Skip to main content
Topic: Football Department Review (Read 74626 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #765
One has to wonder whether Sayers knew exactly what he was doing, knew it would lead to bad results, which then provides "evidence" that Teague is not the man for the job.
He neglected to consider one small detail in that rather elaborate plan, we aint farken stupid.
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #766
One has to wonder whether Sayers knew exactly what he was doing, knew it would lead to bad results, which then provides "evidence" that Teague is not the man for the job.
[/quote]
If he was prepared to sabotage our season with this review he better have something pretty special up his sleeve and sell it well.
I really believe the timing of this review has screwed up the season and this week's game scares me.

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #767
He neglected to consider one small detail in that rather elaborate plan, we aint farken stupid.

If he was prepared to sabotage our season with this review he better have something pretty special up his sleeve and sell it well.
I really believe the timing of this review has screwed up the season and this week's game scares me.

The review was called after Teague had coached about 40 games. 40 games !! How is that even possible ? With covid and all the rest. I'm not sure if they think Teague is making them look bad because the results don't fit with their unrealistic, feel good messaging in pre season, or what's going on. But that's appalling. His W/L hovers around 40%-45%. It's not that bad, and not the sort of results that warrant a review IMO.

So as I see it, the Board is either incompetent or malevolent or both (as I've said before). It's hard to believe Sayers couldn't see this coming. He wants to show the fans that he's taking action, but it just seems like the same old panicked, knee jerk, rash decision making from the masters in the field.

 

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #768
'Old Carlton' by now, even well before now, would have sacked Teague and a caretaker would be, or would have been, in place. For those, including me, who've questioned our Board, I sense change in governance and procedures is afoot. Thus far, a pleasant change and hopefully indicative of a 'new' and strong direction. Good to see MLG handing over this week. On his watch the dreadful debt has been erased, an important legacy... now to strengthen those foundations and address and restructure the footy dept. Hard to imagine those complicit in the poor governance re the footy dept getting off scot-free. Has the broom of accountability hit the floor ready to begin sweeping?

Well, I guess I remain one of the few who doesn't have an issue with launching an independent review mid-season - for me this was a 'long view' approach. At the risk of appearing somewhat callous, only the non-performers need feel pressured by something like this. Plus I'd prefer, using a medical metaphor, a patient's (CFC) concerning symptomatology be addressed asap, regardless of who might feel pressured or inconvenienced.


I can't say I agree with much in this post.

Being debt free is great but you don't walk into the foyer at Princes Park and look at the spreadsheets on the wall.


Re: Football Department Review

Reply #770
The review was called after Teague had coached about 40 games. 40 games !! How is that even possible ? With covid and all the rest. I'm not sure if they think Teague is making them look bad because the results don't fit with their unrealistic, feel good messaging in pre season, or what's going on. But that's appalling. His W/L hovers around 40%-45%. It's not that bad, and not the sort of results that warrant a review IMO.

So as I see it, the Board is either incompetent or malevolent or both (as I've said before). It's hard to believe Sayers couldn't see this coming. He wants to show the fans that he's taking action, but it just seems like the same old panicked, knee jerk, rash decision making from the masters in the field.


In fairness to the board the review wasn't into David Teague. The media have made it so - which is the bit our board missed when they launched it. They've created a pressure-cooker environment for Teague from that point on. An unsafe work environment from a mental health perspective.

Nice way to start your presidency.

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #771
In fairness to the board the review wasn't into David Teague. The media have made it so - which is the bit our board missed when they launched it. They've created a pressure-cooker environment for Teague from that point on. An unsafe work environment from a mental health perspective.

Nice way to start your presidency.

Yes, I recall MLG saying it wasn't a review of Teague, but once the rather predictable media onslaught started, the club has not come to his aid in any way. They've just hung him out to dry. In the past, MLG has said a few things which turned out to be untrue (e.g Bolton will coach out season 2019, 2 weeks before he was sacked). I'm not usually a cynic, but sometimes the temptation of a famous Claud Cockburn quote (“Believe nothing until it has been officially denied.”) is hard to resist.

