Rumour Neil Balme is not the Head of Football

[Vader]

No, the most substantial part of the story was not correct.

We have been linked to Balme for over a year now. Being linked to him again is not a substantial story. The story was that it was a done deal. He was hired, he was coming, he was our new head of football. That was the story. It wasn't a vague rumor, it was a definitive statement presented as fact.

The only way we would have looked bad is if we said we didn't hire a new head of football then immediately did. But guess what? We'd have the inside knowledge on whether Balme was being considered for that role. If he was, you put out a slightly different message. If he wasn't, you can deny we're hiring a new head of football then hire him in a different role, and the denial is still factually accurate.

If you don't deny stories presented as fact (not rumor) and go with silence or "no comment" then most people will interpret that story as being true. That's how we failed.

As I said before... if you think going to the media with that is a good idea, then you have rocks in your head.

Of course people interpret "no comment" as being true - because the story was substantially true, but we weren't yet in a position to confirm it. ... and then Balme changed his mind (after Richmond got in his ear).

 

[Scorpus]

As I said before... if you think going to the media with that is a good idea, then you have rocks in your head.

Of course people interpret "no comment" as being true - because the story was substantially true, but we weren't yet in a position to confirm it. ... and then Balme changed his mind (after Richmond got in his ear).

Balme changed his mind did he? Is that what Balme said? Or is that just the favorable take that makes the story more true and so less bad for the Crows?

 

[Geoffa32]

Why does the club have to confirm anything?

Richmond and Balme confirmed he is staying. End of story.


The media speculated he was coming to us.


What responsibility does our club have to refute or confirm the stories?




Especially in an environment where poaching staff members is technically not allowed, even though we all know it happens.



The big problem here is how much stock supporters take in the Footy Media. 95% of it is rumour tabloid click bait/discussion creators. The stories that end up true are those given to "journalists " by AFL House.


Then supporters cry foul when the club doesn't confirm every rumour.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Scorpus]

Why does the club have to confirm anything?

Richmond and Balme confirmed he is staying. End of story.


The media speculated he was coming to us.


What responsibility does our club have to refute or confirm the stories?




Especially in an environment where poaching staff members is technically not allowed, even though we all know it happens.



The big problem here is how much stock supporters take in the Footy Media. 95% of it is rumour tabloid click bait/discussion creators. The stories that end up true are those given to "journalists " by AFL House.


Then supporters cry foul when the club doesn't confirm every rumour.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I agree the club shouldn't concern itself with confirming or denying rumors.

This story wasn't presented as a rumor though. It was presented as fact

 

[Cap]

I agree the club shouldn't concern itself with confirming or denying rumors.

This story wasn't presented as a rumor though. It was presented as fact

it wasn't announced by anyone but the media.

I mean it was clearly a rumour

 

[Geoffa32]

I agree the club shouldn't concern itself with confirming or denying rumors.

This story wasn't presented as a rumor though. It was presented as fact

That's on the media. Not the club. They were wrong. But won't be held to account and instead will pivot to ridicule our club to save face.


And on us supporters (myself included) for being sucked in.


The most disappointing aspect is Roo's conduct. Had his media hat on and fuelled it under the pretence of knowing. He should not be on our Board.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Scorpus]

Let me put it this way.

It's trade week. A media reporter at a major outlet runs a story saying this:

"Confirmed: Riley Thilthorpe traded to Collingwood"

Do you think we should just not say anything for the next three days until the end of trade week? Or when asked say "I can't comment on that"?

 

[Murray2503]

I tell you what, it's getting VERY ******* tiresome. I've just about had enough.

Seeya.

Its a professional environment and at the end of the day if Balme was a professional this wouldn't bother him. I think people have just jumped to this conclusion because of Nick's statements. I believe Kelly would have known about the Balme appointment and conversations from the start. Why, all employers are generally pretty good I think we just have to accept Balme just decided to stay for health and money reasons.r

This also wouldn't have been a negotiation over a few days. The timing of the announcements indicate this was months. As soon as Richmond's season was over it was announced.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

The critical part of this is whether the club has total faith in Kelly. If they did they wouldn't have been looking for a mentor for him. Vozzo would be a good option if they are looking at moving Kelly on.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Why does the club have to confirm anything?

Richmond and Balme confirmed he is staying. End of story.


The media speculated he was coming to us.


What responsibility does our club have to refute or confirm the stories?




Especially in an environment where poaching staff members is technically not allowed, even though we all know it happens.



