The Western Bulldogs Next Coach

[Mutt]

Stop saying Chris Grant is the Football Director. Graham Lowe is (replacing Fanta).

Grant is a club Board Executive and his position is to be the conduit from the Club Board to the Football department.

Except for the CEO. All Club Board positions a voluntary, not paid.

I think that you will find that Chris Grant is the Football Director. Grant is not an Executive of the club.

Executives are senior employees of an organisation who have line management responsibility for a major part of the organisation's operations, or in the case of the CEO, for the operations of the whole organisation.

Company Directors have clearly defined responsibilities for the overall management or governance of an organisation and in Australia their functions and responsibilities are described in the Corporations Act. Collectively, the club Directors comprise the Board of Directors of the Footscray Football Club. FFC currently has eight Directors of which Chris Grant is one. Simon Garlick is the Chief Executive Officer and, according to the club's website, is not a Director of the Footscray Football Club. Sometimes the CEO of an organisation is also appointed as a director of the company and sometimes not - in our case not.

Grahame Lowe is the General Manager, Football. Lowe is an Executive of the Club but he is not a Director and therefore does not sit on the club's Board of Directors. Lowe has line management responsibility for all operational matters relating to football. (Here is the announcement of Lowe's appointment to the position of General manager, Football - http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2013-06-28/dogs-appoint-football-boss .)

Grant is titled Football Director because he is a Director of the Club who, on behalf of the Board of Directors, provides oversight but not line management of all things football. He is the Board's eyes and ears and provides specialist advice to the other Directors about football matters. The position is similar to Finance Director, who provides oversight on behalf of the Board over the club's finances but doesn't line manage the Chief Financial Officer.

So Graham Lowe and his ultimate boss, Simon Garlick, shoulder operational responsibility for what has happened in the football department of our club. Chris Grant's role is to provide insight and guidance to the Board of Directors to assist them in their role of governing the whole club. Chris Grant may also have played a role in advising but not directing the CEO and/or General Manager, Football on football matters. Grant does not have any line management responsibility for the Football Department.

The Board may be disappointed that Chris Grant didn't fully appreciate all of the problems we had in the Football Department but operational management responsibility rests with Simon Garlick, whose position should be very tenuous or worse.

 

[BRWB]

I think that you will find that Chris Grant is the Football Director. Grant is not an Executive of the club.

Executives are senior employees of an organisation who have line management responsibility for a major part of the organisation's operations, or in the case of the CEO, for the operations of the whole organisation.

Company Directors have clearly defined responsibilities for the overall management or governance of an organisation and in Australia their functions and responsibilities are described in the Corporations Act. Collectively, the club Directors comprise the Board of Directors of the Footscray Football Club. FFC currently has eight Directors of which Chris Grant is one. Simon Garlick is the Chief Executive Officer and, according to the club's website, is not a Director of the Footscray Football Club. Sometimes the CEO of an organisation is also appointed as a director of the company and sometimes not - in our case not.

Grahame Lowe is the General Manager, Football. Lowe is an Executive of the Club but he is not a Director and therefore does not sit on the club's Board of Directors. Lowe has line management responsibility for all operational matters relating to football. (Here is the announcement of Lowe's appointment to the position of General manager, Football - http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2013-06-28/dogs-appoint-football-boss .)

Grant is titled Football Director because he is a Director of the Club who, on behalf of the Board of Directors, provides oversight but not line management of all things football. He is the Board's eyes and ears and provides specialist advice to the other Directors about football matters. The position is similar to Finance Director, who provides oversight on behalf of the Board over the club's finances but doesn't line manage the Chief Financial Officer.

So Graham Lowe and his ultimate boss, Simon Garlick, shoulder management responsibility for what has happened in the football department of our club. Chis Grant's role is to provide insight and guidance to the Board of Directors to assist them in their role of governing the whole club. Chris Grant may also have played a role in advising but not directing the CEO and/or General Manager, Football on football matters, but Grant does not have any management responsibility for the Football Department.

The Board may be disappointed that Chris Grant didn't fully appreciate all of the problems we had in the Football Department but management responsibility rests with Simon Garlick, whose position should be very tenuous or worse.

