About 12 months ago Josh Dunkley was touring Alberton. He wanted to move to SA as his fiance lived here. The deal fell through, officially because we “couldn’t guarantee getting a deal done”. At almost exactly the same time, JHF requested a trade to Port Adelaide. Despite a much greater degree of difficulty, we got the deal done.
Make no mistake, 12 months ago we chose JHF over Dunkley. We chose the future over the present. 12 months on, the natural consequences of that choice played out. Two tougher, finals hardened midfields (one with Josh Dunkley) out muscled our young, agile and spectacular, burst out of stoppage midfield. Disappointing but no real surprise if you put yourself back 12 months.
This is the second time in the Hinkley era the club has invested in the future rather than take a sugar hit. 2018 saw Wingard, Polec, Pittard and others depart to get the draft hand we wanted. Two of that class got all-Australian jumpers this year.
That is why Ken got another deal- not because of a 13 game winning streak. And on one level, he should have got another deal. You ought be given a chance to reap what you have sown- whether the investments were your idea or not. All said and done, 2023 proved we are on track to shake the top of the tree over the next few years. Sure, questions remain but come October, 17 clubs will have similar questions to answer.
Having said all that, a 2 year deal should never have been agreed.
Those in charge have forgotten Port’s values and forgotten Port’s history. For years our most successful coach, John Cahill had no contract. Every year for many, he had a handshake agreement to coach the next year. Sure, new coaches need a period of time to show what they can achieve and would need some security to be able to recast the playing style. But Hinkley has gone past that. The fact that he is the longest serving coach to have never made a grand final in AFL history is the most compelling reason why a one year extension should have been the maximum allowed.
I suspect that the 2 year extension was for the benefit of the Board as much as for Ken. A year-by-year arrangement makes the Board more obviously accountable- each year they have to decide who is best to lead the club and they will get judged each year on that decision. A 2 year deal kicks that scrutiny down the road.
As the dust settles on a bitterly disappointing end to 2023, it is now time to shake up the Board. It is now more important than ever to have a football person on the Board who has the history and expectations which have always been at the core of the club in his bones. We don’t need and won’t get a ”sack Ken candidate“. We just need someone who understands that this is first and foremost a football club designed to win premierships and not a member club of an entertainment industry.
If it is Tredrea, he will have to moderate his stance. It is not time to throw the baby out with the bathwater- Cripps and Davies, for instance are doing a great job and ought to be backed. But his strength would be that he would make Ken very uncomfortable- as he should be. For me, it ought to be Ginever- he is more measured, gives credit where it is due but there is no mistaking that he is in tune with the club’s history and values and would make the tough decisions when required.
At the moment, there is nobody on the board you would trust to do that.
Make no mistake, 12 months ago we chose JHF over Dunkley. We chose the future over the present. 12 months on, the natural consequences of that choice played out. Two tougher, finals hardened midfields (one with Josh Dunkley) out muscled our young, agile and spectacular, burst out of stoppage midfield. Disappointing but no real surprise if you put yourself back 12 months.
This is the second time in the Hinkley era the club has invested in the future rather than take a sugar hit. 2018 saw Wingard, Polec, Pittard and others depart to get the draft hand we wanted. Two of that class got all-Australian jumpers this year.
That is why Ken got another deal- not because of a 13 game winning streak. And on one level, he should have got another deal. You ought be given a chance to reap what you have sown- whether the investments were your idea or not. All said and done, 2023 proved we are on track to shake the top of the tree over the next few years. Sure, questions remain but come October, 17 clubs will have similar questions to answer.
Having said all that, a 2 year deal should never have been agreed.
Those in charge have forgotten Port’s values and forgotten Port’s history. For years our most successful coach, John Cahill had no contract. Every year for many, he had a handshake agreement to coach the next year. Sure, new coaches need a period of time to show what they can achieve and would need some security to be able to recast the playing style. But Hinkley has gone past that. The fact that he is the longest serving coach to have never made a grand final in AFL history is the most compelling reason why a one year extension should have been the maximum allowed.
I suspect that the 2 year extension was for the benefit of the Board as much as for Ken. A year-by-year arrangement makes the Board more obviously accountable- each year they have to decide who is best to lead the club and they will get judged each year on that decision. A 2 year deal kicks that scrutiny down the road.
As the dust settles on a bitterly disappointing end to 2023, it is now time to shake up the Board. It is now more important than ever to have a football person on the Board who has the history and expectations which have always been at the core of the club in his bones. We don’t need and won’t get a ”sack Ken candidate“. We just need someone who understands that this is first and foremost a football club designed to win premierships and not a member club of an entertainment industry.
If it is Tredrea, he will have to moderate his stance. It is not time to throw the baby out with the bathwater- Cripps and Davies, for instance are doing a great job and ought to be backed. But his strength would be that he would make Ken very uncomfortable- as he should be. For me, it ought to be Ginever- he is more measured, gives credit where it is due but there is no mistaking that he is in tune with the club’s history and values and would make the tough decisions when required.
At the moment, there is nobody on the board you would trust to do that.
Ironically one more minor round win our banged up unbalanced side gets to play and IMO probably lose that QF to Brisbane at AO, which objectively would make it a clearer fail 
