Delisted GM, Football - Dan Richardson - Club confirms, has been sacked, 29/10

Remove this Banner Ad

11kgm said:
Who's the other bloke who works with Dodo
Click to expand...
Forster-Knight - head of recruiting. He’s only been in the role a couple of years and I doubt Barnard has any issue with him/ referencing him in that tweet. I’d be amazed if Barnard had a bone to pick with essendons recruiting manager that has no public Image or ego.
 
andleanback said:
Forster-Knight - head of recruiting. He’s only been in the role a couple of years and I doubt Barnard has any issue with him/ referencing him in that tweet. I’d be amazed if Barnard had a bone to pick with essendons recruiting manager that has no public Image or ego.
Click to expand...
Yep not him probably Dodo

Just need to shimmy Campbell to similar to Saar at Ajax
 
Lore said:
RoCo's take seems to be largely about Richardson being a symptom of Campbell's involvement in the footy department.







:cautiousv1::cautiousv1::cautiousv1:

And then this interesting bit:

Didn't he go to be with his family in Queensland after only accepting the Essendon gig on a short-term basis?



footyology.com.au

Dons: Where does Richardson’s sacking leave Rutten? | Footyology

footyology.com.au footyology.com.au
Click to expand...

Found this interesting:


The dynamics between the coach, the now former football manager Richardson and chief executive Xavier Campbell had shifted significantly in recent times.

Rutten and Richardson, his former colleague at Richmond who was instrumental in getting him to the club, had come to the realisation that as far as the list and immediate on-field aspirations were concerned, a “scorched earth” policy was required, not only in terms of names, but attitudes, the kerfuffle over the decision not to allow the retiring Tom Bellchambers a final game symbolic.

After three years in the job, Richardson had begun to challenge Campbell a lot more on the direction the football side of the operation was taking. He’d also played a key role in the recent re-signings of some of the club’s young guns. And the alignment of Richardson and Rutten was becoming obvious.

Well that reads like Rutten and Richardson decided they need to gut the list and fix attitudes, and Campbell disagreed. Which is alarming.

Of course, there’s actually no guarantee that’s related to his removal, which seems to have come at the behest of Brasher and the board. Perhaps they simply do just want a very experienced head of football, having thought we’re lacking that in their review? And Richardson being out of contract fell in nicely.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bunk Moreland said:
Found this interesting:




Well that reads like Rutten and Richardson decided they need to gut the list and fix attitudes, and Campbell disagreed. Which is alarming.

Of course, there’s actually no guarantee that’s related to his removal, which seems to have come at the behest of Brasher and the board. Perhaps they simply do just want a very experienced head of football, having thought we’re lacking that in their review? And Richardson being out of contract fell in nicely.
Click to expand...

That is incredibly alarming. Dare I say it, he's arguing the opposite of what he was widely criticised for publicising at Richmond (striving to be around the finals as opposed to doing everything required to win a premiership as the supporter base doesn't have the patience for a rebuild).
 
Vander18 said:
Feels like politics....

Board level review in train. Sheeds appointed to Board. Dodo and Richo don’t get along. Dodo and Sheeds do get along. Sheeds has Brashers ear. Richo gone.
Click to expand...
Mercurial89 said:
People are very excited for change and are viewing it as cleaning out the "old Ways" to move forward.

What if the club is now cleaning out external influences and embracing the old. Brasher. Sheeds. Dodoro.

We could be becoming more insular which for a club that seemingly has not been well run since the turn of the century is not a good thing.

Should always be wary of any change, especially when we are all on the outside looking in.
Click to expand...
My concern is that they're currently conducting an internal review. None of the decisions will be based on external recommendations, which most likely will make the club more insular.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
It’s gotta be player development. It’s appalling. As people always say, how many players has Essendon actually drafted and then developed into stars in the last 15 years? Watson, Hurley, Daniher? Hooker, though he had a pretty short peak? Merrett? There’s far more misses than hits. The recruiters can’t be getting them all wrong. They are talented kids, especially those taken in the first round.

Ryder? Finally became a gun ruck after we f’ed him around for years and years at CHB and CHF.

Dempsey? Just flashy, never became consistent

Jetta? Same

Myers? Don’t even get us started

Melksham? Never really became anything

Carlisle? Looked a star defender and then we had him up forward and in ruck

Kavanagh? Who?

Langford? Still a bit of a maybe.

Parish?

Francis?

McGrath looks good.

A few poor picks but these are all Top 20 selections. They can’t all be bad
Click to expand...
Ryder was just as good in his last couple of seasons with us.

Parish is still in the top 5 players from that draft.

Francis. Mental health issues slowed the first two years. We did stuff up early by building his weights program too far to the point he could not run out of sight. Despite this year being just average he still has scope to be a good player.

Myers. Injuries.

Carlisle . Not a development issue if the coach plays him out of position after he has become a good defender.

Jetta was always overrated. Slowest fast player I have ever seen.

Also the players you mention spread across a few development coaches and senior coaches.

Sure there are going to be some guys we **** up but the list is not that long.
 
Hird05 said:
Remember back when it was Sheedy and Dodo. I'm happy to go back to that type of club.
Click to expand...
Yep . After Judkins left we had the Sheedy and Dodoro draft era from 2000 to 2004.
Spectacular success that was ...........
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Found this interesting:


The dynamics between the coach, the now former football manager Richardson and chief executive Xavier Campbell had shifted significantly in recent times.

Rutten and Richardson, his former colleague at Richmond who was instrumental in getting him to the club, had come to the realisation that as far as the list and immediate on-field aspirations were concerned, a “scorched earth” policy was required, not only in terms of names, but attitudes, the kerfuffle over the decision not to allow the retiring Tom Bellchambers a final game symbolic.

