Dumb Football

[Teflon]

I agree with this.

I hate the concept of voting out a government. It makes no sense to me. I think a new government should be voted in. Meaning - unless you know or are confident that someone else will do a better job, don't kick people out. Coaches are the same.

If we have an experienced coach lined up to take over that the club believes will be better - then go for it.

But sacking a guy then bringing in a rookie has the hail Mary's about it most of the time.

This is silly
So on this logic unless an experienced candidate can be found we should keep the existing coach even if performances continue to decline like we are seeing?.

Well not really. As I clearly stated...."unless you know or are confident that someone else will do a better job"

There might be an Assistant coach out there, even sitting in the box next to the current coach that the club is confident could do a better job.

So you base decisions on what you can measure and evidence and after 5 years I’d be dissapointed if our club still can’t wo4k out if Alan c@n coa h or not
If that’s the case (very possible) then we h@v e an incredibly incompetent admin in charge (also very likely)

You're assuming they can't. Fans definitely can't, as we don't know what happens internally. But I'd expect that the club would know.

Bottom line to not change out an underperformer is bad for culture and bad for business

Well you would change them if they're underperforming, and there is a candidate that you are confident would do better.

We took Alan confident he could do a better job....has he?

Flawed logic

[rodgerfox]

I agree with this.

I hate the concept of voting out a government. It makes no sense to me. I think a new government should be voted in. Meaning - unless you know or are confident that someone else will do a better job, don't kick people out. Coaches are the same.

If we have an experienced coach lined up to take over that the club believes will be better - then go for it.

But sacking a guy then bringing in a rookie has the hail Mary's about it most of the time.

This is silly
So on this logic unless an experienced candidate can be found we should keep the existing coach even if performances continue to decline like we are seeing?.

Well not really. As I clearly stated...."unless you know or are confident that someone else will do a better job"

There might be an Assistant coach out there, even sitting in the box next to the current coach that the club is confident could do a better job.

So you base decisions on what you can measure and evidence and after 5 years I’d be dissapointed if our club still can’t wo4k out if Alan c@n coa h or not
If that’s the case (very possible) then we h@v e an incredibly incompetent admin in charge (also very likely)

You're assuming they can't. Fans definitely can't, as we don't know what happens internally. But I'd expect that the club would know.

Bottom line to not change out an underperformer is bad for culture and bad for business

Well you would change them if they're underperforming, and there is a candidate that you are confident would do better.

We took Alan confident he could do a better job....has he?

Flawed logic

That's not true at all.

Watters was sacked without having someone better ready to replace him.

And here we are. Case in point.

[Saintmatt]

when the club sacked Watters, they did it after end of Nov, if I recall correctly (IIRC) because while the normal citizen and corporations have a financial year ending 30 June, the AFL does their financial reporting from 1 Dec- 1 Dec...
And another poster has spoken of the admin soft cap (?) which includes salaries for coaches+admin+hangerson,
and if we pay Richo out for 2 years, how can we pay another coach?

We have 14 coaches in total, crazy and insane,
when folks reckon that most clubs have 7.
Hawks, Swans, Crows, etc, I think tony74 had made this sort of comment.

Slight clarification WS - AFL clubs and the AFL themselves have a financial year end of 31 October. This is one of the reasons we had to pay compensation to Port Adelaide upon recruiting Richardson - it's fell outside of the FYE and hence, royally screwed with the soft cap calcs for us and them.

[rodgerfox]

when the club sacked Watters, they did it after end of Nov, if I recall correctly (IIRC) because while the normal citizen and corporations have a financial year ending 30 June, the AFL does their financial reporting from 1 Dec- 1 Dec...
And another poster has spoken of the admin soft cap (?) which includes salaries for coaches+admin+hangerson,
and if we pay Richo out for 2 years, how can we pay another coach?

We have 14 coaches in total, crazy and insane,
when folks reckon that most clubs have 7.
Hawks, Swans, Crows, etc, I think tony74 had made this sort of comment.

14 coaches?

The club website lists the entire coaching department and there's only 12.

And that includes the Director of Coaching who isn't actually a coach and Peta Searle who is the women's coach. So that's 10 coaches.

Also worth noting that Danny Frawley is part-time, and Hamill and Skrobalak coach their own clubs also.



Hawthorn and Sydney both have 8 coaches listed on their site.

