So what is the club structure exactly?

[HitTheBoundary]

The Geelong coach does not get dictated to by the Football operations managers

I am really quite bemused by your continual authoritative statements such as this.

Personally, I would have no REAL idea what happens at Geelong (or St.Kilda), and how much power Balme has, or any knowledge of their internal politics and processes.

Do you get this knowledge from someone in the know at Geelong, or do you just make all this stuff up?
I think it's the latter.

As for our club structure - in an article in the Age today Summers states that the club structure will be made clear to the members in the next few weeks, in a process that will seemingly coincide with appointing a new coach.

[Cairnsman]

What does the org chart look like?

I'm not looking for assumptions, opinions or random thoughts - I'd love to know exactly what the reporting structure is!


Clearly, the basis of this decision is due to an employee thumbing his nose at the structure and doing his own thing.

In any regular (non-sporting club) business, that's clearly reason enough to can someone. Obviously if it is ongoing.


But maybe, just maybe the club's structure is all wrong? That doesn't mean someone can make their own rules and doesn't excuse Watters, but it may mean that any coach that comes in just can't operate how they need to.

I mean, why does a coach require approval to do a radio interview?


So who created our structure? And what exactly is it?


If the club provided this information to the members (the second part anyway) then I think it would go a long way to removing the perception that the club is a shambles. Obviously it's more important that those involved know - but we pay the bills and I think it's more than reasonable that this type of information is made public.

The highest person is at the top, then there's a pyramid shape, and all the lowest ranked people are on the bottom line.

I'm no expert but it looks like that model hasn't been working, though from an outsiders perspective it looks like the club has had a problem with someone at the lowest rank trying to create a circle of unity and when that didn't work it looks they went back to a modified version of the pyramid but again from an outsiders perspective it appears the modified pyramid didn't have enough room for more than one person at the top.

[saintspremiers]

Does Neil Balme run the joint at Geelong though?

I wouldn't have thought so.

Those that try and run St. Kilda are generally the coaches not the prez or CEO.

That is the crux of our issues.

[perfectionist]

The Geelong coach does not get dictated to by the Football operations managers

I am really quite bemused by your continual authoritative statements such as this.

Personally, I would have no REAL idea what happens at Geelong (or St.Kilda), and how much power Balme has, or any knowledge of their internal politics and processes.

Do you get this knowledge from someone in the know at Geelong, or do you just make all this stuff up?
...

Now that's funny. It's others who have been asserting that Neil Balme runs football at Geelong and not Chris Scott or before him Mark Thompson - without any evidence - and contrary to all observable evidence. Costa put in place a coordinator, not a controller. As I have said before, no self respecting coach would be dictated to by anyone - including the board. When you look at the online material for Geelong, it is clearly Chris Scott who is in change not Neil Balme.

[Fidelis]

Saintly has just started a new thread with a link to an 'Age' interview with Peter Summers.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... 2wuvl.html

Worth a read.

Summers attempts to paint this whole episode in terms of bring in a new structure. No great detail given but it is obvious that Watters was briefed about his role in the organisation and chose to continue to act beyond his brief.

Summers describes the new setup as 'what we need to do to be a strong club over a sustained period' and reveals that it has been implemented after discussions with Frank Costa.

Reclaiming some lost ground. Impressive media play.

[Cairnsman]

The Geelong coach does not get dictated to by the Football operations managers

I am really quite bemused by your continual authoritative statements such as this.

Personally, I would have no REAL idea what happens at Geelong (or St.Kilda), and how much power Balme has, or any knowledge of their internal politics and processes.

Do you get this knowledge from someone in the know at Geelong, or do you just make all this stuff up?
...

Now that's funny. It's others who have been asserting that Neil Balme runs football at Geelong and not Chris Scott or before him Mark Thompson - without any evidence - and contrary to all observable evidence. Costa put in place a coordinator, not a controller. As I have said before, no self respecting coach would be dictated to by anyone - including the board. When you look at the online material for Geelong, it is clearly Chris Scott who is in change not Neil Balme.

