Roast The Chronicles of Alan Richardson

[kernelT]

if Richo repeats this again in 2019 with no finals then he will be going out the door

This is a dangerous situation for the club when we have a guy in charge that is convinced playing horribly out of form, injured or just very average older players is our best chance of winning games.

The reigning premiers flogged us a few weeks ago with more players under 50 games experience on the ground than us… so not only are we nowhere near the top sides, we are going backwards too by not going hard enough to find the next core.

 

[VDS66]

Religion, politics and a shit coach.

Are there any other topics guaranteed to generate as much heated and discussion in life?

 

[kernelT]

Religion, politics and a shit coach.

Are there any other topics guaranteed to generate as much heated and discussion in life?

Holden or Ford?

 

[AirWinmar]

This is a dangerous situation for the club when we have a guy in charge that is convinced playing horribly out of form, injured or just very average older players is our best chance of winning games.

The reigning premiers flogged us a few weeks ago with more players under 50 games experience on the ground than us… so not only are we nowhere near the top sides, we are going backwards too by not going hard enough to find the next core.

To be fair, i think the under 50 stat is a bit misleading as if you said under 10 games we may have had a lot more than them or under 75 we may have had a lot more than them. Also if you said over 150 they may have had a lot more than us and if not, their over 150's would be dusty, cotchin, roo v 2, rance, grimes, etc. Ours would be Armo, Gilbo, Stuv, Brown and Carlisle i think. I wouldnt be suprised if the club is working off a minimum ratio of experienced to non experienced players at selection tbh.

 

[Mat Mann]

Don’t wish to intrude and Richardson may not be the answer, but I heard lethlean and wondered what makes him the 3xpert, and he will decide who is the best person going forward, and from what he has seen.

Has he ever played or coached a game? Or is he jus5 interested in junior staffers?

What a shit post, did you even think before you posted that drivel? You’re not going to last if the angle of your post is just to deride other clubs staff or players, jog on back to your own board champ....

 

[kernelT]

Ours would be Armo, Gilbo, Brown

I just don't think these guys should be etched in stone for selection each week, same goes for Savage, Newnes, Weller… even Bruce.

We drop young guys when they are quiet, but stick with vets when they are horribly out of form.

 

[StCicatriz]

just out of curiosity how would you feel if the potential replacment for Richo is brought in as an assistant then ?
i get what you are saying that whoever we apoint next is most likely an unknown so theres no point in waiting to pull the trigger but what if we have a guy in mind but are for lack of a better word trialling him as an assistant first ?

all for it

i think its less likely than richo getting the ass. club is talking about putting more around richo, not giving him someone to train up.

 

[StCicatriz]

i dont think its that at all ...
i think the club realises there are more then just one problem in the club ... the coach is an issue but so were the lack of support put around that coach, so is the list built for the coach to lead....
knowing Peter Summers for some time now i can tell you he has no issue admitting when he and the club have stuffed up .. what you are implying is that he is being pig headed - thats not a trait ive noticed ever from Peter ... it may well be Richo isnt the man to lead us but i reckon due to the fact he is contracted its worth seeing if its him personally that is failing or if its the systems around him making him fail ... i dont think the fact the club would have to admit signing him was a mistake comes into it at all ....
heck even you were initially for signing him at the time ... https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/should-we-extend-alan-richardsons-contract.1173507/

i think its obvious he doesn't want to go anywhere near where he was wrong. like i said go read his mid-season review. he blatantly lied to members then signed it. i was a big believer in summers, even defended him against pretty much everyone when he re-iterated the top 4 stance earlier this year, but now he's completely lost me and he'll go down as the worst president we have had this century. which is saying something given how coked up and drunk butters was.

as for the last part yes i was, i've stated this numerous times, but with conditions. don't be disingenuous here. be honest. what did i want? i wanted the entire football dept changed last off-season and ONLY A 12 MONTH EXTENSION, otherwise i wanted him gone. we did neither. we are pissing away the good part of players like steven and carlisles career.

 

[Mowman]

Religion, politics and a shit coach.

Are there any other topics guaranteed to generate as much heated and discussion in life?

Hickey/ Longer

 

[saintmagic]

i think its obvious he doesn't want to go anywhere near where he was wrong. like i said go read his mid-season review. he blatantly lied to members then signed it. i was a big believer in summers, even defended him against pretty much everyone when he re-iterated the top 4 stance earlier this year, but now he's completely lost me and he'll go down as the worst president we have had this century. which is saying something given how coked up and drunk butters was.

as for the last part yes i was, i've stated this numerous times, but with conditions. don't be disingenuous here. be honest. what did i want? i wanted the entire football dept changed last off-season and ONLY A 12 MONTH EXTENSION, otherwise i wanted him gone. we did neither. we are pissing away the good part of players like steven and carlisles career.

