Rumour 2024 Rumours and Speculation Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Reader mode
I've deleted confirmed information

Rumors from September 30
  • FiveAA claims we are after Scott Borlace, current Head of Development at Brisbane (link)
  • Claims of Rory Sloane heading to Melbourne Demons as a development coach, but maybe not before asking for a job at the Crows first?
  • Inside Trading suggests we are interested in Gold Coast's pick 12 (link)
  • Inside Trading also suggests Clayton Oliver is possibly back on the trade table, but doesn't link him to any specific clubs

Rumors from October 1
  • We have offered Darcy Fogarty a five year contract extension early ahead of free agency (link)
  • We are attempting to lure Graham Wright to our football department (link)

Rumors from October 2-3
  • Graham Wright, who we are chasing as a head of football, is also being chased by Carlton for a CEO position (link)

Rumors from October 4-5
  • Gettable claiming pick 25 for Neal-Bullen and a future 2nd for Peatling (link)

Rumors from October 6
  • Tom Morris claims we are open to splitting pick 4 (link)

Rumor summary October 8
  • Jon Ralph claims we are not prepared to use a future 2nd on Peatling (link)

Rumor summary October 9
  • Graham Wright will not join Adelaide, instead taking up the Carlton CEO role (link)
  • Tom Morris claims the Peatling trade will involve future 2nd and 3rd round picks, and we have offered him a four year deal at about $600k per season (link)
  • Riley Beveridge claims we asked GWS if they were interested in one of our players in the Peatling trade (link)

Rumor summary October 10

  • Collingwood are interested in Justin Reid as their new head of football (link)
  • GWS want our future 2nd and pick 46 for Peatling (link)
 
Last edited:
George Kramer said:
If you don’t know who extended his contract how can you say it’s not Roo? Where’s your proof that the football director didn’t agree with re-signing Nicks?

This is just too funny that you blokes don’t want to judge the performance of the football director in relation to on field performance and key appointments. What do you actually think he does? He’s argued against every shit decision and been overruled? If that’s the case why is he the football director?
Click to expand...

Glad you asked!

Roo is a football brain. Nicks would have been signed in 2023 had Roo been backing him in. Especially since we got robbed of finals. But he clearly saw mistakes. Even in January the club made excuses as to not sign Nicks. This whole time line doesnt support a united board pushing for Nicks appointment. Which in my view (yes its only conjecture but its using all the evidence of previous Roo involved appointments) Roo did not back his immediate appointment before the season started.

The whole PR also doesnt match with Roo. The club stated upon re-signing Nicks that they didnt want any distraction from finals. This rhetoric is PR 101 which smacks of a club chasing positive PR than being put under pressure. This is again against everything Roo has ever done. Roo has not said boo about this appointment. Find me a statement anywhere where Roo says anything positive.

Basically Silvers got asked in January about Nicks contract and he made excuses. Then someone took the issue to the board and they must have had an indepth talk about the impact on the season. Roo would have listed a whole lot of pros and cons to re-signing Nicks preseason and what it would look like media pressure wise if they waited until mid season. That would have been his job and his recommendations would have followed.

Now lets ask ourselves, would a man who has such passion for the club, risked his entire professional standing on an external review with an image of elite being the ultimate goal and turning around the clubs fortunes, the man who chased Walsh, sacked Sanderson, made decisions that took us to a GF settle for an underperforming coach in Nicks because of PR?

This is why I struggle to blame Roo for this. I am happy to be wrong, but this is why we need to board vote. Based on rhetoric from David and Will who have direct connections to the board, there were clearly issues behind the scenes.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

adelaidecrows said:
Glad you asked!

Roo is a football brain. Nicks would have been signed in 2023 had Roo been backing him in. Especially since we got robbed of finals. But he clearly saw mistakes. Even in January the club made excuses as to not sign Nicks. This whole time line doesnt support a united board pushing for Nicks appointment. Which in my view (yes its only conjecture but its using all the evidence of previous Roo involved appointments) Roo did not back his immediate appointment before the season started.

The whole PR also doesnt match with Roo. The club stated upon re-signing Nicks that they didnt want any distraction from finals. This rhetoric is PR 101 which smacks of a club chasing positive PR than being put under pressure. This is again against everything Roo has ever done. Roo has not said boo about this appointment. Find me a statement anywhere where Roo says anything positive.

Basically Silvers got asked in January about Nicks contract and he made excuses. Then someone took the issue to the board and they must have had an indepth talk about the impact on the season. Roo would have listed a whole lot of pros and cons to re-signing Nicks preseason and what it would look like media pressure wise if they waited until mid season. That would have been his job and his recommendations would have followed.

