Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham

[BrunoV]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Just another idiot doubling down on delusion.

 

[Nifft]

I think he's a great leader and the club, the supporters and most importantly the playing group will respond very well if he is appointed.

In terms of his experience he like all second time coaches will come with the benefits and learning from his first go. And all the derogatory comments in the world won't have stopped a very smart man like Hird from coming back bigger and better than the first time around. Undestimate winners like Hird at your peril IMO.

All except Merrett of course.

 

[boncer34]

this is essentially why I have no opposition to the Hird appointment, If Hird fails we simply need to blow the joint up, if he succeeds then they look like saviours. Win / win

Except for the 3 further years we've wasted. I'm sure the players are fine with that.

 

[Doss]

Except for the 3 further years we've wasted. I'm sure the players are fine with that.

Yep.

At what point do we stop pissing years down the drain?

Obviously there is no guarantee any new coach, whether Hird or someone else, is going to be successful. In fact the overwhelming likelihood is they won’t be.

But I’d much rather not effectively pre-emptively write off years in advance because of some vague notion that doing so will see us hit rock bottom. There’s no guarantee the club will see it that way, because We Are Essendon.

 

[jmoo wan]

If appointing Hird and him failing is what it takes to force the club and a large portion of its fanbase to look in the mirror and take stock then I’m okay with it. But that’s pretty much the only way to reconcile myself to it, I think.

I’d much prefer they interviewed him and then didn’t appoint him, as this would indicate that they had already looked in the mirror.

That said, if he happens to drag the club up by its bootstraps and win then it’s hard not to be okay with it retrospectively, if it happens. At that point I guess it’s a stroke of genius.

I still can’t get a read on the likelihood of that though. I almost feel like we’re being trolled by the club’s new caretakers, particularly the member survey graphic.

Surely they can’t go on about a not-thorough-enough internal review, chase Clarkson like they did because of his credentials and experience (shambolic), sack Rutten for his lack of it, appoint a 6-person reasonably impartial panel that takes the time to reframe “experience” to include experienced assistant coaches and football administrators, and then walk away from that for what, lols?

I don’t know how Mahoney survives the parachuting of Hird if the selection panel he’s chairing with the support of Hisgrove and Thorburn recommends someone else.

For that matter I don’t know where that leaves the external review that Hisgrove is facilitating through Thorburn, or her position on the board.

The panel recommendation really has to be accepted by the board, or it’ll be another massacre—the Red and Black Wedding Mk II.

So the question is, how does this panel recommend Hird without losing their integrity in the process? How do they justify it, especially if Brad Scott is available?

if this is their end game they have failed spectacularly!

how could they recommend Brad Scott, an obvious AFL plant, who hasn’t been through the independent external process over Hird, an experienced Senior Coach?

i’m taking the piss by the way (mostly)

 

[CBombers17]

One thing in all this that I'd like to know is who devised the parameters for the interview process and weighting of different aspects (previous senior coaching experience and so on). Normally you would expect the CEO to be a big part of this - but in this case could the board and have nutted it out with Mahoney - or provided directives to Mahoney?

These requirements parameters can guide the panel significantly.

There is also a lot of group think in these settings. It's very easy to see Hird come out in front with unanimous agreement - especially if they made the parameters and weighting friendly. You would imagine much of the interview would come down to answering questions around people management. Someone like Hird could draw on a considerable amount of business experience as well as senior coaching for this stuff. It starts to look big in comparison to some lifetime assistant coach.

Bottom line is really the outstanding candidates are pretty clear to all on a panel
There's rarely too much disagreement on the best - even when on paper beforehand it looks like it could be tight. And Someone like Hird is built to smash these situations. He could easy be head and shoulders the standout over a much better group than this current batch we know about.

All talk on here aside if you had to sit and have a mind like Hird (and presence) walk you through his vision for the team and club it's easy to picture it being be a deeply impressive presentation. That takes some denying in the panel discussions afterwards.

 

[Lore]

One thing in all this that I'd like to know is who devised the parameters for the interview process and weighting of different aspects (previous senior coaching experience and so on). Normally you would expect the CEO to be a big part of this - but in this case could the board and have nutted it out with Mahoney - or provided directives to Mahoney?

These requirements parameters can guide the panel significantly.

