Footy Club Structures.

[Johnny Member]

A footy club is a unique 'business'.

It's unique because its core business is not to make money. It's to win football matches.

Its customers are its stakeholders. And they aren't involved financially (meaning they don't benefit financially from being a stakeholder, nor is the 'business' making money their focus) - they benefit from the club winning football games.

In theory, a footy club just has to break even.

The only reason a club needs money - is to lure good people, and to survive. You don't need millions in the bank to survive, and with the salary cap in place having squillions to splurge on the key people in the 'business' (ie. the players) is of little use.

So really, as long as you can afford to pay your players, hire good administration staff and hire good coaches and fitness dudes - the money side of things is overrated. To clarify - the fuss about making a profit is overrated.


So based on this, the fact that the whole point of a footy club is to win games, that the core business of a footy club is to win footy matches, that the stakeholders of a footy club demands that the club wins games - why do we have a board made up of people who excel in the money side of things - yet don't have a clue about footy?

Why does the board make decisions about football at all?


Why is the obsession about having a great board? When all we need to do is break even, and win footy games.


It's an interesting discussion if you ask me. And clearly, that was one of, if not THE key factor in Butterss getting the arse for Westway and his crew. They claimed, and I believe it to be true, that the club under Butterss was trying to make money at the expense of winning football matches.

When the stakeholders were posed the questions of what was more important - they gave Butterss the flick.



So I guess my curiosity around the whole structure of footy clubs thing, is that it doesn't seem to add up.

You have a board making decisions about things they don't have a clue about, and basing these decisions on the financial side of it. Whereas by doing this, they are potentially negatively impacting the real core goal of the business - to win footy matches!

The is the CEO the most important person in a footy club? Surely this is the role that has a foot in both camps and can translate what the footy dept. want and weigh up whether or not they really need it or not?

But will a CEO like Cameron Schwab for example, really know more than a guy like Dean Bailey for example, or even know enough to decide what the footy dept. can or can't do? I'd say not.

So then maybe the most important person in the joint is the Head of Football? Maybe they know enough about whether the footy dept. really needs an overseas trip or new footys for training and what the impact will be to the core business if they don't get them?


Or does the CEO simply give the Head of Football a budget for the year and let him do what he wants with it? If he wants to blow it all on a Head Coach like Malcolm Blight and use 3yo footys at training - then that's up to him and he has to deal with the consequence?


The CEO has too many people, and too many areas to oversee, to be able to micro mange the footy dept. in any way in my opinion.


So I genuinely see this role of the Head of Football to be the most important role in the club. Remember, the core business is to win games of footy. Not to make money. the money merely facilitates the winning the games.

So surely this Head of Football role is the one that the Paul Roos' and Ross Lyon's of the world should be filling? This guy is the boss and ultimately falls on his sword if the club doesn't win games. He oversees the list management, the fitness dept, the coaching dept and the results of the team.

Aren't we getting very close to the days where the game day coaching is done by the assistants and the Head of Football is their boss, who observes them and manages them and the other footy dept. personnel on a medium to the long term basis only?

He hires and fires the head coach - if he gets it wrong, he ultimately wears the blame.

He hires and fires fitness staff - if he gets it wrong, he ultimately wears the blame.

He receives a budget from the CEO each year - if he blows it, he wears the blame.


I can't see how a board and or a CEO can be making footy related decisions. I mean seriously, how does a guy like Ross Levin (whom I know) make a decision to sack a coach? He has deadset no idea about footy. Nice enough guy (albeit on very, very good terms with himself) but nothing more than a linament sniffer.

Why do we, as members, trust people with no clue to guide the club in regards to football matters? Sure, I trust them to balance the books and make sure we're not going broke - but on footy matters? Please.


So I guess in summary, I don't get why boards at a footy club are so powerful.

I also see that the Head of Football is the most important role at a club - or a least should be based on my opinion on how that role should work (see above).

And therefore, I can't see why a guy with the experience Chris Pelchen should be in that role. Or maybe, he's exactly the type of guy who should be in that role?