Ok i'll bite. I read the mid-season review letter from Summers again and not sure exactly what you are pointing to.

What do you think are the blatant lies in it?

Also, it would seem that Richo's extension pretty much ended up being a 12 month extension given all the performance clauses in it, or at least that seems to be the way people in the media are talking about it now.

This is the letter right? https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/from-the-president.1197612/

 

[StCicatriz]

Ok i'll bite. I read the mid-season review letter from Summers again and not sure exactly what you are pointing to.

What do you think are the blatant lies in it?

Also, it would seem that Richo's extension pretty much ended up being a 12 month extension given all the performance clauses in it, or at least that seems to be the way people in the media are talking about it now.

This is the letter right? https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/from-the-president.1197612/

Through the appointment of Simon Lethlean as General Manager of Football at the end of 2017, a comprehensive assessment of our football program is already underway.

Since Simon's appointment, he has been challenged and supported by CEO Matt Finnis and the board to evaluate all aspects of our football operations - from recruiting, coaching, high performance and leadership - with the mandate to make the necessary recommendations and changes to ensure we have an elite program capable of converting potential into premierships.

that's a blatant lie. the media reports have stated the coach was out of scope of the review and the review only included the assistant coaches. we are not talking about one journalist for one paper either. multiple people have re-iterated that stance. no one has argued those reports are false. several media interviews have taken place since then where that very stance was re-iterated, that we are going with the richmond and collingwood review model and looking to see what we can do to support the senior coach. no one dismissed it. no one said that was wrong and the senior coach was one of many that are under review. hell i've even communicated that to the club, my concerns were not corrected.

when you are deliberately excluding people from the review that is not comprehensive nor is it a mandate to make the necessary recommendations or changes.

if we get to the end of the year and all of richardson, kingsley and sexton are still there. do people really think that was a "comprehensive assessment of our football program"

 

[AirWinmar]

I just don't think these guys should be etched in stone for selection each week, same goes for Savage, Newnes, Weller… even Bruce.

We drop young guys when they are quiet, but stick with vets when they are horribly out of form.

Agree with that and we also have some younger guys who at times have been in good form in the 2s, which we'd like to see get a run. I think the issue is the selection panel would feel they need a certain level of experience in the team, which is a valid point but our experienced leaders at the club are often not playing well or are cooked (my back gets sore looking at Armo play, but he has been good for us the last few games) . Gilbo has been a warrior, but im not sure how we kept him and have let a lot of others go. I dont think i would have picked him once this season

 

[Crusty Undies]

I am going to cancel it too. I am going to tell them that I don't approve of them offering SkyNews a platform for their racist ultra right wing political views but really its just because of the footy.

Sky News isn't racist and ultra right wing. They're a pretty generic conservative channel. Silencing of different opinions is also an irresponsible and dangerous step towards thought policing.

 

[Human Person]

Religion, politics and a shit coach.

Are there any other topics guaranteed to generate as much heated and discussion in life?

Opinions on The Last Jedi.

 

[saintmagic]

that's a blatant lie. the media reports have stated the coach was out of scope of the review and the review only included the assistant coaches. we are not talking about one journalist for one paper either. multiple people have re-iterated that stance. no one has argued those reports are false. several media interviews have taken place since then where that very stance was re-iterated, that we are going with the richmond and collingwood review model and looking to see what we can do to support the senior coach. no one dismissed it. no one said that was wrong and the senior coach was one of many that are under review. hell i've even communicated that to the club, my concerns were not corrected.

when you are deliberately excluding people from the review that is not comprehensive nor is it a mandate to make the necessary recommendations or changes.

if we get to the end of the year and all of richardson, kingsley and sexton are still there. do people really think that was a "comprehensive assessment of our football program"

Ok, so are you suggesting that the test for whether it is a "comprehensive assessment of our football program" is if Richo, Kingsley and Sexton are sacked or not? Or is it just whether the senior coach is part of the review?

