News Club to launch external review of football department!

[Michael Jezz]

I think your view is naive. Consultants that conduct these reviews are experts at what they do. Their job is to ask questions to get feedback and insights and to learn what is really going on and to dig deep. Would you rather have a footy person asking these questions or someone who had spent their career conducting this type of review and evaluation and knows the best way to do it and has the experience of doing it thousands of times before? You don't need to know football to find out what issues exist and why, whether people lack clarity or are confused by things, whether there is belief and trust in people or process, whether there is inequality and bias, where there are conflicts and distrust.
Yes add football expertise at the right time as another layer to view things through but that's it. Anything more would actually be negligent.
You are correct though that quite often people in these roles know what the issues are or can see what's going on but lack the ability to influence change or get others on the same page. The magic of an independent review is that it is independent, that people get to contribute safely, and it is a collection of the shared themes and issues that is often indisputable. It is also the best way to get executive sponsorship and traction as there is no politics to it if done properly and gets everyone clear. Plus every person has their own bias, weaknesses and blind spots so what's not to say we don't have people who are ignorant of theirs? Teague seems like that around team defense. These weaknesses can have a significant impact on businesses or teams when they belong to senior positions as it permeates down and becomes culture. This is why there is an entire industry associated to this type of thing and why professionals will be called in.

My experience has been the consultancy industry is full of charlatans. The professionals need to be the key Club employees and board members. A president has to have the insight to see requirements

 

[Dramoth]

And this review happening above his head (I suspect the Liddle level and above will be privy) is not a great endorsement of his position.

Missed this... this is a board level decision, I don’t think that Liddle would be privy to it either considering his long term friendship with members of the football department.

 

[ctwenty1]

This is pretty clever by the club. Bought some more time for all involved and provides a circuit breaker.

Whether we see an improvement this week when we face the undefeated “bye”, but more importantly in subsequent rounds is the question.

 

[Tennant]

Not sure how you can say Teague is safe until the review is completed. Otherwise what is the point of a review if you have already come to that conclusion. As long as it’s independent and done outside the club with no interference then I’m all for it.

Just have to hope they get it right, because it’s been a terrible 20 years with rebuild after rebuild. I feel for the younger supporters who have never seen success, will get to the stage where people will just not care anymore.

 

[Dramoth]

My experience has been the consultancy industry is full of charlatans. The professionals need to be the key Club employees and board members. A president has to have the insight to see requirements

Think of it then as a bunch of accountants coming into a company that’s being brought out by a larger company. The larger company wants a due diligence review conducted to ensure that the company they are buying will integrate into the new business and won’t be a burden.

In this case it’s a new club president who wants the club to succeed. So he’s going to have an external consulting company come through the place and ensure that there aren‘t any “key club employees” who are actually detrimental to the clubs success. Sayers is coming from his own consultancy firm after having worked at PwC. He’s not going to be buying a pig in a poke and then spend the next 12 years chasing himself up his own arse. He’s going to want everything laid out in front of him so that when he starts his stint as president, he can make the moves to get the club operating like a football club as well as being a profitable club.

The issue with getting “key club employees” to do the review, is that oft times, they are trying to review themselves or their good friends. Often, they will write down their friends foibles as minor flaws when in reality, their friends flaws could be the thing holding the club back. Consultants come in, usually have zero connection with the club and therefore don’t have an agenda.

 

[Wickzki]

Problem now is the Cripps and Harry contracts.

This is my concern.

Club now has an excuse not to deliver immediately when it was the stated goal that the bye rounds would be when these contract negotiations would bear fruit.

This wouldn't give me confidence to re-sign immediately if I were McKay or Cripps.

 

[Dramoth]

This is pretty clever by the club. Bought some more time for all involved and provides a circuit breaker.

Whether we see an improvement this week when we face the undefeated “bye”, but more importantly in subsequent rounds is the question.

The only way we would see improvements after this announcement is if the people who are being reviewed, and possibly underperforming in their role at the club, suddenly decide they like their monthly paycheques and extract their digit from their orriface and start doing their job properly. And if that happens, we need to look at the people who are suddenly ”over performing” and ask them why they weren’t doing that for the first half of the season.

 

[The Return of the Paf]

This is what the club needs. I wouldn’t throw a tantrum if Teague stays, as long as all the assistants are turfed.

I wouldn't throw a tantrum, either, but I'll probably be sitting here with my skin inside out if that's what happens.

 

[Dramoth]

This is my concern.

