Ready to answer your questions

[Al Quaeda]

I'm confused. One minute changing the jumper has no correlation with club success, the next a proposal to change it will set us back a decade. Can you please keep on the same plane of thought? I know it has to be hard for a person with your obvious over-inflated sense of self-importance, but it would be nice to see you try. I'd at least get a giggle out of it.

Nice start date.

It is not the proposal to reverse this decision that would set the club backwards 10 years at all. I am not here trying to stifle opposition opinion at all, in fact I vigorously support it!

The damage occurs with the election of a member winning the seat based purely on this platform and the ongoing friction within a currently stable board that would inevitably occur.

Anyone with half a brain would agree that stability and unity at a board and executive level are crucial to any ongoing success.

Try to keep up. Trolls who fail to do this are quickly forgotten.

She was on the committee, so therefore she supported it, and has some responsibility for the implementation/lack of consultation. They probably survey more people about which brand of toilet paper to use in the dunnies at Carousel.

Oh really???

And you know this how exactly??

For all we know she may have been vehemently opposed to it. Was she personally responsible for the survey spread??

It is box headed thinking like this that illustrates how little some people understand of the workings of corporations at an executive level.

 

[Al Quaeda]

And **** it, don't I sound like an apologist for the regime.

The football is the thing I care about really.

We've had this "quirky" "other" culture while playing shit footy for 15 years.

"aw, look Scott Chisolm just ran in circles again, how cute...oh dear he's given it to the opposition again...oh well"

"Delist McManus? You bastards I'm gonna blow your house down".

"I tell ya what, here's an idea: let's get rid of this little Korean fella, he's not much chop...when he's played in two premierships and been dudded for a Norm Smith, let's buy him back at an outrageous cost".

"Well, it's alright, we still have our anchor."

We SEEM (yes Clay we haven't yet won a premiership) to finally have the footy bit going in the right direction and people are worried about a flipping anchor?

/rant

Normally I expect payment for blatant plagiarism, but on this occasion I will let it slide.

 

[Moo]

This thread is a great example of the old saying 'empty vessels make the most noise'.

More like no taxation without representation.

 

[Clay Davis]

And what would you suggest as an alternative?
How else do you go about it?

They've kept the draft picks and traded cheaply.
They've adressed key deficiencies...yes they may not all come off...that's the nature of the business.
They have adressed the massive chasm in age in our list while doing it.
They've employed the best fitness people.
They've revamped the whole recruiting department, people who have had the guts to make the hard calls (hill etc) and also grab Barlow.
What more would you suggest? You're a prophet apparently

Now you're going to say "but we haven't won a premiership" and around in circles we go

These things don't make us a premiership side, just one that doesn't finish bottom four every year, and one that should make finals more than it misses them. Essentially a WA version of the Western Bulldogs.

And **** it, don't I sound like an apologist for the regime.

The football is the thing I care about really.

We've had this "quirky" "other" culture while playing shit footy for 15 years.

"aw, look Scott Chisolm just ran in circles again, how cute...oh dear he's given it to the opposition again...oh well"

"Delist McManus? You bastards I'm gonna blow your house down".

"I tell ya what, here's an idea: let's get rid of this little Korean fella, he's not much chop...when he's played in two premierships and been dudded for a Norm Smith, let's buy him back at an outrageous cost".

"Well, it's alright, we still have our anchor."

We SEEM (yes Clay we haven't yet won a premiership) to finally have the footy bit going in the right direction and people are worried about a flipping anchor?

/rant

Well, Lach, as you know, none of these things apply to me. I loathed McManus for his continual presence at the club when the game had gone past him. Even not a fan of him still being there.

Bell? Well, you know my thoughts on trading players.

The incompetency of the past had nothing to do with the jumpers. The fact that people are so ready to tie them to the jumper astonishes me. Does this mean the jumper was responsible for trading the 1st pick in the Judd/Hodge draft? The jumper was responsible for trading for Tarrant?

