The Review

[FAITH]

So Blight thinks the external review is a stupid idea.

Thoughts ??

You think if he was offered an opportunity to be a part of that review and paid very well to do it he wouldn't?
I luv blighty, but everyone knows what a money hungry fella he is.

 

[boffo]

He is wrong.

At this stage, if the club is to improve performance and retain the confidence of members it has to be external review. No-one would trust an internal review.

We've already heard Chapman and Fagan say everyone is doing very well ('Are you being Served' reference ) and while Roo acknowledged there are problems he backed in his mate Burton. Which shows exactly why it has to be an external review.

 

[The Karma Bus]

So Blight thinks the external review is a stupid idea.

Thoughts ??

I understand that angle. Blight is probably not looking at it from the viewpoint of that they look after each other down there so how will change ever come.

The trouble is they have internally reviewed themselves and it hasn't worked. They also can't really be trusted to review themselves and their mates.

No one can push them out or make changes. So the only option is external reviews torching things, pushing people out and it achieving the idea of ridding the place of shitness.

Needing an external review might say what Paul Roos explained -about them being incompetent.. but no one is pushing them out or changing anything the way it's currently set up. So they will remain, being incompetent.

 

[Elite Crow]

So Blight thinks the external review is a stupid idea.

Thoughts ??

He and Roos are right in principle but we aren’t normal. If our club could make decisions on Burton, Campo, Hart, Pyke and Chapman, then we could rely on looking after it ourselves.

We haven’t though and won’t, so it needs to go external.

We are broken and an absolute shambles that we can’t actually manage ourselves.

He went to town on our last ten years, how long has Chapman been there? There’s your problem.

 

[CrowBloke]

Everyone knows Burton is a clusterfu** - but they didn't take any action because of personal relationships, and the fact they're all responsible for initially employing him, and then, insanely, promoting him. So if he goes, with the damage he has done, they should all go.

This is as good an explanation of why Burton MUST go as I have read.

Also, this: Everyone knows Hart is a clusterfu** - but they didn't take any action because of personal relationships, and the fact they're all responsible for initially employing him.

 

[CrowBloke]

Apologies if anyone has made this point --- I have only looked at the last 3 pages:

For me, the season has been like watching one of those videos of a huge ship gliding inevitably at a wharf, then crashing into it. All of the mistakes leading to the accident have been made. Once done, there's no stopping/avoiding the collision.
Wrt to the Crows, many posters have pointed out those mistakes and who made them.
The mistakes have been made.
The Crows have hit their wharf, clearly, as the post-bye results have shown. Time to clean up the mess and make sure it doesn't happen again.

As I understand it, consensus is that Burton/Hass, Hart and Campo should go. Our midfield is an unaccountable, one-way-running mess. The forward set-up and general play has been dismal --- watching so many other teams' ball-deliverers lower their eyes and hit a forward on a lead while the Crows bomb in blindly so that Betts and Murphy can fly has been utterly exasperating.

As for Pyke, I really don't know if he's a part of the problem and has to go, or a product of the problem and can be retained/redeemed once the others are gone. It worked for Hardwick and Buckley.
At the very least, the next 6 months are going to be interesting , in stark contrast to the abysmal last 24 months .

 

[hey shorty]

He and Roos are right in principle but we aren’t normal. If our club could make decisions on Burton, Campo, Hart, Pyke and Chapman, then we could rely on looking after it ourselves.

We haven’t though and won’t, so it needs to go external.

We are broken and an absolute shambles that we can’t actually manage ourselves.

He went to town on our last ten years, how long has Chapman been there? There’s your problem.

My thoughts exactly

 

[arrowman]

So Blight thinks the external review is a stupid idea.

Thoughts ??

I've only seen the quotes in the post just above yours, maybe he said something more but I don't see him saying the review itself is a stupid idea. I see him saying
1. The timing is poor,
2. They should be able to work it out for themselves, and the fact they haven't is a disgrace.

He.He's probably right on both counts, but that doesn't mean he's saying it's stupid in itself.

Blight is looking at it from the pov of someone who knows how to shake up a football club, and he can't see why others can't do it, too.

 

[mattymac]

I never want to hear the phrase "inside these 4 walls" ever again.