There is also a lot of group think in these settings. It's very easy to see Hird come out in front with unanimous agreement - especially if they made the parameters and weighting friendly. You would imagine much of the interview would come down to answering questions around people management. Someone like Hird could draw on a considerable amount of business experience as well as senior coaching for this stuff. It starts to look big in comparison to some lifetime assistant coach.

Bottom line is really the outstanding candidates are pretty clear to all on a panel
There's rarely too much disagreement on the best - even when on paper beforehand it looks like it could be tight. And Someone like Hird is built to smash these situations. He could easy be head and shoulders the standout over a much better group than this current batch we know about.

XC was still hanging around a bit after he announced he was leaving, he’s visible in debut announcement for Alex Morcom, for example, which is in the cafe at the club.

We also have an acting CEO, who is facilitating the external review (Nick Ryan, previously Chief Commercial Officer), though I dunno if they had any input.

I suspect Mahoney and the board would be the main people.

 

[CBombers17]

XC was still hanging around a bit after he announced he was leaving, he’s visible in debut announcement for Alex Morcom, for example, which is in the cafe at the club.

We also have an acting CEO, who is facilitating the external review (Nick Ryan, previously Chief Marketing Officer), though I dunno if they had any input.

I suspect Mahoney and the board would be the main people.

So - IF - they decide that they favour senior coaching experience (even by a bit) then Hirds already in front before he even fires up the PowerPoint. He'd be very hard to beat from there.

None if this may have happened of course - but it is how these things normally work. I was on a small panel yesterday (with a CEO and one Board Member) and expectation/requirements for experience in role had to be reduced because the salary didn't get us the level they hoped for from the market. But they wanted proven experience in the position (director of Finance). A candidate that had that would have had a pretty big head start.

 

[Lore]

So - IF - they decide that they favour senior coaching experience (even by a bit) then Hirds already in front before he even fires up the PowerPoint. He'd be very hard to beat from there.

None if this may have happened of course - but it is how these things normally work. I was on a small panel yesterday (with a CEO and one Board Member) and expectation/requirements for experience in role had to be reduced because the salary didn't get us the level they hoped for from the market. But they wanted proven experience in the position (director of Finance). A candidate that had that would have had a pretty big head start.

If their process is going to be determined solely by years with the title Senior Coach then Kevin should be a shoo in.

It’s not though, and I think logically anyone who thinks about it for a nanosecond knows that.

What experience gives you is the ability to say “this is what I did before, this is what I learned, this is what I think about this group and this context, and this is what I’d do next year with this group if given the opportunity”.

I’d prefer someone who can say “I taught 12 players how to kick straight and run smart leads without excessively exhausting themselves, and motivated them to do it under pressure, when they’re exhausted, at the end of the game in a grand final” than someone who can say “I took 45 players who were wearing a red sash to 6th on the ladder at the end of round 15 eight years ago”.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

If appointing Hird and him failing is what it takes to force the club and a large portion of its fanbase to look in the mirror and take stock then I’m okay with it. But that’s pretty much the only way to reconcile myself to it, I think.

I’d much prefer they interviewed him and then didn’t appoint him, as this would indicate that they had already looked in the mirror.

That said, if he happens to drag the club up by its bootstraps and win then it’s hard not to be okay with it retrospectively, if it happens. At that point I guess it’s a stroke of genius.

I still can’t get a read on the likelihood of that though. I almost feel like we’re being trolled by the club’s new caretakers, particularly the member survey graphic.

Surely they can’t go on about a not-thorough-enough internal review, chase Clarkson like they did because of his credentials and experience (shambolic), sack Rutten for his lack of it, appoint a 6-person reasonably impartial panel that takes the time to reframe “experience” to include experienced assistant coaches and football administrators, and then walk away from that for what, lols?

I don’t know how Mahoney survives the parachuting of Hird if the selection panel he’s chairing with the support of Hisgrove and Thorburn recommends someone else.

For that matter I don’t know where that leaves the external review that Hisgrove is facilitating through Thorburn, or her position on the board.

The panel recommendation really has to be accepted by the board, or it’ll be another massacre—the Red and Black Wedding Mk II.

So the question is, how does this panel recommend Hird without losing their integrity in the process? How do they justify it, especially if Brad Scott is available?

Just my opinion and not interested in re-hashing this too much as it has been discussed a lot, but specifically regarding this post:

The flaw is to think Hird could not win a legitimate process IF they simply base it on who is the best person to coach Essendon.

