2022 Hawthorn List Management Discussion (including Trade, FA period)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Ned Ryerson said:
Having worked in projects and businesses that set bafflingly improbable stretch targets often find themselves with unbelievably disengaged staff because you’re asking them to achieve something very unlikely. Companies that say they are going to do X and then don’t achieve it also would see their stock price get deservingly pummeled. So, no - most leading businesses don’t set goals that are improbably ambitious, they’re usually incremental increases.
Click to expand...
I worked for a company which had one of the highest returns on equity in Australia (and the world within its class of business) and it’s entire operating model was based on setting big, hairy outrageous goals and developing plans to make them happen. No other organisation I have worked at before or since so consistently performed well, let alone as a industry leader.
 
Strapping Young Lad said:
Oh you know, just supporting the club, rather than being a downtrodden pessimistic sad sack in every second thread?
Click to expand...
You got to continually kick the club while it is down for disappointing you in the past. It’s the Richmond hawthorn way 😉
 
Brishawk said:
I worked for a company which had one of the highest returns on equity in Australia (and the world within its class of business) and it’s entire operating model was based on setting big, hairy outrageous goals and developing plans to make them happen. No other organisation I have worked at before or since so consistently performed well, let alone as a industry leader.
Click to expand...

Ahh - you see the bolded part. It's all well and good for the club to aim high and be bold and every fun buzzword we can throw at this. However - what is the plan to do it? I get the club probably doesn't want to share with opposing clubs future list management strategies and trade secrets - so that's fine. However - now that the club has stuck with 20 flags in 2050, given itself less time in which to do it compared to the end of 2017 and with greater headwinds with possible expansion of the competition once again, I truly hope that the club internally has a fairly good road map of how a completely audacious goal is going to be met - particularly when our last 5 year plan failed spectacularly when the key components were 2 premierships from 2018-2022 and 100,000 members. There's absolutely nothing wrong with ambition - there is plenty wrong with blind ambition.
 
Ned Ryerson said:
Ahh - you see the bolded part. It's all well and good for the club to aim high and be bold and every fun buzzword we can throw at this. However - what is the plan to do it? I get the club probably doesn't want to share with opposing clubs future list management strategies and trade secrets - so that's fine. However - now that the club has stuck with 20 flags in 2050, given itself less time in which to do it compared to the end of 2017 and with greater headwinds with possible expansion of the competition once again, I truly hope that the club internally has a fairly good road map of how a completely audacious goal is going to be met - particularly when our last 5 year plan failed spectacularly when the key components were 2 premierships from 2018-2022 and 100,000 members. There's absolutely nothing wrong with ambition - there is plenty wrong with blind ambition.
Click to expand...

This was the blind ambition that leads us to having one the least fancied lists heading into 2023 and at the embryonic stage of a rebuild.
 
Ned Ryerson said:
Ahh - you see the bolded part. It's all well and good for the club to aim high and be bold and every fun buzzword we can throw at this. However - what is the plan to do it? I get the club probably doesn't want to share with opposing clubs future list management strategies and trade secrets - so that's fine. However - now that the club has stuck with 20 flags in 2050, given itself less time in which to do it compared to the end of 2017 and with greater headwinds with possible expansion of the competition once again, I truly hope that the club internally has a fairly good road map of how a completely audacious goal is going to be met - particularly when our last 5 year plan failed spectacularly when the key components were 2 premierships from 2018-2022 and 100,000 members. There's absolutely nothing wrong with ambition - there is plenty wrong with blind ambition.
Click to expand...
So you don’t know if they have a good plan or not so your criticise it based on a previous failure?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Brishawk said:
So you don’t know if they have a good plan or not so your criticise it based on a previous failure?
Click to expand...

Well if you'd bother to read my posts I am criticising it because I think it is improbably ambitious for multiple reasons that I have stated in multiple posts about it. My point is if you want to be this improbably ambitious then you would want to hope to have a very good plan. Being that 20 premierships by 2050 is just a rehash of the end goal of the Dare to be Different plan from late 2017 that Nank would have worked on - then I don't think I am being unfair in judging things off the complete failure of the last plan.

Or are you saying that I am being unfair in expecting those in charge of the governance of the club to have a plan to steer us to a premiership strike rate that would only be rivalled by our strike rate between 1983-2015 which consisted of a very different competition in the 80s and 90s and two generational lists absolutely blessed by multiple star players.