Given that their head coaches would be on close to double what ours is, it makes sense that they'd have smaller coaching panels. I'm actually surprised the difference isn't bigger to be honest.

[Teflon]

I agree with this.

I hate the concept of voting out a government. It makes no sense to me. I think a new government should be voted in. Meaning - unless you know or are confident that someone else will do a better job, don't kick people out. Coaches are the same.

If we have an experienced coach lined up to take over that the club believes will be better - then go for it.

But sacking a guy then bringing in a rookie has the hail Mary's about it most of the time.

This is silly
So on this logic unless an experienced candidate can be found we should keep the existing coach even if performances continue to decline like we are seeing?.

Well not really. As I clearly stated...."unless you know or are confident that someone else will do a better job"

There might be an Assistant coach out there, even sitting in the box next to the current coach that the club is confident could do a better job.

So you base decisions on what you can measure and evidence and after 5 years I’d be dissapointed if our club still can’t wo4k out if Alan c@n coa h or not
If that’s the case (very possible) then we h@v e an incredibly incompetent admin in charge (also very likely)

You're assuming they can't. Fans definitely can't, as we don't know what happens internally. But I'd expect that the club would know.

Bottom line to not change out an underperformer is bad for culture and bad for business

Well you would change them if they're underperforming, and there is a candidate that you are confident would do better.

We took Alan confident he could do a better job....has he?

Flawed logic

That's not true at all.

Watters was sacked without having someone better ready to replace him.

And here we are. Case in point.

So should’ve kept Watters by your logic?

[rodgerfox]

Now now Dodgy don’t get knickers twisted....
Yes you’ve posed continuous questions - you’re good at that


You’ve also said you wouldn’t be upset if Richardson was axed (go edit your posts); how can you not have enough evidence that he is or isn’t a good coach but be OK if he departs....? Odd comment from a man who hasn’t had his questions answered
Again I ask - what evidence after 5 years do you have that Alan is a good coach?
To suggest AFL coaches don’t live by win /loss ultimately is nonsense. Of course they do.
You mention the year we just missed finals - a year when many noted the Saints draw was very kind......variables work 2 ways both against and in support at times.....some might say Alan was assisted to overachieve?
Does something need to “have happened” between just making finals or could we simply have overachieved to a nice draw, some lingering form from seasoned campaigners in Roo and Joey.....and what we see now is really just how good we aren’t?coukd it be that simple?
Does it always need to be so convoluted?
Could Alan and the club simply overstated where we are at? (after all they backed the “this sides playing below itself and we are genuine top 4 candidates...” we ain’t)

Anyhoo, we won’t truly ever know from 1;000 miles away from the core of the club so I think questions are useless somewhat
But ask away I like your game

My opinions on every single thing you've raised there have already been posted in this thread.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear you're trying to bait me.

[rodgerfox]

So should’ve kept Watters by your logic?

Not necessarily.

I'm not privy to why Watters was sacked, so it's hard to comment. However if someone is doing such a diabolical job and/or is creating such enormous conflict or issues within an organisation then it's safe to assume that whomever is recruited to replace them would do a better job.

That may have been the case with Watters. And it's also possible that Richardson is in fact doing a better job that Watters did and/or could do.


I certainly don't think Richo is in the 'doing such a diabolical job' class yet though. Which is why I'd have no issue with him going if there's someone better out there to come in. But if there's not, then I simply don't see the point in sacking him.

[WellardSaint]

when the club sacked Watters, they did it after end of Nov, if I recall correctly (IIRC) because while the normal citizen and corporations have a financial year ending 30 June, the AFL does their financial reporting from 1 Dec- 1 Dec...
And another poster has spoken of the admin soft cap (?) which includes salaries for coaches+admin+hangerson,
and if we pay Richo out for 2 years, how can we pay another coach?

We have 14 coaches in total, crazy and insane,
when folks reckon that most clubs have 7.
Hawks, Swans, Crows, etc, I think tony74 had made this sort of comment.

14 coaches?

The club website lists the entire coaching department and there's only 12.

And that includes the Director of Coaching who isn't actually a coach and Peta Searle who is the women's coach. So that's 10 coaches.

Also worth noting that Danny Frawley is part-time, and Hamill and Skrobalak coach their own clubs also.



Hawthorn and Sydney both have 8 coaches listed on their site.