The big problem here is how much stock supporters take in the Footy Media. 95% of it is rumour tabloid click bait/discussion creators. The stories that end up true are those given to "journalists " by AFL House.


Then supporters cry foul when the club doesn't confirm every rumour.

According to Dittmar on 5aa, when the story first dropped the Crows rang the station demanding to know where it had come from.

Clearly we knew it wasn't a done deal at that stage. Discussions may have been ongoing. We weren't ready to make comment and no doubt would have preferred the wheeling and dealing was done in the background rather than publicly.

However once the story dropped we lost control of the narrative. This happened with the camp too. Silence only makes things worse. What's speculated publicly becomes fact unless refuted. A one sentence twitter post from us could have quashed things.

I also wonder whether our media department is fully aware of & up to date in these negotiations. Maybe they can't "manage" the narrative because they aren't part of proceedings. It's an inner sanctum football department thing. Our media guys might be largely in the dark too.

Nicks pointedly praising Kelly on Saturday night is interesting. Potentially adds another dimension.

 

[Scorpus]

According to Dittmar on 5aa, when the story first dropped the Crows rang the station demanding to know where it had come from.

If we did this instead of denying the story or providing clarity, then it's no wonder the story gained traction

 

[Geoffa32]

Let me put it this way.

It's trade week. A media reporter at a major outlet runs a story saying this:

"Confirmed: Riley Thilthorpe traded to Collingwood"

Do you think we should just not say anything for the next three days until the end of trade week? Or when asked say "I can't comment on that"?

Are we Collingwood?


In your example we can deny or confirm the report, if it is true as he is our player. But probably wouldn't until the trade or no trade is done.


Most clubs won't comment until they defintively know the outcome. Not give commentary during the process.

It is possible when Silvers spoke no definitive answer from Balme/Richmond was known.


Highly likely it was just a regular CEO spot, and FiveAA built it up around the Balme scenario to keep people listening. Silvers having no intention of giving commentary on the process (was not the real intention of the spot) and says no comment.

Then Richmond/Balme make their release.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[rocket18]

Let me put it this way.

It's trade week. A media reporter at a major outlet runs a story saying this:

"Confirmed: Riley Thilthorpe traded to Collingwood"

Do you think we should just not say anything for the next three days until the end of trade week? Or when asked say "I can't comment on that"?

Exactly, how we deal with the media has been a spectacular shit show for the last 5 years.

Our strategy is not working, we need to get on the front foot, that doesn't mean respond to every little rumour however if a media outlet comes out with a story "XYZ is the new head of football of the AFC" - bloody well address it AFC.

 

[Redline]

The comms team were probably busy congratulating themselves over how well Tex's presser had played out in the media to notice.

Looks like Balme admitted to a conversation with the club last week and somebody at the Crows got excited and leaked it. This is where a competent communications manager would have reached out to the media and, off the record, managed public expectations. To allow it to grow and for Richmond to be the party to quash the speculation is a failure and one that should never have been allowed to happen.

These are the one percenters. The club needs everyone on and off field to pay attention to detail if they want to be taken seriously again.

Great post, the whole thing ends up looking like a loss for the club when we were probably never a chance to get him. It's things like this that hold the reputation of the club back.

 

[Geoffa32]

So if the club says, yes we are in talks with a contracted staff member from another club, how does that sit in the industry?


Poaching contracted staff members is technically not allowed. Especially if the job is not a promotion.


Bear in mind the AFL investigated us for talking with Eddie Betts whilst he was with Carlton.


Are WCE commenting on media reports Schofield is going there?



I think people are just upset they got sucked in by the media and want to blame the club rather than their own gullibility.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Geoffa32]

According to Dittmar on 5aa, when the story first dropped the Crows rang the station demanding to know where it had come from.

Clearly we knew it wasn't a done deal at that stage. Discussions may have been ongoing. We weren't ready to make comment and no doubt would have preferred the wheeling and dealing was done in the background rather than publicly.

However once the story dropped we lost control of the narrative. This happened with the camp too. Silence only makes things worse. What's speculated publicly becomes fact unless refuted. A one sentence twitter post from us could have quashed things.

I also wonder whether our media department is fully aware of & up to date in these negotiations. Maybe they can't "manage" the narrative because they aren't part of proceedings. It's an inner sanctum football department thing. Our media guys might be largely in the dark too.

Nicks pointedly praising Kelly on Saturday night is interesting. Potentially adds another dimension.

Ditmar pivoting to make us look bad, rather than the media who got this massively wrong.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Redline]

Exactly, how we deal with the media has been a spectacular sh*t show for the last 5 years.