Whenever you hire someone for any organisation, resume is important, experience in the same role is important, experience in a similar role matters, recent experience is a factor.

But you’re also looking for best fit in the organisation you’re hiring for.

I’m aware others don’t agree and laugh at it, but all that matters is whether the panel and Essendon:

• rate Hird’s experience as senior coach
• rate his ability to coach
• think his work at GWS is enough to bring him up to date
• think he interviews well and presents the most convincing plan for Essendon
• think he is the best fit for Essendon compared with the other applicants

Against Yze, Solomon and Lade, Hird has a very good chance. Any rumours of the Scott situation might indicate AFL House agree and believe the panel might select Hird if a better candidate doesn’t step forward.

 

[CBombers17]

If their process is going to be determined solely by years with the title Senior Coach then Kevin should be a shoo in.

It’s not though, and I think logically anyone who thinks about it for a nanosecond knows that.

What experience gives you is the ability to say “this is what I did before, this is what I learned, this is what I think about this group and this context, and this is what I’d do next year with this group if given the opportunity”.

I’d prefer someone who can say “I taught 12 players how to kick straight and run smart leads without excessively exhausting themselves, and motivated them to do it under pressure, when they’re exhausted, at the end of the game in a grand final” than someone who can say “I took 45 players who were wearing a red sash to 6th on the ladder at the end of round 15 eight years ago”.

I'm not saying it would be 'soley'weighted on experience. I'm saying if they value senior coaching experience and that adds even a 10 percent weighting then this would be over as a contest in favour of Hird IMO.

These are the little gifts the board could have thrown his way.

In terms of head to head I'd back Hird to perform well against every current senior coach in the AFL if that happened
Very Impressive people are very hard to resist when you have to sit there and make the decision. I could picture him walking out if the room and the panel look at each other and say well there's the best presentation by 100 miles. What do we do now?

 

[Lore]

Just my opinion and not interested in re-hashing this too much as it has been discussed a lot, but specifically regarding this post:

The flaw is to think Hird could not win a legitimate process IF they simply base it on who is the best person to coach Essendon.

Whenever you hire someone for any organisation, resume is important, experience in the same role is important, experience in a similar role matters, recent experience is a factor.

But you’re also looking for best fit in the organisation you’re hiring for.

I’m aware others don’t agree and laugh at it, but all that matters is whether the panel and Essendon:

• rate Hird’s experience as senior coach
• rate his ability to coach
• think his work at GWS is enough to bring him up to date
• think he interviews well and presents the most convincing plan for Essendon
• think he is the best fit for Essendon compared with the other applicants

Against Yze, Solomon and Lade, Hird has a very good chance. Any rumours of the Scott situation might indicate AFL House agree and believe the panel might select Hird if a better candidate doesn’t step forward.

Sure, but remember that these judgments are in the opinion of a group of people who haven’t spent the last fifteen years drinking the red and black bathwater.

They may still conclude that he’s the best candidate, because theoretically anything is possible and you can’t deny the charisma, but I think it’s really difficult for us as Essendon supporters to put ourselves in the shoes of this coaching panel, and precious few well-informed neutrals find the idea anywhere near as compelling as Essendon fans seem to.

Most of the ones that seem to think it’s likely or a good fit start from the point of view that Essendon is so incompetent and arrogantly egocentric that he’s the only one who can drag us out of the quagmire, which is a ****ing awful starting point really.




And I mean the external review is supposed to be about “what are Geelong doing, what are Richmond doing that we aren’t doing? Why are they successful in the 21st century and we aren’t?”

I highly doubt the answer to that question is “bring back the guy who was in charge during the biggest **** up in club history”.

And I don’t know how Hisgrove and Thorburn can recommend Hird as part of the selection panel and not be scathing of the same decision in the review. The gymnastics they have to do to make that work will be worth Olympic gold.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Sure, but remember that these judgments are in the opinion of a group of people who haven’t spent the last fifteen years drinking the red and black bathwater.

They may still conclude that he’s the best candidate, because theoretically anything is possible and you can’t deny the charisma, but I think it’s really difficult for us as Essendon supporters to put ourselves in the shoes of this coaching panel, and precious few well-informed neutrals find the idea anywhere near as compelling as Essendon fans seem to.

Most of the ones that seem to think it’s likely or a good fit start from the point of view that Essendon is so incompetent and arrogantly egocentric that he’s the only one who can drag us out of the quagmire, which is a ******* awful starting point really.