Enjoyed that post Mutt couldn't be bothered going into detail you have but you nailed my understanding of the positions. Given this is the coaching thread. Do you think anyone on the coaching panel when this crap has occurred should be a - at the club next year, or b - selected as senior coach?

 

[ivan rassmussen]

Enjoyed that post Mutt couldn't be bothered going into detail you have but you nailed my understanding of the positions. Given this is the coaching thread. Do you think anyone on the coaching panel when this crap has occurred should be a - at the club next year, or b - selected as senior coach?

Justin Cordy - where does he sit?

Interesting that he was involved in the periphery of the Bombres supplement stuff, whilst at Carlton:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dons-outmuscle-ratten-20130501-2itct.html

And also, when he was appointed, Graeme Lowe was quoted, so he is a real person:

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2013-09-20/cordy-dogs-new-high-performance-manager

"I have no comment about Monty..."

 

[ivan rassmussen]

"What the blazes is going on at my club???"

 

[yebiga]

What role did hunters mother have in all this? At first blush it may appear breakfast with her son is innocent. But was it? Was she there under instructions from Monty?
And was Brendan getting too close in uncovering the plot? Forcing Monty to go nuclear with Griffey?

 

[BRWB]

Justin Cordy - where does he sit?

Interesting that he was involved in the periphery of the Bombres supplement stuff, whilst at Carlton:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dons-outmuscle-ratten-20130501-2itct.html

And also, when he was appointed, Graeme Lowe was quoted, so he is a real person:

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2013-09-20/cordy-dogs-new-high-performance-manager

"I have no comment about Monty..."

Justin is our High Performance Manager, how's that been coming along?

Seriously don't know where he fits in all of this, you have to think all of the management group would be a little nervous about their roles with a football operations review coming or underway after a clusterf@ck of this proportion.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

What role did hunters mother have in all this? At first blush it may appear breakfast with her son is innocent. But was it? Was she there under instructions from Monty?
And was Brendan getting too close in uncovering the plot? Forcing Monty to go nuclear with Griffey?

She's related to the McVeighs, in fact I think she IS a McVeigh.

There's your answer right there...

(I have heard no rumours that Monty sometimes went undercover at WO dressed at Hunter's mother, none whatsoever. But that's not to say it never happened, and I'm not saying it did happen, just that I haven't heard that it happened, so I won't give it legs by saying it happened. But it could have...)

LH: "Why Mum, what big teeth you have today..."
CH/BM: "All the better to enjoy my breakfast at my cafe, uh, I mean this lovely cafe..."

 

[Mutt]

Enjoyed that post Mutt couldn't be bothered going into detail you have but you nailed my understanding of the positions. Given this is the coaching thread. Do you think anyone on the coaching panel when this crap has occurred should be a - at the club next year, or b - selected as senior coach?

To be honest, we don't have enough information about who did what, and who played what roles in this sorry saga to make any definitive judgement about who goes and who (if anyone) stays. That said, I'll give it a go though:

Firstly, when an organisation is in crisis at multiple levels, sometimes the response of having an immediate and total clean out can end up being counter-productive. A case of "the medicine being worse than the disease" if you like. A clean out can and should occur, but it can happen over months, rather than days.

If you are shooting people as a means of holding them accountable for what happened at the club, then you had better be 100% right in your judgments, or the potential damage you expose the club to is massive. And not just legal suits, wrongful dismissal, reputation damage (think Richmond of the last 30 years) but also it can damage staff and player morale if you get it wrong, or even if you get it right, and it will spook sponsors, coterie groups and supporters.

Given that we are appointing a new Senior Coach at the beginning of pre-season, do we really want that Coach to start the job with no coaching staff at all? I'd suggest we should shoot any obvious incompetents and people who may undermine the new Coach and leave the rest in place. Some have already gone anyway. Importantly, having been appointed by the previous Head Coach of itself is not sufficient reason to get rid of anyone. The new Coach will be able to work out pretty quickly who should go and who should stay, and may bring one or two people in with them from day one anyway. Possibly some others from the current coaching panel will soon jump ship as well.

If I had anything to do with the appointment of the new coach, I would be very, very wary of appointing anyone from the old coaching panel to be the new Senior Coach. The obvious exception would be if there is an Assistant whose standing in the club and wider AFL community was such that their appointment would be hailed as a triumph. This year has been a heck up of such monumental proportions that anything short of a completely new, totally neutral person in every way is likely to compromise the prospects of Coaching success in the future.