Either way, someone needs to hold the can when the club isn't winning games. And if there is someone sitting above the Head Coach - it has to be them.

And someone needs to hold the can when the club isn't making money - and that needs to be the CEO.


And clearly, in my opinion, the two need to be clearly separated.

[Dis Believer]

A coach is not a head of football. A coach is there to have players trained the way he needs them trained to develop the abilities and skills to execute his game plan. Further he is there to implement that gameplan on matchday and oversee the strategic side of gamday.

A head of football has to oversee the coaching panel, list management and recruiting, player development and assorted football support staff.

[Mr Magic]

I don't believe Ross Levin is on the Board, so I don't understand why you're raising his name as an example?

[SaintPav]

I'd prefer if the coach focused on coaching and not be worried about managing a staff of up to 40 people and all the day to day decison making that went with that. It's also more efficient and it is accepted practice in professional sporting organistions around the world.

You need people with the right skills and experience on boards becuase an AFL club is a complex business. There are many stakeholders like members and fans, players, players families, media, sponsors, the wider community, governments (local, state, federal) etc etc....

Winning games and winning Grand Finals is the ultimate measure of success but it is not the only measure.

We're in the business of selling hope at the moment I'm afraid.

[Johnny Member]

I don't believe Ross Levin is on the Board, so I don't understand why you're raising his name as an example?

He was.

He used to tell people (in fact anyone who would listen) that he was the vice president.

[Mr Magic]

I don't believe Ross Levin is on the Board, so I don't understand why you're raising his name as an example?

He was.

He used to tell people (in fact anyone who would listen) that he was the vice president.

You obviously know/knew him better than me at that time, because I didn't find him to be like that.

But,
what has he got to do with the Club structure today?
Surely you're not suggesting that the structure of 7 years ago, the last time he was on the Board when a coach was sacked, would/should bear any resemblance to a Club structure of today?

I don't understand why you would raise him as an example?
Why not Butters, Plympton, Travis Payze, Lindsay Fox or anybody else from the past?

Surely to make your point valid you should have used a current member of our Board - maybe Summers, or Rush or McLeod?

[markp]

It's probably a bit of 'chicken or the egg' argument, but I disagree that an AFL footy club exists primarily to win football matches. I'd say you could make a much better case (that I'd still disagree with) that an AFL footy club exists to win flags (yes of course you have to win games to do that, but there's still a key difference), and that flags require lots of sound organisational and financial underpinning.

I personally think clubs exist for their members, and so the club's prime business is to attract and retain members. Winning helps with this significantly. Money helps with the winning (and PR, membership services, etc) significantly, and keeps the wolf from the door. More members equals more money.

But if you didn't structure and run it like a regular business you'd very likely go out of business.

[Johnny Member]

But,
what has he got to do with the Club structure today?
Surely you're not suggesting that the structure of 7 years ago, the last time he was on the Board when a coach was sacked, would/should bear any resemblance to a Club structure of today?

You're right. I'm not suggesting that for a second.

I don't understand why you would raise him as an example?
Why not Butters, Plympton, Travis Payze, Lindsay Fox or anybody else from the past?

Surely to make your point valid you should have used a current member of our Board - maybe Summers, or Rush or McLeod?

Because I knew him directly, and I've never met the others.

[plugger66]

I am on a committee or if you like a board at Amateur level and even at that level a good board helps the club. It is vital to have a good board if you are going to be a successful footy club and a strong board must be involved in certain footy decisions. And business is the same.

[Mr Magic]

But,
what has he got to do with the Club structure today?
Surely you're not suggesting that the structure of 7 years ago, the last time he was on the Board when a coach was sacked, would/should bear any resemblance to a Club structure of today?

You're right. I'm not suggesting that for a second.

I don't understand why you would raise him as an example?
Why not Butters, Plympton, Travis Payze, Lindsay Fox or anybody else from the past?

