Coach Do you still have any faith in Bevo? [POLL]

[Cookie]

Bev's fate lays in the hands of the players, not any board or salaried person.
If the players start grumbling and arcing up, Bev's day are numbered.
Haven't seen or heard of it yet.
Lose the players, lose the coach.

 

[hutchy31]

Bev's fate lays in the hands of the players, not any board or salaried person.
If the players start grumbling and arcing up, Bev's day are numbered.
Haven't seen or heard of it yet.
Lose the players, lose the coach.

I can’t imagine Bont is the type to facilitate a mutiny, but just on what we’re seeing in and after games he looks more frustrated than he’s ever been.

A key part of leadership is managing upwards, 360 degree feedback etc. It would be fascinating to know what his conversations with Bevo and the coaches are like.

 

[Libba39]

Short of Ameet and Darcy we have a serious serious lack of football experience / brains anywhere around our board. I understand 100% we need business minded people to help run the club but god having a few more people with some football smarts / experience wouldn't be a bad thing either.

I seriously wonder how some of these board members have time to look at the club when they're juggling 10 other companies in various director/board/ceo roles.

Aren't you confusing the roles of the board and the Football department?

In any organisation boards these days it is very common (as well as best practice) to have a diverse group who can be completely objective.

Just my experience, but I work at a government body tied to a particular industry. People who worked previously in this industry make terrible managers! .

So personally in regard to the bulldogs board I don't care if they played 300 games or ran the canteen at the Upper Kumbucta West under 9s game.

 

[TiAn_]

My two cents is the board’s there specifically to bring their varied experience to the decisions that are brought to them by (among others) the footy department. Obviously some football playing or administration experience there would inform or provide context for their discussions about footy department matters, but they’re not there to be a shadow footy department.

 

[bresker]

Mark Evans was the guy I ran against for the board. He spent most of his speech attacking me for my lack of experience .

I’m biased but he came across as a corporate boring suit. I don’t even know why he decided to run for the board , I’d zoned out when he came to selling himself .

I’m not the ideal candidate, by any means , but I think it would be great to have an actual supporter on the board . Someone who loves the Dogs but has a level of corporate experience , to keep the bastards honest .

Peter Gordon encouraged it in the AGM that year , he didn’t like my methods but he said he wished there was more activism from supporters.

Carlton’s board are a bunch of entitled manifest destiny Liberal pokies owning pricks , but when they sh1t fight with each other or get interviewed on the radio , they’re there because they’re Carlton fans . It helps that they’re millionaires but they pour money into the club.

 

[hoianbulldog]

the underlying problem is that Bevos coaching contract is very high in $ and it means we don't have lots of $ left ih the football department cap left to pay for decent assistance coaches

On CPH2305 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Mismanagement of the cap. Seems from the outside that other contending clubs have had no such problem or been prepared to go over and pay the tax.

 

[Next Waiting]

I can’t imagine Bont is the type to facilitate a mutiny, but just on what we’re seeing in and after games he looks more frustrated than he’s ever been.

A key part of leadership is managing upwards, 360 degree feedback etc. It would be fascinating to know what his conversations with Bevo and the coaches are like.

If we're him, I'd be frustrated at the amount of run from oppo backs that he has to contend with and either the system or the players that allow it to happen.
He and Libba must shake their heads at the deluges that regularly engulf them.

 

[dogwatch]

Aren't you confusing the roles of the board and the Football department?

In any organisation boards these days it is very common (as well as best practice) to have a diverse group who can be completely objective.

Just my experience, but I work at a government body tied to a particular industry. People who worked previously in this industry make terrible managers! .

So personally in regard to the bulldogs board I don't care if they played 300 games or ran the canteen at the Upper Kumbucta West under 9s game.

There's no doubting that the board needs to have solid business skills and credentials. As we Footscray tragics know only too well, if they can't keep the ship afloat it's likely to sink and all of us will go under with it.

So a model that says we'll have the business people overseeing the whole thing and then the footy specialists running the footy department (with the CEO straddling both) makes some sense at first blush.

However we have to ask whether a cosy relationship of football experts is now running the footy department, perhaps compromised by past allegiances to each other or silenced into timid compliance by a dominant personality. Or consider whether such a thing is a risk of happening. If the answer to either question is yes then we need a few arms-length people on the board who understand footy well (the way it's coached and managed at the top level, not the way it's played). If our only board member who fits that bill is also at risk of being a part of a cosy relationship and is not prepared to demand more scrutiny, accountability and critical self-review then we could well sink into a spiral of ... well, mediocrity still seems to be best the word.