Now lets ask ourselves, would a man who has such passion for the club, risked his entire professional standing on an external review with an image of elite being the ultimate goal and turning around the clubs fortunes, the man who chased Walsh, sacked Sanderson, made decisions that took us to a GF settle for an underperforming coach in Nicks because of PR?

This is why I struggle to blame Roo for this. I am happy to be wrong, but this is why we need to board vote. Based on rhetoric from David and Will who have direct connections to the board, there were clearly issues behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
So you have no proof that the football director hasn’t agreed with football decisions.
 
George Kramer said:
So you have no proof that the football director hasn’t had a say in football decisions.
Click to expand...

Not sure why me calling for the vote is being laughed at. Do you not want to see it, I also said I am happy to be proved wrong. You seem more determined to want to be proved right and dont give a crap about the possibility you might be wrong. edit: i think even if the vote did come out and roo voted no, you would say they are lying.

I also said he did have a say. I just think he didnt vote yes. Was that hard to grasp?
 
adelaidecrows said:
Not sure why me calling for the vote is being laughed at. Do you not want to see it, I also said I am happy to be proved wrong. You seem more determined to want to be proved right and dont give a crap about the possibility you might be wrong.

I also said he did have a say. I just think he didnt vote yes. Was that hard to grasp?
Click to expand...
because you’ve asked for proof and now you’re relying on feels? See the hypocrisy?
 
George Kramer said:
because you’ve asked for proof and now you’re relying on feels? See the hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

I have discussed this for months. I have said this was clearly an Olsen decision. Only now you seem offended about Roo and seem determined to be seen as right regardless of the counter arguments. In other words, you have made your mind up and you dont care, you are willing to trash him for what could be no reason.
 
adelaidecrows said:
explains more about you then me.
Click to expand...
It’s ok. He pops in every now and then and makes semi-funny lines of a sexual nature. Even more rarely he tries to butt in to a conversation that is way above his pay grade and delivers nothing.

C’est la vie.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

1970crow said:
Far out, so a bid in at the last pick in 2nd round eats into our F1 whereas the 1st in 3rd round eats into our F3? And he's expected to be bid on at about 40, this is hilarious. We should have approached the ANB negotiation like we didn't care whether we got him or not, which is exactly what our list management committee should have been thinking. Great if we get him at the right price, stiff $hit if we don't. He can suck it up and stay at Melbourne, retire or play for Port, him wanting to get back to Adelaide is not our problem to overcome.
Click to expand...

A bit over dramatic. We were much more involved in wooing ANB than what has been reported in the media. Not just a simple case of wanting to get home

And I would bet good money our first won’t be impacted - we will get extra points out of the Peatling trade. But keep finding as many negatives as possible - even those that are just made up


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
adelaidecrows said:
I have discussed this for months. I have said this was clearly an Olsen decision. Only now you seem offended about Roo and seem determined to be seen as right regardless of the counter arguments. In other words, you have made your mind up and you dont care, you are willing to trash him for what could be no reason.
Click to expand...
You’re joking right? I’ve been against Roo for years.

As for discussing this for months, that’s irrelevant to you relying on feels when you’ve asked for proof about Roo tonight.

And Roo has been raised tonight by the pissed man and you jumped in asking for…..proof not feels
 
adelaidecrows said:
He has a vote and give his recommendations. Doesnt mean the board automatically backs them like many believe.
Click to expand...
Yeah they keep overruling the football director, the only one with football experience and a club legend, that seems entirely plausible and Roo being such a good bloke stays on rather than saying you’re all a pack of useless idiots I’m moving on
 
adelaidecrows said:
Clearly the board is at fault. But you dont need a unanimous vote for a decision to occur. Which means we need to know who on the board voted for Nicks extension. If Roo is on the list then 100% go to town. But it was kept silent, the club never revealed the boards position, just that a decision was made. They would have said a unanimous vote if it was one. Everything points more to an Olsen lead decision based on his want to get out in front of the cameras and talk Nicks and footy.
Click to expand...
Boards almost always discuss key decisions and importantly invite the expert to provide their opinion.

If they are looking at a legal matter they will invite the board member with the legal background to proved their opinion. Everyone has a right to a vote but most often the board will defer to the person who is most qualified and back this persons opinion.

