses and culture problems in an organisation. By inviting people into the inner sanctum to figure it out and taking on board their findings to improve is also a massive strength on character. I actually think the board is showing the reverse of weakness right now and they should be applauded for taking this step. Alot of huge corporations pay millions to consultants to do the exact same thing so why should football clubs be different?

Make no mistake though the real strength test is actually implementing the findings.
Click to expand...

The way I interpreted it he was mainly critical about the timing of the review, because the players won’t be there.

The scariest part is wondering whether we’d be having any review at all if it wasn’t for the public pressure finally reaching fever pitch. This is not a club known for its self-awareness.

The rest of your critique of Blight is laughable. You’ve cited his “track record” as your evidence, which is essentially the knockout blow for the opposing argument. It’s like arguing Federer’s a s**t tennis player and pointing to his grand slam record as evidence.

You must surely realize how ridiculous you sound.
 
DJ75 said:
I'm not convinced any role in the AFLPA indicates brains at all. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Burton president at one stage? Isn't Dangerfield one of them now?
Click to expand...
Fair point, but my impression is that Pav has the smarts to do the job. The fact that he has had a role that some dufuses have had, shouldn't count against him. :)
 
Slippery Pete said:
The way I interpreted it he was mainly critical about the timing of the review, because the players won’t be there.

The scariest part is wondering whether we’d be having any review at all if it wasn’t for the public pressure finally reaching fever pitch. This is not a club known for its self-awareness.

The rest of your critique of Blight is laughable. You’ve cited his “track record” as your evidence, which is essentially the knockout blow for the opposing argument. It’s like arguing Federer’s a s**t tennis player and pointing to his grand slam record as evidence.

You must surely realize how ridiculous you sound.
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples to oranges. Comparing federers playing record to malcolms would be the same thing. Bradman was the best cricketer to ever play the game but he is also regarded as the worst administrator the SACA ever had. History has proven it. Whats Malcolm done in the last 20 years to even suggest he knows whats best for the club. He has a good coaching record but that hardly defines the making of a club off field and its culture. He failed as the coach at the saints and he was a s**t board member at the suns. That in no way makes him an expert to smash the club over the review. If he was arguing on the basis of no player involvement then he was wrong on that and ill informed. People have to stop looking at those two premierships and determining Blight is the beacon of AFL club knowledge. If he was he would be running the club. His rant was no more informed than someone on here having a go at the club. Blight jumped the shark on this and the club knows this.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

adelaidecrows said:
If he was arguing on the basis of no player involvement then he was wrong on that and ill informed.
Click to expand...

He might’ve been off the boil about that part, but every single thing he said about the club’s reputation and image is 100% accurate.

Not surprised the club would think it isn’t - we already know how deluded they are.
 
adelaidecrows said:
Malcolm Blight may have won us two premierships, however lets face facts. He was widely hated by the playing group, we were hardly the best team in the competition either of those premiership years and he traded Modra (the best forward our club has ever had) for a misguided thought process on how the game would be played then walked away because he cant be bothered fixing his mistake. He was sacked by St Kilda for being s**t and well his efforts on the gold coast board probably leave a little to be desired considering where they are. So basically Malcolm, your rant was the stupidest argument ive heard against a review and I am not sure based on your track record you know what makes a strong club at all in the modern game.

An external review was always needed. The one thing always said about the Adelaide Football Club was that it didn't feel like a club. It felt very corporate and it was the first thing Phil Walsh wanted to change. The good thing about an external review is the findings will be presented to the board and the board can implement the best bits. Some people are questioning the people on the review but it doesn't matter. If it can highlight some culture issues, mistakes in our high performance program, our coaching setup as well as the setup of the administration and cultures I can't see it as a bad thing. People are saying this is weak and pathetic by the club, however it actually is a point of strength to admit there are weaknesses and culture problems in an organisation. By inviting people into the inner sanctum to figure it out and taking on board their findings to improve is also a massive strength on character. I actually think the board is showing the reverse of weakness right now and they should be applauded for taking this step. Alot of huge corporations pay millions to consultants to do the exact same thing so why should football clubs be different?

Make no mistake though the real strength test is actually implementing the findings.
Click to expand...

The bold is the only relevant thing here.
 
adelaidecrows said:
Malcolm Blight may have won us two premierships, however lets face facts. He was widely hated by the playing group, we were hardly the best team in the competition either of those premiership years and he traded Modra (the best forward our club has ever had) for a misguided thought process on how the game would be played then walked away because he cant be bothered fixing his mistake. He was sacked by St Kilda for being s**t and well his efforts on the gold coast board probably leave a little to be desired considering where they are. So basically Malcolm, your rant was the stupidest argument ive heard against a review and I am not sure based on your track record you know what makes a strong club at all in the modern game.

An external review was always needed. The one thing always said about the Adelaide Football Club was that it didn't feel like a club. It felt very corporate and it was the first thing Phil Walsh wanted to change. The good thing about an external review is the findings will be presented to the board and the board can implement the best bits. Some people are questioning the people on the review but it doesn't matter. If it can highlight some culture issues, mistakes in our high performance program, our coaching setup as well as the setup of the administration and cultures I can't see it as a bad thing. People are saying this is weak and pathetic by the club, however it actually is a point of strength to admit there are weaknesses and culture problems in an organisation. By inviting people into the inner sanctum to figure it out and taking on board their findings to improve is also a massive strength on character. I actually think the board is showing the reverse of weakness right now and they should be applauded for taking this step. Alot of huge corporations pay millions to consultants to do the exact same thing so why should football clubs be different?

Make no mistake though the real strength test is actually implementing the findings.
Click to expand...

Why should we face made up facts?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JPetro83
Should the club tap Tex and Rory on the shoulder now? possible farewell game
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
dylan123
dylan123
feenix67
Roast Sooo... about that review
2 3
Replies
72
Views
3K
Mostyn
Mostyn
C
Max and Jake are our future. Rebuild 2.0 should begin now.
Replies
4
Views
441
Bob Neil
Bob Neil
Kane McGoodwin
Analysis SANFL Club Contribution to the Crows
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
32year crow
3
Chief
Win Prizes Adelaide Board Tipping 2024 - Join now! 🔥 - Reply IN when you join
Replies
9
Views
451
Crow_68
Crow_68
adelaidecrows
Roast Roo has to go and he can take Nicks with him....Sloane, Murphy and Smith can go as well.
Replies
1
Views
335
craig crowing
C
Southerntakeover
Is there any reason to attend home games?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
2K
Afcprophet
A

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top