I'm sure all our FFC board members are good people but the contrast with some other AFL club boards is concerning. I would like to see at least three on the board with a solid footy background, not just Luke Darcy. Surely we have more than just one ex-player with the requisite management nous and business skills?

 

[Dog 36]

There's no doubting that the board needs to have solid business skills and credentials. As we Footscray tragics know only too well, if they can't keep the ship afloat it's likely to sink and all of us will go under with it.

So a model that says we'll have the business people overseeing the whole thing and then the footy specialists running the footy department (with the CEO straddling both) makes some sense at first blush.

However we have to ask whether a cosy relationship of football experts is now running the footy department, perhaps compromised by past allegiances to each other or silenced into timid compliance by a dominant personality. Or consider whether such a thing is a risk of happening. If the answer to either question is yes then we need a few arms-length people on the board who understand footy well (the way it's coached and managed at the top level, not the way it's played). If our only board member who fits that bill is also at risk of being a part of a cosy relationship and is not prepared to demand more scrutiny, accountability and critical self-review then we could well sink into a spiral of ... well, mediocrity still seems to be best the word.

I'm sure all our FFC board members are good people but the contrast with some other AFL club boards is concerning. I would like to see at least three on the board with a solid footy background, not just Luke Darcy. Surely we have more than just one ex-player with the requisite management nous and business skills?

We have ex players that would fit the criteria of management nous, business skills and football background.

Here a some names who may have the above skills just not sure if they have been out of the footy loop for too long and of course the passion for the gig.

Kelvin Templeton (may have been a CEO at another club at some stage)
Steve Wallis
Scott Wynd
Matthew Croft
Jose Romero
Craig Ellis
Paul Dimmatina
Danny Del-re
Wil Minson


These are some

 

[Freshwater]

Aren't you confusing the roles of the board and the Football department?

In any organisation boards these days it is very common (as well as best practice) to have a diverse group who can be completely objective.

Just my experience, but I work at a government body tied to a particular industry. People who worked previously in this industry make terrible managers! .

So personally in regard to the bulldogs board I don't care if they played 300 games or ran the canteen at the Upper Kumbucta West under 9s game.

Board members are not to be managers. They hire the CEO and some other key roles (managers) and let them hire the other managers. The board is goverance, they oversee and question and get ongoing feedback, reports etc and set the key strategy and standards for their CEO and others to implement. We still need proper football experience to ask these correct questions and drive the high standards in a professional football league.

 

[Libba39]

There's no doubting that the board needs to have solid business skills and credentials. As we Footscray tragics know only too well, if they can't keep the ship afloat it's likely to sink and all of us will go under with it.

So a model that says we'll have the business people overseeing the whole thing and then the footy specialists running the footy department (with the CEO straddling both) makes some sense at first blush.

However we have to ask whether a cosy relationship of football experts is now running the footy department, perhaps compromised by past allegiances to each other or silenced into timid compliance by a dominant personality. Or consider whether such a thing is a risk of happening. If the answer to either question is yes then we need a few arms-length people on the board who understand footy well (the way it's coached and managed at the top level, not the way it's played). If our only board member who fits that bill is also at risk of being a part of a cosy relationship and is not prepared to demand more scrutiny, accountability and critical self-review then we could well sink into a spiral of ... well, mediocrity still seems to be best the word.

I'm sure all our FFC board members are good people but the contrast with some other AFL club boards is concerning. I would like to see at least three on the board with a solid footy background, not just Luke Darcy. Surely we have more than just one ex-player with the requisite management nous and business skills?

Just out of interest I looked at the board of the last premier Geelong who are the most successful club of the past 20 years based on premierships, top four finishes and win/loss records and let me tell you, none of them have any stories to tell about their premiership glory days with the Cats....

So I'm not sure if your argument stands up too well.

 

[dogwatch]

Just out of interest I looked at the board of the last premier Geelong who are the most successful club of the past 20 years based on premierships, top four finishes and win/loss records and let me tell you, none of them have any stories to tell about their premiership glory days with the Cats....

So I'm not sure if your argument stands up too well.

I absolutely stand by my argument.

I haven't looked at the Geelong FC board line-up but I'm happy to take your word for it for current purposes as it is merely incidental to what's happening at VUWO and proves nothing.

The fact that Geelong is the reigning premier doesn't mean their non-footy board line-up is the reason for their flag, or that it is the ideal set-up. It probably just means that they haven't had to deal with the problem we've identified (or are debating) at our club.

However there's more than one way to skin a cat. Or skin a dog, in this case. A board can be comprised almost entirely of non-football types and still be successful provided they have the insight and acumen to identify and deal with the sort of problem we are debating.