You've got baby boomers on the board, you've got a Gen-xers in the coaching group and Gen-yers on the team. If a coach wont be dictated to then does he expect to dictate to the players? I think the days of the coach being the one stop shop are over but that also means getting away from the system where the buck stops with the coach. Well run successful businesses rely on the performance of the system and processes, not the individual.

[The OtherThommo]

Balme's an amiable, relaxed collegiate fella who rolls with change. He's endured the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune elsewhere and developed his own role at the GFC. Effectively, he's a buffer for the coach and is effective because he seems to preempt and communicate broadly and coherently, but only when he feels it necessary. There was a term around years ago, "skunk works", which described how some organisations gave small groups of people (sometimes as small as 1) carte blanche to work away from traditional structures to develop ideas or foresee and preempt problems or opportunities. They would develop ideas and then bring them back into the traditional management processes, once sufficiently developed. I think Balme is probably part skunk worker. It takes a very particular type of person to be a successful skunk worker, and organisations need to be sufficiently mature and comfortable to be able to recognise the right person and give them the necessary freedom to succeed.

Neil Balme's role is fairly unique in AFL football, I think, and nigh on impossible to emulate because the role has evolved because of the person, not the other way around. Balme is there because Brian Cook is a top notch CEO and knows how to adapt the GFC structure to exploit the maximum amount out of an organisation and the individuals in particular roles. Sophisticated CEO's can do it, but only if a stable and capable board is in place.

[oldie60]

I understand that football is a business and structures and process are at the forefront but who mentions these when accepting the premiership medallion or cup. Yes we need those processes but i doubt its only background. The quality of the cattle on the park brings all that process to fruition. Without the on field success the revenue and sponsorship does not evolve therefore all the process and structure in world can't put results on the board and bums on seats.

[HitTheBoundary]

When you look at the online material for Geelong, it is clearly Chris Scott who is in change not Neil Balme.

There's what the website says, and what the reality is.

I used to have a General Manager who was officially the boss, but if you really wanted things to happen you bypassed him and went elsewhere. There's normally a few people in any org who get things done at the various employee levels, and that is not necessarily reflected by titles or paypackets.

Beware the bootstudder with clout.

[perfectionist]

Balme's an amiable, relaxed collegiate fella who rolls with change. He's endured the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune elsewhere and developed his own role at the GFC. Effectively, he's a buffer for the coach and is effective because he seems to preempt and communicate broadly and coherently, but only when he feels it necessary. There was a term around years ago, "skunk works", which described how some organisations gave small groups of people (sometimes as small as 1) carte blanche to work away from traditional structures to develop ideas or foresee and preempt problems or opportunities. They would develop ideas and then bring them back into the traditional management processes, once sufficiently developed. I think Balme is probably part skunk worker. It takes a very particular type of person to be a successful skunk worker, and organisations need to be sufficiently mature and comfortable to be able to recognise the right person and give them the necessary freedom to succeed.

Neil Balme's role is fairly unique in AFL football, I think, and nigh on impossible to emulate because the role has evolved because of the person, not the other way around. Balme is there because Brian Cook is a top notch CEO and knows how to adapt the GFC structure to exploit the maximum amount out of an organisation and the individuals in particular roles. Sophisticated CEO's can do it, but only if a stable and capable board is in place.

What you say is pretty much my impression as well.

[The OtherThommo]

From the information I've gleaned from here and around the web, we seem to have now adopted a management structure more in line with many other successful clubs around Australia and the world.

As stated, Geelong amongst others in the AFL run on this model as do the likes of Man Utd. and Barcelona.

For my 2 bob's worth, I'm comfortable with this and that we seem to be bringing everyone into line within the new structure now.

Time will tell and we just need to show some spine and stick with the program.

Now is not the time to panic.

Sorry, Johnny, but I just don't buy comparisons between Geelong, and some other AFL clubs, and the likes of Man U and Barca.

First, the commonalities between round ball management structures. The manager manages the list, signs the players, is responsible for meeting the football budget (in most cases), picks the team, appoints the support staff and occupies the bench or technical area on match days to control match day responses to what unfolds in front of him. They are omnipotent. There is no comparable role or person in AFL football.

