Schwab a problem ??

[Freo pom]

Iscah,the garden quote is a classic.......i sort of agree,and the CC contract has left the CEO and the board open to critisism.Everyone has an opinion and this forum is for debate,not personal sledging.We need to leave no stone unturned to create the Fremantle Football club WE want.

 

[wehavethepassion]

I get the feeling that even though connoly is carrying a lot of the flak, there appears to be a shift towards Cam, Rick and the board?

Cam was not very convincing on the Telly tonite or was he on radio today.

Cam has had the flick from two previous clubs he can't afford a third so, he will do anything to stay.

Question: at the start of this year which club would have appointed Connolly as coach??

 

[iscah]

WHTP - I can understand in a way why the extension was made to Connolly's contract. Even though both Freo and West Coast had won 25 games each in previous 2 seasons, everyone was speculating on just one coaches future. The press in WA are disgracefully ones sided due to the history of West Coast being here first.

So with that background the board would be thinking well if he loses a few games and we have already extended the contract then that speculation will not be as bad. And they have been correct, if that extension had not been made we would have had this media frenzy for the last 8 weeks rather than just this week it reaching a pinnacle. At the same time the contract probably should have been just a one year extension with a clause that limits the payout if the coach goes early. That would make good football and business sense.

Now the focus is rightly being put as much on Schwab. He has avoided scrutiny for 4 seasons and with a history of not performing well at two previous clubs it needs him to stand up and be counted. So far he has not done that well and the rest of the football public have started to pick that up.

 

[Dr Ralph Dagg]

Now the focus is rightly being put as much on Schwab. He has avoided scrutiny for 4 seasons and with a history of not performing well at two previous clubs it needs him to stand up and be counted. So far he has not done that well and the rest of the football public have started to pick that up.

This focus is being put on Schwab by a few individuals, some with media exposure, who have an agenda that they won't declare. Its just plain white-anting. For example, Schwab left Melbourne after disagreeing with Gutnick. Subsequently, the whole Melbourne board disagreed with Gutnick and they were a shambles off-field. As I recall, Schwab was immediately snapped up by the AFL.

And Schwab's appointment at Freo was not checked out by the AFL because they had concerns about him. If anything he was forced upon Freo by the AFL. He's definitely the AFL's man.

Another example quoted by Iscah is the draft penalties. They occurred because Schwab inherited no functioning system for tracking total player payments at the club. It was a complete shambles and was why we could not show the AFL why we were not over the TPP, and had the space to pay Fabian Francis. It was one of the first things that got fixed.

What Iscah also conveniently ignores is the positives that Schwab and Icke have managed to retain all our best players and sign them up for reasonable amounts. Schwab is one of the first CEO's to stop offering the world on a platter to players like the Carlton's, Collingwood's and Richmond's.

Another example of distotion is Iscah's claim about the debt. Servicing the debt on the AFL licence and the clubrooms was just eating away at club income. There was no value being generated by interest payments. We'd get the money in and just give it to the banks. By getting rid of the debt any future income can be used to generate value, or return a profit to the WAFC. If this was such a dud idea the WAFC would never have signed off on it.

The other thing being floated around at the moment is the club has not held AGM's. This is not true. The club held its AGM last year and 10 people turned up.

I'm not saying that it's all wine and roses at the club and its administration. But I think there is a whispering campaign to oust Schwab, and iscah is part of that. I don't agree with it and I think all the other Docker's supporters should see it for what it is.

 

[Ripper]

This focus is being put on Schwab by a few individuals, some with media exposure, who have an agenda that they won't declare. Its just plain white-anting. For example, Schwab left Melbourne after disagreeing with Gutnick. Subsequently, the whole Melbourne board disagreed with Gutnick and they were a shambles off-field. As I recall, Schwab was immediately snapped up by the AFL.

And Schwab's appointment at Freo was not checked out by the AFL because they had concerns about him. If anything he was forced upon Freo by the AFL. He's definitely the AFL's man.

Another example quoted by Iscah is the draft penalties. They occurred because Schwab inherited no functioning system for tracking total player payments at the club. It was a complete shambles and was why we could not show the AFL why we were not over the TPP, and had the space to pay Fabian Francis. It was one of the first things that got fixed.

What Iscah also conveniently ignores is the positives that Schwab and Icke have managed to retain all our best players and sign them up for reasonable amounts. Schwab is one of the first CEO's to stop offering the world on a platter to players like the Carlton's, Collingwood's and Richmond's.