Club now has an excuse not to deliver immediately when it was the stated goal that the bye rounds would be when these contract negotiations would bear fruit.

This wouldn't give me confidence to re-sign immediately if I were McKay or Cripps.

If Cripps has been looking at the shitshow in the footballing department and thinking “yeah, I want to stay here”, then he needs to see a pshrink in Fremantle At the end of the year. If he now looks at the club and thinks “right, the club is doing something about this shitshow”, then he might stay... same with Harry.

 

[Heres Waite]

Wonder how much blame will be put on SOS?
let’s hope some.

What would be the point of that when Sos is no longer at the club?
Sounds like making excuses if that is the case.

 

[Blue1980]

Hqve no fear or worry Barker will survive this one too lol

Made senior coach

 

[Mr_Plow]

Hqve no fear or worry Barker will survive this one too lol

He's going to be hard to get rid of, isn't he...

 

[Blue Dimension]

By leaking this they’re hoping to calm us fans down and minimise the amount of pressure being put on the club.

“At least one player has talked about the lack of clarity in the team’s game plan, while another questioned elements of team selection.”

They’re replacing our fading finals hopes with the hope that there might be some significant changes in the coaching ranks, team selection process and game strategy... the things we’ve been banging on about.

Seems sensible to leak it now to manage the supporters. It shows some PR nouse. Whether that’s Sayers or Liddle doing it, who knows.

With the greatest respect, no club in their right mind would/should leak comments like that to the media ‘on behalf of ‘players’. That would be a horrendous PR decision, and if our club was doing that then we may as well pack up shop (this coming from someone who works in PR). That is just toxic and does nobody any good - particularly the coach, players or the wider organisation.

Those comments have come directly from the players themselves - which is also very concerning in itself.

 

[Michael Jezz]

Think of it then as a bunch of accountants coming into a company that’s being brought out by a larger company. The larger company wants a due diligence review conducted to ensure that the company they are buying will integrate into the new business and won’t be a burden.

In this case it’s a new club president who wants the club to succeed. So he’s going to have an external consulting company come through the place and ensure that there aren‘t any “key club employees” who are actually detrimental to the clubs success. Sayers is coming from his own consultancy firm after having worked at PwC. He’s not going to be buying a pig in a poke and then spend the next 12 years chasing himself up his own arse. He’s going to want everything laid out in front of him so that when he starts his stint as president, he can make the moves to get the club operating like a football club as well as being a profitable club.

The issue with getting “key club employees” to do the review, is that oft times, they are trying to review themselves or their good friends. Often, they will write down their friends foibles as minor flaws when in reality, their friends flaws could be the thing holding the club back. Consultants come in, usually have zero connection with the club and therefore don’t have an agenda.

The above is the role of the board. Sayers has been on the board since 2014. How can he not know what is going on?

 

[therubbernub]

Hmmm. What do you think it will find in regards to Lloyd?

That he catches the red eye every weekend, back to his mistress in Fremantle?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Wickzki]

That he catches the red eye every weekend, back to his mistress in Fremantle?

It was me (Nick) Austin, it was me all along.

 

[Blue__Balls]

The above is the role of the board. Sayers has been on the board since 2014. How can he not know what is going on?

An independent external review will loosen a few lips down the line. Plenty of employees hold back from giving honest feedback when quizzed by their employer, through fear that complaining will be held against them. Add an impartial buffer, who promise to maintain the anonymity of those providing feedback, and you start to get a more complete picture.

You also get new eyes on things, without any bias or preconceived beliefs about why things are being done a certain way.

As you say, Sayers has been on the board for 7 years. Given the position we find ourselves in, I'm glad he's taking a thorough approach rather than just assuming he knows which assistants should stay or go.

 

[CarltonBlooz]

An independent external review will loosen a few lips down the line. Plenty of employees hold back from giving honest feedback when quizzed by their employer, through fear that complaining will be held against them. Add an impartial buffer, who promise to maintain the anonymity of those providing feedback, and you start to get a more complete picture.

You also get new eyes on things, without any bias or preconceived beliefs about why things are being done a certain way.

As you say, Sayers has been on the board for 7 years. Given the position we find ourselves in, I'm glad he's taking a thorough approach rather than just assuming he knows which assistants should stay or go.

God bless a pragmatic soon to be President, looking forward to the results, saddens me we even have to be at this point, but it is what it is.

 

[Tony Lynn 15]

What is the timeline on this review ?