Surely to make your point valid you should have used a current member of our Board - maybe Summers, or Rush or McLeod?

Because I knew him directly, and I've never met the others.

ok, now I understand.
You had me confused there wondering why you were using a person who is not on our current Board as an example.

[Johnny Member]

I am on a committee or if you like a board at Amateur level and even at that level a good board helps the club. It is vital to have a good board if you are going to be a successful footy club and a strong board must be involved in certain footy decisions. And business is the same.

Committee's at local clubs are usually made up of people who are very familiar with the business - ie. most will have played for the club at some stage of their lives.

So for mine, it makes perfect sense that in that type of scenario the board is an ideal position to make calls on many things.

But most local clubs also don't have a CEO, Head of Football and a Head Coach.

Most will have a coach, and a committee. And that's pretty much it. Which is really all that is required at that level.


But at AFL level, I reckon if you look at any club, and lets use the example of hiring and/or firing a coach - the people on the board are probably the least suitable people to make that decision. Based on their experience and area of expertise, in most cases the board is the last group of people in the entire joint that would know whether or not a coach is doing a good job.

The Head of Football (although I still don't know officially what this role actually entails) would be the best person, followed by the CEO I would think.

In regards to all football matters, I'd imagine that would be the case in almost every situation.

[plugger66]

I am on a committee or if you like a board at Amateur level and even at that level a good board helps the club. It is vital to have a good board if you are going to be a successful footy club and a strong board must be involved in certain footy decisions. And business is the same.

Committee's at local clubs are usually made up of people who are very familiar with the business - ie. most will have played for the club at some stage of their lives.

So for mine, it makes perfect sense that in that type of scenario the board is an ideal position to make calls on many things.

But most local clubs also don't have a CEO, Head of Football and a Head Coach.

Most will have a coach, and a committee. And that's pretty much it. Which is really all that is required at that level.


But at AFL level, I reckon if you look at any club, and lets use the example of hiring and/or firing a coach - the people on the board are probably the least suitable people to make that decision. Based on their experience and area of expertise, in most cases the board is the last group of people in the entire joint that would know whether or not a coach is doing a good job.

The Head of Football (although I still don't know officially what this role actually entails) would be the best person, followed by the CEO I would think.

In regards to all football matters, I'd imagine that would be the case in almost every situation.

If people like that were left in charge of making decisions they would never take note of financial situations and as much as you think profit doesnt matter huge losses do because then you just have to do what the AFL want once you are under their spell. Boards are vital to successful footy clubs unless of course people in footy who say that are just making it up.

[kalsaint]

A footy club is a unique 'business'.

It's unique because its core business is not to make money. It's to win football matches.

Its customers are its stakeholders. And they aren't involved financially (meaning they don't benefit financially from being a stakeholder, nor is the 'business' making money their focus) - they benefit from the club winning football games.

In theory, a footy club just has to break even.

The only reason a club needs money - is to lure good people, and to survive. You don't need millions in the bank to survive, and with the salary cap in place having squillions to splurge on the key people in the 'business' (ie. the players) is of little use.

So really, as long as you can afford to pay your players, hire good administration staff and hire good coaches and fitness dudes - the money side of things is overrated. To clarify - the fuss about making a profit is overrated.


So based on this, the fact that the whole point of a footy club is to win games, that the core business of a footy club is to win footy matches, that the stakeholders of a footy club demands that the club wins games - why do we have a board made up of people who excel in the money side of things - yet don't have a clue about footy?

Why does the board make decisions about football at all?


Why is the obsession about having a great board? When all we need to do is break even, and win footy games.


It's an interesting discussion if you ask me. And clearly, that was one of, if not THE key factor in Butterss getting the arse for Westway and his crew. They claimed, and I believe it to be true, that the club under Butterss was trying to make money at the expense of winning football matches.

When the stakeholders were posed the questions of what was more important - they gave Butterss the flick.



So I guess my curiosity around the whole structure of footy clubs thing, is that it doesn't seem to add up.

