Remove this Banner Ad

Trigg replacement? who will it be

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Sloane Ranger said:
I would love Haysman

IMO was the architect to where port are today however paid a political price along the way
Click to expand...

No he wasn't.

The 5 seasons of poor performances that led to low drafts picks is what allowed Port to be where they are right now. Do you think the 'NTUA', 50,000, members and other marketing gimmick would be working if they were 1 and 10 instead of 10 and 1?

Not a chance.
 
Haysman was the driving force behind getting the Crows to Adelaide Oval, wonder if he'll get rewarded for that?;)

In all seriousness, what probably doesn't work in Haysman's favour is the next big issue of getting you out of the concrete mausoleum at West Lakes with some decent coin from the SANFL from it. His relationship with them I wouldn't say is the best and I think it is increasingly clear that the SANFL clubs want to flog off all the land at West Lakes which means the the Crows will need to find a new home (which will be in their interests any rate), but their is the little matter of the $20 mill Triggy pissed up the wall in building it.
 
Papa G said:
Haysman was the driving force behind getting the Crows to Adelaide Oval, wonder if he'll get rewarded for that?;)

In all seriousness, what probably doesn't work in Haysman's favour is the next big issue of getting you out of the concrete mausoleum at West Lakes with some decent coin from the SANFL from it. His relationship with them I wouldn't say is the best and I think it is increasingly clear that the SANFL clubs want to flog off all the land at West Lakes which means the the Crows will need to find a new home (which will be in their interests any rate), but their is the little matter of the $20 mill Triggy pissed up the wall in building it.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware the Crows have a 20 year lease (19 after this year) on their training base. I would dare say that the SANFL might have to pony up some serious coin if they want to break that lease and have the Crows to move.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

relapse said:
As far as I am aware the Crows have a 20 year lease (19 after this year) on their training base. I would dare say that the SANFL might have to pony up some serious coin if they want to break that lease and have the Crows to move.
Click to expand...

According to recent articles we actually have 40 years free rent/maintenance on the oval. If that's the case it seems like a pretty good deal and we would be foolish to just walk away from that for another training venue. Some other more social venue is another story. Agree there would probably be a fairly big payout if we were forced to move though, which could make it one of the better deals the club have done in recent times and expanding our footprint there could turn out to be a big benefit.

"If the SANFL sells the Football Park oval, it will lease the ground back to satisfy the 40-year agreement that maintains West Lakes as the Crows training base. This deal already offers the Crows benefits valued, by Adelaide, as worth $2 million a year."

I'm not really sure why people have such a go at us for building the training centre, knowing that we are not paying a lot if anything to be there and about 20 million seems close to what a lot of other clubs have spent on theirs recently. Obviously it had potential to earn some match day revenue but we still needed the other stuff that goes with it.
 
Last edited:
The Sloane Ranger said:
I would love Haysman

IMO was the architect to where port are today however paid a political price along the way
Click to expand...

Without any down-south knowledge to back me up, I think along the same lines. A CEO of an sanfl owned franchise coming in and attempting to run one in the best interests of that franchise alone would have been a bit hard for the old sanfl to stomach. If I was a conspiracy theorist, which I'm not, I reckon one of the first phone calls that KT would have made would have been to the AFL to see what they could do about removing the anchor around their neck.
 
Papa G said:
Reckon the SANFL clubs in their thirst for cash will decide that being able to knock over the stadium and your training facilities and sell the land will be a much better outcome for them. You just need someone who'll manage that properly.
Click to expand...

Trigg is well respected within the sanfl. Maybe he can do it when he's not busy resurrecting the blues.
 
Team DJ said:
If its Haysman.
Eff me. WTF
Click to expand...
It won't be, don't worry. Roo will work it out in a nano second.

Haysman had a really tough job but his people selection at Port was someone who was out of his depth. I think there was 3 media people in 6 months Stargett, Dodd and then went internal and I think 3 commercial heads (Nelson, Arnold and some other non achievers) in 12 months, not to mention the coaching management process (give him benefit on the Choco, Primus stuff as board may well have over ridden him). I am not sure Haysman ever worked out that he was accountable for a club/business that lives and dies by a yearly hard work cycle (very different than selling beer). He certainly never seemed to own the performance and people, something KT has done from day one.

AFL drove AO and he had been lobbying the dis association with Magpies and Power names until his Magpie board pulled him in line. And he read the tea leaves in jumping on the one club band wagon, credit to Duncanson that was his initiative.

Won't happen in a million years. But his family and him are very passionate Crows fans, in fact his family despise Port which may get him an interview

Good move putting Roo on the panel, he will bring some tough edge to the process

Good luck!
 
alex_is_on_fire said:
No he wasn't.

