Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Football Department Review (Read 106179 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Review

Reply #405 –
Interesting reading:

Quote
The best reviews are where the staff in the department feel the review is for the department, not on the department. That the reviewer is there to make everyone better rather than look for scapegoats. This requires great communication, relationships and explanation of the nuance. It feels as though this horse may have bolted with the Carlton process and it will require strong leadership to bring it back.

Now articles in the newspaper are a bit non genuine.

"you dont do a review and then sack the boot studder"

makes it out to show that a review is there to review people.

They arent.  These consultants are brought in regularly across all works of life, to check what people do, and how they do it, and whether or not the PROCESS, STRUCTURE and RESPONSIBLITIES measure up with the currently leading standards of who, what, where, when and how in terms of running a football club.

This will review the people indirectly, and give them reasons to see what isnt working, and how to fix.

This process is one of identification, not one of excuses.

Our club has earned the mantle of needing a reason to sack a coach, but I suspect this is a bit different based on the statements made by liddle and co, and just by the sheer volume of turnover we have had.

When you change all the people and things still dont work, at some point, you need to look beyond the people and how the place runs. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Review

Reply #406 –
Quote from: Lods – on
So we're having a review, why?
There seems to be a lot of different opinions on this one.
To summarise...

1) Sayers wants to make a clear distinction between his presidency and the previous one. He wants to present an image to supporters that he is a man who is not afraid to take action if necessary.
2) Sayer’s has gone off ‘half-cocked’ based on a couple of conversations with players.
3) This is the review we had to have.
4) It’s the review we had to have but the timing is a bit off and it ‘could have, should have’ waited until seasons end.
5) It’s the review we had to have, but it should look at all aspects of the club operation rather than just the football department.
6) The review comes at a strange time given we have a much better second half draw and players coming back from injury. There is a danger we could end up looking a bit panicky and silly by season’s end.
7) It’s a time buying exercise designed to temporarily ease pressure and give the impression the club is responding to supporter’s concerns.
8 ) We don’t need to review anything, we’re tracking fine. It's just taking a bit of time for things to gel, but once we get games into players together and a few players back from injury things will turn quickly.

The bizarre thing about this one is that you could just about make a solid case for any one of those options...or a combination of those options.






9. The incoming Pres has knowledge that we're not aware of/spoke to many more folks than indicated in the media and is a personality type not given to sitting on a problem when clearly presented - a man inclined to action, especially when it can positively impact on-field performance sooner rather than later.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Review

Reply #407 –
Give our Tribunal Advocates the ar5e!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: Review

Reply #408 –
It took them three hours to arrive at a decision !?!?!?

Re: Review

Reply #409 –
Quote from: LP – on
Give our Tribunal Advocates the ar5e!
Outrageous verdicts by the Tribunal.
You can’t tell me Mackay braced for impact any less than Plowman did. Watch Mackay’s eyes - he takes them OFF the ball.

Plowman AND Mackay suspended? Me happy.
Plowman AND Mackay exonerated? Me less happy.
Plowman suspended and Mackay exonerated? OUTRAGEOUS!!!
Keyboard warrior #24601

Re: Review

Reply #410 –
How do you feel about the Williams suspension now?
DrE is no more... you ok with that harmonica man?

Re: Review

Reply #411 –
I think the AFL and the MRO both need an independent review. Urgently.

They want the game faster yet claim to be clamping down on head-high contact. Well guess what AFL, collective heads of immaculate density, in a physical contact sport where it is made faster the head contacts run the risk of being worse - more concussions. What do other sports with high contact do... headgear. Modern science must be able to come up with a comfortable, thin, high absorbent material head protection which will reduce some concussions to zero and bad ones to less harmful. Oh, hang on, Gil is into pretty/appearances... no room for practicality. If I had a son/daughter who was playing AFL/W I would strongly suggest to him or her to wear protective headgear.

As for last night's decision... holy cr@p. Plow goes because they claim he did not have eyes for the aggott, Mackay gets off because they believe it was an honest contest for the pill. Did anyone else notice Mackay become airborne to ensure he hit his opponent flush with his shoulder??? And his opponent was in a more vulnerable position! A great pile of steamy bullshizen... inconsistency 101.

How confused must the players be... many will be watching the Mackay hit over and over to ensure they emulate that kind of collision so they get off. Der.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Review

Reply #412 –
The AFL continue to make it up as they go along. Nature of the beast. Consistency is not a concept familiar to them.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: Review

Reply #414 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/carlton-blues/afl-news-2021-carlton-blues-review-football-department-david-teague-coach-contract-jason-dunstall/news-story/326fce75a0e8dfbd0dc6f2863cecb4ca

Dunstall is one of the few in the media worth listening to IMO.
I heard Malcom Speed on SEN this morning, brilliant. He spoke of the Richmond review which was not made public like many others have been. Gale presented it to the board, they all read it on the spot, they discussed it at length and then handed it back to Gale at the end of the meeting. No leaks, no publishing of it, just decide on the action plan resulting from it and get on with it.
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: Review

Reply #415 –
Quote from: Gointocarlton – on
I heard Malcom Speed on SEN this morning, brilliant. He spoke of the Richmond review which was not made public like many others have been. Gale presented it to the board, they all read it on the spot, they discussed it at length and then handed it back to Gale at the end of the meeting. No leaks, no publishing of it, just decide on the action plan resulting from it and get on with it.

Wow, what is that exactly ? it's like, errrrr....................professionalism or something ? For those at the mighty CFC, it is, as Bob Dylan said, "a foreign sound to your ear."

Re: Review

Reply #416 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/carlton-blues/afl-news-2021-carlton-blues-review-football-department-david-teague-coach-contract-jason-dunstall/news-story/326fce75a0e8dfbd0dc6f2863cecb4ca

Dunstall is one of the few in the media worth listening to IMO.
I believe he's knocked Carlton back twice, yet he still has the cohunes to tell us what to do!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: Review

Reply #417 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/carlton-blues/afl-news-2021-carlton-blues-review-football-department-david-teague-coach-contract-jason-dunstall/news-story/326fce75a0e8dfbd0dc6f2863cecb4ca

Dunstall is one of the few in the media worth listening to IMO.

Spot on from J Dunstall. You'd reasonably expect the review to be finished just prior to season's end... then make the changes.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Review

Reply #418 –
I really hope Pavlich will take learnings from the Adelaide Crows review and rips the Board a new one, even though it's not in his remit. The Crows review was prompted by the disastrous camp, and plenty across the board, executive, football department etc. fell on their sword. I'm not convinced focussing solely on the footy department will get to the bottom of the problems.

Re: Review

Reply #419 –
I came across a Footy Classified clip from yesterday on my YT auto suggestions, and against my better judgment, I watched a few minutes. They made the point that no one at our club, at any level (Board, Executive, Coach, players) has come out better than when they came in. Except maybe Judd. All coaches, players, Executive etc. have their reputations tarnished after working with us. They're saying that even Andrew Russell is now looking average. Great.