And, there are significant differences in the ownership, management structures and operations of big football clubs.

Man U has been controlled for years by the Glazers. They have a hybrid share ownership/paying member structure but a few years ago the Glazers control allowed them to modify the company/club constitution to increase their control. They allowed themselves to issue more shares, then sell them on public markets (in a number of ways, including debt for equity swaps). They spent the first few years building up the debt in Man U, based on a growing revenue model, then began selling their inflated equity into public markets in tranches, but leaving the debt in Man U. In short, the Glazers have pulled cash out and left the debt in.

Barca, on the other hand, have a Spanish social model, driven by their place in Catalan culture. They have some big foreign contributors (like Qatari sheiks), but their preeminence in European football and Spanish culture allow them to keep those contributors as sponsors, rather than owners. But, there is another reason for doing so - the big Spanish clubs are also Government funded, by all levels of government. So much so, that the European Commission has opened investigations into the channeling of bailout monies (post GFC) to those football clubs, at the expense of where those monies were supposed to be directed.

There are lots of variations in soccer. Chelsea are fully controlled by Abramovich. Man City are sheik owned and controlled. Arsenal have a big US shareholder, but run a little more like a members' club. Of all the big Euro clubs, Bayern Munich are probably the closest to a traditional club.

I reckon it's very hard to compare much about big world football clubs to the status quo, or future, of AFL competition or club structures.

One comparison might be valid; European clubs and competitions are broker than the AFL clubs. As an example as to why, in the last 5 years Chelsea and Man City (privately owned) have had a net deficit of 1.5 Billion Euros (might be pounds) in player transfers. That's both a P&L and Balance Sheet item for them. Arsenal, OTOH, have had a net credit of 5 Million over the same period. The net effect of the Chelsea/Man City model has been to introduce a level of inflation that is busting clubs faster than ever before. Spanish football has more than half its La Liga clubs trading insolvent, and relying on dodgy right wing government corruption to keep them on the park.

Comparisons don't stand up.

[Johnny Favier]

From the information I've gleaned from here and around the web, we seem to have now adopted a management structure more in line with many other successful clubs around Australia and the world.

As stated, Geelong amongst others in the AFL run on this model as do the likes of Man Utd. and Barcelona.

For my 2 bob's worth, I'm comfortable with this and that we seem to be bringing everyone into line within the new structure now.

Time will tell and we just need to show some spine and stick with the program.

Now is not the time to panic.

Sorry, Johnny, but I just don't buy comparisons between Geelong, and some other AFL clubs, and the likes of Man U and Barca.

First, the commonalities between round ball management structures. The manager manages the list, signs the players, is responsible for meeting the football budget (in most cases), picks the team, appoints the support staff and occupies the bench or technical area on match days to control match day responses to what unfolds in front of him. They are omnipotent. There is no comparable role or person in AFL football.

And, there are significant differences in the ownership, management structures and operations of big football clubs.

Man U has been controlled for years by the Glazers. They have a hybrid share ownership/paying member structure but a few years ago the Glazers control allowed them to modify the company/club constitution to increase their control. They allowed themselves to issue more shares, then sell them on public markets (in a number of ways, including debt for equity swaps). They spent the first few years building up the debt in Man U, based on a growing revenue model, then began selling their inflated equity into public markets in tranches, but leaving the debt in Man U. In short, the Glazers have pulled cash out and left the debt in.

Barca, on the other hand, have a Spanish social model, driven by their place in Catalan culture. They have some big foreign contributors (like Qatari sheiks), but their preeminence in European football and Spanish culture allow them to keep those contributors as sponsors, rather than owners. But, there is another reason for doing so - the big Spanish clubs are also Government funded, by all levels of government. So much so, that the European Commission has opened investigations into the channeling of bailout monies (post GFC) to those football clubs, at the expense of where those monies were supposed to be directed.

There are lots of variations in soccer. Chelsea are fully controlled by Abramovich. Man City are sheik owned and controlled. Arsenal have a big US shareholder, but run a little more like a members' club. Of all the big Euro clubs, Bayern Munich are probably the closest to a traditional club.