66 games mate.

 

[CarltonBlooz]

66 games mate.

Easily one of the dumbest things the club has ever said, aside from winning a flag by 2023 like a scorched earth rebuild is in anyway even remotely similar to a normal one.

We aren't the Brisbane Lions ffs, we're trying to rebuild from nothing, why you would persist like its business as usual like a normal rebuild completely baffling.

That's the best part though really, there's no way the club wouldn't know the rebuild we were doing isn't even remotely similar to a normal one, yet they still persisted with the dumb campaigner messaging of 66 game rebuild, we'll win a flag by 2023, complete and utter idiocy.

Just tell it to us like it is, its not a normal rebuild, we're rebuilding from complete nothing, it will take time, it will be tough, but not the CFC, iTs nORmaL, Jesus Christ.

2009-2014 drafting, one player remains on our list from that time period and that's Patrick Cripps, dummies incorporated for not controlling the messaging from day 1. The fact that its just Cripps tells you all you need to know about the position we're in.

No doubt many of the supporter frustrations and abuse would be attributed to the clubs incredibly poor messaging to its supporters.

 

[Tony Lynn 15]

Easily one of the dumbest things the club has ever said, aside from winning a flag by 2023 like a scorched earth rebuild is in anyway even remotely similar to a normal one.

We aren't the Brisbane Lions ffs, we're trying to rebuild from nothing, why you would persist like its business as usual like a normal rebuild completely baffling.

That's the best part though really, there's no way the club wouldn't know the rebuild we were doing isn't even remotely similar to a normal one, yet they still persisted with the dumb campaigner messaging of 66 game rebuild, we'll win a flag by 2023, complete and utter idiocy.

Just tell it to us like it is, its not a normal rebuild, we're rebuilding from complete nothing, it will take time, it will be tough, but not the CFC, iTs nORmaL, Jesus Christ.

2009-2014 drafting, one player remains on our list from that time period and that's Patrick Cripps, dummies incorporated for not controlling the messaging from day 1. The fact that its just Cripps tells you all you need to know about the position we're in.

No doubt many of the supporter frustrations and abuse would be attributed to the clubs incredibly poor messaging to its supporters.

It’s all good mate. Here, have a sausage in bread!

 

[CarltonBlooz]

It’s all good mate. Here, have a sausage in bread!

Haha is the club paying for it? Will Teaguey be there with a kiss the cook apron?

But nah seriously appreciate the joke mate but clubs messaging is 2/10 at best.

No doubt many of our supporter campaigners would be marginally alleviated if the messaging was on point.

Do you think the clubs messaging is on point? As from my perspective its all over the place.

 

[Tony Lynn 15]

Haha is the club paying for it? Will Teaguey be there with a kiss the cook apron?

But nah seriously appreciate the joke mate but clubs messaging is 2/10 at best.

No doubt many of our supporter campaigners would be marginally alleviated if the messaging was on point.

Do you think the clubs messaging is on point? As from my perspective its all over the place.

Of course it isn't. Not saying messaging in footy clubs is easy but we have been a train wreck for a long time now. There is no doubt over the past 20 odd years this would not be the club you would choose to support or follow if you were just starting out. We seem to pander too much to the media or even what the fans are saying rather than having a clear and consistent plan that we commit to. Hell, we now have a guy who is not president until the end of the year launching a review and leaking parts of it to the media.

Like everyone I hope the review helps the club and puts us in a better position but I am concerned with how this has been handled so far. Would much prefer it was announced after they had worked out the full detail.

 

[SammaGilberto]

2009-2014 drafting, one player remains on our list from that time period and that's Patrick Cripps, dummies incorporated for not controlling the messaging from day 1. The fact that its just Cripps tells you all you need to know about the position we're in.

Just wanted to expand on this, mod move/delete whatever if off-topic. But the drafting from that period has been easily the worst in the AFL. Terrible, and with the amount of players not going on to play again shows it wasn't only terrible drafting but terrible development.