 

[hey shorty]

I've only seen the quotes in the post just above yours, maybe he said something more but I don't see him saying the review itself is a stupid idea. I see him saying
1. The timing is poor,
2. They should be able to work it out for themselves, and the fact they haven't is a disgrace.

He.He's probably right on both counts, but that doesn't mean he's saying it's stupid in itself.

Blight is looking at it from the pov of someone who knows how to shake up a football club, and he can't see why others can't do it, too.

He said it was a ridiculous idea, but as others have said he probably doesn't see it the way we see it.

The last time he tried shaking up a club it didn't work.

 

[GreyCrow]

Love that word. Codswallop.

What the fu** does it even mean? And more importantly.... who made it up?

 

[MRB37]

Mmm you could be right. Is it ratified at another level? or do the players have the final say?

Leadership group is voted by the players, captain is picked by the coach from there and then ratified by the board.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Apologies if anyone has made this point --- I have only looked at the last 3 pages:

For me, the season has been like watching one of those videos of a huge ship gliding inevitably at a wharf, then crashing into it. All of the mistakes leading to the accident have been made. Once done, there's no stopping/avoiding the collision.
Wrt to the Crows, many posters have pointed out those mistakes and who made them.
The mistakes have been made.
The Crows have hit their wharf, clearly, as the post-bye results have shown. Time to clean up the mess and make sure it doesn't happen again.

As I understand it, consensus is that Burton/Hass, Hart and Campo should go. Our midfield is an unaccountable, one-way-running mess. The forward set-up and general play has been dismal --- watching so many other teams' ball-deliverers lower their eyes and hit a forward on a lead while the Crows bomb in blindly so that Betts and Murphy can fly has been utterly exasperating.

As for Pyke, I really don't know if he's a part of the problem and has to go, or a product of the problem and can be retained/redeemed once the others are gone. It worked for Hardwick and Buckley.
At the very least, the next 6 months are going to be interesting , in stark contrast to the abysmal last 24 months .

This post is exactly where my mind is at, even the view on Pyke and whether he is redeemable or not. Surely the guy deserves a crack at it with some wind in his sails instead of an anchor around his neck?

 

[Elite Crow]

I never want to hear the phrase "inside these 4 walls" ever again.

Do they operate in just one room? I hope they plan better at north Adelaide

 

[rabidcrow]

Obviously there are strong views that a number of blokes need to be sacked. What happened after both Collingwood and Richmond reviews? From memory Collingwood hardly made any obvious changes and Richmond sacked a couple of assistant coaches?

Do we expect any more than that?

For what its worth I think Burton and Hass go, Pyke if he truely has lost the players (which those inside the club should know)

No way would I trade the Crouches - they are 2 mids you can build around by drafting/trading in the right mix. We get rid of them we are in danger of years of mediocrity. Our core best 10-12 25 and under players need to stay. All well and good to trade Brad or Matt for pick 15-20 but any guarantee we dont get another Galucci or similar? And what is left of our midfield? Sloane, Jones Gibbs and CEY (if he stays) - one of our key problems has been lack of midfield depth since Greenwood dropped out and CEY got injured. Personally I think Brad wins the B&F this year and at the bye would have been AA squad. Form in back half has dropped off like the whole squad has

 

[rabidcrow]

How on earth is JJ in the leadership group?

Easily forgotten because of how bad he has been this year but JJ was one of our few consistent players last year. Easy to shit can him because he doesnt play the way we would like him to but was also 1 of 3 forwards in the comp to kick 40 + goals for the last 5 years before this one (Reiwoldt and Kennedy the other 2)

 

[jackster83]

Obviously there are strong views that a number of blokes need to be sacked. What happened after both Collingwood and Richmond reviews? From memory Collingwood hardly made any obvious changes and Richmond sacked a couple of assistant coaches?

Do we expect any more than that?

For what its worth I think Burton and Hass go, Pyke if he truely has lost the players (which those inside the club should know)

No way would I trade the Crouches - they are 2 mids you can build around by drafting/trading in the right mix. We get rid of them we are in danger of years of mediocrity. Our core best 10-12 25 and under players need to stay. All well and good to trade Brad or Matt for pick 15-20 but any guarantee we dont get another Galucci or similar? And what is left of our midfield? Sloane, Jones Gibbs and CEY (if he stays) - one of our key problems has been lack of midfield depth since Greenwood dropped out and CEY got injured. Personally I think Brad wins the B&F this year and at the bye would have been AA squad. Form in back half has dropped off like the whole squad has

Didn't Collingwood replace 25 odd football department staff members? Basically everyone bar Buckley in the end.