Given that their head coaches would be on close to double what ours is, it makes sense that they'd have smaller coaching panels. I'm actually surprised the difference isn't bigger to be honest.

tony74 told us we have 14 coaches. He included the part-timers you mentioned, because he said that on match day once, we only had a few at the game "because the other coaches have second jobs"

[Teflon]

So should’ve kept Watters by your logic?

Not necessarily.

I'm not privy to why Watters was sacked, so it's hard to comment. However if someone is doing such a diabolical job and/or is creating such enormous conflict or issues within an organisation then it's safe to assume that whomever is recruited to replace them would do a better job.

That may have been the case with Watters. And it's also possible that Richardson is in fact doing a better job that Watters did and/or could do.


I certainly don't think Richo is in the 'doing such a diabolical job' class yet though. Which is why I'd have no issue with him going if there's someone better out there to come in. But if there's not, then I simply don't see the point in sacking him.

Ok so we need more questions answered to better understand if Watters was diabolical
Regardless; it may be he’s actually less diabolical than his replacement in Richo
Whom; using your logic; ought to have only replaced a diabolical Watters IF we can get some magical, water tight guarantee that he will do a better job?
You do know we are 2-10 after announcing the “Road to 2018” top 4 strategy with no hope of attracting a FA and only 1 selection in a super draft............ but apparently not in a diabolical situation?

[rodgerfox]

when the club sacked Watters, they did it after end of Nov, if I recall correctly (IIRC) because while the normal citizen and corporations have a financial year ending 30 June, the AFL does their financial reporting from 1 Dec- 1 Dec...
And another poster has spoken of the admin soft cap (?) which includes salaries for coaches+admin+hangerson,
and if we pay Richo out for 2 years, how can we pay another coach?

We have 14 coaches in total, crazy and insane,
when folks reckon that most clubs have 7.
Hawks, Swans, Crows, etc, I think tony74 had made this sort of comment.

14 coaches?

The club website lists the entire coaching department and there's only 12.

And that includes the Director of Coaching who isn't actually a coach and Peta Searle who is the women's coach. So that's 10 coaches.

Also worth noting that Danny Frawley is part-time, and Hamill and Skrobalak coach their own clubs also.



Hawthorn and Sydney both have 8 coaches listed on their site.

Given that their head coaches would be on close to double what ours is, it makes sense that they'd have smaller coaching panels. I'm actually surprised the difference isn't bigger to be honest.

tony74 told us we have 14 coaches. He included the part-timers you mentioned, because he said that on match day once, we only had a few at the game "because the other coaches have second jobs"

I suppose if you include Dixon and other part timers there might be 14. But I'd be surprised if Hawthorn and Sydney didn't also have their fair share of part timers.

Just my opinion, but I don't think the number of coaches we have is an issue.

[saynta]

Don't know how many games Spud gets to.

He might be good for a laugh but needs to be the first out the door

[rodgerfox]

So something has happened between now and then. If he wasn't sackable last year, it's possible that he's not the problem.

Kingsley took on a new role in the box. Who promoted him? Who developed that coaching structure? Who created the Transition Coach role? I have no idea.
Playfair came on board with a new defensive strategy.

These are significant and coincide with a massive drop in form. It can't be discounted that these changes are the main reason for it. Does sacking Richardson change it?

Just want to revisit this...

Richardson stated that there would be changes that they'd addressed during the Bye. One glaring one, was that our 'transition' from defence to attack was excellent on Sunday.


Is it possible that Kingsley role has been adjusted? Or that his strategy has been canned?

[SaintPav]

So something has happened between now and then. If he wasn't sackable last year, it's possible that he's not the problem.

Kingsley took on a new role in the box. Who promoted him? Who developed that coaching structure? Who created the Transition Coach role? I have no idea.
Playfair came on board with a new defensive strategy.

These are significant and coincide with a massive drop in form. It can't be discounted that these changes are the main reason for it. Does sacking Richardson change it?

Just want to revisit this...

Richardson stated that there would be changes that they'd addressed during the Bye. One glaring one, was that our 'transition' from defence to attack was excellent on Sunday.


Is it possible that Kingsley role has been adjusted? Or that his strategy has been canned?

Richo coaching from the boundary line means Kingsley is responsible in the box and it looks like Sexton is the one whose role looks to have changed. Looks like he may have been demoted. Just a guess.