I reckon it's very hard to compare much about big world football clubs to the status quo, or future, of AFL competition or club structures.

One comparison might be valid; European clubs and competitions are broker than the AFL clubs. As an example as to why, in the last 5 years Chelsea and Man City (privately owned) have had a net deficit of 1.5 Billion Euros (might be pounds) in player transfers. That's both a P&L and Balance Sheet item for them. Arsenal, OTOH, have had a net credit of 5 Million over the same period. The net effect of the Chelsea/Man City model has been to introduce a level of inflation that is busting clubs faster than ever before. Spanish football has more than half its La Liga clubs trading insolvent, and relying on dodgy right wing government corruption to keep them on the park.

Comparisons don't stand up.

Point taken, and probably a poor choice by me to compare soccer admin with AFL.
Obviously you're far more well versed in this type of thing than my layman's view.

I guess what I was trying to say is that we'll be far better off in the long run in not letting coaches try to run the place carte blanche like we have in the past.
It may also be a selling point to a new prospective coach that he can just get on with the job of just coaching the team, without the distraction of other matters taking focus away from his main task.
This seemed to be a concept that Scotty W struggled to take onboard.

[stinger]

Wrong?

By the way.... The board will form a committe to short list candidates, who will then go through a process of interview and tests.... then will give a recommendation to the board...... Who sign off on the appointment ( or not) and offer a successful candidate a contract.

or they will go through a charade and then appoint pelchen's best mate anyway

[The OtherThommo]

Maybe Watters did struggle to take on board just coaching the team, Johnny. But, I've got a growing feeling the problems were more widespread than just Watters not fitting in with this new "structure".

I've been back over some of the reporting published over the last few weeks, the period where it moved from rumblings about Watters to Watters is the devil incarnate, culminating in the sacking and the 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' press conference and managerialism festival on Friday.

Caro has been at the centre of the reporting for some time. Back on Oct 17th she produced an article containing these lines of reporting and commentary;

"If Watters' football department staffers, along with other Saints administrators, believe the coach has laboured under a number of delusions, the coach's vexed position is just one in a long list of communication failures at the club over the past season."

"The first public signs of the club delivering mixed messages came when Watters conceded on SEN after just two games that the club was in rebuilding mode, having failed to seek buy-in from his senior playing group and going against the accepted, albeit misconceived, public philosophy of the club."

"Now the Saints have targeted a top-level CEO and will next week outline their vision for the future while searching for that new boss along with a new co-major sponsor for the club."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/m ... z2jdx1kDbb

Some of the rumours re Watters have included references to Milne being stood down. Caro reported that was a board decision.

Saad's inclusion was also raised. Caro's report refers to Watters clearing it with KEY directors, but bypassing Nettlefold. While I agree Watters chosen route is not the way it should be done, what in the hell were KEY directors doing giving him the nod? Exactly who isn't on the same page here? Are those KEY directors still on the board?

The Prescott matter also gets a run. Was a contract signed, or not? Did Watters sign a contract with Prescott, as the responsible football club signatory, when he shouldn't have? Or, did the club not approve Prescott and not provide a contract for signing? If it's the latter, how big a deal is it? If it's the former, then that's a real black mark against Watters (if he wasn't a club approved signatory to such contracts).

Some seem to believe Watters was going to be sacked around 3 weeks ago, but the board baulked. Some believe they baulked because the trade period was underway. If that's the case, that is an extraordinary bit of cynicism. I'm not sure players who spoke to Watters about making the switch (e.g. Longer, who heaped high praise on Watters' role in convincing him to move) will be fully trusting about those running his new environment. Not sure player managers will dismiss it easily, either. We are probably more vulnerable than Brisbane were this year, with the number of young blokes coming out of their 1st contracts in the next 2 or 3 years.

We have heard much mention of "structure" over the last few days. BUT, we have hired a consultancy mob to assist with that structure. It is not clear what the assistance involves; it's also not clear if the structure has even been finalised. The review was finalised....then it wasn't.

