Port Chooses Primus

[Powerade 08]

Re: Port Adelaide Football Club chooses Matthew Primus to replace Mark Williams as coach

I'd also like to add that a couple of board members now need to step down

the background to the choco appointment (which i only learned lately wish i knew last year) was that he hd an extention option in his contract- but it was at HIS option. so the guys sat in the car and said how bad can we make this so he wont re-sign.

Wut. Who came up with that brilliant idea?

 

[PatientMental]

Re: Port Adelaide Football Club chooses Matthew Primus to replace Mark Williams as coach

The only thing people will judge Matty on at the end of 2011 is our consistency, which will be completely on the shoulders on the big future three (Boak, Gray, Hartlett). Just hope these boys stay off the injury list for as much of the year as possible or people will be seeking Primus' head purely on their performances and not his as a coach.

 

[Asgardian]

Re: Port Adelaide Football Club chooses Matthew Primus to replace Mark Williams as coach

I can now honestly say I have no faith in our club anymore, once again we took the easy option. I will not be renewing my membership next year and the williams era can now be renamed the williams-primus era instead now because its still not finished.

Okay, let me know how many memberships you wont buy, and I'll pick up the slack.

Being a Port Adelaide supporter means loving the club, sure, question processes and decisions, but once you have done so move on to 100% support. The club is greater than any man or men.

I didn't like losing Kevin Beswick
I didn't like recruiting Dexter Kennedy
I was unhappy with the way Russell Ebert was not reappointed for 1988
I was disturbed with the John Cahill / Mick Moylan situation
I didn't much like "Alan Scott you were wrong"

None of that matters though, support our great club because of what it is, not who the individuals are.

 

[Steve Dore]

I am more confident of our future than I was 12 weeks ago.

As quoted on page 113 of this am's 'Tiser.

 

[Peck]

People have the right to be upset that Primus was appointed if they wanted change from the perception of the old regime just as the Primus for PM brigade would have the right to be upset if an "outsider" was appointed if they truly believe in him.

Sometimes people with the homer mentality need to stop throwing out the "you're not a real supporter if you don't support every decision to club makes and we don't need you anyway" argument.

People are allowed to question decisions believe it or not. In 3 years time, we'll see if it was the right appointment or not. Either way I'm behind Primus and Port Adelaide.

So if we appointed Niel Daniher JUST because he was the only outsider available, would that be OK?

I would argue exactly the same if we picked scott, and people complained. Because IMO it was a very close call. In the end Primus was who we chose, and we had people in charge who are probably very qualified for the role of selecting a coach.

If Scott had been the better candidate I have no doubt that they would have chosen him, and its people who say that they wouldn't of that piss me off. I'd hope you aren't defending these people.

 

[finbarr]

As quoted on page 113 of this am's 'Tiser.

Haha! Awesome. Rooch loves Big Footy.

 

[240volt]

So if we appointed Niel Daniher JUST because he was the only outsider available, would that be OK?

I would argue exactly the same if we picked scott, and people complained. Because IMO it was a very close call. In the end Primus was who we chose, and we had people in charge who are probably very qualified for the role of selecting a coach.

If Scott had been the better candidate I have no doubt that they would have chosen him, and its people who say that they wouldn't of that piss me off. I'd hope you aren't defending these people.

These qualifield people are the same ones that reapointed Williams last year?

 

[Natman]

At least with Primus we know that he is at the club in a coaching capacity for the right reasons and has proven in a small way that he has the basic credentials to be a coach, whereas Scott and the other candidates might be coming to our club to further their longer term aims to perhaps coach a more favoured team in Victoria.

If the selection decision was close, then the Primus selection is a no-brainer.

Only where there is a large gap in the qualities of the applicants would this issue not carry enough weight to not select an "outsider".

There is an alternative argument that maybe an "outsider" could make the club his home, but that has some degree of uncertainty about it - the long-term ethos of the club is to have stability and long-term appointments in key positions, but in the current professional world of the AFL, this is getting more and more difficult.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

It was interesting to note - if this has been reported correctly - that Primus was appointed immediately after his final presentation, before Chris Scott could give his final presentation.

That looks a little hinky when it comes to following the process right thru, but if the decision was that clear-cut and was stage 7 or 8 of the process, it was probably better to let Scott go and prepare for a final than waste his time.

link

Port Adelaide directors acted quickly following Primus's impressive final interview, and appointed the 35-year-old club favourite before granting an opportunity for runner-up Chris Scott to present his case to the board. Instead, Scott will tonight sit in Fremantle's coaching box at the MCG plotting the downfall of Geelong in his capacity as an assistant to Mark Harvey. The Brisbane premiership player is likely to remain with the Dockers next year, which will be his fourth season as a Fremantle assistant.

link

 

[Portia]

Yeah why waste his time by giving him an opportunity to win the position.