Again - if the club has a plan to secure two generational multiple-flag winning lists over the coming ~25 years then I am absolutely keen to hear it. If we are just spouting off this 20 by 2050 line because it sounds ambitious but don't have a coherent plan to get there - then I am fairly uninspired by the club leadership.

Also to your point earlier - I am really glad all the things worked out for your previous company. There's multiple cautionary tales however that didn't work out like this. I was part of a project in one of the big 4 banks that basically rested the viability of an arm of the business on output that was pretty much unheard of. It didn't stop the bank hiring many multiples of new staff to try and get the job done - despite me and others trying to point out that what was being asked was basically impossible, and made practically impossible because of the antiquated systems being used by the bank. Lo and behold - the plan failed spectacularly and ~70 people were made redundant during the pandemic as a result. As the old adage goes - the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
Strapping Young Lad said:
Oh you know, just supporting the club, rather than being a downtrodden pessimistic sad sack in every second thread?
Click to expand...
That's not really accurate or fair. Never heard him say a bad word about Geelong.....
 
Ned Ryerson said:
Well if you'd bother to read my posts I am criticising it because I think it is improbably ambitious for multiple reasons that I have stated in multiple posts about it. My point is if you want to be this improbably ambitious then you would want to hope to have a very good plan. Being that 20 premierships by 2050 is just a rehash of the end goal of the Dare to be Different plan from late 2017 that Nank would have worked on - then I don't think I am being unfair in judging things off the complete failure of the last plan.

Or are you saying that I am being unfair in expecting those in charge of the governance of the club to have a plan to steer us to a premiership strike rate that would only be rivalled by our strike rate between 1983-2015 which consisted of a very different competition in the 80s and 90s and two generational lists absolutely blessed by multiple star players.

Again - if the club has a plan to secure two generational multiple-flag winning lists over the coming ~25 years then I am absolutely keen to hear it. If we are just spouting off this 20 by 2050 line because it sounds ambitious but don't have a coherent plan to get there - then I am fairly uninspired by the club leadership.

Also to your point earlier - I am really glad all the things worked out for your previous company. There's multiple cautionary tales however that didn't work out like this. I was part of a project in one of the big 4 banks that basically rested the viability of an arm of the business on output that was pretty much unheard of. It didn't stop the bank hiring many multiples of new staff to try and get the job done - despite me and others trying to point out that what was being asked was basically impossible, and made practically impossible because of the antiquated systems being used by the bank. Lo and behold - the plan failed spectacularly and ~70 people were made redundant during the pandemic as a result. As the old adage goes - the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
Click to expand...
Nobody: you should be ambitious with no plan.

It’s hard to be the best and pull off great ambition but that is no reason to moderate your ambition.
 
I disagree that we should be happy with a super ambitious plan. For me, a plan is one part of a much bugger picture. The plan is used to set out a concrete vision of what is meant to be achieved. Based on that, a very clear and detailed roadmap to success should be articulated (with timelines and responsibilities), organisations should/could be restructured to align the human resources towards achieving the success of the plan, budgets should be put in place to support those humans, etc., etc.

If the latter pieces don't happen then essentially we're saying "We're going to do this amazing thing by doing absolutely nothing differently to how we do things now". Which, let's be honest, is completely fantastical.

In my mind, that's why creating a plan like this is dangerous. It's the implementation. The implementation approach - including decisions about resource allocations (human and $) - should differ between different plans. So, if we're pursuing a completely fantastical plan and we're making implementation decisions to try and achieve that, we're not making decisions that might provide us with a better chance of achieving a far more feasible plan.

So, in my mind, by trying to pursue this plan we are either a/ not really going to align our organisation to achieve the plan (in which case it's worthless anyway); or b/ have a significant opportunity cost that may impact our ability to achieve another more realistic plan.
 