 

[SaltPeter]

Didn't Collingwood replace 25 odd football department staff members? Basically everyone bar Buckley in the end.

Not really. Sanderson and Harvey survived from the coaching panel (maybe even a few others) .. Hart had already been sacked the year before

 

[Samcro24]

Easily forgotten because of how bad he has been this year but JJ was one of our few consistent players last year. Easy to s**t can him because he doesnt play the way we would like him to but was also 1 of 3 forwards in the comp to kick 40 + goals for the last 5 years before this one (Reiwoldt and Kennedy the other 2)

How is that leadership?

 

[Kezza86]

Huh?

Brad has played every game since Saunders came to the club

That’s what I meant. Crows kept jabbing him before he was referred to Saunders. If he had been involved I don’t know if brad would be still at the crows or had another injury plague year.

 

[Bay62]

Re Blight and Roos criticizing an external review

“They should be able to work it out themselves” and “external review” are not opposite or exclusive alternatives

Yes the hierarchy should be able to see things better than they do

But even the best run organisation is subject to blind spots, confirmation bias and risk aversion bias. We don’t know what we don’t know

Only an external review can provide a different perspective. I’ve posted previously that he constitution should mandate an external review every two or three years. Best practice requires it be baked into how we do things

It’s an essential part of continuous improvement

 

[Bay62]

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 s**t 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!

I’m a communication consultant. Amongst other things I work with organisations to help them build trusted relationships with their customers and stakeholders

Fagan did his best in that interview but he missed the point of the questions.

As Penberthy tried to point out, he thinks “providing content” is the same as being transparent.

He kept saying “we’re no different to other clubs”, meaning we’re no worse. He should have said “we’re determined to be better than other clubs”

He kept using the term “fan engagement activities”. It’s become a cliche and hides what should really be happening - listening to and talking with fans about what the fans believe are the issues

When they invited him to be a regular on the show like Koch is, he was more worried about how that was an attempt to boost their ratings than he was in the point of doing that, which is to front up to the fans come rain or shine. Completely clueless on that point

I recently gave some feedback to a CEO that they weren’t talking properly with their stakeholders. Talking on the wrong level, not listening, batting away concerns rather than taking them on board. He said to me “Hmm yes..so we need to improve our messaging...”

STOP THINKING ABOUT IT AS FECKING MESSAGING

That’s the Crows PR problem. They are living in a corporate bubble without realizing it

I’ll be emailing Fagan later today outlining this and offering my services for free. Let’s see how he responds

 

[MRB37]

 

[MileraMagic]

I’m a communication consultant. Amongst other things I work with organisations to help them build trusted relationships with their customers and stakeholders

Fagan did his best in that interview but he missed the point of the questions.

As Penberthy tried to point out, he thinks “providing content” is the same as being transparent.

He kept saying “we’re no different to other clubs”, meaning we’re no worse. He should have said “we’re determined to be better than other clubs”

He kept using the term “fan engagement activities”. It’s become a cliche and hides what should really be happening - listening to and talking with fans about what the fans believe are the issues

When they invited him to be a regular on the show like Koch is, he was more worried about how that was an attempt to boost their ratings than he was in the point of doing that, which is to front up to the fans come rain or shine. Completely clueless on that point

I recently gave some feedback to a CEO that they weren’t talking properly with their stakeholders. Talking on the wrong level, not listening, batting away concerns rather than taking them on board. He said to me “Hmm yes..so we need to improve our messaging...”

STOP THINKING ABOUT IT AS FECKING MESSAGING

That’s the Crows PR problem. They are living in a corporate bubble without realizing it

I’ll be emailing Fagan later today outlining this and offering my services for free. Let’s see how he responds

Good on you!

 

[TankEngineTommy]

I get the feeling that the Review is all about Fagan pulling rank and trying to save face.

Doesn't seem like he has the balls to just make a move on Roo directly or his stooges (Burton/Campo etc).

Will use any review findings as ammunition and present to Board for them to make a call.

He protects his gig and can sweep out any real dissenters and boys club elements.

Be interesting to see if this works and how it plays out.

Spot on. Don't think Fagan has the Kahuna's.