Now I dunno about any interview process you have been in, but there is only a `next stage' if you can't split more than one candidate based on what has gone ahead before. If there is one candidate that stands out at the end of a stage, you are done, you don't have extra stages that multiple applicants prepare for.

Having a final stage and not giving the same opportunity to both applicants is extremely Mickey Mouse, but why should we be surprised by that?

Still haven't hit rock bottom.

 

[ClintEastwood]

Yeah why waste his time by giving him an opportunity to win the position.

Now I dunno about any interview process you have been in, but there is only a `next stage' if you can't split more than one candidate based on what has gone ahead before. If there is one candidate that stands out at the end of a stage, you are done, you don't have extra stages that multiple applicants prepare for.

Having a final stage and not giving the same opportunity to both applicants is extremely Mickey Mouse, but why should we be surprised by that?

Still haven't hit rock bottom.

I tend to agree.

I mean, the scenario could have occurred that they came out of the Primus presentation so blown away that they thought "There's no way anyone could beat that".

But even in that case, you'd have thought 'due diligence' would have kicked in and they would at least have allowed Scott to give his too.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

It was interesting to note - if this has been reported correctly - that Primus was appointed immediately after his final presentation, before Chris Scott could give his final presentation.

That looks a little hinky when it comes to following the process right thru, but if the decision was that clear-cut and was stage 7 or 8 of the process, it was probably better to let Scott go and prepare for a final than waste his time.

link

link

I was at the presser when the announcement was made. It's my recollection that Primus had already been chosen ahead of Scott before he made his final presentation. If that's correct then Scott was not disadvantaged.

My impression at the time was that the board wanted to hear from Primus one more time having aleady made up it's mind.

Certainly Craig Mitchell had no qualms about the process.

 

[Portia]

I know that Craig Mitchell is reported to be on a par with the Dalai Lama for moral integrity, but he is still a paid consultant.

 

[portly]

At least with Primus we know that he is at the club in a coaching capacity for the right reasons and has proven in a small way that he has the basic credentials to be a coach, whereas Scott and the other candidates might be coming to our club to further their longer term aims to perhaps coach a more favoured team in Victoria.

If the selection decision was close, then the Primus selection is a no-brainer.

Only where there is a large gap in the qualities of the applicants would this issue not carry enough weight to not select an "outsider".

There is an alternative argument that maybe an "outsider" could make the club his home, but that has some degree of uncertainty about it - the long-term ethos of the club is to have stability and long-term appointments in key positions, but in the current professional world of the AFL, this is getting more and more difficult.

Exactly.


And, my problem has been whether Primus will continue Choco's faults. So when Duncanson praises Primus for "being his own man" then I accept that he is. And of course Brett is also warning Matty that he must be "his own man".

 

[Toots Hibbert]

I know that Craig Mitchell is reported to be on a par with the Dalai Lama for moral integrity, but he is still a paid consultant.

Hehe.

Just thinking about it some more, my memory is that we were told the selection panel made a decision that Primus was clearly the best candidate. The panel made the recommendation to the board and Primus was then asked to present to the board before they signed off on the decision.

 

[Portia]

Then the only question is as to when Chris Scott knew he was out of the running.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Primus' interview on 5AA is now on the Port website

http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/ptv/tabid/11037/contentid/296468/default.aspx

He is such a good speaker Matty. I love the fact he just looks so excited to coach our club.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Having a final stage and not giving the same opportunity to both applicants is extremely Mickey Mouse, but why should we be surprised by that?

Still haven't hit rock bottom.

[YOUTUBE]/v/j87v6uFg3bs?fs=1&hl=en_US[/YOUTUBE]

Chris Scott talks very briefly about the Port job at 7:52 and says that it was a very professional process. I think I will take his word over yours

 

[portly]

And in that interview Chris seems very professional himself.

 

[bomberclifford]

These qualifield people are the same ones that reapointed Williams last year?

Someone has posted this before but the Coaching Review Panel last year was not the Board. The Board was also not the Coaching Selection panel this year.

I'm also of the understanding that the Coaching Review Panel recommended NOT to re-appoint Choco. That was the Board's decision.

This time the Board went with the recommendation of the Coaching Selection Panel and appointed Primus.

 

[PortBrillance]

Scott was just on 3AW saying the same thing, seems like a good bloke

 

[b0ydman]

I was at the presser when the announcement was made. It's my recollection that Primus had already been chosen ahead of Scott before he made his final presentation. If that's correct then Scott was not disadvantaged.

My impression at the time was that the board wanted to hear from Primus one more time having aleady made up it's mind.

Certainly Craig Mitchell had no qualms about the process.

Scott was not disadvantaged, the members of the pAFC were.

please tell me we didn't pass up an opportunity to listen to another coach identify our deficiencies from an external perspective and listen to his recommendations as to how to overcome them?