The 5 seasons of poor performances that led to low drafts picks is what allowed Port to be where they are right now. Do you think the 'NTUA', 50,000, members and other marketing gimmick would be working if they were 1 and 10 instead of 10 and 1?

Not a chance.
Click to expand...

So you think the difference between 08-11 and now is the culmination of: Hartlett, Butcher, Ben Jacobs, Wingard and Wines.

Shit that's only 3 good players difference.


I think you are over simplifying the situation by a long way.
 
Mattrox said:
So you think the difference between 08-11 and now is the culmination of: Hartlett, Butcher, Ben Jacobs, Wingard and Wines.

Shit that's only 3 good players difference.


I think you are over simplifying the situation by a long way.
Click to expand...


Port's list was rated the second worst in the comp at the start of 2013.

Analysis of lists is mostly bullshit.

It's not hard to analyze how a list is performing. It's much harder to analyze what the potential of a list is. You hardly ever see accurate assessments of the latter.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Slippery Pete said:
Port's list was rated the second worst in the comp at the start of 2013.

Analysis of lists is mostly bullshit.

It's not hard to analyze how a list is performing. It's much harder to analyze what the potential of a list is. You hardly ever see accurate assessments of the latter.
Click to expand...

I see the hiring of quality football dept staff as a huge factor.

Getting quality players is important, but unlocking their potential is vital.

Butcher and Jacobs have nothing to do with Ports success despite being early 1st round picks.
 
Mattrox said:
So you think the difference between 08-11 and now is the culmination of: Hartlett, Butcher, Ben Jacobs, Wingard and Wines.

Shit that's only 3 good players difference.


I think you are over simplifying the situation by a long way.
Click to expand...
Look at this way then.

If port were to lose Hartlett, Wingard and Wines before the game this Sat would you still give them a chance ?
 
Always find it amusing when Tealsters claim Haysman was behind the move to AO.

The guy struggled to get anything more than (since failed) start up companies as major sponsors for his club, yet we are to believe he was the one that got the SANFL, SACA and AFL together to want the move and get the state government tk fund the move with half a billion dollars.....right.

What he did do was squeal like a pig and lay blame all of Port's problems on the SANFL. Had nothing to do with their fickle supporters who deserted their clubbut have come back again with the slightest sniff of success.

IF he is our next CEO it is one better than Smart IMO. He may also do a better job than he did at Port as our club has real support in the community and he wont need to rebuild a club that was deserted when times got a lil hard.
 
Slippery Pete said:
Port's list was rated the second worst in the comp at the start of 2013.

Analysis of lists is mostly bullshit.

It's not hard to analyze how a list is performing. It's much harder to analyze what the potential of a list is. You hardly ever see accurate assessments of the latter.
Click to expand...

Does that say more about those doing the analysis or the list itself ?

I mean its easy to look back and see that there was somewhat a stockpile of high picks getting game time. Getting these high picks on the park, and games into them is part of why the list is improving. (I reckon it was a point made by Rehn several time in radio interviews over 2012/13, that analysis of lists had a lot to do with how many games you could get into your talent)
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Slippery Pete said:
The analysis.

Port's list was never nearly as bad as some people thought it was.

Just like ours isn't.
Click to expand...

Largely true.
The interesting point of difference though is 'high draft picks' -> without being bothered to check facts, gut feel says our top 10/20/30 selections would be greater (in number than yours). So when we 'bottomed out' in 2012 we already had collected a heap of higher picks, but they just couldn't get on the park together.

What will be interesting is how your list evolves over the next couple of years given the impact of draft sanctions - right now though you are correct its definitely not as bad as some people say - just like ours isn't as good as some say
.
All that being said, your issues this year seem to be more about sustained performance rather than ability, so one wonders if its more to do with mental strength/coaching than actual physical ability.
 
feenix67 said:
It was Kevin Foley who drove the push to AO.
Click to expand...

He insisted it be funded. But Vlad instigated it and got our two bumpkin sporting organisation SACA/SANFL together and pointed out their debt situations.

Lets not forget that the AFL made the SANFL accountable for the funds the AFL gave Port thus increasing their debt. Well played. Just like in 1990 Port were used as a pawn in a bigger game.
 
Geoffa32 said:
He insisted it be funded. But Vlad instigated it and got our two bumpkin sporting organisation SACA/SANFL together and pointed out their debt situations.

Lets not forget that the AFL made the SANFL accountable for the funds the AFL gave Port thus increasing their debt. Well played. Just like in 1990 Port were used as a pawn in a bigger game.
Click to expand...

And in the end Port got what it wanted......
 
Oh hell yeah, Vlad was an opportunistic, crafty bugger. Wouldn't have happened without Foley though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top