And I mean the external review is supposed to be about “what are Geelong doing, what are Richmond doing that we aren’t doing? Why are they successful in the 21st century and we aren’t?”

I highly doubt the answer to that question is “bring back the guy who was in charge during the biggest * up in club history”.

And I don’t know how Hisgrove and Thorburn can recommend Hird as part of the selection panel and not be scathing of the same decision in the review. The gymnastics they have to do to make that work will be worth Olympic gold.

There are countless people who work in the industry who have never supported Essendon who rave about Hird’s ability to understand and break down the game and explain it to others. I don’t get why people constantly ignore this and assume that anyone who thinks he might actually be a skilled coach has to drink Essendon bath water.

 

[CBombers17]

Sure, but remember that these judgments are in the opinion of a group of people who haven’t spent the last fifteen years drinking the red and black bathwater.

They may still conclude that he’s the best candidate, because theoretically anything is possible and you can’t deny the charisma, but I think it’s really difficult for us as Essendon supporters to put ourselves in the shoes of this coaching panel, and precious few well-informed neutrals find the idea anywhere near as compelling as Essendon fans seem to.

Most of the ones that seem to think it’s likely or a good fit start from the point of view that Essendon is so incompetent and arrogantly egocentric that he’s the only one who can drag us out of the quagmire, which is a ******* awful starting point really.




And I mean the external review is supposed to be about “what are Geelong doing, what are Richmond doing that we aren’t doing? Why are they successful in the 21st century and we aren’t?”

I highly doubt the answer to that question is “bring back the guy who was in charge during the biggest * up in club history”.

And I don’t know how Hisgrove and Thorburn can recommend Hird as part of the selection panel and not be scathing of the same decision in the review. The gymnastics they have to do to make that work will be worth Olympic gold.

Is they the actual deliverables of the external review? Or just what it should be?

 

[Lore]

I'm not saying it would be 'soley'weighted on experience. I'm saying if they value senior coaching experience and that adds even a 10 percent weighting then this would be over as a contest in favour of Hird IMO.

These are the little gifts the board could have thrown his way.

In terms of head to head I'd back Hird to perform well against every current senior coach in the AFL if that happened
Very Impressive people are very hard to resist when you have to sit there and make the decision. I could picture him walking out if the room and the panel look at each other and say well there's the best presentation by 100 miles. What do we do now?

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a set of KSCs that involved a formal percentage weighting of different criteria.

I would expect it to be a qualitative process, where what you did and how you did it matter, not just tick the senior coach box and you get 10% added to your score.

From what we’ve been told “experienced” includes football administration and assistant coaching, which is a prerequisite to even get into the process.

We also know that there is an additional process for candidates who haven’t been senior coaches before, and I would say that’s the main advantage Hird has — not having to do the first process. But that also assumes that he didn’t do the first process, if his experience is too long ago they might have put him through that part as well anyway (especially if it’s psych evals).

 

[Lore]

There are countless people who work in the industry who have never supported Essendon who rave about Hird’s ability to understand and break down the game and explain it to others. I don’t get why people constantly ignore this and assume that anyone who thinks he might actually be a skilled coach has to drink Essendon bath water.

Sure, I’m not saying they don’t. I’m saying you have to convince 6 people, three of which are not football people, and all six of which supported other teams 3 years ago, of your ability to do all aspects of the job next year.

Your experience counts insofar as you can use it to show you are qualified and capable — the most qualified and the most capable candidate — for the position.

Anyway idk why this keeps getting back to Hird’s pro/con list. We have two whole threads about that already.

This thread is supposed to be about the board’s ineptitude and how they reconcile the various processes they have put into action.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Sure, I’m not saying they don’t. I’m saying you have to convince 6 people, three of which are not football people, and all six of which supported other teams 3 years ago, of your ability to do all aspects of the job next year.

Your experience counts insofar as you can use it to show you are qualified and capable — the most qualified and the most capable candidate — for the position.

Anyway idk why this keeps getting back to Hird’s pro/con list. We have two whole threads about that already.

This thread is supposed to be about the board’s ineptitude and how they reconcile the various processes they have put into action.

I was responding specifically to you saying if Hird is selected it means the process wasn’t followed. All I’m saying is that’s not necessarily the case. If Hird does win legitimately, I think the panel will need to publicly break it down why.

 

[CBombers17]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a set of KSCs that involved a formal percentage weighting of different criteria.