You have a board making decisions about things they don't have a clue about, and basing these decisions on the financial side of it. Whereas by doing this, they are potentially negatively impacting the real core goal of the business - to win footy matches!

The is the CEO the most important person in a footy club? Surely this is the role that has a foot in both camps and can translate what the footy dept. want and weigh up whether or not they really need it or not?

But will a CEO like Cameron Schwab for example, really know more than a guy like Dean Bailey for example, or even know enough to decide what the footy dept. can or can't do? I'd say not.

So then maybe the most important person in the joint is the Head of Football? Maybe they know enough about whether the footy dept. really needs an overseas trip or new footys for training and what the impact will be to the core business if they don't get them?


Or does the CEO simply give the Head of Football a budget for the year and let him do what he wants with it? If he wants to blow it all on a Head Coach like Malcolm Blight and use 3yo footys at training - then that's up to him and he has to deal with the consequence?


The CEO has too many people, and too many areas to oversee, to be able to micro mange the footy dept. in any way in my opinion.


So I genuinely see this role of the Head of Football to be the most important role in the club. Remember, the core business is to win games of footy. Not to make money. the money merely facilitates the winning the games.

So surely this Head of Football role is the one that the Paul Roos' and Ross Lyon's of the world should be filling? This guy is the boss and ultimately falls on his sword if the club doesn't win games. He oversees the list management, the fitness dept, the coaching dept and the results of the team.

Aren't we getting very close to the days where the game day coaching is done by the assistants and the Head of Football is their boss, who observes them and manages them and the other footy dept. personnel on a medium to the long term basis only?

He hires and fires the head coach - if he gets it wrong, he ultimately wears the blame.

He hires and fires fitness staff - if he gets it wrong, he ultimately wears the blame.

He receives a budget from the CEO each year - if he blows it, he wears the blame.


I can't see how a board and or a CEO can be making footy related decisions. I mean seriously, how does a guy like Ross Levin (whom I know) make a decision to sack a coach? He has deadset no idea about footy. Nice enough guy (albeit on very, very good terms with himself) but nothing more than a linament sniffer.

Why do we, as members, trust people with no clue to guide the club in regards to football matters? Sure, I trust them to balance the books and make sure we're not going broke - but on footy matters? Please.


So I guess in summary, I don't get why boards at a footy club are so powerful.

I also see that the Head of Football is the most important role at a club - or a least should be based on my opinion on how that role should work (see above).

And therefore, I can't see why a guy with the experience Chris Pelchen should be in that role. Or maybe, he's exactly the type of guy who should be in that role?


Either way, someone needs to hold the can when the club isn't winning games. And if there is someone sitting above the Head Coach - it has to be them.

And someone needs to hold the can when the club isn't making money - and that needs to be the CEO.


And clearly, in my opinion, the two need to be clearly separated.

Tell this to the AFL and see what response they give. They would have an entirely different view.

While the club values should support your argument this is now a business that resides in a complex world. It must consider all the internal and external influences from Strategy with a 3-10 year look forward to annual tactics and budget requirements.
These processes includes PESTE (Political, Economic, Social-Cultural, Technological and Environmental) plus SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunity and Threats) and certainly is either completed or due for review as indicates by the new Pres. This will cover all those longer term interactions and alignment to the direction the club (business) needs. The football department needs to contribute here but not be actively engaged with this dealings other than the core business of football.

Its here I agree with you. The structures, boundaries and roles established are imperative. The question is why is the CEO so entrenched in the football department on such a short timeframe? KPI's must be dynamic but surely they are so short term? A head of the football department should be given authority and accountability for much of the shorter term activity. Call him/her a COO (Chief Operating Officer) if you like. The coaching, recruitment, list management, OHS unit heads should report to him within a clear organisational role structure. Boundaries here need clarity and discipline as Scott Watters found out.

