News Voss contract not renewed

[western royboy]

Our problem seems to be that the previous board kept trying to hit a home run by chasing shiny things. WOW is that a slightly used Fev? OMG that's Paul Roos! I love that guy. Is that Lethal? (Yay we got one.)

The reality is hitting home runs rarely works in a sport with 50 odd players where teams rely on a core of 30 when the action heats up. Everyone is chasing one guy, and even those lucky enough to get their man often get it wrong. Look at the Hawks who've purpose traded and drafted better than everyone for years.

In looking for these big plays we took the eye off the ball. We lost young blokes, our reputation and tarnished the legacy of a club legend.

This is what children do. They have all the toys in the world but find all but the one they just saw in the latest ad 'boring'. For a long while we were ebeing run by big kids who were having fun with their new toy.

(From the Outside the Club walls perspective, it's also why I can't sign the walking papers for some of the young blokes who appear out of their depth. If we want to build a club, we're going to have to endure some pain.)

If you've got people with no empathy or understanding for the game running your club - how do you expect them to run a club in a professional environment in a non traditional state up against clubs who operate in the heartland with people who have grown up knowing nothing else but the game?

You can't and we are idiots if we think they can. Get the off field right and the rest will fall into place.

 

[Cousin Jed]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-07/roos-chase-got-me-sacked

You are useless Angus Johnson! We were being run by a bunch of amateurs! If your head coach tells you that you most prised assets (players) will be walking out in a short term future, you bloody well do something!

I really really really dislike how you "helped" our club Angus. Everything you touched turned to shit, even after you left.

Can't spend money you don't have, unless you are in government.

 

[Dom PC]

Can't spend money you don't have, unless you are in government.

If that's the excuse Angus uses then he is an even worse CEO then I thought. A cop-out excuse is the best way to describe that.

 

[Balony_pony16]

Can't spend money you don't have, unless you are in government.

Put it on credit and let the AFL pay it off

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Ceebee]

Still hurts me how they handled the whole thing.
He deserved better.
Still the best Bear/Lion ever. xo

 

[growler]

Seeing Vossy on Open Mike makes me sad. Miss him very much

 

[josephs_79]

Yeah watched it and I was a fan of Voss the coach, and after watching it I really thought he was very hard done by considering what he had to work with in terms of Spending Money and the relationships he had with the board.

He got screwed, the board wanted a big name as the coach and didn't care what or who they hurt in the process to get him. From what Voss said and if was true (and I would say most of it would be) he never really had the support he needed and required and should of had to make us as successful as we could of been.

A lot of us have said that this was probably the case but after watching last night we now know it was!

 

[lionbear]

I think Open Mike last night highlighted to me what a massive mistake not giving him one more year is.

Not saying Leppa is not a good replacement, but clearly the reasons we got rid of Voss was

1: We wanted Roos
2: We wanted to try and retain the go home 5

We did neither and replaced Voss with a rookie coach. Leppa still would have been available at the end of this year (I don't think any of the other coaching appointments would have changed based on his availability) So I would have given Voss one more year to see if he could keep the development going in the right direction, and also to see what he could do with a full budget and group of assistant coaches.

Really wished last nights Open Mike went for another hour, could have listened to Voss discuss the game all night.

I think he will coach at a senior level again to, doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out he was doing a good job with limited resources.

And just to reiterate, I think Leppa was a good appointment after what happened, and he needs a least 5 years to do what he is trying to do.

 

[adey115]

I think Open Mike last night highlighted to me what a massive mistake not giving him one more year is.

Not saying Leppa is not a good replacement, but clearly the reasons we got rid of Voss was

1: We wanted Roos
2: We wanted to try and retain the go home 5

We did neither and replaced Voss with a rookie coach. Leppa still would have been available at the end of this year (I don't think any of the other coaching appointments would have changed based on his availability) So I would have given Voss one more year to see if he could keep the development going in the right direction, and also to see what he could do with a full budget and group of assistant coaches.

Really wished last nights Open Mike went for another hour, could have listened to Voss discuss the game all night.