Caro mentioned that the club "will NEXT WEEK outline their vision for the future". On Friday Summers mentioned something like 'Vision '17' being ready later this month. What happened to the w/e Oct 25th (given she wrote "next week" on Oct 17th)?

She also mentioned targeting a top level CEO - around 2 weeks later we're told we've just hired another mob to help us find a CEO.

A couple of weeks ago, Summers was quoted as saying 1 of the reasons they hadn't discussed an extension with Watters was because they didn't have every thing in place yet, and it was fairest to Watters to get everything in place before discussing an extension, because he might not be comfortable with what's done, and may decide not to seek an extension. Well, there's a lot still not in place, but they sacked him anyway.

I'm very concerned about the lack of consistency and coherence in what is being presented. I also don't buy this line about protecting Watters' privacy and reputation by saying nothing other than it's the new structure wot did him in. I'm not a media or communications practitioner, but I've read enough statements re giving someone the bullet to know resorting to simplistic references to 'structure' doesn't cut it. Confidentiality clauses are constructs to bury transparency, nothing more. But, anybody who believes there aren't ways to render confidentiality clauses useless have never read a Baker and McKenzie report. Where there's a will, there's a way.

If we were a privately owned club or business, I wouldn't give a rat's. But, we're not. We're part publicly owned business, part club. In the language of managerialism the business part has "stakeholders". The club bit has donors, members and supporters.

I'm not surprised to have read lots of "phew" responses to the media handling of the events of Friday, and since. The coverage has been soft, with numerous speculative pieces about the "real" reasons for the sacking. All sorts of media types are interpreting the significance of the various rumours, leaks and briefings. General relief, all around.

But, if you go back to Caro's Oct 17th article, you can detect suspicion the problems are broader than 1 mid level manager of 1 part of the business/club. Some in the club have been successful in channeling this suspicion in 1 direction - the scapegoat has been identified and purged......for now.

But, if anyone believes the influential media types are all done, they are in cloud cuckoo land. Any hint of inconsistency, failure, being sold BS, and they will come after this football club with a relentless intent. The indications of inconsistency, failure and BS are already there. Any hiccoughs and there won't be many left standing.

[Dis Believer]

Sorry - I got it wrong.

We don't have a pyramid structure - ours is the trapezoid model.....

[Johnny Member]

I found out today that Watters hired a fitness guy, over the phone, without interviewing him on a 3 year contract.

Now, personally I see that type of appointment as unprofessional and something that the coach need not be involved in. At any club.

[Austinnn]

Maybe Watters did struggle to take on board just coaching the team, Johnny. But, I've got a growing feeling the problems were more widespread than just Watters not fitting in with this new "structure".

I've been back over some of the reporting published over the last few weeks, the period where it moved from rumblings about Watters to Watters is the devil incarnate, culminating in the sacking and the 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' press conference and managerialism festival on Friday.

Caro has been at the centre of the reporting for some time. Back on Oct 17th she produced an article containing these lines of reporting and commentary;

"If Watters' football department staffers, along with other Saints administrators, believe the coach has laboured under a number of delusions, the coach's vexed position is just one in a long list of communication failures at the club over the past season."

"The first public signs of the club delivering mixed messages came when Watters conceded on SEN after just two games that the club was in rebuilding mode, having failed to seek buy-in from his senior playing group and going against the accepted, albeit misconceived, public philosophy of the club."

"Now the Saints have targeted a top-level CEO and will next week outline their vision for the future while searching for that new boss along with a new co-major sponsor for the club."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/m ... z2jdx1kDbb

Some of the rumours re Watters have included references to Milne being stood down. Caro reported that was a board decision.

Saad's inclusion was also raised. Caro's report refers to Watters clearing it with KEY directors, but bypassing Nettlefold. While I agree Watters chosen route is not the way it should be done, what in the hell were KEY directors doing giving him the nod? Exactly who isn't on the same page here? Are those KEY directors still on the board?

The Prescott matter also gets a run. Was a contract signed, or not? Did Watters sign a contract with Prescott, as the responsible football club signatory, when he shouldn't have? Or, did the club not approve Prescott and not provide a contract for signing? If it's the latter, how big a deal is it? If it's the former, then that's a real black mark against Watters (if he wasn't a club approved signatory to such contracts).