What happens after another 15 years of no success? Is purple then decided as not a 'successful footy colour' and ditched? Is Fremantle chopped off because a management decision is made to appeal to people more broadly than Perth and WA?

This is what you leave yourself open to. If people want to support a franchise, then that's fine. But it makes me wonder why they don't just support the Eagles. At least they've won premierships.

 

[Clay Davis]

It is not the proposal to reverse this decision that would set the club backwards 10 years at all. I am not here trying to stifle opposition opinion at all, in fact I vigorously support it!

The damage occurs with the election of a member winning the seat based purely on this platform and the ongoing friction within a currently stable board that would inevitably occur.

Anyone with half a brain would agree that stability and unity at a board and executive level are crucial to any ongoing success.

Well, bushie, thanks for making the point I made earlier. By making this unnecessary change, the board has introduced instability.

The decision and process behind the change of guernsey is incompetence by definition. People talk about the bad old days, but I don't think there's ever been as big a backlash as this for Freo.

So, instead of having a season next year where everyone is focused on the football, we'll have one rife with politics and internal division.

Good work Freo board. Way to invoke the Hatt/McLean days.

 

[Lach72]

These things don't make us a premiership side, just one that doesn't finish bottom four every year, and one that should make finals more than it misses them. Essentially a WA version of the Western Bulldogs.


Well, Lach, as you know, none of these things apply to me. I loathed McManus for his continual presence at the club when the game had gone past him. Even not a fan of him still being there.

Bell? Well, you know my thoughts on trading players.

The incompetency of the past had nothing to do with the jumpers. The fact that people are so ready to tie them to the jumper astonishes me. Does this mean the jumper was responsible for trading the 1st pick in the Judd/Hodge draft? The jumper was responsible for trading for Tarrant?

What happens after another 15 years of no success? Is purple then decided as not a 'successful footy colour' and ditched? Is Fremantle chopped off because a management decision is made to appeal to people more broadly than Perth and WA?

This is what you leave yourself open to. If people want to support a franchise, then that's fine. But it makes me wonder why they don't just support the Eagles. At least they've won premierships.

Are you seeing the future? We're doomed to hang around the top 4 are we?
You avoided the question too. Given where we were, what would YOU say needs to be done?

 

[Clay Davis]

Are you seeing the future? We're doomed to top 4 are we?
You avoided the question too. Given where we were, what would YOU say needs to be done?

To put ourselves in the frame to win a premiership, we should have made tougher decisions that had high risk/reward, but with a long term focus. One would have been to trade Tarrant at the end of last year (which I was in favour of doing) when he had the greatest currency and was still contracted. He probably could have netted us a first round draft pick, considering what was traded for similar players last year.

It's almost the one vital element that I believe our club lacks - the inability to sell our senior players for first round picks that net long-term players. Call this the 'Memories' idea, but it's been hard decisions to trade out popular/handy players that helped deliver Hawthorn and Collingwood premierships, and we were the suckers on the other end of the bargain.

This would have been a risky strategy, as it could have led to the downfall of our current coach if this season had been poor, but it would have been good in the long run.

They're pursuing pretty risky, yet unnecessary, strategies with this rebranding. I quite like that the club has become conservative with its drafting strategies, but after this redesign, I'm just not sure.

 

[blockerhall]

"...The damage occurs with the election of a member winning the seat based purely on this platform and the ongoing friction within a currently stable board that would inevitably occur.

Anyone with half a brain would agree that stability and unity at a board and executive level are crucial to any ongoing success..."

Bushie, mate. You seriously want to back that skewed position in? It is indefensible. Oh, and first with a Hitler reference FTL while I'm here.

 

[E Shed]

To put ourselves in the frame to win a premiership, we should have made tougher decisions that had high risk/reward, but with a long term focus. One would have been to trade Tarrant at the end of last year (which I was in favour of doing) when he had the greatest currency and was still contracted. He probably could have netted us a first round draft pick, considering what was traded for similar players last year.