So - I would discount Montgomery and all other current coaching panel applicants. Not interviewing Montgomery, the current AFL Assistant Coach of the Year would take some explaining - so Monty gets an interview but would need to be head and shoulders above all other candidates to get the gig.

I would be looking for someone who ideally is currently outside of the club. If I was on the Board or the coaching selection panel, I would be very wary of the perceived conflict of interests that Gordon has with Montgomery and would be pissed off that Gordon was seen to be providing some form of endorsement for Montgomery as a strong contender in recent radio interviews. This appointment needs to be squeaky clean in every way, but just as importantly, it needs to be seen to be squeaky clean in every way.

So I guess from a governance perspective, they are my initial thoughts. I haven't constructed selection criteria for the Senior Coach but was asking last night on here what others thought we should be looking for. The very first thing the club should do now is work out what success looks like (ie. what does the perfect new Senior Coach look like?) Document that, and only then assemble a field of candidates to assess against your selection criteria.

 

[BRWB]

To be honest, we don't have enough information about who did what, and who played what roles in this sorry saga to make any definitive judgement about who goes and who (if anyone) stays. That said, I'll give it a go though:

Firstly, when an organisation is in crisis at multiple levels, sometimes the response of having an immediate and total clean out can end up being counter-productive. A case of "the medicine being worse than the disease" if you like. A clean out can and should occur, but it can happen over months, rather than days.

If you are shooting people as a means of holding them accountable for what happened at the club, then you had better be 100% right in your judgments, or the potential damage you expose the club to is massive. And not just legal suits, wrongful dismissal, reputation damage (think Richmond of the last 30 years) but also it can damage staff and player morale if you get it wrong, or even if you get it right, and it will spook sponsors, coterie groups and supporters.

Given that we are appointing a new Senior Coach at the beginning of pre-season, do we really want that Coach to start the job with no coaching staff at all? I'd suggest we should shoot any obvious incompetents and people who may undermine the new Coach and leave the rest in place. Some have already gone anyway. Importantly, having been appointed by the previous Head Coach of itself is not sufficient reason to get rid of anyone. The new Coach will be able to work out pretty quickly who should go and who should stay, and may bring one or two people in with them from day one anyway. Possibly some others from the current coaching panel will soon jump ship as well.

If I had anything to do with the appointment of the new coach, I would be very, very wary of appointing anyone from the old coaching panel to be the new Senior Coach. The obvious exception would be if there is an Assistant whose standing in the club and wider AFL community was such that their appointment would be hailed as a triumph. This year has been a heck up of such monumental proportions that anything short of a completely new, totally neutral person in every way is likely to compromise the prospects of Coaching success in the future.

So - I would discount Montgomery and all other current coaching panel applicants. Not interviewing Montgomery, the current AFL Assistant Coach of the Year would take some explaining - so Monty gets an interview but would need to be head and shoulders above all other candidates to get the gig.

I would be looking for someone who ideally is currently outside of the club. If I was on the Board or the coaching selection panel, I would be very wary of the perceived conflict of interests that Gordon has with Montgomery and would be pissed off that Gordon was seen to be providing some form of endorsement for Montgomery as a strong contender in recent radio interviews. This appointment needs to be squeaky clean in every way, but just as importantly, it needs to be seen to be squeaky clean in every way.

So I guess from a governance perspective, they are my initial thoughts. I haven't constructed selection criteria for the Senior Coach but was asking last night on here what others thought we should be looking for. The very first thing the club should do now is work out what success looks like (ie. what does the perfect new Senior Coach look like?) Document that, and only then assemble a field of candidates to assess against your selection criteria.

Another great post thanks for that. As you say the fallout of shooting everyone involved (good or bad) may be difficult. But with this unprecedented set of extraordinary circumstances, I wouldn't be surprised if it happens, but as you say it may happen over time.

Totally agree with your views on Monty (and by the way I have no agenda against him, but at a minimum its a case of wrong place - wrong time for him to be appointed.) Already heard Gordon distance himself from the appointment process and acknowledge he has a perceived conflict with his business interests with Monty, in short Gordon's too smart to let things unfold in a compromising fashion.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

Another great post thanks for that. As you say the fallout of shooting everyone involved (good or bad) may be difficult. But with this unprecedented set of extraordinary circumstances, I wouldn't be surprised if it happens, but as you say it may happen over time.