After three years in the job, Richardson had begun to challenge Campbell a lot more on the direction the football side of the operation was taking. He’d also played a key role in the recent re-signings of some of the club’s young guns. And the alignment of Richardson and Rutten was becoming obvious.

Well that reads like Rutten and Richardson decided they need to gut the list and fix attitudes, and Campbell disagreed. Which is alarming.

Of course, there’s actually no guarantee that’s related to his removal, which seems to have come at the behest of Brasher and the board. Perhaps they simply do just want a very experienced head of football, having thought we’re lacking that in their review? And Richardson being out of contract fell in nicely.
Click to expand...
I didn't read it as connected that way originally, but now you've clipped it out in a section like that it's somewhat terrifying.

What is the alternative? Everything's fine, 13th is okay, we'll just roll the dice 20 more times and see if we can limp to a few Ws?


I've always viewed Richardson and Campbell as being roughly on the same page. Right through from Rutten to Neeld to Shiel to Caracella to Daniher, they presented a united front through 2018 and 2019 on all the big decisions... not necessarily with Worsfold or Dodoro, but with each other at least. Right up until the coaching handover succession plan thing, when Richardson didn't quite get what he wanted because of dollars and face saving concerns.

I think whatever tension is there, they would probably have worked through it, especially if the story about negotiating a 3 year extension for him a week ago and suddenly changing their minds is true. It can't be that Brasher was going to extend him and XC came over the top and fired him, that seems backwards. If could be the other way – XC wanted him extended and then something happened in the review that made Brasher et al overrule it – that makes more sense, or it could be a joint decision based on the evidence (incredulity duly acknowledged).

All these different factions and scalps being taken is becoming quite Game of Thrones-esque. I'm not really sure which faction is gonna be Team Sansa though. Chaos is a ladder? :cautiousv1:


Can someone tell me, when you do an internal review, is it usual for the president and members of the board to form an interview panel without the CEO sitting in? The only others I can find are at Geelong and Richmond, both of those had the CEO driving the review. Whereas I don't think XC is on ours from what I can remember of Brasher's videos...

Everyone goes on about Richmond, but this makes an interesting read:
www.theage.com.au

How Geelong turned the corner

It is 10 years since Geelong chief executive Brian Cook set about the uncomfortably public but ultimately groundbreaking review that would radically alter the fortunes of his under-performing football club.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Interesting that Tim Watson said this morning that it is 100 percent fact that we did actually ask around about coaches and had an in house process before going with Rutten .
Looked at both experienced and unproven coaches before deciding Rutten was there man.
 
ant555 said:
Interesting that Tim Watson said this morning that it is 100 percent fact that we did actually ask around about coaches and had an in house process before going with Rutten .
Looked at both experienced and unproven coaches before deciding Rutten was there man.
Click to expand...
That could be interpreted as the type of process you conduct when you want to be seen as having conducted one....

Hard to take much from it without knowing the extent or intent of the in-house process.
 
ant555 said:
Interesting that Tim Watson said this morning that it is 100 percent fact that we did actually ask around about coaches and had an in house process before going with Rutten .
Looked at both experienced and unproven coaches before deciding Rutten was there man.
Click to expand...


They may have had a look what does that actually mean, though. I suspect it's not much.

The problem with this version of events is the emerging story that Campbell and Richardson differed as to whether there should be succession or a clean break. With Campbell and the board wanting the succession plan (to protect the comeback story).

Are any of us expected to believe that they interviewed candidates for a coaching position and that it didn't leak?
 
ant555 said:
Interesting that Tim Watson said this morning that it is 100 percent fact that we did actually ask around about coaches and had an in house process before going with Rutten .
Looked at both experienced and unproven coaches before deciding Rutten was there man.
Click to expand...

What does that mean if you don't actually sit down and hear the candidates thoughts and plans.
 
ant555 said:
Interesting that Tim Watson said this morning that it is 100 percent fact that we did actually ask around about coaches and had an in house process before going with Rutten .
Looked at both experienced and unproven coaches before deciding Rutten was there man.
Click to expand...
Ask around or actually interview candidates it’s a big difference. We definitely didn’t interview candidates.
 
I knew there would be sceptical responses.
All I know is what he said. 100% fact the did explore various options and Tim is not know to just give lip service.
Cheers him from him I would take it as having had a decent in house process.
He would not just be going on inside Essendon info. He never does.
 
andleanback said:
Ask around or actually interview candidates it’s a big difference. We definitely didn’t interview candidates.
Click to expand...

So you know that is a fact ?
 
BrunoV said:
They may have had a look what does that actually mean, though. I suspect it's not much.

The problem with this version of events is the emerging story that Campbell and Richardson differed as to whether there should be succession or a clean break. With Campbell and the board wanting the succession plan (to protect the comeback story).

Are any of us expected to believe that they interviewed candidates for a coaching position and that it didn't leak?
Click to expand...

So you are questioning what Watson knows ?
 
Vander18 said:
That could be interpreted as the type of process you conduct when you want to be seen as having conducted one....

Hard to take much from it without knowing the extent or intent of the in-house process.
Click to expand...

Given it is coming from Watson I am more inclined to think there was some sort of process. He has never really jumped in on our issue unless he has his ducks in a row.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lore
Coaching Staff Kevin Sheedy elevated to Immortal of the Essendon Football Club
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Howard Moon
Howard Moon
eth-dog
Retired #45: Anthony Munkara - Leaving the club, returning to Tiwi - 7/9
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
405
Views
42K
fishardansin
fishardansin

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top