When will the Carlton FC Arrive?

[Chief]

Part 2 of this thread is here:

When will the Carlton FC Arrive? Part 2

PART 1 of this thread is here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/when-will-the-carlton-fc-arrive.1259822/ ============= We're all thinking it. We're watching this story play out for the 4th time in the last 20 years and it's the same story every time. They have a great list of exciting...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Robertio]

I mean, aside from all the information that was leaked and his since been proven accurate, how would you like me to 'prove' there was a leak?

How about you stop saying there was a leak then.

 

[bjwilliams]

I look at it from another perspective.

'expecting to play finals' puts everyone on notice that from this point on, close enough is not good enough, mediocrity will not be tolerated and most importantly, explains why people have been pushed out the door.

If we don't want to set higher standards and work to them, we have nothing more of substance & belief to offer anyone

So you get Lyon and you don't make finals next year... what happens? I don't understand why you don't use the time the review has given you to get things in order and allow the incoming coach to change as much as they need to. Imagine Lyon walks in and says there needs to be wholesale changes in game plan and personnel. If that means finals would be missed the first year, are they changes he can make?

 

[faible]

How about you stop saying there was a leak then.

Yes, I'm definitely the one and only person who's mentioned a leak from Carlton. Aside from all those other posters, and all those journalists providing the leaked information.

Watertight. Like a sieve.

 

[Robertio]

Yes, I'm definitely the one and only person who's mentioned a leak from Carlton. Aside from all those other posters, and all those journalists providing the leaked information.

Watertight. Like a sieve.

You've made yourself leader of the opposition so I've gone to the top.

 

[zeggie]

I mean, aside from all the information that was leaked and his since been proven accurate, how would you like me to 'prove' there was a leak?

Which information? Break it down for us. Go on.

 

[faible]

Which information? Break it down for us. Go on.

We've been through this already, if you'd like to convince yourself there were no leaks, that it was watertight, by all means.

 

[Tippett2Goal]

So you get Lyon and you don't make finals next year... what happens? I don't understand why you don't use the time the review has given you to get things in order and allow the incoming coach to change as much as they need to. Imagine Lyon walks in and says there needs to be wholesale changes in game plan and personnel. If that means finals would be missed the first year, are they changes he can make?

Expectation management is a key in any football club, and it seems crazy to me that the board is directing the expectation to the football department, rather than the football department informing the board.

As you said if a coach comes in and says "I think we are 2,3,5 years away from finals, because we need to correct these deficiencies", what is the path forwards?

 

[zeggie]

So you get Lyon and you don't make finals next year... what happens? I don't understand why you don't use the time the review has given you to get things in order and allow the incoming coach to change as much as they need to. Imagine Lyon walks in and says there needs to be wholesale changes in game plan and personnel. If that means finals would be missed the first year, are they changes he can make?

That's 2 different things.

Obviously finals are the goal. If the incoming coach doesn't make finals, we review why not. Whether cattle, game plan, processes...just like every other team.

"Wholesale" changes, well considering we have no coaching team, I'd say that's a given.

 

[zeggie]

We've been through this already, if you'd like to convince yourself there were no leaks, that it was watertight, by all means.

1: There were leaks!
2: Name them
1: No

over and over and over again. Boooring.

 

[faible]

1: There were leaks!
2: Name them
1: No

over and over and over again. Boooring.

1. There were leaks, here's all the things that leaked
2. Everyone knew them!
3. Because they leaked.
4. I refuse to acknowledge this. Show me the leaks!

So yeah. Apart from everything that leaked. There were no leaks.

 

[faible]

what is the path forwards?

Interview more coaches until one says what you want to hear.

Hire said coach.

Realise said coach maybe isn't a great coach.

Fire said coach in the most unprofessional process possible.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Let's just entertain your hypothetical, that the review was a sham. You're either suggesting:

1. Pavlich, Walsh, Lowe were all in on it and the entire review was a sham to give an excuse to sack Teague
2. We all knew Teague was the problem, and did the Review anyway as an excuse to sack Teague and make ourselves look better.