Sometimes there are multiple people with a similar background, most often in finance, and this can lead to healthy debate, however this is discouraged on corporate boards as it is believed a healthy balance of backgrounds (board diversity) leads to better board decisions, as more perspectives are considered.

This is all fine for corporate boards because the one thing all the corporate board members share is that they work in the corporate world and live and breathe corporate issues and challenges, even though they may have different skills and backgrounds.

This is where our board is broken.

We have a football club board made up of corporate/business types with only 1 genuine football voice, Roo. The rest of the board don't understand the challenges of winning a premiership. So even though they come from a diverse background they lack the fundamentals to allow them to assess footballing decisions. They therefore would defer heavily to the only director with a true footballing background and would not have the understanding to question the footballing decisions.

This is completely different to the corporate boards where the majority have a grounding in the corporate and business world and can question decisions with confidence.

It is therefore absolutely fair to suggest that key footballing decisions have been led by Roo and the culture of the footballing organisation is a reflection of Roos mindset as he sets that tone (unquestioned) from the top.

I don't have an issue with Roo perse but it's the lack of genuine football people to question and challenge his views which has led to where we are today.

Is he doing the best he can? Absolutely.

Is he responsible for the key footballing decisions? Absolutely.

You have to step up and take accountability if you are in the role regardless of whether you are doing your best. His decisions no matter how well intended are why we are here today. If he stays we need to supplement the board with more football people.

But I think it's time for him to go.
 
BunjiMac said:
Boards almost always discuss key decisions and importantly invite the expert to provide their opinion.

If they are looking at a legal matter they will invite the board member with the legal background to proved their opinion. Everyone has a right to a vote but most often the board will defer to the person who is most qualified and back this persons opinion.

Sometimes there are multiple people with a similar background, most often in finance, and this can lead to healthy debate, however this is discouraged on corporate boards as it is believed a healthy balance of backgrounds (board diversity) leads to better board decisions, as more perspectives are considered.

This is all fine for corporate boards because the one thing all the corporate board members share is that they work in the corporate world and live and breathe corporate issues and challenges, even though they may have different skills and backgrounds.

This is where our board is broken.

We have a football club board made up of corporate/business types with only 1 genuine football voice, Roo. The rest of the board don't understand the challenges of winning a premiership. So even though they come from a diverse background they lack the fundamentals to allow them to assess footballing decisions. They therefore would defer heavily to the only director with a true footballing background and would not have the understanding to question the footballing decisions.

This is completely different to the corporate boards where the majority have a grounding in the corporate and business world and can question decisions with confidence.

It is therefore absolutely fair to suggest that key footballing decisions have been led by Roo and the culture of the footballing organisation is a reflection of Roos mindset as he sets that tone (unquestioned) from the top.

I don't have an issue with Roo perse but it's the lack of genuine football people to question and challenge his views which has led to where we are today.

Is he doing the best he can? Absolutely.

Is he responsible for the key footballing decisions? Absolutely.

You have to step up and take accountability if you are in the role regardless of whether you are doing your best. His decisions no matter how well intended are why we are here today. If he stays we need to supplement the board with more football people.

But I think it's time for him to go.
Click to expand...
Game set match
 
Why even get in the weeds trying to explain to what level Roo was involved?

It’s not required.

I’ll say it again. Whatever involvement or non-involvement he’s had….Does. Not. Matter.

To re-iterate.

-He sits on the board of a club which has been out of the finals for seven straight years.
-He holds an unelected position on that board.
-That board paid out the last coach and head of footy because they prematurely extended both their contracts.
-The current coach is contracted for an end total of seven years. Is yet to make the finals.


There’s not a board member anywhere who would survive a organizational record like that if their position was subject to an election or some other form of accountability.
 
George Kramer said:
Yeah they keep overruling the football director, the only one with football experience and a club legend, that seems entirely plausible and Roo being such a good bloke stays on rather than saying you’re all a pack of useless idiots I’m moving on
Click to expand...

He has a single vote. And I said, he would have stated copious pros and cons to any decision regarding Nicks. Do I think he said sack him? no. Im merely stating based on what I know of him, he isnt a dumb guy and he would have thought along the same lines as a majority of this forum which was to wait for evidence. But the club clearly felt pressure and jumped to chasing positive PR. I maintain that is not something Roo does and his lack of any public statement on this suggests he was not on board with the end decision. This at no way implies had Nicks been unsigned midseason Roo would have recommended sacking either. Im just talking that decision at that time.
 
Slippery Pete said:
Why even get in the weeds trying to explain to what level Roo was involved?

It’s not required.