Our strategy is not working, we need to get on the front foot, that doesn't mean respond to every little rumour however if a media outlet comes out with a story "XYZ is the new head of football of the AFC" - bloody well address it AFC.

That's right, they don't have to address it formally. We leak things to the media all the time.

 

[Geoffa32]

Pretty obvious it is Roo who know about the conversations and assumed the deal was done.

MMM the first to break the story.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[AFC3000]

I wonder how much, if any, the media, supporters, the speed at which these rumours become mainstream news here in Adelaide puts off anyone thinking of coming here during negotiations.

I've never really worried too much about that "Adelaide fishbowl" thing, just assumed Adelaide fishbowl, Perth, Melbourne the same, whatever... and if they dont want that they'll go to Sydney or Queensland, but have recently heard in the media comments about it from people who have come here from Melbourne (I think Eddie Betts mentioned the shock of coming here and the attention he got, and that's coming from a big club like Carlton).

Anyway, for me, we've now identified well over 12 months ago (lets assume we first thought of this mid last year, leading to end of season conversations) that we had a role for Balme, he's not coming, I don't think you wait another 12 months to fill the role, time to move on and add the experience needed.

That said, not sure it has to be someone in that specific role (I sort of assumed Balme would do what we think Riccuito does, but well) I thought at the time Kelly was a dissapointing best of the SANFL hire, not a best in Australian football hire, not sure how well he's done the job, hard to tell through covid and at a time where we expected to be bottom of the ladder anyway.

I guess unless there is another Balme, someone who has clearly earnt the right to sit above Kelly, we replace him with someone well on there way to becoming the next Balme or we continue to upgrade the people below him (should be doing this anyway).

Most importantly for me, we continue to bring in new talent towards the top, for the longest time it seems we kept bringing people in at the bottom and promoting everone else from within and we just aren't good enough to do that.

 

[1970crow]

Rowie believes all parties have agreed to agree but nothing formal.

3 days a week sitting above Kelly.

Reckon he's on his way back, has probably told Richmond loosely what's up on the way out and it leaked from there. Doubt it's done from him or us.

Complete rubbish from the club. Silvers was on radio 2 hours ago stringing things along as if he was stitched up.

And some random on BF knew more about it than him.

What a goose.

There’s a lot of pages I haven’t read, so apologies, but I’m thinking we may have screwed this up by leaking from our end.

 

[AFC3000]

I don't have a huge issue with how this was handled, if it was any other club, I think as a supporter group we're probably just not great at dealing with this stuff because of the poor track record.

It's clear to me we need to review Shuttleworths role, or whatever we think his role is, and bring in some one with a proven track record of PR and handling the Adelaide media.

And it's not just doing more of the right thing and not stuffing up, because the smallest things get blown up, it needs to be a proper strategy in place to rebuild and manage the clubs reputation.

I'd be looking at poaching from Port Adelaide here, I've got no shame in saying that, they play the media well, helps that they would never get half the interest/scrutiny, but their people would have closely seen what we're dealing with.

 

[Cap]

Reckon he's on his way back, has probably told Richmond loosely what's up on the way out and it leaked from there. Doubt it's done from him or us.


There’s a lot of pages I haven’t read, so apologies, but I’m thinking we may have screwed this up by leaking from our end.

Don't read the pages, you'll already have a view one way or another.

Be interesting if they say anything tonight

 

[Amacca 23]

Pretty obvious it is Roo who know about the conversations and assumed the deal was done.

MMM the first to break the story.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

No sen did sam edmund

 

[Iron]

I dont think the error is of quite the magnitude that some here do, but it's undeniably another example of how little situational awareness our PR and comms team has.

It feels like the thinking is we're a better sell than we are. The rumour came from us, it had to. We were in talks, which NB confirmed. We must have thought it was a a done deal, probably before we even figured out his role and/or salary. And that's all it took for someone in the know to run with the story.

We don't seem to realise we're accountable for the things our tyre pumping media friends say. Every time they run their mouths we just shrug and wait for the story to blow over.

 

[Thetrader15]

Let me put it this way.

It's trade week. A media reporter at a major outlet runs a story saying this:

"Confirmed: Riley Thilthorpe traded to Collingwood"

Do you think we should just not say anything for the next three days until the end of trade week? Or when asked say "I can't comment on that"?

What would you say? Let's pretend it's been discussed as an option (amongst the many others)

A major outlet wouldn't say he HAS been traded, but that the crows as considering trading him.

 

[Murray2503]

No sen did sam edmund

I'm looking forward to a deal being done before the media finds out about it