Totally agree with your views on Monty (and by the way I have no agenda against him, but at a minimum its a case of wrong place - wrong time for him to be appointed.) Already heard Gordon distance himself from the appointment process and acknowledge he has a perceived conflict with his business interests with Monty, in short Gordon's too smart to let things unfold in a compromising fashion.

Interesting, when did he mention his conflict?

"Everyone", even over time - do you guys mean Grant, Garlick, even Gordon?

 

[Mutt]

Another great post thanks for that. As you say the fallout of shooting everyone involved (good or bad) may be difficult. But with this unprecedented set of extraordinary circumstances, I wouldn't be surprised if it happens, but as you say it may happen over time.

Totally agree with your views on Monty (and by the way I have no agenda against him, but at a minimum its a case of wrong place - wrong time for him to be appointed.) Already heard Gordon distance himself from the appointment process and acknowledge he has a perceived conflict with his business interests with Monty, in short Gordon's too smart to let things unfold in a compromising fashion.

You are spot on regarding Monty I think. I don't have any agenda re him either, but unfortunately for him he might never escape the stench that would accompany his appointment: Gordon's lapdog and the guy who undermined the last two Senior Coaches.

Probably all of that is either untrue, or greatly exaggerated, but for Monty it's a case of wrong place and wrong time as you said BR.

 

[BRWB]

Interesting, when did he mention his conflict?

"Everyone", even over time - do you guys mean Grant, Garlick, even Gordon?

Conflict, was when I think when Patty Smith interviewed him..

I mean everyone directly involved at a line management level, can't speak for Mutt. That means everyone up to and including Lowe goes, Garlick stays, probably, but heavily dependent on review outcome. Grant is safe. So is Gordon. Simply put they didn't know till it was too late - that is an implied criticism of their reporting and people appointing systems and processes in itself but not enough for their removal. The others being closer to the coalface should have known in varying degrees.

 

[Mutt]

Interesting, when did he mention his conflict?

"Everyone", even over time - do you guys mean Grant, Garlick, even Gordon?

When Gordon was interviewed on SEN shortly after Macca was sacked he was asked by Smith (I think) about his and Monty's business connections through the club cafe. Gordon became indignant and said that as a lawyer he was well aware of how to handle conflicts of interest. Gordon however demonstrated that he had no intention of properly handling his conflict by hailing Montgomery as the Assistant Coach of the Year and saying that Monty has a very strong claim (or similar words.)

 

[BRWB]

When Gordon was interviewed on SEN shortly after Macca was sacked he was asked by Smith (I think) about his and Monty's business connections through the club cafe. Gordon became indignant and said that as a lawyer he was well aware of how to handle conflicts of interest. Gordon went on to demonstrate that he had no intention of properly handling his conflict by hailing Montgomery as the Assistant Coach of the Year and saying that Monty has a very strong claim (or similar words.)

Didn't hear him proclaim this, if so this is worrying, or could be Peter playing politics (ie Pontius Pilot, 'I backed you Monty but it was out of my hands.')

 

[Norginstine]

Mattdougie wins.

John Worsfold is your man

 

[ivan rassmussen]

I think it is a worry too, quite frankly. Discuss the conflict of interest, then endorse your business partner for a role in a club you are president of?! Not a good look.

 

[Mutt]

Didn't hear him proclaim this, if so this is worrying, or could be Peter playing politics (ie Pontius Pilot, 'I backed you Monty but it was out of my hands.')

I'm sure that it wouldn't be hard to find Gordon's exact words for anyone who wanted to check. When I originally wrote post #1112 above I had attributed Gordons interview to Trade Radio and Damien Barrett, but then thought it was the SEN interview. It will be either SEN or Trade Radio on, I think, the day after Macca resigned.

I don't think that Gordon was playing politics. I think that Gordon needs to slow down sometimes and remember that he is no longer running a law firm where the actions of himself and staff are not subjected so fiercely to the blowtorch of public scrutiny. During the recent/current crisis, The President of the FFC is perhaps under as much media scrutiny as any sporting figure in this sport obsessed country. Gordon needs to remember his every word is being dissected and every media person is probing for weakness. Many of them smell and want blood.