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

that's a blatant lie. the media reports have stated the coach was out of scope of the review and the review only included the assistant coaches. we are not talking about one journalist for one paper either. multiple people have re-iterated that stance. no one has argued those reports are false. several media interviews have taken place since then where that very stance was re-iterated, that we are going with the richmond and collingwood review model and looking to see what we can do to support the senior coach. no one dismissed it. no one said that was wrong and the senior coach was one of many that are under review. hell i've even communicated that to the club, my concerns were not corrected.

when you are deliberately excluding people from the review that is not comprehensive nor is it a mandate to make the necessary recommendations or changes.

if we get to the end of the year and all of richardson, kingsley and sexton are still there. do people really think that was a "comprehensive assessment of our football program"

so the only way its comprehensive is if everyone is cleared out ??? surely you can fathom a situation where the review takes place and the end result is that the issue lays elsewhere so the need to bloodlet the place is not required ...

my understanding is the the review SO FAR has only included the assistants mostly because the august deadline for the assistant coaching contracts.. i have also heard that the names already given the flick are only the ones that are not likely to be in an AFL system come years end ... so there is a high chance more movments will be anounced but as movements not sackings ... i also think that Richo has been under review from the moment Simon joined the club but the club are not to keen to have it played out in the media... your constant accusations or Summers and Finnis being liars is based on your opinion bcause you want richo sacked .. thats fair enough im not keen on richo either but maybe lets just let it play out ... Summers didnt lie there is a comprehensive review taking place , the club have said they are backing in Richo rightly or wrongly thats what they are doing Summers telling a lie would be to say he is backing in Richo only to be underminding his demise with a public review of his role ... mark my words Richo was reviewed the instant Simon came on board he may have been told there is no need to review him again with the rest of the coachs but he was still reviewed ...

 

[Saintbloke]

Sky News isn't racist and ultra right wing. They're a pretty generic conservative channel. Silencing of different opinions is also an irresponsible and dangerous step towards thought policing.

Sky News is a load of Sydney-centric rubbish- inept, stumbling reporters and presenters...doesn't matter if it is left or right. Not Murdoch's brightest performer.

 

[StCicatriz]

so the only way its comprehensive is if everyone is cleared out ??? surely you can fathom a situation where the review takes place and the end result is that the issue lays elsewhere so the need to bloodlet the place is not required ...

thats not what i am suggesting at all

my understanding is the the review SO FAR has only included the assistants mostly because the august deadline for the assistant coaching contracts.. i have also heard that the names already given the flick are only the ones that are not likely to be in an AFL system come years end ... so there is a high chance more movments will be anounced but as movements not sackings ... i also think that Richo has been under review from the moment Simon joined the club but the club are not to keen to have it played out in the media... ... Summers didnt lie there is a comprehensive review taking place

that's not a comprehensive review. as i said i have contacted the club on the back of the media reports stating the senior coach was out of scope of the review. they did not correct those reports. nor have they done so when questioned on it in the media. to say he is under review is wrong. there is nothing to suggest that is the case. now that may change, and i hope it does, because that's what we should be doing when we have a season like this, but it doesn't alter the fact the statement summers released was wrong. Richo was not under review and therefore you cannot claim that you are conducting a comprehensive review of the COACHES.

your constant accusations or Summers and Finnis being liars is based on your opinion bcause you want richo sacked

.. thats fair enough im not keen on richo either but maybe lets just let it play out

nope. that's not correct. it has nothing to do with wanting richo sacked. its about holding those in executive and senior management positions to account. you cannot make a statement then literally 2 months later it come out the statement was incorrect.

, the club have said they are backing in Richo rightly or wrongly thats what they are doing Summers telling a lie would be to say he is backing in Richo only to be underminding his demise with a public review of his role ... mark my words Richo was reviewed the instant Simon came on board he may have been told there is no need to review him again with the rest of the coachs but he was still reviewed ...

you just contradicted your self to your earlier paragraph. so let me understand this correctly:
1) you think richo has been under review from Lethlean and therefore Summers statement is still true that a comprehensive review has taken place that includes all coaches, BUT
2) summers has publicly stated Richo will coach into 2019, so he's right not to include him in the review.

i mean what is it? is Richo part of the football dept review or not?

 

[Diehard Saint]

Ok, so are you suggesting that the test for whether it is a "comprehensive assessment of our football program" is if Richo, Kingsley and Sexton are sacked or not? Or is it just whether the senior coach is part of the review?

By use of the word "comprehensive" wouldn't you be entitled to believe that the performance of the coach would also be reviewed?
With the season we have just had its a no-brainer.

Sounds like some on the board are beginning to insist that his role is also reviewed, as it always should have been.

 

[VDS66]

Hickey/ Longer

snap...

 

[Crusty Undies]

Sky News is a load of Sydney-centric rubbish- inept, stumbling reporters and presenters...doesn't matter if it is left or right. Not Murdoch's brightest performer.

Agreed but nevertheless we shouldn't petition to silence them...