What happens though is that the senior coach is often so knowledgeable of many aspects of the game that they control rather than influence the other footy department units. Senior coaches short term accountabilities drives this need somewhat. Today's senior coaches manage in accordance with the club strategy. While this has improved to meet the business need I believe the CEO role delves to lower organisational levels to support the strategic need and associated media exposure. Tis something old style coaches didn't have to put up with so much.

It will be interesting to see what St Kilda do on this front down the track when the current CEO moves on. Take Chocko for example. He is a senior coach who has experience in many past club management matters ("Scott, I told you, you were wrong"). Will this work with a Footy department head who may be regarded with lesser management skills and people oriented skills? While I don't know that this is an issue only time will tell.

In my opinion there are pros and cons for a senior or less experienced coach. What do we want? A senior coach who is media savvy and aligned well with club direction or more junior type who will learn this need with CEO/COO support.

Currently I don't think the former is available (other than maybe Worsfold) so I am leaning to a coach more strong in game strategy and coaching with player plus team communications but willing to personally develop to meet the need of the club within a media focussed world.

[Mr Magic]

Surely the 'Head of Football' would be in charge of the following areas (at least)?
Coaching
Fitness
Sports Science
List Management
Recruiting
Player Development
General Football Logistics

'Coaching' would be overseen by a 'Head Coach' who is answerable to the Head of Football.
He, the 'Head Coach, would be in charge of the Assistant Coaches

'Fitness' would be overseen by the 'Head Physio' and would cover all the other physios, trainers, water boys etc.

'Sports Science' would be overseen by the Club Doctor (not like at EFC!) who would be answerable to the Head of Football.

'List Management' would be overseen by the List Manager

'Recruiting' would be overseen by the Head Recruiter who would oversee all the other recruiters and 'spotters'.

'Player Development' would be overseen by the Junior Development Coach.

All the above would be answerable to the 'Head of Football', who in turn would be answerable to the CEO.

On the 'Admin side' of the organization there would be the following divisions (at least)

'Accounting' overseen by the CFO
'Membership' overseen by the Membership Manager
'Sonsorship' overseen by the 'Corporate Manager.
'Administration' overseen by the General Office Manager

plus whatever else is 'not football'.


Obviously within a football club there would be consultation between managers on lots of issues, but there has to be an overall person in charge of each division.
I would think that would be the 'Head of Football' on the footy side and the CFO on the Admin side.
Both of those would have the CEO as their direct 'boss'.

Maybe the title is confusing and it should be 'Head of Football Operations'.

[Johnny Member]

If people like that were left in charge of making decisions they would never take note of financial situations and as much as you think profit doesnt matter huge losses do because then you just have to do what the AFL want once you are under their spell. Boards are vital to successful footy clubs unless of course people in footy who say that are just making it up.

Yeah, I wouldn't suggest that at AFL you have a board made up of footy guys.

But your point above is kind of relavant in as much as if you'd go broke by having footy guys making money decisions, you could very well go bust on the field if you have non-footy people making footy decisions.

And in my opinion, this is exactly what happens a lot of the time.


I think a board needs to be in place - but should not make calls on footy matters. As per most normal businesses, the board will not even be involved in operational decisions made by the CEO. In some cases, they will merely sign off on them and trust the CEO's judgement. In other cases, most decisions don't even get to the board.

I don't know how many, and what types of decisions go to board level at an AFL club though.

[Johnny Member]

Surely the 'Head of Football' would be in charge of the following areas (at least)?
Coaching
Fitness
Sports Science
List Management
Recruiting
Player Development
General Football Logistics

'Coaching' would be overseen by a 'Head Coach' who is answerable to the Head of Football.
He, the 'Head Coach, would be in charge of the Assistant Coaches

'Fitness' would be overseen by the 'Head Physio' and would cover all the other physios, trainers, water boys etc.

'Sports Science' would be overseen by the Club Doctor (not like at EFC!) who would be answerable to the Head of Football.

'List Management' would be overseen by the List Manager

'Recruiting' would be overseen by the Head Recruiter who would oversee all the other recruiters and 'spotters'.

'Player Development' would be overseen by the Junior Development Coach.