 

[cammo78]

John Worsfold is your man

You must have missed the part where Worsfold is not interested in coaching next year, trolling flog.

 

[BRWB]

I'm sure that it wouldn't be hard to find Gordon's exact words for anyone who wanted to check. When I originally wrote post #1112 above I had attributed Gordons interview to Trade Radio and Damien Barrett, but then thought it was the SEN interview. It will be either SEN or Trade Radio on, I think, the day after Macca resigned.

I don't think that Gordon was playing politics. I think that Gordon needs to slow down sometimes and remember that he is no longer running a law firm where the actions of himself and staff are not subjected so fiercely to the blowtorch of public scrutiny. During the recent/current crisis, The President of the FFC is perhaps under as much media scrutiny as any sporting figure in this sport obsessed country. Gordon needs to remember his every word is being dissected and every media person is probing for weakness. Many of them smell and want blood.

Yep possibly. But looking at your ealier post you said the club had to interview him for at least the appearance of fairness. Perhaps Gordon had to say something to that effect, even if he has no intention of hiring him?

We'll see, wish I could back the field against Monty though..

 

[doggies ftw]

I wouldn't worry about their "business" relationship, it's running the club cafe ffs, I don't even think PG takes any profit.

 

[cammo78]

Yep possibly. But looking at your ealier post you said the club had to interview him for at least the appearance of fairness. Perhaps Gordon had to say something to that effect, even if he has no intention of hiring him?

We'll see, wish I could back the field against Monty though..

Considering he's the $3.00 favourite, you and me both.

I've backed Tudor @ $12 and Williams @ $25, though.

 

[Mofra]

I wouldn't worry about their "business" relationship, it's running the club cafe ffs, I don't even think PG takes any profit.

PG's wife has a 50% interest in it and donates profits back to the club.

 

[Roscoe_au]

An interesting perspective, and given we are talking about a football club, things may differ. I'm not sure how big your organisation is so its also hard to put into context.

Having been in middle and frontline management myself albeit with a large organisation, I do know that senior management used to belt the crap out of middle management and then it would flow down if performance wasn't there. The end result was often non performing staff, and their front line and one up manager were in the gun.

While your questions of the leadership group would be more than fair, we must also understand that for a footy team's leadership group we are talking about mainly 20 something year olds whose primary job is to play footy, not manage - and nor can we sack all the players either (but we seem to have moved quite a few on). In this 'baby' environment the frontline (asst coaches) and middle managers (Macca and Lowe) are crucial to both managing situations and advising Garlick.

That is why I think they are accountable and have to go. Let alone the other reason which is to remove any remnant of division in the management group and start afresh.

We have had a communication breakdown and an outcome that is almost unprecedented. Our captain walked and our coach left one day later, tell me of a club where that has happened in recent times?

There have been full coaching and footy management clean outs for far more minor issues, than ours.

And so to end my ranting, I don't think Monty should be appointed....

Yeah, I agree. And I know it's a stretch to compare an AFL Club with the corporate world.

The only thing I took from the discussion with that alcoholic media hack on SEN yesterday afternoon (Robbo) was the Ox saying that the very strong leadership group at Melbourne in the days when they were successful was very quick at squashing any dissent. He recalled telling a runner to piss off and tell the same to a coach and said that Rod Grinter pulled him up straight away in the ground and told him to pull his head in.

It's that sort of leadership I expect in strong clubs. Probably more tribal than corporate...but there are similarities.

 

[Nath09]

Leon Cameron was odds on favourite to coach the club 3 years ago and we all know how that went. Odds don't mean a hell of a lot.

 

[BRWB]

Considering he's the $3.00 favourite, you and me both.

I've backed Tudor @ $12 and Williams @ $25, though.

Yeah I've got Tudor but at $9 (I may reload ), Williams is a chance worry about how he left Port (I mean the state of the club). Just Williams seemed to be a divisive figure at times at Port (the you were wrong GF speech), we need someone less divisive or aggressive (but still strong, determined and able). Williams is a bit of a chance though purely because of his record of developing young players and premiership success. If he is interested.