Which is it?

I can only guess, but my best guess:

1. Carlton enter the season already knowing the Presidency will be handed over to Sayers at the end of the year. Sayers would clearly be thinking about any changes he would like to see from the point he becomes aware of this, and is obviously given the imprimatur by the existing board to start working towards any changes he sees as necessary.

2. In April it is announced Judd - who could possibly have been seen by Sayers as a stumbling block - will also vacate his football director role at the end of 2021. It seems he actually vacated the role as football director before the review started. Possibly thinking he didn’t want his name attached to Sayers’ plan?

3. When it becomes evident Carlton are not functioning well enough to threaten finals 2021, around mid season, Sayers in collusion with certain others and possibly most or all of the board come to the conclusion Teague definitely needs to be replaced. He starts consulting the most obviously available replacement coach - Ross Lyon. Lyon naturally enough shares his views on what the club needs to do. Lyon and Sayers reason it may not look good if Carlton start making changes based on Lyon’s advice, and Lyon is then appointed coach. It would give the appearance of both Lyon and Sayers totally usurping the current Carlton coach and anyone who is backing him. They work out an “external review" is required to recommend removal of the coach and implementation of certain other of Lyon’s philosophies.

4. Lyon suggests Pavlich, who is well aware of Lyon’s philosophies and subscribes to them, but would appear to have no other claims to being a suitable person to review a football department that any other experienced AFL footballer would not have. They appoint Walsh perhaps because he is highly qualified and may have something useful to add, but is highly unlikely to recommend Teague is retained - who would? Lowe - as for Walsh.

You can fill in any blanks from there. So it is perhaps not true that the entire review is a sham, but possibly more that it was at least partially conceived in order to give a pretext for Teague’s sacking that couldn’t be directly attributed to Sayers and Lyon conspiring for Lyon to replace Teague.

 

[LordLucifer]

So you get Lyon and you don't make finals next year... what happens? I don't understand why you don't use the time the review has given you to get things in order and allow the incoming coach to change as much as they need to. Imagine Lyon walks in and says there needs to be wholesale changes in game plan and personnel. If that means finals would be missed the first year, are they changes he can make?

If we don't play finals next year, we tweak what we have to and then go again.

Members do not want to hear the club say 'nah, we are content to hang around in the bottom quarter of the ladder.

Neither do sponsors !!!

 

[HBF]

They seriously need a Mark Williams or Neil Balme type to steer this footy department.

I'd love Mark Williams.

 

[bjwilliams]

Obviously finals are the goal. If the incoming coach doesn't make finals, we review why not. Whether cattle, game plan, processes...just like every other team.

No no, they're the expectation now. This was an easy one to fire off, a simple "we aspire to make the finals every year and we believe the outcomes of this review, once acted upon, get us to a position to play and impact finals". Why set the one year timeline when you don't have a coach who's even appointed and who hasn't made any changes they want.

"Wholesale" changes, well considering we have no coaching team, I'd say that's a given.

Obviously you will have these changes needed in terms of appointing a coach. This is obviously regarding that being done.

You get Lyon, and he wants to trade out a few of your more utilised and experienced 23 players from last year as they don't work in his new scheme. He knows this might take a couple of years to properly turn the ship around but it's the early changes that are needed. It doesn't improve the club from a win/loss for the most part right away. Does he make those changes knowing the media will be on him every single week about making finals while reminding him that's the Boards expectations for 2022.

I'm only saying this as a Melbourne fan. I got so sick of hearing about finals when we had Bailey and Neeld. It was obvious we were no where near it. You're not coming from as far back as we were but there's definitely a required level of expectation setting that sets you up for success. I just feel the Board have ensured the circling of the media continues for the next year at least instead of enjoying two years of little negative attention while the review changes are implemented.

 

[zeggie]

I can only guess, but my best guess:

1. Carlton enter the season already knowing the Presidency will be handed over to Sayers at the end of the year. Sayers would clearly be thinking about any changes he would like to see from the point he becomes aware of this, and is obviously given the imprimatur by the existing board to start working towards any changes he sees as necessary.