 

[VDS66]

thats not what i am suggesting at all



that's not a comprehensive review. as i said i have contacted the club on the back of the media reports stating the senior coach was out of scope of the review. they did not correct those reports. nor have they done so when questioned on it in the media. to say he is under review is wrong. there is nothing to suggest that is the case. now that may change, and i hope it does, because that's what we should be doing when we have a season like this, but it doesn't alter the fact the statement summers released was wrong. Richo was not under review and therefore you cannot claim that you are conducting a comprehensive review of the COACHES.



nope. that's not correct. it has nothing to do with wanting richo sacked. its about holding those in executive and senior management positions to account. you cannot make a statement then literally 2 months later it come out the statement was incorrect.



you just contradicted your self to your earlier paragraph. so let me understand this correctly:
1) you think richo has been under review from Lethlean and therefore Summers statement is still true that a comprehensive review has taken place that includes all coaches, BUT
2) summers has publicly stated Richo will coach into 2019, so he's right not to include him in the review.

i mean what is it? is Richo part of the football dept review or not?

can you please post the reply you got from the club?

Id be very interested to see what they told you.

That's the only way to clear this up.

 

[soups1982]

can you please post the reply you got from the club?

Id be very interested to see what they told you.

That's the only way to clear this up.

I would suggest posting it on their twitter account - that would generate a response and post back from the club quickly.

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

thats not what i am suggesting at all

you kinda are ... by saying if we get to the end of the year and all of richardson, kingsley and sexton are still there. do people really think that was a "comprehensive assessment of our football program...
what you are saying is that it cant be comprehensive if all three stay ...

that's not a comprehensive review. as i said i have contacted the club on the back of the media reports stating the senior coach was out of scope of the review. they did not correct those reports. nor have they done so when questioned on it in the media. to say he is under review is wrong. there is nothing to suggest that is the case. now that may change, and i hope it does, because that's what we should be doing when we have a season like this, but it doesn't alter the fact the statement summers released was wrong. Richo was not under review and therefore you cannot claim that you are conducting a comprehensive review of the COACHES.

the club is not playing this out in the media so for them to not make comment is fairly standard .. im not saying he is under review right now but he HAS BEEN under review ... the minute Simon came to the club he was reviewing EVERYTHING... he sat in the coaches box, he travelled with the team, he sat in on team meatings and selection meetings .. just watching the way the club worked .. i dont know the findings of that review (i doubt anyone but the board and executive team do) but drawing the conclusion that the club have publicly stated that they are backing in Richo says to me the initial review fond the issues were elsewhere , this may in turn have prompted the current review to dig deeper into the issue with the understanding that the initial review showed Richo to not be the cause ..

nope. that's not correct. it has nothing to do with wanting richo sacked. its about holding those in executive and senior management positions to account. you cannot make a statement then literally 2 months later it come out the statement was incorrect.

hold them accountable when realistically you have no idea what is going on behind closed doors ??? media reports are one thing but as we already know the once leaky walls of St Kilda are now water tight so media reports are more speculation ... as for making incorrect statements that happens all the time , things change quickly so something said 2 months ago could be valid for that time two months later it could be totally wrong

you just contradicted your self to your earlier paragraph. so let me understand this correctly:
1) you think richo has been under review from Lethlean and therefore Summers statement is still true that a comprehensive review has taken place that includes all coaches, BUT
2) summers has publicly stated Richo will coach into 2019, so he's right not to include him in the review.

i mean what is it? is Richo part of the football dept review or not?

im saying the review of richo was done the instant Simon came on board .. im saying the first point of call was Richo they went at it and dug into if he was the man for the job.. rightly or wrongly they decided he was the man for the job so the big review was put across the entire football department to see if we have given Richo the tools to be successful ... i know this to be the case as before the review was even advertised an assistant coach (perhaps talking out of line) made the comment that they were seen as the issue and they would be gone by years end ... the club is not going to put its support and backing behind richo after he survived the initial review only to then lump him in with another review that has a large media interest ... Richos review was deliberatly not played out in the media , in a perfect world the current review wouldnt either but due to the member frustration and backlash the club had to be more visual on what they were doing .. the best reviews are the reviews that happen without anyone external getting wind of it happening so they cant put their influence on the review ...

 

[StCicatriz]

Ok, so are you suggesting that the test for whether it is a "comprehensive assessment of our football program" is if Richo, Kingsley and Sexton are sacked or not? Or is it just whether the senior coach is part of the review?

nope. the last statement is more in regards to the absurdity of the situation. i agree, whether richo, kingsley or sexton stay there has nothing to do with the validity of summers statement RE the review.

but if we really are trying to implement meaningful change and are not scared to shy away from all areas of the football dept, i doubt we keep the 3 senior people who have been there for 5 seasons plus. 9 in sextons case. 7 in the case of kingsley.