 

[b0ydman]

Re: Port Adelaide Football Club chooses Matthew Primus to replace Mark Williams as coach

Wut. Who came up with that brilliant idea?

we did chucky, we did

actually it was choco and his manager i'd suggest

another reason board needs to be revamped

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Scott was not disadvantaged, the members of the pAFC were.

please tell me we didn't pass up an opportunity to listen to another coach identify our deficiencies from an external perspective and listen to his recommendations as to how to overcome them?

Generally my position with your posts is to let you go as this is a public message board and hope others don't give you the oxygen to continue your relentless complaining and carping about everything Port Adelaide do.

But in this case I will make an exception. Did you actually pay any attention to the process that the club has just gone through? Or have you read one sentence and rambled and shambled your way off on another whinging bender?

The club has just been through an eight week coaching selection process and the final four applicants had up to eight opportunities to impress the selection panel. Primus said he was giving presentations and responding to exercises set by the panel while he was caretaker coach.

This was no Mickey Mouse process, every one of those final four were given extensive opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities and present their vision for the future of Port Adelaide. Others that dropped out earlier were culled as the short-list was formed, like any thorough job interview process.

The panel chose Primus, the club endorsed that choice. Like it or not. There's no evidence we have to say they made the right or wrong choice at this time. While I didn't consider the caretaker stint as an audition as such - and Primus and Port staff have confirmed it was of only limited influence - Primus presented an on-field picture much more pleasing to me as a Port supporter.

The W-L record I didn't care that much about, but was pleased to see a tall forward structure with crumbers, young players getting meaningful game time in key positions, a low possession direct attacking game plan, no backwards play, no time wasting play, players playing with confidence not confusion, and a couple of gold passes revoked. Off-field it was said discipline tightened up.

All this in the space of seven weeks, where he could easily have just rolled along with a few minor cosmetic changes. So after that effort and a decision made by the club after an exhaustive selection process, I for one am fully supportive of the decision and not just for 10 weeks or half a season as you suggested in an earlier post. Are you serious? The guy has a three year contract, is an L-Plate coach, of a side with genuine flakiness issues that finished out of the finals for three years, relearning the way it will go about its football. Give him a chance to implement his plans.

And if we don't look like premiership material after 10 weeks what's your plan? Sack him and move onto Chris Scott? That sort of thinking will see us move into true basket case club territory, but I guess the upside for you will be it gives you even more reason to complain. Even tho your sort of thinking is what brings clubs to their knees.

You complain every few posts about being punted from that other website. I can appreciate their frustration after just a few short months. Geoffa32 was banned from this board, and he was less nuisance value than you.

 

[Natman]

Generally my position with your posts is to let you go as this is a public message board and hope others don't give you the oxygen to continue your relentless complaining and carping about everything Port Adelaide do.

But in this case I will make an exception. Did you actually pay any attention to the process that the club has just gone through? Or have you read one sentence and rambled and shambled your way off on another whinging bender?

The club has just been through an eight week coaching selection process and the final four applicants had up to eight opportunities to impress the selection panel. Primus said he was giving presentations and responding to exercises set by the panel while he was caretaker coach.

This was no Mickey Mouse process, every one of those final four were given extensive opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities and present their vision for the future of Port Adelaide. Others that dropped out earlier were culled as the short-list was formed, like any thorough job interview process.

The panel chose Primus, the club endorsed that choice. Like it or not. There's no evidence we have to say they made the right or wrong choice at this time. While I didn't consider the caretaker stint as an audition as such - and Primus and Port staff have confirmed it was of only limited influence - Primus presented an on-field picture much more pleasing to me as a Port supporter.

The W-L record I didn't care that much about, but was pleased to see a tall forward structure with crumbers, young players getting meaningful game time in key positions, a low possession direct attacking game plan, no backwards play, no time wasting play, players playing with confidence not confusion, and a couple of gold passes revoked. Off-field it was said discipline tightened up.

All this in the space of seven weeks, where he could easily have just rolled along with a few minor cosmetic changes. So after that effort and a decision made by the club after an exhaustive selection process, I for one am fully supportive of the decision and not just for 10 weeks or half a season as you suggested in an earlier post. Are you serious? The guy has a three year contract, is an L-Plate coach, of a side with genuine flakiness issues that finished out of the finals for three years, relearning the way it will go about its football. Give him a chance to implement his plans.

And if we don't look like premiership material after 10 weeks what's your plan? Sack him and move onto Chris Scott? That sort of thinking will see us move into true basket case club territory, but I guess the upside for you will be it gives you even more reason to complain. Even tho your sort of thinking is what brings clubs to their knees.

You complain every few posts about being punted from that other website. I can appreciate their frustration after just a few short months. Geoffa32 was banned from this board, and he was less nuisance value than you.

I am glad that you responded - I still can't bring myself to do it - at the risk of getting banned for abuse.

If the things that have been reported are true - that Scott's philosophy includes full control - then that could have been enough of a reason to fail in the penultimate stage. Fair enough in my opinion.