All the above would be answerable to the 'Head of Football', who in turn would be answerable to the CEO.

On the 'Admin side' of the organization there would be the following divisions (at least)

'Accounting' overseen by the CFO
'Membership' overseen by the Membership Manager
'Sonsorship' overseen by the 'Corporate Manager.
'Administration' overseen by the General Office Manager

plus whatever else is 'not football'.


Obviously within a football club there would be consultation between managers on lots of issues, but there has to be an overall person in charge of each division.
I would think that would be the 'Head of Football' on the footy side and the CFO on the Admin side.
Both of those would have the CEO as their direct 'boss'.

Maybe the title is confusing and it should be 'Head of Football Operations'.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that.


And based on that, the person who should be hiring and firing the Head Coach - is the Head of Football for mine.


Their is the Head of Football between the Coach and the CEO, and the CEO also has (according to your post above) 4 other direct reports with middle managers beneath them. He is - or at least should be, too distanced from the Head Coach to really know whether he's doing well or not.

[Johnny Member]

I should add, that by 'doing well' I mean in a performance sense. Obviously if they are walking around the office nude and smearing faeces over the walls of their office or something, then clearly the CEO would be in a position to overrule the Head of Football in relation to the coach's ongoing employment.

[Mr Magic]

Surely the 'Head of Football' would be in charge of the following areas (at least)?
Coaching
Fitness
Sports Science
List Management
Recruiting
Player Development
General Football Logistics

'Coaching' would be overseen by a 'Head Coach' who is answerable to the Head of Football.
He, the 'Head Coach, would be in charge of the Assistant Coaches

'Fitness' would be overseen by the 'Head Physio' and would cover all the other physios, trainers, water boys etc.

'Sports Science' would be overseen by the Club Doctor (not like at EFC!) who would be answerable to the Head of Football.

'List Management' would be overseen by the List Manager

'Recruiting' would be overseen by the Head Recruiter who would oversee all the other recruiters and 'spotters'.

'Player Development' would be overseen by the Junior Development Coach.

All the above would be answerable to the 'Head of Football', who in turn would be answerable to the CEO.

On the 'Admin side' of the organization there would be the following divisions (at least)

'Accounting' overseen by the CFO
'Membership' overseen by the Membership Manager
'Sonsorship' overseen by the 'Corporate Manager.
'Administration' overseen by the General Office Manager

plus whatever else is 'not football'.


Obviously within a football club there would be consultation between managers on lots of issues, but there has to be an overall person in charge of each division.
I would think that would be the 'Head of Football' on the footy side and the CFO on the Admin side.
Both of those would have the CEO as their direct 'boss'.

Maybe the title is confusing and it should be 'Head of Football Operations'.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that.


And based on that, the person who should be hiring and firing the Head Coach - is the Head of Football for mine.


Their is the Head of Football between the Coach and the CEO, and the CEO also has (according to your post above) 4 other direct reports with middle managers beneath them. He is - or at least should be, too distanced from the Head Coach to really know whether he's doing well or not.

Yes, which is why in football decisions he (the CEO) needs to listen to his 'Head of Football'.

Do you think this is not what occurred re Watters?

From what I have read it appears that Watters tried to 'bypass' his direct boss (Pelchen) and went to the CEO and/or Board depending on who he was trying to 'outflank' at the time.
It is quite obvious to me that in the end, everybody 'above' him got together and 'shared stories' about his 'antics'.
They then came to a joint decision to terminate him from the job.

It's interesting to me that there has been plenty written in the media (especially Hun) about his 'actions' and not even a skerrick of a response has come from either him or his 'camp'. I realize he is probably under some sort of 'confidentiality clause' but I'm sure he/they'd find a way to 'leak' some information if they wanted to.

[Cairnsman]

Surely the 'Head of Football' would be in charge of the following areas (at least)?
Coaching
Fitness
Sports Science
List Management
Recruiting
Player Development
General Football Logistics

'Coaching' would be overseen by a 'Head Coach' who is answerable to the Head of Football.
He, the 'Head Coach, would be in charge of the Assistant Coaches

'Fitness' would be overseen by the 'Head Physio' and would cover all the other physios, trainers, water boys etc.