I think he will coach at a senior level again to, doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out he was doing a good job with limited resources.

And just to reiterate, I think Leppa was a good appointment after what happened, and he needs a least 5 years to do what he is trying to do.

Agree with what you've said there LB, but the only caveat is that there seemed to be an indication that Roos wouldn't come onboard unless there was no coach in place (ie. Voss had already been removed). Hence - Voss should not have been chopped unless their was absolute certainty that Roos would take the job. That to me was the biggest screw up.

IF their wasn't certainty that Roos was virtually in the bag, then Voss should have been given a one year extention, and the Roos pursuit forgotten. I agree that Leppa would still have been available in 2015 (most likely).

Angus seemed to have convinced the Board that Roos was in the bag if Voss wasn't there. Hence, Voss was let go. But, Angus was wrong.

 

[western royboy]

Agree with what you've said there LB, but the only caveat is that there seemed to be an indication that Roos wouldn't come onboard unless there was no coach in place (ie. Voss had already been removed). Hence - Voss should not have been chopped unless their was absolute certainty that Roos would take the job. That to me was the biggest screw up.

IF their wasn't certainty that Roos was virtually in the bag, then Voss should have been given a one year extention, and the Roos pursuit forgotten. I agree that Leppa would still have been available in 2015 (most likely).

Angus seemed to have convinced the Board that Roos was in the bag if Voss wasn't there. Hence, Voss was let go. But, Angus was wrong.

Caro kept on carrying on last night on FC that the decision to effectively sack Voss was unanimous and would have happened regardless - I think that is bullshit. There is so much about that time that we don't and won't ever know. Paul Williams moved the motion but we don't know what info had been provided to get to that point. Clearly Roos would not engage while someone was in the chair and so it stands to reason that the Board had solid reasons to remove Voss on the basis that Roos was in the bag - but he wasn't. We have effectively regressed by 1-2 years by changing coaches.

 

[winged1]

Caro kept on carrying on last night on FC that the decision to effectively sack Voss was unanimous and would have happened regardless - I think that is bullshit. There is so much about that time that we don't and won't ever know. Paul Williams moved the motion but we don't know what info had been provided to get to that point. Clearly Roos would not engage while someone was in the chair and so it stands to reason that the Board had solid reasons to remove Voss on the basis that Roos was in the bag - but he wasn't. We have effectively regressed by 1-2 years by changing coaches.

If not more, how many of us would take 10 wins this year if offered right now.

You are spot on about Paul Williams, who knows what was said behind closed doors.

 

[adey115]

Well put Western Royboy. I also agree with your 1-2 yr summary.

That isn't a knock on Leppa - I think he will be a good coach with time. But its natural for a new coaches message to a younger team (especially one where 5 youngsters from high draft selections have left) to take 1-2 years to get through.

I still don't begrudge the concept of getting Roos as coach for 2014 - but what I do begrudge is that we dispensed with Voss when Roos wasn't in the bag. If there were discussions 'on the quiet' with Roos, and a decision was made that Roos wasn't likely onboard, then no harm was done if Voss was extended for a year. The harm was done when Voss was sacked, but Roos wasn't signed the next day.

IF the Board were thinking that "anyone but Voss" was better than the status quo, then they were all fools. But, I don't believe that even though Caro might be trying to make us believe that.
IF the Board were lead to believe by Angus that Roos was in the bag and thus Voss should be chopped, when Roos wasn't in the bag, then Angus is a turd who commited a gross act of mismanagement, his position had thus become untenable, and the Board were foolish to believe him.

 

[Ironmonger]

I think Open Mike last night highlighted to me what a massive mistake not giving him one more year is.

Not saying Leppa is not a good replacement, but clearly the reasons we got rid of Voss was

1: We wanted Roos
2: We wanted to try and retain the go home 5

Maybe those were the main reasons, but I hope the discussion would have been much, much more detailed than that.