I would expect it to be a qualitative process, where what you did and how you did it matter, not just tick the senior coach box and you get 10% added to your score.

From what we’ve been told “experienced” includes football administration and assistant coaching, which is a prerequisite to even get into the process.

We also know that there is an additional process for candidates who haven’t been senior coaches before, and I would say that’s the main advantage Hird has — not having to do the first process. But that also assumes that he didn’t do the first process, if his experience is too long ago they might have put him through that part as well anyway (especially if it’s psych evals).

Some examples from yesterday - the top mark for a response got a 5 and that was for "
All behavioural indicators were seen. The candidate provided an excellent response demonstrating consistent application of capability at this level and could mentor others"

And for the next mark down (a 4 mark) was - "most behavioural indicators were seen. The candidate provided a thorough response which clearly demonstrated capability at this level"

There's 20% right there (rated this way in every question). Proven application of capability at the required level can easily be a huge advantage in these scenarios - IF it's weighted this way. Hird could easily have an advantage in most aspects and the panel would be doing their job 100% correctly by ranking him most highly.

 

[ghostdog]

Sure, I’m not saying they don’t. I’m saying you have to convince 6 people, three of which are not football people, and all six of which supported other teams 3 years ago, of your ability to do all aspects of the job next year.

Your experience counts insofar as you can use it to show you are qualified and capable — the most qualified and the most capable candidate — for the position.

Anyway idk why this keeps getting back to Hird’s pro/con list. We have two whole threads about that already.

This thread is supposed to be about the board’s ineptitude and how they reconcile the various processes they have put into action.

So glad this comment returned to the topic.

The real issue as I see it is this;
To hire a new coach, either the panel had to confer to draft the selection criteria, or Mahoney drafted the selection criteria as the chair and gave that to the other panelists to get their heads around. One hopes the criteria were drafted by the former method for the integrity of the process.

Here's the problem though; the external review wasn't completed when the criteria were drafted. This means that the criteria, and therefore the coach that is selected, wiil not account for the full gamut of football issues that the review identifies. We've been positioned to accept a coaching appointment being made without full understanding of the context of football department problems. Therefore, any appointment that is made will be burdened with those issues on the hop, after the review is released. That's called setting someone up to fail.

 

[Lore]

So glad this comment returned to the topic.

The real issue as I see it is this;
To hire a new coach, either the panel had to confer to draft the selection criteria, or Mahoney drafted the selection criteria as the chair and gave that to the other panelists to get their heads around. One hopes the criteria were drafted by the former method for the integrity of the process.

Here's the problem though; the external review wasn't completed when the criteria were drafted. This means that the criteria, and therefore the coach that is selected, wiil not account for the full gamut of football issues that the review identifies. We've been positioned to accept a coaching appointment being made without full understanding of the context of football department problems. Therefore, any appointment that is made will be burdened with those issues on the hop, after the review is released. That's called setting someone up to fail.

Lewis mentioned that they were given criteria (here). Mahoney talked a little bit about talking to the board about the definition of “more experienced”, which indicates that the criteria come from some degree of negotiation between him and the board (32:50).

Lewis also mentioned doing his own sort of review of the club, asked like 20 people, past and present staff, players, parents, so he could get a good feel for what a new coach would be walking into and what is needed (video). We don’t know if other panel members did the same but I guess that’s part of the thing about having six different perspectives.

Don’t forget that the internal review of the footy department is already done… the external review is adding to that. So they (and in particular Mahoney, who did the internal review) already have some idea about what they think they need.

On top of that, Thorburn is heading the external review and is also on the coaching selection panel, so if the external review is going to reveal anything else then he’d have preliminary recommendations to pass on to the panel.

It does sound like the footy department staff/players have already been interrogated (they squeal a bit when they get asked questions) so it’s reasonable to assume that the coaching and footy elements of that review were prioritised.

I agree it’s imperfect and the timing has really limited opportunities and put the pressure on various parties to produce some sort of minor miracle in terms of a thorough and well-executed process (both processes), but there does seem to be some attempts to mitigate the issues you’ve identified which suggests someone is across it.

Also that apparently a coach reveal has been delayed because Hisgrove is overseas — that’s actually a good thing in terms of respecting the processes and ensuring it’s done properly instead of cutting corners to reach a predetermined conclusion on a predetermined date.

