Carlton Supporters Club

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.

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.

So, hang-on, we all go on, on here, about the poor development of players, the questionable recruiting, the poor drafting (in some years), the lack of ability of the assitant coaches.  But, when the Board launches a review into these things, then they have gone early and sabotaged the season??

Yes, 100% agree that they should have kept it quiet (but, i guess this issue is, if it got out), but i dont agree that they should not have done it.

Review was needed, they did it.  Maybe they have failed in the communication

I just hope we stick with Teague and find some gun assistant coaches to support him and, in particular, run the midfield.

We saw what it did for Kennedy and Dow when Barker walked out. We need fresh ideas across all lines but in particular our midfield is our biggest issue.

I think the review was an effort by the board to make it about someone other than themselves. That drove the timing and explains why they publicised it like they did. They aren't very bright and obsessed with protecting their own ar5es.

His W/L hovers around 40%-45%. It's not that bad, and not the sort of results that warrant a review IMO.

Well the review is in.
Decisions are probably well advanced (some may have even been made prior to the whole thing starting )

It's just a waiting game now and next week looks set to be an interesting one.

So, hang-on, we all go on, on here, about the poor development of players, the questionable recruiting, the poor drafting (in some years), the lack of ability of the assitant coaches.  But, when the Board launches a review into these things, then they have gone early and sabotaged the season??

Yes, 100% agree that they should have kept it quiet (but, i guess this issue is, if it got out), but i dont agree that they should not have done it.

Review was needed, they did it.  Maybe they have failed in the communication

We all want the club to get better - the club has issues, as all clubs do, But we seem to pick the most unhelpful, destructive way of fixing those issues IMO. Which experts at the club thought we were playing finals this season ? I never thought that, and if Teague is being judged against unachievable goals, then maybe those that pluck random expectations out of their clacker are the ones who should be reviewed, and not the coach.

I can only give an opinion on an opinion based forum. Doing a review mid season for a bloke who has coached 40 games, with a Wl/L around 40-45%, is IMO, absurd. I would also say that there is a time and a way of doing it without making it seem like a head hunting exercise. Our club has form for this type of behaviour - think back to R2 2015 when completely out of the blue they announced a ground zero rebuild. Both that announcement and this current one cause trouble, instability and uncertainty. Think back to the Geelong, Collingwood and Richmond reviews, and then compare them to ours. Night and day IMO.

We all want the club to get better - the club has issues, as all clubs do, But we seem to pick the most unhelpful, destructive way of fixing those issues IMO. Which experts at the club thought we were playing finals this season ? I never thought that, and if Teague is being judged against unachievable goals, then maybe those that pluck random expectations out of their clacker are the ones who should be reviewed, and not the coach.

I think we all agreed a review needed to occur.

The review was supposed to be club wide, but was it?

If it wasn't club wide did it really target the root of the problem or just ignore it?

This process [the review] is now reaching its final stages and I assure you we will not be making any public comment until we have directly communicated with you, our members. This will include providing you with the summarised findings of the review that I know members have a deep and justified interest in.

So, hang-on, we all go on, on here, about the poor development of players, the questionable recruiting, the poor drafting (in some years), the lack of ability of the assitant coaches.  But, when the Board launches a review into these things, then they have gone early and sabotaged the season??

Yes, 100% agree that they should have kept it quiet (but, i guess this issue is, if it got out), but i dont agree that they should not have done it.

Review was needed, they did it.  Maybe they have failed in the communication