Some seem to believe Watters was going to be sacked around 3 weeks ago, but the board baulked. Some believe they baulked because the trade period was underway. If that's the case, that is an extraordinary bit of cynicism. I'm not sure players who spoke to Watters about making the switch (e.g. Longer, who heaped high praise on Watters' role in convincing him to move) will be fully trusting about those running his new environment. Not sure player managers will dismiss it easily, either. We are probably more vulnerable than Brisbane were this year, with the number of young blokes coming out of their 1st contracts in the next 2 or 3 years.

We have heard much mention of "structure" over the last few days. BUT, we have hired a consultancy mob to assist with that structure. It is not clear what the assistance involves; it's also not clear if the structure has even been finalised. The review was finalised....then it wasn't.

Caro mentioned that the club "will NEXT WEEK outline their vision for the future". On Friday Summers mentioned something like 'Vision '17' being ready later this month. What happened to the w/e Oct 25th (given she wrote "next week" on Oct 17th)?

She also mentioned targeting a top level CEO - around 2 weeks later we're told we've just hired another mob to help us find a CEO.

A couple of weeks ago, Summers was quoted as saying 1 of the reasons they hadn't discussed an extension with Watters was because they didn't have every thing in place yet, and it was fairest to Watters to get everything in place before discussing an extension, because he might not be comfortable with what's done, and may decide not to seek an extension. Well, there's a lot still not in place, but they sacked him anyway.

I'm very concerned about the lack of consistency and coherence in what is being presented. I also don't buy this line about protecting Watters' privacy and reputation by saying nothing other than it's the new structure wot did him in. I'm not a media or communications practitioner, but I've read enough statements re giving someone the bullet to know resorting to simplistic references to 'structure' doesn't cut it. Confidentiality clauses are constructs to bury transparency, nothing more. But, anybody who believes there aren't ways to render confidentiality clauses useless have never read a Baker and McKenzie report. Where there's a will, there's a way.

If we were a privately owned club or business, I wouldn't give a rat's. But, we're not. We're part publicly owned business, part club. In the language of managerialism the business part has "stakeholders". The club bit has donors, members and supporters.

I'm not surprised to have read lots of "phew" responses to the media handling of the events of Friday, and since. The coverage has been soft, with numerous speculative pieces about the "real" reasons for the sacking. All sorts of media types are interpreting the significance of the various rumours, leaks and briefings. General relief, all around.

But, if you go back to Caro's Oct 17th article, you can detect suspicion the problems are broader than 1 mid level manager of 1 part of the business/club. Some in the club have been successful in channeling this suspicion in 1 direction - the scapegoat has been identified and purged......for now.

But, if anyone believes the influential media types are all done, they are in cloud cuckoo land. Any hint of inconsistency, failure, being sold BS, and they will come after this football club with a relentless intent. The indications of inconsistency, failure and BS are already there. Any hiccoughs and there won't be many left standing.

This is a very interesting post, and I have to admit that I worry about the same thing. Hopefully the current team are getting things done and we can get out of this mess with some integrity. We all have questions though and the club is trading on a lot of loyalty to expect us to swallow all what's been happening. They can expect little mercy if they screw this up.

[The OtherThommo]

Among some of the other reading in recent days included the Greg Denham piece from Satdee. His tone was somewhat similar to Caro's piece on Oct 17th, but he was writing after Watters' sacking. I found the following bits rather interesting;

"According to Nettlefold, one of the reasons Watters was appointed as senior coach in October 2011 was because of his holistic approach to the club's operation.

While no official reason for the sacking was given yesterday by new president Peter Summers, that approach across the club eventually led to his downfall."

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/a ... ABSKA.dpuf

So, according to Nettlefold, Watters got the gig because he would be "holistic" and get across more of the operation than merely coaching the senior list. Much of the nebulous justification coming from club officials for the sacking implies he went into areas beyond merely coaching.

Dunno 'bout you, but I see pretty flippin' big contradictions emerging already. And, note, Denham's referring to Nettlefold making the statement, not the Watters' camp.