And having heard Mahoney talk on radio a couple of weeks ago I don’t overly mind how the selection criteria came about as long as he was involved in it. Mahoney does seem to be fairly level headed and clear eyed, I hope trust is not misplaced there. Would be interesting if he landed in the CEO role

 

[Old Campaigner]

I don’t know how Mahoney survives the parachuting of Hird if the selection panel he’s chairing with the support of Hisgrove and Thorburn recommends someone else.

Can you imagine? The panel front up to the board and say they think Yze is the best of the candidates, the board deliberates and announces the job is going to Hird.

 

[ghostdog]

Lewis mentioned that they were given criteria (here). Mahoney talked a little bit about talking to the board about the definition of “more experienced”, which indicates that the criteria come from some degree of negotiation between him and the board (32:50).

Lewis also mentioned doing his own sort of review of the club, asked like 20 people, past and present staff, players, parents, so he could get a good feel for what a new coach would be walking into and what is needed (video). We don’t know if other panel members did the same but I guess that’s part of the thing about having six different perspectives.

Don’t forget that the internal review of the footy department is already done… the external review is adding to that. So they (and in particular Mahoney, who did the internal review) already have some idea about what they think they need.

On top of that, Thorburn is heading the external review and is also on the coaching selection panel, so if the external review is going to reveal anything else then he’d have preliminary recommendations to pass on to the panel.

It does sound like the footy department staff/players have already been interrogated (they squeal a bit when they get asked questions) so it’s reasonable to assume that the coaching and footy elements of that review were prioritised.

I agree it’s imperfect and the timing has really limited opportunities and put the pressure on various parties to produce some sort of minor miracle in terms of a thorough and well-executed process (both processes), but there does seem to be some attempts to mitigate the issues you’ve identified which suggests someone is across it.

Also that apparently a coach reveal has been delayed because Hisgrove is overseas — that’s actually a good thing in terms of respecting the processes and ensuring it’s done properly instead of cutting corners to reach a predetermined conclusion on a predetermined date.

And having heard Mahoney talk on radio a couple of weeks ago I don’t overly mind how the selection criteria came about as long as he was involved in it. Mahoney does seem to be fairly level headed and clear eyed, I hope trust is not misplaced there. Would be interesting if he landed in the CEO role

Yeah I can see Mahoney trying his best with what he's got. Barham announces we're looking for an experienced coach. Mahoney responds publicly saying it ain't necessarily so. Another instance of Barham's ego needing to be checked.

If it all goes pear-shaped, it might look like this;

• coach is appointed through the clunky process outlined
• coach fails, in part due to being unresponsive re: football issues identified in the review after the hiring process is complete; wasn't required to have plans for those unidentified matters, after all
• board decides to parachute in a replacement, because we ran a process previously and it didn't work

Sorry to have my black hat on so often. I'm out of trust.

 

[Lore]

Yeah I can see Mahoney trying his best with what he's got. Barham announces we're looking for an experienced coach. Mahoney responds publicly saying it ain't necessarily so. Another instance of Barham's ego needing to be checked.

If it all goes pear-shaped, it might look like this;

• coach is appointed through the clunky process outlined
• coach fails, in part due to being unresponsive re: football issues identified in the review after the hiring process is complete; wasn't required to have plans for those unidentified matters, after all
• board decides to parachute in a replacement, because we ran a process previously and it didn't work

Sorry to have my black hat on so often. I'm out of trust.

I can see it too. But trust is a choice

 

[Eleven 38]

I think from the first press conference we knew Barham was shit house doing media.

He clearly shouldn't have said we need an experienced coach in the second presser or whichever one it was, it was just a wrong choice of words.

He's an absolute deer in headlights in front of a camera.

 

[Beerfish]

Can you imagine? The panel front up to the board and say they think Yze is the best of the candidates, the board deliberates and announces the job is going to Hird.

Somebody posted ages ago that if this happened and the club lied as to who had been recommended the panel wouldn't be able to say anything due to NDA's. If I was on that panel there is no NDA in the world that would stop me from calling that out.

 

[yodellinhank]

I think from the first press conference we knew Barham was s**t house doing media.

He clearly shouldn't have said we need an experienced coach in the second presser or whichever one it was, it was just a wrong choice of words.

He's an absolute deer in headlights in front of a camera.

I think every club rolls with a similar line at the start of the process, don't they? Just that the media really latched on and won't let it go with us because of the big named experienced coaches not taking a big interest