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #772
Yes, I recall MLG saying it wasn't a review of Teague, but once the rather predictable media onslaught started, the club has not come to his aid in any way. They've just hung him out to dry. In the past, MLG has said a few things which turned out to be untrue (e.g Bolton will coach out season 2019, 2 weeks before he was sacked). I'm not usually a cynic, but sometimes the temptation of a famous Claud Cockburn quote (“Believe nothing until it has been officially denied.”) is hard to resist.

I could be wrong but didnt MLG and one other (maybe Sayers) contradict each with one saying "its not about Teague its about reviewing the football dept" and the other said "Teague is part of the football dept therefore he is included" ??
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #773
I can't say I agree with much in this post.

Being debt free is great but you don't walk into the foyer at Princes Park and look at the spreadsheets on the wall.

I expect very few to agree with my post. I didn't post it to be popular, it's simply an honest opinion.

If the spreadsheets aren't good, you may not have a foyer to walk into, or cabinets to house cups or walls to hang photos of our greats or a ground to call 'home', but I get your point. The first responsibility of any Board is to ensure viability and fiscal responsibility. They've achieved that, very, very well. From there, however...

If the independent review was held at season's end it would very likely have come to the same conclusions... and then we'd have had only a few weeks before season 2022's commencement, at best, to institute the recommended changes - terrible governance and a wonderful invitation to a giant 8 ball for us to fall in behind.

As I mentioned before, it is apparent to me that the timing of this review sought to address immediate troubles and to take the long view. And to suggest Sayers is guilty of some clandestine sabotage is *****, he would not be where he is today with such a scurrilous attitude or strategy. Quite the contrary.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #774
I could be wrong but didnt MLG and one other (maybe Sayers) contradict each with one saying "its not about Teague its about reviewing the football dept" and the other said "Teague is part of the football dept therefore he is included" ??

Well, I guess it depends on how you define a contradiction. I think whoever spoke the first quote would have communicated better if he said "it's not only about Teague its about reviewing the football dept.", which I suspect is what he meant. I think the first quote was just bad communication, and the second is actually correct. There's no way you can review a football department and exclude the senior coach IMO.

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #775
Yes, I recall MLG saying it wasn't a review of Teague, but once the rather predictable media onslaught started, the club has not come to his aid in any way. They've just hung him out to dry. In the past, MLG has said a few things which turned out to be untrue (e.g Bolton will coach out season 2019, 2 weeks before he was sacked). I'm not usually a cynic, but sometimes the temptation of a famous Claud Cockburn quote (“Believe nothing until it has been officially denied.”) is hard to resist.


I love a good quote, and that's a goodun. How about this one from Oscar Wilde, 'A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.'  ;)  :)
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #776
I love a good quote, and that's a goodun. How about this one from Oscar Wilde, 'A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.'  ;)  :)

Not bad Baggers. I should also add that I agree with you about the financials. We live in a commercial world. The less dependence we have on wealthy folks, the AFL etc., the better off we'll be. Clubs that are broke do on occasion win flags (North during the Carey years), but generally the wealthier (or at least more self sufficient) clubs tend to dominate flags, finals etc.

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #777
I love a good quote, and that's a goodun. How about this one from Oscar Wilde, 'A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.'  ;)  :)

Nice one Baggers, but times have changed since Oscar’s day, and we are dealing with the CFC after all. 🤪
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #778
Just doing a small amount of research on the "famous" Richmond review from 2016. I don't recall if they made a public announcement at the start of the review. The article below is dated mid September 2016, and says that the review took over 10 weeks (which I guess we can assume means about 10-11 weeks). Backdating from the article date, it sounds like it may have started early July 2016.

https://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/328448/balme-joins-richmond-as-part-of-football-re-structure

For those interested in further reading, there's two links below : The first is Peggy O'Neal talking about the journey at Richmond under hers and Gale's watch. The second is a HS article from Big Footy that goes into some detail about the Richmond review. Both well worth reading IMO.

https://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/membership/company-director-magazine/2019-back-editions/may/how-the-richmond-tigers-are-nailing-great-culture

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/revealed-the-nine-key-points-of-richmond’s-internal-review-that-turned-the-tigers-around.1181342/

Re: Football Department Review

Reply #779
Sorry, for whatever reason the Big Footy link isn't working. If you google "Richmond review 2016", you'll find it on the first page, beginning with the title "the nine key points........."