- Jun 23, 2016
- 16,352
- 15,347
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
GWS and Richmond both at home and both had significant injury lists
The Review
- Thread starter ftmch
- Start date
- Tagged users None
This fits neatly with Caro’s piece on FC last night where she named the leadership delegation - Walker, Sloane, M Crouch, JJ and Lynch as being the group that fronted Fagan
Any idea where I can watch that online?
EDIT: Found it.
Wow. Professional sport is a very different industry in that the employees get paid more than the employers and are more sought after by rival entities than the managers and executives. They have plenty of options, are not easily replaceable and your core business is entirely dependent on their performance. Might want to actually follow through on the promises you make to these kinds of employees.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Geez you really have a bent against him don't you. I have met the man many years ago and he seems thoroughly professional. Also comes with some good cred.
If it wasn’t for him B Crouch would have got his groin fixed properly!
Every normal person would think exactly like this. If however you have high levels of irrational confidence in your own abilities and you don't think the issues should be dealt with in the first place...
- Jan 6, 2015
- 509
- 944
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
And that is an absolutely perfect description of the Adelaide Football Club's administration.
For those that missed Fagan's interview this morning
play.acast.com
INTERVIEW: Andrew Fagan - 27 August 2019
Adelaide Crows CEO Andrew Fagan See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
play.acast.com
I've been thinking about this and thought it worth putting down here;
If Neil Craig is part of the 4 man panel conducting the review, I will NEVER attend another Crows game again. I will NEVER have a membership again and I will NEVER watch another Crows game.
100% a deal breaker.
If Neil Craig is part of the 4 man panel conducting the review, I will NEVER attend another Crows game again. I will NEVER have a membership again and I will NEVER watch another Crows game.
100% a deal breaker.
Irrational Confidence is one of my favourites.
How else could you describe an organisation that genuinely believes everyone is the best and everything they do is right, despite all results suggesting otherwise?
jackster83
The Ratpack!
How good would the Spackler transcript be though?
An astonishing move no doubt
- Jun 23, 2016
- 16,352
- 15,347
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Yep. I wouldn't be shocked if fitness was an issue. Dropping away in 2nd halves of games in the second half of the season.
The mental effects of fatigue were noticeable.
OK, essay time 
I'm not going to waste emotional energy assuming the worst, or speculating (although I do enjoy reading the "speculating / assuming" posts . But I would like to make some comments on what we know - or what seems to be the case, anyway.
1. Timing: The failure to take the initiative earlier, and to be responding (or appearing to be responding) only after massive external pressure, is a fail by the club. But, it is what it is. Yes, it probably makes it too late for some changes to be made before 2020, on the other hand, that doesn't mean that some things can't be changed progressively and at the end of 2020. That may not make 2020 a "wasted season" if the club at least takes on board some things and in particular giving the youngsters more of a go (which you'd hardly need a review to tell you). So, yeah, it is what it is, doesn't have to be the end of all usefulness.
(For example, if the sports psych comes up with some stuff, then maybe that can be acted on immediately and into 2020. You're entitled to be cynical when a consultant says "thing X is a problem, and you can fix it by paying for more of me" but if the guy is credible, and his findings are credible, then let him implement some of them.)
2. Personnel: A good start with the first 2, hopefully the footy people to be added will be quality also. Let's see.
3. Anonymity of at least one reviewer: Is this being said? If it is, I don't like it. It's a matter of credibility. "Footy thing X is going to be acted on" - Who said that? "We can't tell you". I wouldn't be happy with someone saying "I'll do your review but I don't want to put my name to it in public".
4. Release of findings: The full findings will not be released. Get over it. No-one does that. I know we all want to read about how effed up the football department is, and how Burton is the problem, but that's not going to happen. I don't know how much was published from the Geelong / Richmond / Collingwood reviews, but I'm prepared to bet it wasn't "full findings". It's the actions that will count.