From a different perspective, it might actually be reasonable to suggest Watters was moved on because he was hired on 1 basis (the "holistic" approach) and the club had decided to now go in another direction (just coach), to which they didn't feel Watters was suited. That might actually be a defensible narrative, depending on the answer to the question "did you give Watters a reasonable chance to adapt, given he had a contract and a Position Description, with associated performance management records?."

I wonder why they didn't go that way? My guess is their documentation (e.g. contract, performance management and HR documentation) wouldn't sustain it, they acted when they have holes in their "structure" (without the new "structure" even being in place), took too long to enact commitments they made to support Watters "holistic" hiring (e.g. setting up the academy) and generally took too long to replace key departures. Another reason might be they can't afford to limit the remit too far because prospective replacements for Watters won't cop it (anybody like to suggest Mark Williams wouldn't stick his nose in where he felt it necessary....and not just Williams?).

The Prescott matter is interesting. By late October, just before pre-season starts, most clubs have done their hiring for next year. We hadn't. Basil was hired late cf with other clubs. We had a few holes in our assistant ranks. Maybe Watters would argue it was dragging on too long. Maybe he'd suggest we were under resourced and he didn't want to be left with the dregs. He'd have an argument, no matter anyone's view on its veracity. Maybe he'd point to the delays I pointed out stemming from Caro's article (e.g. new CEO, the "Vision" thing, the new "structure"). Pre-season was about to start, too.

My concerns ain't receding. If Williams is already over the line, as some of those with recent successes in forecasting Watters' demise have suggested, we'd wanna pretty damn good at the theatrics of tokenism. Just imagine if some approached or interviewed as part of the process, by this new selection panel, was to depart the process, see Williams get appointed, ring a Caro or a Denham and tell them the whole thing was a farce, we're completely incompetent, cynical and not to be trusted.

Credibility builder? Not really, eh?

I don't reckon they can afford to appoint Williams, just on the basis that the same people who leaked Watters was dead have leaked Williams is over the line.....but, hey, we've appointed a panel!

[Cairnsman]

Among some of the other reading in recent days included the Greg Denham piece from Satdee. His tone was somewhat similar to Caro's piece on Oct 17th, but he was writing after Watters' sacking. I found the following bits rather interesting;

"According to Nettlefold, one of the reasons Watters was appointed as senior coach in October 2011 was because of his holistic approach to the club's operation.

While no official reason for the sacking was given yesterday by new president Peter Summers, that approach across the club eventually led to his downfall."

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/a ... ABSKA.dpuf

So, according to Nettlefold, Watters got the gig because he would be "holistic" and get across more of the operation than merely coaching the senior list. Much of the nebulous justification coming from club officials for the sacking implies he went into areas beyond merely coaching.

Dunno 'bout you, but I see pretty flippin' big contradictions emerging already. And, note, Denham's referring to Nettlefold making the statement, not the Watters' camp.

From a different perspective, it might actually be reasonable to suggest Watters was moved on because he was hired on 1 basis (the "holistic" approach) and the club had decided to now go in another direction (just coach), to which they didn't feel Watters was suited. That might actually be a defensible narrative, depending on the answer to the question "did you give Watters a reasonable chance to adapt, given he had a contract and a Position Description, with associated performance management records?."

I wonder why they didn't go that way? My guess is their documentation (e.g. contract, performance management and HR documentation) wouldn't sustain it, they acted when they have holes in their "structure" (without the new "structure" even being in place), took too long to enact commitments they made to support Watters "holistic" hiring (e.g. setting up the academy) and generally took too long to replace key departures. Another reason might be they can't afford to limit the remit too far because prospective replacements for Watters won't cop it (anybody like to suggest Mark Williams wouldn't stick his nose in where he felt it necessary....and not just Williams?).

The Prescott matter is interesting. By late October, just before pre-season starts, most clubs have done their hiring for next year. We hadn't. Basil was hired late cf with other clubs. We had a few holes in our assistant ranks. Maybe Watters would argue it was dragging on too long. Maybe he'd suggest we were under resourced and he didn't want to be left with the dregs. He'd have an argument, no matter anyone's view on its veracity. Maybe he'd point to the delays I pointed out stemming from Caro's article (e.g. new CEO, the "Vision" thing, the new "structure"). Pre-season was about to start, too.