2009 -
Pick 12 - Kane Lucas (2010-14 42 games) - Played 0 games for West Coast, delisted after one year.
Pick 43 - Marcus Davies (2010-13 17 games)
Pick 59 - Rohan Kerr (2012-12 0 games)
Pick 72 - Rook Sam Jacobs (2007-10 17 games) Went home and played really good footy for 100+ games for Adelaide.
Pick 83 - Rook Aaron Joseph (2009-13 73 games)

2010 -
Pick 18 - Matthew Watson (2011-15 23 games)
Pick 34 - Pat McCarthy (2011-13 1 game)
Pick 42 - Luke Mitchell (2011-13 1 game)
Pick 67 - Andrew McInnes (2011-14 17 games)
Pick 70 - Nick Duigan (2011-13 43 games)
Pick 85 - Rook Jeff Garlett (2009-14 107 games) Traded to Melbourne apparent behavioural issues, serviceable to them.
Pick 99 - Rook David Ellard (2008-15 63 games)
Pick 108 - Rook Simon White (2010-17 87 games)

2011 -
Pick 22 - Josh Bootsma (2012-14 14 games) Eww.
Pick 44 - Sam Rowe (2012-18 99 games) delisted, one season with Saints to get to 100.
Pick 62 F/S - Dylan Buckley (2012-17 39 games) delisted, played two games for the Giants.

2012 -
Pick 11 - Troy Menzel (2013-15 40 games) Traded to Adelaide, played 4 games.
Pick 35 - Tom Temay (2013-14 0 games)
Pick 54 - Nicholas Graham (2013-18 48 games)
Pick 89 - Rook Levi Casboult (2010-2021? 146games*)
Pick 102 - Rook Zach Tuohy (2010-16 120 games) Traded to Geelong and has played 89games since.

2013 -
Pick 13 - Patrick Cripps (2014 onwards 130 games*) A grader, captain of the club.
Pick 39 - Cameron Giles (2014-15 Chronic injuries meant he played 0 games.)
Pick 51 - Nick Holman (2014-15 9 games) Delisted, few years later popped up at Gold Coast and has since played 54 games for them.
Pick 89 - Rook Ed Curnow (2011- Onwards 193 games*) Respectable career to date.
Pick 94 - Rook Tom Bell (2012-15 51 games) Traded to Brisbane to care for his sick father, played 21 games before being delisted.

2014 -
Pick 19 - Blaine Boekhurst (2015-17 25 games)
Pick 28 - Dillon Viojo-Rainbow (2015-16 0 games) Cool last name though.
Pick 60 - Clem Smith (2015-16 7 games)
Pick 63 - Jayden Foster (2015-16 0 games)

Rookie Drafts

2009 -
Pick 15 - Jaryd Cachia (2009-13 14 games) Was delisted twice by the club in that time period.
Pick 31 - Joe Dare (2009-2011 0 games)
Pick 44 - Levi Casboult (see 2012 national draft)
Pick 56 - Simon White (see 2010 national draft)
Pick 66 - Joshua Donaldson (2009-10 0 games)
Pick 73 - Zach Tuohy (see 2012 national draft)

2010 -
Pick 18 - Ed Curnow (see 2013 national draft)
Pick 35 - Rhys O'Keeffe (2011-12 3 games)
Pick 51 - Wayde Twomey (2011 2 games)
Pick 66 - Mitchell Carter (2011-12 0 games)
Pick 78 - Blake Bray (2011-12 0 games)

2011 -
Pick 14 - Tom Bell (see 2013 national draft)
Pick 32 - Nicholas Heyne (2012 0 games)
Pick 50 - Frazer Dale (2012 2 games)
Pick 67 - Matthew Lodge (2012 0 games) Would become Carlton / Northern Blues newsman.

2012 -
Pick 9 - Jaryd Cachia (see 2009 rookie draft)
Pick 23 - Andrew Collins (2011-13 11 games) Delisted twice, was traded from Richmond to Carlton for Shaun Grigg.

2013 -
Pick 12 - Luke Reynolds (2014 0 games)
Pick 28 - Cameron Wood (2014-16 24 games)
Pick 43 - Blaine Johnson (2014-15 7 games)
Pick 60 - Ciaran Sheehan (2014-17 6 games)
Pick 64 - Ciaran Bryne (2014-18 22 games)

2014 -
Pick 6 - Billy Gowers (2015-15 0 games) Drafted by Bulldogs in 2018, played 33 games before being delisted.
Pick 24 - Brad Walsh (2015 3 games)
Pick 41 - Tom Fields (2015 2 games) Big kick
Pick 58 - Fraser Russell (2015 0 games)

3 players still at Carlton
2 players still in the AFL

 

[BigBreakfast]

For those wanting to "hear" from the board, this is what boards should do. "Act" and pass on actions to professionals without an agenda or investment who will provide critical feedback going forward.
Looking forward to the outcomes and whether we are professional enough to act on them.