5. Chapman / Roo / Fagan saying different things about what will be released: I don't place too much store in that, I think it's just people using different words to describe the same thing. I don't see it as a sign that there is some sort of confusion or disagreement between them, or that one is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and another is being more honest, or anything like that. However:
6. The fact that the "Big 3" are using different words is a sign IMO of poor media management / messaging. In a vitally important / high profile issue such as this, the senior managers should all be saying exactly the same thing. Same messaging, same talking points. Now, you
- Is point 6 the fault of Shutts? Possibly. Possibly the club's media people haven't done their job on this. They should have worked all this out and briefed Chapman / Roo / Fagan already. On the other hand, the best media people in the world can't control people who won't listen / can't be told.
I'm not going to waste emotional energy assuming the worst, or speculating (although I do enjoy reading the "speculating / assuming" posts . But I would like to make some comments on what we know - or what seems to be the case, anyway.1. Timing: The failure to take the initiative earlier, and to be responding (or appearing to be responding) only after massive external pressure, is a fail by the club. But, it is what it is. Yes, it probably makes it too late for some changes to be made before 2020, on the other hand, that doesn't mean that some things can't be changed progressively and at the end of 2020. That may not make 2020 a "wasted season" if the club at least takes on board some things and in particular giving the youngsters more of a go (which you'd hardly need a review to tell you). So, yeah, it is what it is, doesn't have to be the end of all usefulness.
(For example, if the sports psych comes up with some stuff, then maybe that can be acted on immediately and into 2020. You're entitled to be cynical when a consultant says "thing X is a problem, and you can fix it by paying for more of me" but if the guy is credible, and his findings are credible, then let him implement some of them.)
2. Personnel: A good start with the first 2, hopefully the footy people to be added will be quality also. Let's see.
3. Anonymity of at least one reviewer: Is this being said? If it is, I don't like it. It's a matter of credibility. "Footy thing X is going to be acted on" - Who said that? "We can't tell you". I wouldn't be happy with someone saying "I'll do your review but I don't want to put my name to it in public".
4. Release of findings: The full findings will not be released. Get over it. No-one does that. I know we all want to read about how effed up the football department is, and how Burton is the problem, but that's not going to happen. I don't know how much was published from the Geelong / Richmond / Collingwood reviews, but I'm prepared to bet it wasn't "full findings". It's the actions that will count.
5. Chapman / Roo / Fagan saying different things about what will be released: I don't place too much store in that, I think it's just people using different words to describe the same thing. I don't see it as a sign that there is some sort of confusion or disagreement between them, or that one is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and another is being more honest, or anything like that. However:
6. The fact that the "Big 3" are using different words is a sign IMO of poor media management / messaging. In a vitally important / high profile issue such as this, the senior managers should all be saying exactly the same thing. Same messaging, same talking points. Now, you
- Is point 6 the fault of Shutts? Possibly. Possibly the club's media people haven't done their job on this. They should have worked all this out and briefed Chapman / Roo / Fagan already. On the other hand, the best media people in the world can't control people who won't listen / can't be told.
For those that missed Fagan's interview this morning
INTERVIEW: Andrew Fagan - 27 August 2019
Adelaide Crows CEO Andrew Fagan See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Thanks for that.
Was a good listen.
David and Will were great in their line of questioning.
I was one who was really impressed with Fages, but now the gloss has word off, I'm not convinced.
He is there when the good news stories are to be broken, but seems to hide in the shadows when shit gets real.
I, and others can be as passionate as the next guy, but doesn't mean I am any good at running an AFL footy department!
Big Gazoongas
Cancelled
This is the same club that appointed Burton as head of footy Ops, You shouldn't be surprised.
I have resisted the idea that our fitness program is so bad that that would happen. I mean, I know the club can do no right in our eyes at the moment, but really, how bad do you have to be at this fitness thing for your players to start dropping like flies in the second halves, from halfway through the season?
But I admit there is evidence for this. Maybe it's mental, too.
Wait - there's a Review that will answer this for us! Not joking, I reckon the fitness and psych guys will pick up on that.
Just on point 3, it was Graham Cornes who first mentioned an auditor would remain anonymous, however Fagan addressed that in his interview this morning (I posted the link earlier), and it appears Cornes is wrong, all 4 names will be announced & known.
The anonymous element was in relation to the fact that as part of their normal internal review processes (both now and in the past), they regularly consult external experts & specialist on topics of concern.
Similar threads