While I actually agree with you (and thought the same at the time) it's pretty easy to see why they didn't. With all the hidings we copped in 2009 and the amount of first and second year players it would have been pretty tempting to keep Tarrant out there at fullback. As it turns out we lost long term but if he (and other senior players) had stayed fit we might have jagged a chance at a Grand Final berth and we really need a good year after all the disappointing ones from a supporter point of view.
Don't know about you but I genuinely enjoyed watching us win all those games at the start of the year and play finals.

 

[mayne iac]

To put ourselves in the frame to win a premiership, we should have made tougher decisions that had high risk/reward, but with a long term focus. One would have been to trade Tarrant at the end of last year (which I was in favour of doing) when he had the greatest currency and was still contracted. He probably could have netted us a first round draft pick, considering what was traded for similar players last year.

It's almost the one vital element that I believe our club lacks - the inability to sell our senior players for first round picks that net long-term players. Call this the 'Memories' idea, but it's been hard decisions to trade out popular/handy players that helped deliver Hawthorn and Collingwood premierships, and we were the suckers on the other end of the bargain.

This would have been a risky strategy, as it could have led to the downfall of our current coach if this season had been poor, but it would have been good in the long run.

They're pursuing pretty risky, yet unnecessary, strategies with this rebranding. I quite like that the club has become conservative with its drafting strategies, but after this redesign, I'm just not sure.

So you like what????

 

[Clay Davis]

While I actually agree with you (and thought the same at the time) it's pretty easy to see why they didn't. With all the hidings we copped in 2009 and the amount of first and second year players it would have been pretty tempting to keep Tarrant out there at fullback. As it turns out we lost long term but if he (and other senior players) had stayed fit we might have jagged a chance at a Grand Final berth and we really need a good year after all the disappointing ones from a supporter point of view.
Don't know about you but I genuinely enjoyed watching us win all those games at the start of the year and play finals.

I can see why they didn't as well, but it was a strategy that was always going to work best for 2010, and not for subsequent years.

We might have jagged a GF berth, but that was also contingent on Barlow, who wasn't in the frame in 2009.

Basically, the improvement this year was heavily assisted by some lucky gets over the past two years. Barlow and Broughton were immediate improvements to the side, but I feel it hard to pin down when our premiership window is.

It certainly isn't next year - we aren't the equal of Collingwood.

 

[Clay Davis]

So you like what????

I don't see those as incompatible. Betting on long-term players at the cost of players who make you better in the short-term seems conservative to me, it's just that trading out players has a higher risk.

 

[Stronzo]

Lets not forget this whole situation is by the clubs own design.

All they needed to do was inform membership and build a consensus. It would've short-circuited all of this before it even began.

A complete lack of political fortitude shown by the board, and a complete absence of representation by the member elects on the board.

But I guess what really cuts to the core, is this action by the board kind of shatters the idea I had that FFC could become a true football club that really values its members, rather than a franchise who act on the basis of dollar value.

 

[Lach72]

I can see why they didn't as well, but it was a strategy that was always going to work best for 2010, and not for subsequent years.

We might have jagged a GF berth, but that was also contingent on Barlow, who wasn't in the frame in 2009.

Basically, the improvement this year was heavily assisted by some lucky gets over the past two years. Barlow and Broughton were immediate improvements to the side, but I feel it hard to pin down when our premiership window is.

It certainly isn't next year - we aren't the equal of Collingwood.

Luck or good management?

 

[Clay Davis]

Luck or good management?

In the case of Broughton, I can't see how getting a player at pick 1 trillion was designed to net a prolific contributor.

 

[Lach72]

In the case of Broughton, I can't see how getting a player at pick 1 trillion was designed to net a prolific contributor.

So if they'd used pick 3 on him it'd be alright?

 

[Clay Davis]

So if they'd used pick 3 on him it'd be alright?

Nah.

They obviously though JVB and Pearce would be better contributors, even Chris Hall and Ben Bucovaz.

I liked their strategy, but I'm not assuming that we didn't get lucky.