You and I are both a long way from the inner sanctum so we're both speculating. Either of us - or both of us - could be way off the mark but this is how I see it: You might be happy with how things are going - I don't know. However I remain concerned that we are not dealing with a growing problem in the footy department that is affecting our performance year after year. The personnel on the board - whatever their backgrounds - hardly matters provided they deal meaningfully with such problems. At the moment I'm not seeing any sign of things changing for the better. If it was just this year I'd be keeping my powder dry. That's what I've done in the past. However it's been developing for years and in the absence of meaningful action - or even recognition that there might be a problem - I think we're entitled to express our concern.

To get back to the composition of the board, I think we'd have a better chance of addressing it if we had more ex-footy types on the board but I'll concede that if those board members aren't astute enough we could still be in this mess.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

Sure.

 

[Next Waiting]

 

[Dazb86]

Wait til next week when the 4 KPD's get picked.

We looked very good last night. Way more attacking than we have been. I wasn't at the game so its hard to say what the change was other than the 2 KPD set up

 

[BallaratBulldog]

I mean with the team Richmond put up it would have been a disaster to only scrape a win let alone lose

 

[TMoney22]

I'm not sure if this is a wrong way of looking at our board but I see zero attraction off field. If I'm a big free agent and Bulldogs come knocking, that would surely be a consideration. What could that board offer to my life after footy?

 

[TiAn_]

I'm not sure if this is a wrong way of looking at our board but I see zero attraction off field. If I'm a big free agent and Bulldogs come knocking, that would surely be a consideration. What could that board offer to me after footy?

Free Disney+ for life

 

[hutchy31]

Credit where it’s due, that was way better. Alright, it was a undermanned opponent but it was the way we played rather than the result that was pleasing. I said in the review thread that regardless of win/loss if we play quick, daring footy like that I’d be happy to watch that every week.

There’s a question mark over where it’s been for nearly two years, and also whether or not it was forced through injury, but if we’re going to be hyper critical when there are poor performances (which has been justified imo) then equally we need to laud wins like that where the gameplan looked modern and exciting.

The next two weeks should bring opportunities to hone this (hopefully there’s no messing about with the winning formula), and line up the cats in a few weeks. Then there would be some genuine excitement about September, even if there should remain some question marks in relation to the overall performance this season.

 

[SonOfScray]

Appreciate the four points.

Nope.

last night was a tease, nothing we didn’t already know.

Tigers are below us on the ladder, were undermanned and never put any real heat in the game. They should be embarrassed they couldn’t peg us back up to the 17 min mark of the 3rd quarter. Every other team in the comp was still a chance at that point.

sack Bevo.

 

[mattwa]

I completely agree re quick ball movement like we did in 21 to make use of our forwards however Bevo did make a great point last night in the presser. We have been carrying 3 absolute terrible KPD kicks in the 22 recently (keath, Bruce, Gardner).

How can you possibly want to rebound from d50 if half your back 6 can't kick? The defense we rolled out the last 8 weeks also was without JJ. Really need to overhaul that back 6 KPD and persevere with JOD and Jones as the two mainstays. We can only carry 1 of Keath or gardy in the 22

 

[doggies ftw]

I completely agree re quick ball movement like we did in 21 to make use of our forwards however Bevo did make a great point last night in the presser. We have been carrying 3 absolute terrible KPD kicks in the 22 recently (keath, Bruce, Gardner).

How can you possibly want to rebound from d50 if half your back 6 can't kick? The defense we rolled out the last 8 weeks also was without JJ. Really need to overhaul that back 6 KPD and persevere with JOD and Jones as the two mainstays. We can only carry 1 of Keath or gardy in the 22

If he made that point in his presser he’s a flipping idiot because he’s the one that picks that team.

Half of this board have been crying about the defensive team selection since round 5, I’ve said exactly that on repeat every week now - so not sure why it’s taken him that long to understand that you just cannot play those 3 together. Or any 3 of them together, even including Jones.

Let’s be honest the only reason we changed it up last night was because we were forced to through injury, which is pretty concerning

 

[HK_Bulldog]

Bevo plays funny buggers all year with selection and gameplan so the opposition doesn’t see us coming.
Then finals come and we knock off 4 in a row.

First quarter last night and first quarter last week was as good as any this year.

 

[charcoalchicken]

Rohan smith

Rohan Smith

Age

51

Ht

184cm

Wt

80kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.2

4star

K

11.9

4star

HB

5.2

4star

M

4.5

4star

T

1.2

3star

No current season stats available

D

11.8

3star

K

8.2

4star

HB

3.6

3star

M

1.4

2star

T

1.2

3star

on his way out, the great shuffle has begun

 

[tonzdogs]

Rohan smith on his way out, the great shuffle has begun

Hopefully the start of many changes