My concerns ain't receding. If Williams is already over the line, as some of those with recent successes in forecasting Watters' demise have suggested, we'd wanna pretty damn good at the theatrics of tokenism. Just imagine if some approached or interviewed as part of the process, by this new selection panel, was to depart the process, see Williams get appointed, ring a Caro or a Denham and tell them the whole thing was a farce, we're completely incompetent, cynical and not to be trusted.

Credibility builder? Not really, eh?

I don't reckon they can afford to appoint Williams, just on the basis that the same people who leaked Watters was dead have leaked Williams is over the line.....but, hey, we've appointed a panel!

Spot on ToT. As I said in another thread, there are certainly some questions regarding the professionalism of the club and our resident forecaster.

[BigMart]

Weren't some people criticised for questioning the professionalism of club recently??

Is it ok to do that now?!

[Dis Believer]

Weren't some people criticised for questioning the professionalism of club recently??

Is it ok to do that now?!

No, questioning the actions of the club is fine.

Some people were criticised for being miserable arseholes recently. Maybe you're confusing the two issues?

[Wayne42]

You've got baby boomers on the board, you've got a Gen-xers in the coaching group and Gen-yers on the team. If a coach wont be dictated to then does he expect to dictate to the players? I think the days of the coach being the one stop shop are over but that also means getting away from the system where the buck stops with the coach. Well run successful businesses rely on the performance of the system and processes, not the individual.

If that's the case then who do they sack when it turns to dung

[BigMart]

Correct....

If we are not up to scratch.... If responsibility is shared.... So are consequences!

Name an organisation that doesn't have a chief

[Cairnsman]

You've got baby boomers on the board, you've got a Gen-xers in the coaching group and Gen-yers on the team. If a coach wont be dictated to then does he expect to dictate to the players? I think the days of the coach being the one stop shop are over but that also means getting away from the system where the buck stops with the coach. Well run successful businesses rely on the performance of the system and processes, not the individual.

If that's the case then who do they sack when it turns to dung

It depends, was it the system and processes or was it an individual in the system not capable of following the process. For example, Pelchen was on the coach selection panel when Watters was selected, he will be on the panel this time around too, if this next coach is also sacked then does that suggest there is a problem with a process or an individual, or both?

[Austinnn]

My concerns ain't receding. If Williams is already over the line, as some of those with recent successes in forecasting Watters' demise have suggested, we'd wanna pretty damn good at the theatrics of tokenism. Just imagine if some approached or interviewed as part of the process, by this new selection panel, was to depart the process, see Williams get appointed, ring a Caro or a Denham and tell them the whole thing was a farce, we're completely incompetent, cynical and not to be trusted.

Credibility builder? Not really, eh?

I don't reckon they can afford to appoint Williams, just on the basis that the same people who leaked Watters was dead have leaked Williams is over the line.....but, hey, we've appointed a panel!

I agree, though what if we were just looking to see if there was a better candidate than Williams out there? If we went through the full and proper process with all the candidates and decided that Williams was the one, how can Alan Richardson for example (sorry "Ratts") complain? Also, I'd imagine that all the candidates are at least as smart as us, so they'd have heard the jungle drums about Choco already having the gig. If they asked the club to be upfront about the chances, and the club gave full disclosure, then they'd have no ammo to go to the media with.

The only way we'd be culpable is if the process indicated a different candidate, but we went ahead with Choco anyway. Surely we couldn't be that clumsy?

...again?

I'd imagine that Choco would have a few points on the board, and would do alright in any process, considering all the factors. The only point against him would be his reactive and emotional decision making politically and history of burn out. Certainly I'd back him to score better than most other candidates suggested so far.

A final point. Back when we were searching for GT's successor, the media had us believe that Longmire was a cert, then Lyon entered the race and the rest is history. Who knows what will happen? Maybe not even Jaxons.