2. In April it is announced Judd - who could possibly have been seen by Sayers as a stumbling block - will also vacate his football director role at the end of 2021. It seems he actually vacated the role as football director before the review started. Possibly thinking he didn’t want his name attached to Sayers’ plan?

3. When it becomes evident Carlton are not functioning well enough to threaten finals 2021, around mid season, Sayers in collusion with certain others and possibly most or all of the board come to the conclusion Teague definitely needs to be replaced. He starts consulting the most obviously available replacement coach - Ross Lyon. Lyon naturally enough shares his views on what the club needs to do. Lyon and Sayers reason it may not look good if Carlton start making changes based on Lyon’s advice, and Lyon is then appointed coach. It would give the appearance of both Lyon and Sayers totally usurping the current Carlton coach and anyone who is backing him. They work out an “external review" is required to recommend removal of the coach and implementation of certain other of Lyon’s philosophies.

4. Lyon suggests Pavlich, who is well aware of Lyon’s philosophies and subscribes to them, but would appear to have no other claims to being a suitable person to review a football department that any other experienced AFL footballer would not have. They appoint Walsh perhaps because he is highly qualified and may have something useful to add, but is highly unlikely to recommend Teague is retained - who would? Lowe - as for Walsh.

You can fill in any blanks from there. So it is perhaps not true that the entire review is a sham, but possibly more that it was at least partially conceived in order to give a pretext for Teague’s sacking that couldn’t be directly attributed to Sayers and Lyon conspiring for Lyon to replace Teague.

That's a wonderful story, but at the end of the day that all contradicts your first point - that the Review was a sham.

Second, you're basically agreeing that Teague sucked, everyone knew he sucked, external review showed he sucked, and we comprehensively made sure internally and externally we were all in agreement he sucked, before sacking him because he sucked. Sounds like a sound process rather than jumping the gun.

 

[bjwilliams]

If we don't play finals next year, we tweak what we have to and then go again.

Members do not want to hear the club say 'nah, we are content to hang around in the bottom quarter of the ladder.

Neither do sponsors !!!

Why is that the only two options to say? Why jump from "Finals" to "Nah we're happy being down here". This isn't a door A, door B situation.

This is where professional responses come into it. Your board didn't have to maintain pressure on the new, not even appointed coach, for the whole of 2022. But by setting it out like they did that's exactly what's going to happen.

I say this expecting you'll improve under Lyon right away and probably make finals. I just don't get why they'd choose to keep the media circling.

 

[zeggie]

No no, they're the expectation now. This was a an question to fire off a simple "we aspire to make the finals every year and we believe the outcomes of this review, once acted upon, get us to a position to play and impact finals". Why set the one year timeline when you don't have a coach who's even appointed and who hasn't made any changes they want.



Obviously you will have these changes needed in terms of appointing a coach. This is obviously regarding that being done.

You get Lyon, and he wants to trade out a few of your more utilised and experienced 23 players from last year as they don't work in his new scheme. He knows this might take a couple of years to properly turn the ship around but it's the early changes that are needed. It doesn't improve the club from a win/loss for the most part right away. Does he make those changes knowing the media will be on him every single week about making finals while reminding him that's the Boards expectations for 2022.

I'm only saying this as a Melbourne fan. I got so sick of hearing about finals when we had Bailey and Neeld. It was obvious we were no where near it. You're not coming from as far back as we were but there's definitely a required level of expectation setting that sets you up for success. I just feel the Board have ensured the circling of the media continues for the next year at least instead of enjoying two years of little negative attention while the review changes are implemented.

They were the expectation this year. Of course they will be the expectation next year as well. The media will always be circling if there's losses.

 

[bjwilliams]

They were the expectation this year. Of course they will be the expectation next year as well. The media will always be circling if there's losses.

Yes, the media will be circling if there's losses. That's a given. They're now just armed with the fact the Board has very clearly defined expectations of them right away.

And if the new coach says anything that suggests it's a process to get more consistent and better onfield performances might not happen right away the headline is "Coach and Board are at odds".