I’ll say it again. Whatever involvement or non-involvement he’s had….Does. Not. Matter.

To re-iterate.

-He sits on the board of a club which has been out of the finals for seven straight years.
-He holds an unelected position on that board.
-That board paid out the last coach and head of footy because they prematurely extended both their contracts.
-The current coach is contracted for an end total of seven years. Is yet to make the finals.


There’s not a board member anywhere who would survive a company record like that if they were subject to an election.
Click to expand...
****!

Has about as much evidence against Ricciuto as your tripe.

“Doesn’t matter what Roo actually does, he’s to blame”

Stick to jokes, it’s your fortè.
 
BunjiMac said:
Boards almost always discuss key decisions and importantly invite the expert to provide their opinion.

If they are looking at a legal matter they will invite the board member with the legal background to proved their opinion. Everyone has a right to a vote but most often the board will defer to the person who is most qualified and back this persons opinion.

Sometimes there are multiple people with a similar background, most often in finance, and this can lead to healthy debate, however this is discouraged on corporate boards as it is believed a healthy balance of backgrounds (board diversity) leads to better board decisions, as more perspectives are considered.

This is all fine for corporate boards because the one thing all the corporate board members share is that they work in the corporate world and live and breathe corporate issues and challenges, even though they may have different skills and backgrounds.

This is where our board is broken.

We have a football club board made up of corporate/business types with only 1 genuine football voice, Roo. The rest of the board don't understand the challenges of winning a premiership. So even though they come from a diverse background they lack the fundamentals to allow them to assess footballing decisions. They therefore would defer heavily to the only director with a true footballing background and would not have the understanding to question the footballing decisions.

This is completely different to the corporate boards where the majority have a grounding in the corporate and business world and can question decisions with confidence.

It is therefore absolutely fair to suggest that key footballing decisions have been led by Roo and the culture of the footballing organisation is a reflection of Roos mindset as he sets that tone (unquestioned) from the top.

I don't have an issue with Roo perse but it's the lack of genuine football people to question and challenge his views which has led to where we are today.

Is he doing the best he can? Absolutely.

Is he responsible for the key footballing decisions? Absolutely.

You have to step up and take accountability if you are in the role regardless of whether you are doing your best. His decisions no matter how well intended are why we are here today. If he stays we need to supplement the board with more football people.

But I think it's time for him to go.
Click to expand...

100% not arguing. Just want to see the vote.
 
George Kramer said:
You’re joking right? I’ve been against Roo for years.

As for discussing this for months, that’s irrelevant to you relying on feels when you’ve asked for proof about Roo tonight.

And Roo has been raised tonight by the pissed man and you jumped in asking for…..proof not feels
Click to expand...

But i have asked for proof by the club and have stated i am happy to be proved wrong. As I said, you dont give a crap about proof, youve made your mind up. Thats why you are laughing at my request for proof because you dont care what it says. You will claim they are lying.
 
Runnin Blue said:
****!

Has about as much evidence against Ricciuto as your tripe.

“Doesn’t matter what Roo actually does, he’s to blame”

Stick to jokes, it’s your fortè.
Click to expand...

If you’re going to continue to post here, you should make some attempt to understand how boards work in the real world, outside of the Adelaide Football Club.

Because at the moment you don’t.
 
Reader mode

Remove this Banner Ad

Rumour 2024 Rumours and Speculation Part 2

Similar threads

ams4crows
  • Locked
  • Poll
Rumour 2024 Rumours and Speculation (Rumours total 25, last 28th August)
405 406 407 408 409
Replies
10K
Views
565K
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
ams4crows
Game Day AFL Finals 2024 - Match discussion party thread
280 281 282 283 284
Replies
7K
Views
139K
Moonwatcher
Moonwatcher
1990crow
List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading Part 2
90 91 92 93 94
Replies
2K
Views
47K
JennyTalia
JennyTalia
ams4crows
  • Locked
Rumour 2023 Rumours and Speculation (Rumours total 37!, 1 (busted) BIG FISH ALERT last October 9th) (9 confirmed! 17 Busted!)
350 351 352 353 354
Replies
9K
Views
438K
Scorpus
Scorpus
dogs105
Review 2024 Season Review - The Goodest, Baddest and Ugliest from the season
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
203
Views
9K
Anzacpaul
Anzacpaul
Danger in Texas
Game Day Brownlow Night 2024
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
306
Views
6K
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
George Kramer
2024 AFL Trade Period
Replies
6
Views
388
Crow-eater
Crow-eater

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top