One thing I reckon people don't consider enough is how differently Voss' departure might've been viewed if the board had waited until the end of the season, as some people wanted. Then Voss would have been in the job at the time when the go-home five publicly put their hands up to go, and that would've put instant scrutiny on his role. If the board had sacked him then, it would've looked like he was being held responsible. If the board had kept him, it would've looked like they weren't addressing the club's problems. And if Voss was responsible for the atmosphere amongst the playing group then he may indeed have been part of the problem.

With what we know now, I reckon the board timed Voss' departure at the least worst moment.

Personally, I don't see the value of giving Voss another season. Or even another two. He was pretty much a known quantity after five years.

If Voss had been given a one year contract, and we'd lost the five players in question, and the first three rounds had panned out in the same way, then the public pressure on Voss and the club right now would be unbearable.

 

[dlanod]

If Voss had been given a one year contract, and we'd lost the five players in question, and the first three rounds had panned out in the same way, then the public pressure on Voss and the club right now would be unbearable.

While I don't necessarily agree with the rest, I will call out this bit to reinforce it for those suggesting Voss get a one year contract.

A one year contract is a nothing contract. It means you don't have faith in the coach and you're just hedging your bets. If you have faith in the coach, two years is needed to give him stability rather than forcing him to chase short term targets. Give him one year and you're effectively condoning a short term POV even though that might not be in the best interests of the club - you're better off moving on.

 

[western royboy]

Maybe those were the main reasons, but I hope the discussion would have been much, much more detailed than that.

One thing I reckon people don't consider enough is how differently Voss' departure might've been viewed if the board had waited until the end of the season, as some people wanted. Then Voss would have been in the job at the time when the go-home five publicly put their hands up to go, and that would've put instant scrutiny on his role. If the board had sacked him then, it would've looked like he was being held responsible. If the board had kept him, it would've looked like they weren't addressing the club's problems. And if Voss was responsible for the atmosphere amongst the playing group then he may indeed have been part of the problem.

With what we know now, I reckon the board timed Voss' departure at the least worst moment.

Personally, I don't see the value of giving Voss another season. Or even another two. He was pretty much a known quantity after five years.

If Voss had been given a one year contract, and we'd lost the five players in question, and the first three rounds had panned out in the same way, then the public pressure on Voss and the club right now would be unbearable.

I don't think we would have lost all 5 had Voss stayed - I think we may have kept two - at the end of the day we can't undo the past and it is what it is. Too much remains unknown about a forgettable period in our clubs history. Regardless changing coach - implementing a new game plan - losing depth has put us back 1-2 years.

 

[Balony_pony16]

Maybe those were the main reasons, but I hope the discussion would have been much, much more detailed than that.

One thing I reckon people don't consider enough is how differently Voss' departure might've been viewed if the board had waited until the end of the season, as some people wanted. Then Voss would have been in the job at the time when the go-home five publicly put their hands up to go, and that would've put instant scrutiny on his role. If the board had sacked him then, it would've looked like he was being held responsible. If the board had kept him, it would've looked like they weren't addressing the club's problems. And if Voss was responsible for the atmosphere amongst the playing group then he may indeed have been part of the problem.

With what we know now, I reckon the board timed Voss' departure at the least worst moment.

Personally, I don't see the value of giving Voss another season. Or even another two. He was pretty much a known quantity after five years.

If Voss had been given a one year contract, and we'd lost the five players in question, and the first three rounds had panned out in the same way, then the public pressure on Voss and the club right now would be unbearable.

Interesting was that Polec actually got along pretty well Voss and was still in contact with him over the off season as reported down here in SA. I wonder if Voss getting sacked was the final straw for Polec

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Ironmonger]

I don't think we would have lost all 5 had Voss stayed - I think we may have kept two - at the end of the day we can't undo the past and it is what it is. Too much remains unknown about a forgettable period in our clubs history. Regardless changing coach - implementing a new game plan - losing depth has put us back 1-2 years.

What makes you say that, WR? They were all mentioned in that article after Voss' departure was announced, and obviously none of them had signed a contract extension in the previous couple of years while Voss was coach.