You haven't answered my question - does the coach really have the ability to wield their power if they think bigger changes are required for sustainable success if it means finals are less likely next year?

 

[LordLucifer]

How Carlton fell into the same trap that several clubs have before them (sen.com.au)

 

[zeggie]

Yes, the media will be circling if there's losses. That's a given. They're now just armed with the fact the Board has very clearly defined expectations of them right away.

And if the new coach says anything that suggests it's a process to get more consistent and better onfield performances might not happen right away the headline is "Coach and Board are at odds".

You haven't answered my question - does the coach really have the ability to wield their power if they think bigger changes are required for sustainable success if it means finals are less likely next year?

What bigger changes do you suggest may come up? Trade out Walsh and McKay and rebuild again?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

That's a wonderful story, but at the end of the day that all contradicts your first point - that the Review was a sham.

Second, you're basically agreeing that Teague sucked, everyone knew he sucked, external review showed he sucked, and we comprehensively made sure internally and externally we were all in agreement he sucked, before sacking him because he sucked. Sounds like a sound process rather than jumping the gun.

In terms of the Teague decision the review appears to have been used to hide the real timeline and mechanics of the Teague sacking, and if that is right, then to that extent at least, the review was a sham.

Whatever else is the case, Sayers presser did no give the impression of a person who lives by the mantra he says the footy club will live by under his watch, openness and honesty.

 

[La Dispute]

So as it turns out Teague himself requested to have the results of the review relayed at the end of the season.

A fair bit of egg on the faces of some of our regular contributors.

 

[master bate]

The external 'excuse' agreed that Teague and some of his assistants were the issue, and the other parts of the football department were operating fine.

Do you think Pavlich, Walsh, Lowe were all in on it and lied?

I don't think it was all a sham, or that anyone lied, but let's look at the guys involved:

Pavlich has close ties to both Brad Lloyd and of course Ross Lyon. I'm not sure a team that leaks 5 goal runs non stop bringing in a former Rossy Lyon player is going to be glowing of the coach. Nor can you ever really be impartial when personal relationships are on the line.

Lowe is a leadership consultant, he's almost certain to find holes in the leadership. They didn't pay him to prod in to the CEO or the Board. He could've found issues with the Teague/Lloyd relationship or other senior staffers but I'd imagine the often volatile relationships between coach and players in losing sides was always going to throw up more issues.

Walsh - he could probably land anywhere, he was at the Pies in 2017 when they stuck with Bucks. So he has experience with a coach surviving a review.

But apart from the people involved you also have to look at who commissioned the review. Sayers is now on record saying the list should play finals and the team couldn't defend. It think it's almost certain he had those beliefs when the review was set up - otherwise why even have a review. Rightfully he's managed to turf half the board, but he seems aligned with the CEO. So he hasn't commissioned a review of the whole club, just the footy department. And he's bringing a set of beliefs in to who he chooses. Those same beliefs then work their way in to the recommendations, even if subconsciously. They might've found 10 things pro Teague and 10 things anti Teague, but the 10 things against him become the highlights, whilst the 10 for him get minimalised.

Government's do this all the time. They get 'independent' consultants who have similar values as them to report on specific aspects of companies and then somehow come up with the conclusion that matches exactly what they wanted for political reasons. The reviewers haven't fudged anything, they've just been selected and sent after things for specific reasons.

 

[bjwilliams]

What bigger changes do you suggest may come up? Trade out Walsh and McKay and rebuild again?

Obviously not what your suggesting and it's hard having a discussion around this when you keep jumping to extremes.

I have no idea what changes would be required. I'm not the yet to be announced coach. Probably would centre on personnel. Maybe it's trading out more experienced players? Perhaps rolling out Lyon's schemes will take the team more than one interrupted pre-season. Part of my point is sustainable success is the goal, not just making finals next year and if you have to sacrifice 2022 to be better across 2023-2025, this doesn't sound like an option now.

But once again you haven't answered my question which makes me think you don't like the answer.