Another example of distotion is Iscah's claim about the debt. Servicing the debt on the AFL licence and the clubrooms was just eating away at club income. There was no value being generated by interest payments. We'd get the money in and just give it to the banks. By getting rid of the debt any future income can be used to generate value, or return a profit to the WAFC. If this was such a dud idea the WAFC would never have signed off on it.

The other thing being floated around at the moment is the club has not held AGM's. This is not true. The club held its AGM last year and 10 people turned up.

I'm not saying that it's all wine and roses at the club and its administration. But I think there is a whispering campaign to oust Schwab, and iscah is part of that. I don't agree with it and I think all the other Docker's supporters should see it for what it is.

Good to see an accurate post Dr. Ralph. I agree with you entirely.

 

[iscah]

Dear Doc

Interesting spin on events. I have no agenda other than wanting a good honest club moving in the right direction. I invest a lot of time and money into Freo other than just going to games, and am privately involved in increasing the size of their supporter group with new migrants to Australia.

Schwab was not overly wanted by Richmond or Melbourne and the reasons you give for the AFL coming over here is different from what I heard at the time. His financial performance is a pass at best given the resources he had thrown at him to solve the problem.

You seem to absolve him from all blame which I am sure he is grateful to you for. However his position is becoming more untenable by the day and his efforts at justifying his stance were very ordinary yesterday.

At least you made an effort to substantiate your support for him this time rather than playing the man instead of the ball throughout your previous posts.

The biggest problems we have are the media stance which is now a farce, Connolly on a 3 year contract which is premature, and a defensive CEO with a dubious success rate at previous clubs. If you think that things are going well and people's performance including Schwab do not need to be looked at, you are having a laff.

 

[dockertor]

Dear Doc

Interesting spin on events. I have no agenda other than wanting a good honest club moving in the right direction. I invest a lot of time and money into Freo other than just going to games, and am privately involved in increasing the size of their supporter group with new migrants to Australia.

Schwab was not overly wanted by Richmond or Melbourne and the reasons you give for the AFL coming over here is different from what I heard at the time. His financial performance is a pass at best given the resources he had thrown at him to solve the problem.

You seem to absolve him from all blame which I am sure he is grateful to you for. However his position is becoming more untenable by the day and his efforts at justifying his stance were very ordinary yesterday.

At least you made an effort to substantiate your support for him this time rather than playing the man instead of the ball throughout your previous posts.

The biggest problems we have are the media stance which is now a farce, Connolly on a 3 year contract which is premature, and a defensive CEO with a dubious success rate at previous clubs. If you think that things are going well and people's performance including Schwab do not need to be looked at, you are having a laff.

The club has become overly defensive thats true. The media shutout and the whole BWR fiasco being examples of this. Not without reason but over reactions nevertheless. But apart from that I agree wholeheartedly with the good Doctor and Ripper. The clubs management have done far better than previous administrations.

 

[Dr Ralph Dagg]

Here's what I mean. You say "the resources he had thrown at him" You tell us what resources he actually had "thrown at him". Because I'll happily concede the argument.

Because as I understand it he arrived at a club with NO CASH FLOW, and a $7 million debt, and no membership or other systems in place. Most of that is on the public record. He had no coach, no football department and an administration in a complete shambles.

I'm not advocating not holding people accountable. Go back though Big Footy records and you'll see I've advocated replacing the coach. I think he has lost the team.

What I'm advocating is that it not be done as a whispering campaign based on rumour and inneundo, and cherry picking aspects of the CEO's performance.

Anyway, heres your chance. You tell us in dollars and cents "the resources he had thrown" at him.

 

[iscah]

I am not an insider at the club and so cannot give dollars and cents but lets look at the circumstances that were in his favour ..

- There was substantial increased revenue from season ticket holders and off the street supporters through increased attendances. This happened as a direct result of the team winning which was as a result of a better list of players. This list to the most part was there before Schwab took over.

- The result of improved team performance has meant sponsors more willing to invest in the club, hence increased cash flow again as a result of a list that was mostly there before he appeared.

- The taking of the CUB sponsorship money was a massive cash injection of millions that has taken from future potential earnings. It appears in our financial figures now rather than in years to come. So he had the benefit of using that.

- Although not directly related, the club has also continued to benefit from reduced fees to the Football Commission whilst we get on track financially.