HODGEYROAD said:
This was the blind ambition that leads us to having one the least fancied lists heading into 2023 and at the embryonic stage of a rebuild.
Click to expand...
This is the frustration with u HR. Your negative spin on things. Yes we would be about 17th favourite for the flag next year but so much closer to a flag than about 7 or 8 clubs caught in no mans land. We are already 3-4 years into a rebuild and not at the embryonic stage you claim. Our current 24 years of age and under best team stacks up against any other and I think our list after the 2023 national draft will look bloody exciting and ready to explode. We have a clear plan under Sam unlike the middling side post 2016. Love the fact we are going into next season with no dead wood and barely any players in decline.
 
jenniferHAWKinS said:
This is the frustration with u HR. Your negative spin on things. Yes we would be about 17th favourite for the flag next year but so much closer to a flag than about 7 or 8 clubs caught in no mans land. We are already 3-4 years into a rebuild and not at the embryonic stage you claim. Our current 24 years of age and under best team stacks up against any other and I think our list after the 2023 national draft will look bloody exciting and ready to explode. We have a clear plan under Sam unlike the middling side post 2016. Love the fact we are going into next season with no dead wood and barely any players in decline.
Click to expand...
I agree with that sentiment and a lot of it is real and exciting as I was o/s and missed the 2004 rebuild. But the system is still highly flawed and rebuilds take forever. I think there still should be greater intervention in the draft to shorten that timeframe. After all the only difference between Geelong and north is(was) pick 1, after that they have the same picks for the rest of the draft (18/19, 36/37 etc). Hear several ideas floated all with pros and cons, like to keep the first 20 picks being for non finalists 1-10,11-20 then the finalists get 21-28 which was interesting. If not that wonder with a lot of assistance being end of first or second round picks lately, if a top 4 bottom four model might be better. Something like picks 1-14 as now, then bottom 4 get picks 15-18 and then top 4 19-22 to end the first round. I know people will say tanking and all that so not suggesting it’s bulletproof just think we need to do more things to stop fans being in the wilderness for so long.
 
HODGEYROAD said:
This was the blind ambition that leads us to having one the least fancied lists heading into 2023 and at the embryonic stage of a rebuild.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn’t blind ambition, it was a culmination of missed FA’s, cancer to Rough, Rioli retiring, some questionable gameplans at the start of some seasons and a midfield that just couldn’t turn on-paper potential into much at all.
 
Ned Ryerson said:
Aspiration is fine - 7 flags in ~26 years isn't aspiration, it's delusion.
Click to expand...
I'll say... what the hell am I supposed to be doing for those other 19 years?

Tell 'em to lift their game!
 
Strapping Young Lad said:
No, it wasn’t blind ambition, it was a culmination of missed FA’s, cancer to Rough, Rioli retiring, some questionable gameplans at the start of some seasons and a midfield that just couldn’t turn on-paper potential into much at all.
Click to expand...

Remove that for factual reasons please, Rough had already got cancer before we released this plan.
 
jenniferHAWKinS said:
This is the frustration with u HR. Your negative spin on things. Yes we would be about 17th favourite for the flag next year but so much closer to a flag than about 7 or 8 clubs caught in no mans land. We are already 3-4 years into a rebuild and not at the embryonic stage you claim. Our current 24 years of age and under best team stacks up against any other and I think our list after the 2023 national draft will look bloody exciting and ready to explode. We have a clear plan under Sam unlike the middling side post 2016. Love the fact we are going into next season with no dead wood and barely any players in decline.
Click to expand...

1st point I'll say it's harder to say who's closer to a flag out of the bottom 7 or 8 sides furthest away, all are so far off it's really hard to gauge who's closer.

2nd point, I'd say we're 2 years at best into our rebuild, 2020 we were playing a seriously old team every week still.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Strapping Young Lad
  • Locked
2023 Hawthorn List Management Discussion (including Trade, FA period)
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
329
Views
31K
Yardie
Yardie
Davo-27
List Mgmt. 2024 Ranking Hawthorns List
Replies
15
Views
2K
Dipper
Dipper
Strapping Young Lad
List Mgmt. Hawk's List Management for 2025
54 55 56 57 58
Replies
1K
Views
133K
peetoo
peetoo
Strapping Young Lad
  • Locked
List Mgmt. Hawk's List Management 2024
29 30 31 32 33
Replies
811
Views
70K
smish
smish
BlueWaterHawk
Final trade period result
Replies
11
Views
953
Mr Meeseeks
Mr Meeseeks
E
Brian Cook's links to Hawthorn and the Scrimshaw family
Replies
0
Views
399
essaynode
E
TylerDurden
  • Locked
Rumour 2024 Hypothetical trade and FA Thread
766 767 768 769 770
Replies
19K
Views
1M
Strapping Young Lad
Strapping Young Lad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top