Interesting was that Polec actually got along pretty well Voss and was still in contact with him over the off season as reported down here in SA. I wonder if Voss getting sacked was the final straw for Polec

Polec also seems to have said that he didn't really work hard enough while Voss was coach.

No doubt there are many more factors influencing Polec's rather strange little career to this point, but whatever the critical factor has been in Polec finally playing good footy, it doesn't appear to have been having Voss around.

 

[western royboy]

What makes you say that, WR? They were all mentioned in that article after Voss' departure was announced, and obviously none of them had signed a contract extension in the previous couple of years while Voss was coach.

Not all were unhappy with Voss, 1-2 left because of the shemozzle the club was in the aftermath - one of them plays in blue and gold now.

 

[Ironmonger]

Not all were unhappy with Voss, 1-2 left because of the shemozzle the club was in the aftermath - one of them plays in blue and gold now.

I'm sure it was a complicated decision for Yeo, for all of them, but from my perspective completely outside of it all it seems strange that a player would leave a club because it had sacked its coach, to go to another club that had just sacked its coach.

I suspect there were a lot of reasons behind Yeo's decision. Maybe that was a factor, but I doubt that it was the most important factor.

 

[western royboy]

I'm sure it was a complicated decision for Yeo, for all of them, but from my perspective completely outside of it all it seems strange that a player would leave a club because it had sacked its coach, to go to another club that had just sacked its coach.

I suspect there were a lot of reasons behind Yeo's decision. Maybe that was a factor, but I doubt that it was the most important factor.

Let's imagine this.....you are a tad homesick, but happy with the season just completed. The coach that has backed you and that you really like gets flicked in what turns out to be an utter debacle, the club is setback a few years in its development, a big club comes calling an gives you a good offer and a chance to come home to your family and your WA based manager with a side that is ready to play finals.

It would be hard to resist don't you think

 

[Ironmonger]

Let's imagine this.....you are a tad homesick, but happy with the season just completed. The coach that has backed you and that you really like gets flicked in what turns out to be an utter debacle, the club is setback a few years in its development, a big club comes calling an gives you a good offer and a chance to come home to your family and your WA based manager with a side that is ready to play finals.

It would be hard to resist don't you think

I suppose we could argue this all day...

I expect we'd approached Yeo about contract discussions well before Voss' departure, and equally I doubt the Eagles swooped in with a good offer in response to Voss' sacking. I reckon they'd have had their eye on Yeo for a while.

And it's just really hard to swallow that Yeo felt the loss of Voss set back the club a few years, but was confident that a club that finished below the Lions on the ladder would not be set back by sacking their coach.

It really doesn't ring true. I'm sure there's stuff you know that I don't but from my perspective it seems that Yeo's decision-making just didn't have much to do with the head coach: he wasn't committed to staying when Voss was coach, wanted to go when we didn't have a coach, wanted to go when we did have a new coach, and was perfectly prepared to go to another club where he didn't know who the coach was going to be.

 

[POBT]

Seriously, no one knows what would have happened if Voss had stayed. You can have the best inside knowledge and still not be able to predict what individuals would do if confronted with a different set of circumstances. It is an exercise in guesswork to pretend otherwise.

 

[patfullfankezz]

I have it on good authority that had Voss stayed the Gabba would have turned into chocolate.

Damn you Angus!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Happy_Neale]

Polec also seems to have said that he didn't really work hard enough while Voss was coach.

No doubt there are many more factors influencing Polec's rather strange little career to this point, but whatever the critical factor has been in Polec finally playing good footy, it doesn't appear to have been having Voss around.

By the sounds of Polec's interview it wouldn't have mattered who was coach in his time at Brisbane, he wasn't interested in being there. My guess is he would have walked regardless but the chances of him staying might have been a little higher with Voss there.

 

[luthor]

I think TomFC makes some excellent points.

My gut own feeling has always been that the Want Away 5 were on the march irrespective of the Voss situation and/or aftermath.

Before anyone decides to engage me in vigorous debate, let me just re-iterate what my opinion is based on : gut feeling.

No further correspondence will be entered into.