 

[anchor man]

So Clay,does that mean the Essendon were lucky picking Hird at 60 or so?
Does that mean that WCE were lucky picking Kemp at 130 or what ever it was.
Great luck.

 

[mayne iac]

I don't see those as incompatible. Betting on long-term players at the cost of players who make you better in the short-term seems conservative to me, it's just that trading out players has a higher risk.

Its all Drafting, if you think the club should have been doing things different, then you'll never be satisfied, and seem very hard to please.
The drafting /trading since Harves and Lloyds have arrived has been second to none. The culling of 17 or so senior players or whatever it was, was a HUGE risk, and quite frankly on the edge of as bigger risk you could ever take within a footy club, before a compomised draft.
How big of a risk did you want? Maybe all 17 year olds?
If you think thats conservative, well..........

 

[Clay Davis]

So Clay,does that mean the Essendon were lucky picking Hird at 60 or so?
Does that mean that WCE were lucky picking Kemp at 130 or what ever it was.
Great luck.

Yeah, they were.

Hird's pretty instructive though. Essendon wanted to delist him, and Sheedy insisted that they keep him.

One person's good work can mask a lot of shithouse management. We're assuming that Rosich and co know what they're doing because the footy department is going OK. But that could all be down to one person calling the shots (Bond), and the senior management could well be breathtakingly incompetent. Who knows?

I'm not prepared to back the Freo board in on this on the basis of good work done by others.

 

[freo_boy]

Lets not forget this whole situation is by the clubs own design.

All they needed to do was inform membership and build a consensus. It would've short-circuited all of this before it even began.

A complete lack of political fortitude shown by the board, and a complete absence of representation by the member elects on the board.

But I guess what really cuts to the core, is this action by the board kind of shatters the idea I had that FFC could become a true football club that really values its members, rather than a franchise who act on the basis of dollar value.

i really understand what your saying here but if the club became what you want it to be, it would be struggling to to stay alive.

 

[prattsta]

Nah.

They obviously though JVB and Pearce would be better contributors, even Chris Hall and Ben Bucovaz.

I liked their strategy, but I'm not assuming that we didn't get lucky.

Or maybe they thought given the youth focus at AFL clubs and JVB's last name - though even he is 2 years younger than Broughton - that Broughton would last the longest. Heck maybe they just asked around and no other clubs were interested. Who knows?

Everything has an element of luck attached to it, but good management is far more important.

 

[Clay Davis]

Or maybe they thought given the youth focus at AFL clubs and JVB's last name - though even he is 2 years younger than Broughton - that Broughton would last the longest. Heck maybe they just asked around and no other clubs were interested. Who knows?

Could have been any combination you like to think. But I'd like to see sustained good seasons before I back anyone in as being 'good managers'.

A lot of people are jumping the gun and calling us successful. Bit more silly than assuming we got lucky, in my opinion.

Everything has an element of luck attached to it, but good management is far more important.

And people are extrapolating two productive drafting years as good management.

People could have said the same early into Connolly and Schwab's tenure. In fact, many did. We went from the poorest season since Fitzroy died to making finals in two years. That's good management, isn't it?

 

[prattsta]

One person's good work can mask a lot of shithouse management. We're assuming that Rosich and co know what they're doing because the footy department is going OK. But that could all be down to one person calling the shots (Bond), and the senior management could well be breathtakingly incompetent. Who knows?

I'm not prepared to back the Freo board in on this on the basis of good work done by others.

You don't know who is responsible, yet won't back the board based on good work done by...who? LOL.

 

[Clay Davis]

You don't know who is responsible, yet won't back the board based on good work done by...who? LOL.

Huh?

People are desperately clamouring to declare a "new Freo", and thank the management for their great work, when:

- There have been false dawns before when everyone's gone ahead and thanked the management (Schwab era)
- The current management have displayed glaring incompetence in the handling of the redesign.
- We are still a long way off a premiership going by this season's results.

But OK, if people want to criticise the mediocre culture of past, then in the same breath illogically claim we're in some new era of success, then fine. Sounds to me like we still have the mediocre culture of the past.