News Review Completed

[TheLoungeLizard]

I did expect that they would sound out 5 candidates and try to get them to interview so we could see what was out their and expose ourselves to some different thinking.

And you know that they didn't and as a result of the interviews they decided on the best choice for the role, one of the candidates, was a person already in our system?
We may well have had the best option already, but I'm sure you'll tell me otherwise and that we made the wrong choice despite not being a part of the selection.

 

[Livonski]

Lade is tied to Hardwick so if Hardwick doesn't perform in 2017 he gets the bullet. So you can only offer Lade 1 year to align with hardwicks tenure. So if Lade can get a 3 year deal elsewhere then good luck to him. Otherwise one year with us and roll the dice with dimma

Or 4 years.

 

[Sassafras]

Or 4 years.

It's great news.

 

[Livonski]

I'm ambivalent to be honest.
We underperformed so shoot Lade...maybe. Maybe there's a myriad of minor issues that had a cumulative effect? I don't know, and I reckon most of us outside the club don't know either.

 

[Sassafras]

I'm ambivalent to be honest.
We underperformed so shoot Lade...maybe. Maybe there's a myriad of minor issues that had a cumulative effect? I don't know, and I reckon most of us outside the club don't know either.

Of course, but it is still great that Lade is gone. If they are welded on to the idea of keeping Dim, the best thing they can do is get rid of his bad influences.

 

[TheLoungeLizard]

I always thought he had a reputation for having an excellent football brain and being a really good assistant and earmarked for a future senior job?
That was, until his role change this year - that said, glad to see they are following through with the promise of changes anyway and I have faith they know best.
Thought he may have held on but come on down Caracella

 

[Dr Tigris]

So why is it ok for this structure to have been in place? All well and good to do a review and try to fix things up, but why will no-one be held accountable for being asleep at the wheel?

Is it just me or are the very people who seem to be claiming credit for the review also the people responsible for the mess that was allowed to occur in the first place?

Basically, how could the decision-makers have forgotten about the footy, and why is that oversight now being overlooked in favour of the correction?

Sorry for the delayed response.

The logical outcome of your POV is that everyone should be sacked and start with all new staff. makes sense, CEO and board were in charge, so should be responsible. But what seems to have come out of the review (at the same time anyway) is a breaking up of Dimma's coaching mates, changes to the drafting and conditioning team, and aggression in trading.
The actual structure is fairly much the same at all clubs. Because you need specialists to do drafting, development, conditioning etc. So I can't see leaving the structure in place, and changing people is a bad thing.

As to whether the big bosses should be gotten rid of;
1) No because they run the club and so can move blame to those directly responsible. Their turn comes if this continues. Way of the world.
2) No, because they relied on some blokes that seem to not be quite right as senior staff. Dimma seems to have allowed a culture of 'mates' to arise in the coaching and playing groups. Richo is very good at contracts, but poor at managing the Footy Dept. So the senior football people didn't manage their roles well. You tend not to know this is true until after the fact. So come 2016 the CEO and board realize that htings are very far form what they have been told. They have look - themselves and through a review, and change things up. Part of the oversight and governance role they hold.
3) Yes, they are ultimately responsible for the Footy dept and that has been a problem for a couple of years. 3 years of finals masked deep problems that 2016 revealed. They should fall on their swords and reboot the club.

1) I don't like but it is how things work.
2) Is the way it is for us.
3) Would tear the club up, and probably set us back many years.

What I hope they have learnt is that being stable and 'mates' is no substitute for being professional and strategic. Out list is changing over from young and developing to mature and hopefully contending. 2016 revealed an appalling lack of insight into our list and tactics. We fell apart of lost the plot. The good thing about that is that sometimes that sort of thing leads to see the world as it really is and learn how to improve dramatically. I think since the club dragged itself from being total garbage this is the first real test. Hopefully we are mature and smart enough o respond well. With any luck we will make sure that insular cliques are eliminated and ongoing professionalism rules.

 

[Pirate]

I reckon most of us outside the club don't know either.

One of the most accurate comments made on a forum in a long time. So many assumptions, guesses, myths and half-informed comments on a wide range of matters.