'Sports Science' would be overseen by the Club Doctor (not like at EFC!) who would be answerable to the Head of Football.

'List Management' would be overseen by the List Manager

'Recruiting' would be overseen by the Head Recruiter who would oversee all the other recruiters and 'spotters'.

'Player Development' would be overseen by the Junior Development Coach.

All the above would be answerable to the 'Head of Football', who in turn would be answerable to the CEO.

On the 'Admin side' of the organization there would be the following divisions (at least)

'Accounting' overseen by the CFO
'Membership' overseen by the Membership Manager
'Sonsorship' overseen by the 'Corporate Manager.
'Administration' overseen by the General Office Manager

plus whatever else is 'not football'.


Obviously within a football club there would be consultation between managers on lots of issues, but there has to be an overall person in charge of each division.
I would think that would be the 'Head of Football' on the footy side and the CFO on the Admin side.
Both of those would have the CEO as their direct 'boss'.

Maybe the title is confusing and it should be 'Head of Football Operations'.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that.


And based on that, the person who should be hiring and firing the Head Coach - is the Head of Football for mine.


Their is the Head of Football between the Coach and the CEO, and the CEO also has (according to your post above) 4 other direct reports with middle managers beneath them. He is - or at least should be, too distanced from the Head Coach to really know whether he's doing well or not.

Yes, which is why in football decisions he (the CEO) needs to listen to his 'Head of Football'.

Do you think this is not what occurred re Watters?

From what I have read it appears that Watters tried to 'bypass' his direct boss (Pelchen) and went to the CEO and/or Board depending on who he was trying to 'outflank' at the time.
It is quite obvious to me that in the end, everybody 'above' him got together and 'shared stories' about his 'antics'.
They then came to a joint decision to terminate him from the job.

It's interesting to me that there has been plenty written in the media (especially Hun) about his 'actions' and not even a skerrick of a response has come from either him or his 'camp'. I realize he is probably under some sort of 'confidentiality clause' but I'm sure he/they'd find a way to 'leak' some information if they wanted to.

Or someone's got some photos of someone having inappropriate relations with a goat...

[Johnny Member]

Yes, which is why in football decisions he (the CEO) needs to listen to his 'Head of Football'.

Do you think this is not what occurred re Watters?

From what I have read it appears that Watters tried to 'bypass' his direct boss (Pelchen) and went to the CEO and/or Board depending on who he was trying to 'outflank' at the time.
It is quite obvious to me that in the end, everybody 'above' him got together and 'shared stories' about his 'antics'.
They then came to a joint decision to terminate him from the job.

Yeah, it seems that this was clearly the case with Watters.

But there's a few things that bother me:

1) How on earth could it have been such a grey area? How could it be even remotely confusing to Watters as to how things where meant to work at the club?
2) How can Watters get approval from a board member for anything??!! A board member can't approve something - the board does. I find that extraordinary.
3) Is Pelchen really capable of this role? The Head of Football role as I think, and would presume it works - is a serious role that requires serious skills and experience. I don't know enough about Pelchin to really comment, but on face value I'd think he's not of the calibre required.
4) If you do structure yourself in this way - you're really only ever going to be able to recruit rookie coaches. I mean, would Paul Roos, Malthouse or Ross Lyon ever come to your club knowing that Chris Pelchin is their boss? I'd really doubt it. So although I think it is the right structure, it's important to have a bloke in the role who knows what he's doing and is highly regarded. And in turn, you'd then start to look for a different type of candidate for the Head Coach role.
5) I'd love the club to actually explain what the structure is! Who reports to who. Who makes the calls. Who do we start 'Sack Xxxx' threads about when we start losing!

[jimmy_slats]

Have to remember the levins have been around the club for a very long time they know a fair bit about this club of ours