I concede that from the outside the club appears more stable administratively. But the financial performance has to be balanced by the increased resources he had at his disposal, and which previous administrations were not able to use. If you don't take account of that it is not comparing apples with apples.

To close I have nothing against the guy, I don't know him, I think it is a valid point though that he had a lot of things go his way and just like a wooden spoon team, the next lot usually improve in comparison. He has to be judged in light of that.

The other points still stand especially the media policy. That needs to change.

 

[Ripper]

This list to the most part was there before Schwab took over.

How about you post this great list. You may get a big surprise.

 

[Ripper]

How about you post this great list. You may get a big surprise.

Still waiting.

 

[iscah]

ahh sarcasm, such a strong element ..

Whether Pavlich, Hasleby etc was on the list or not at the time ( I believe they were) , the fact that they have improved their income through the success of the list and draft choices was not really to do with Schwab's financial acumen. It is a natural progression from poor onfield performances which happened BEFORE he turned up. That leads to good draft choices and means that Schwab and the club benefits financially. Good luck to him. Point STILL stands that he had the benefit whilst the previous administration(s) did not. That all has to be taken into account before you naively think he has performed this without been given a great head start in resources.

The question is whether a more skilled administrator with all these things in their favour would have done better, worse or the same. Is only a small part of the overall picture and would say that he would get about a pass, nothing more for financial use of the resources he was given. The other aspects he may get 3/4 out of 10 which is not quite good enough.

 

[Dr Ralph Dagg]

Iscah, I think you've made my point. You don't know. You said the resources that were thrown at him and you can't specifically state what they were. There were no things in his favour.

The membership hardly increased at all in 2002. I think it was 22,000 up from 20,000. They couldn't sell all the sponsorships in 2002, and couldn't get top dollar for those they did sell. And it wasn't till 2004 that they could. My source is a talk by Schwabby in Novermber 2003.

If we were so flush why did the club have to hold a fund-raising dinner to generate the funds to employ Kevin Ball?

You see the CUB money as a dent in future earnings. Any person with a mortage can tell you the value of cash now versus cash later. That's why Australians race to pay off their mortgages.

If the list management was so great when Schwab took over why did we have 2 wins and pay 100% of the salary cap. In fact our TPP was the highest in the AFL.

I'm pretty sure these are all facts but hear's what I used hear. The club could not pay its bills. Creditors would have to wait ages to get paid. The WAFC had to reduce its fees because as the owner it could not let creditors go unpaid. What I hear was the Schwabby had to slash and burn every damn expense he could. What I heard was we had no business systems. What I recollect is we have never had an AFL hand-out.

What rankles me even more than winning only 5 from 17, is the implied proposition that he made no contribution to the improvement of the club and its success. But now that we're going like busted arses he should come under scrutiny. I don't reckon that stacks up any way you look at it.

I also don't think you understand why the media decision was made. I think at the time it was the right decision. Let the results speak for themselves, and stop getting drawn into situations where we are continually put on the defensive. It doesn't look so smart in hindsight but I applaud that they decided to do something after 10 years of being on the receiving end. In that sense its very Fremantle.

And I stand by my point there is a whispering campaign against Schwabby and you're now part of it -- intentionally or unintentionally. You're floating the same half-truths. You'll get some support from some of the freakheads over at WHTP but they're not great in number but if you're in bed with that lot -- good luck to you..

 

[6158]

If I was in business and had to pay interest on a $7million debt I would pay it off quickly too!

 

[iscah]

I never said he had not made ANY contribution to the 'success' of Freo. And I am certainly not part of any campaign or other group. You can take that as true because I am telling you now so there is no misunderstanding.

I have read some of your defences of him and they do put a different slant on things although I do not necessarily agree with them all. He did benefit from the recuiting done in previous seasons as many of those players were high up in drafts and have performed well since. He also benefitted by having a further couple of priority and early picks as a result of taking over a team winning just 2 games. The issue about taking money early as I said before is hard to look at as a plus or a minus. He cannot revel in a great balance sheet WITHOUT taking account the future shortage of income. So that is not a huge plus in his favour it is probably a break even decision.

We have lost major sponsors and are about to lose more from what I hear and the media have lost respect for him. Rightly or wrongly he is leaing towards a liability and it is a cut throat business as he found at Richmond and Melbourne.

Maybe with your other points I will upgrade give him to a 4 out of 10 and I admit I am a tough judge. That is still marginal and he has some repair work to do.