Maybe Watters did struggle to take on board just coaching the team, Johnny. But, I've got a growing feeling the problems were more widespread than just Watters not fitting in with this new "structure".
I've been back over some of the reporting published over the last few weeks, the period where it moved from rumblings about Watters to Watters is the devil incarnate, culminating in the sacking and the 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' press conference and managerialism festival on Friday.
Caro has been at the centre of the reporting for some time. Back on Oct 17th she produced an article containing these lines of reporting and commentary;
"If Watters' football department staffers, along with other Saints administrators, believe the coach has laboured under a number of delusions, the coach's vexed position is just one in a long list of communication failures at the club over the past season."
"The first public signs of the club delivering mixed messages came when Watters conceded on SEN after just two games that the club was in rebuilding mode, having failed to seek buy-in from his senior playing group and going against the accepted,
albeit misconceived, public philosophy of the club."
"Now the Saints have targeted a top-level CEO and will next week outline their vision for the future while searching for that new boss along with a new co-major sponsor for the club."
Read more:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/m ... z2jdx1kDbb
Some of the rumours re Watters have included references to Milne being stood down. Caro reported that was a board decision.
Saad's inclusion was also raised. Caro's report refers to Watters clearing it with KEY directors, but bypassing Nettlefold. While I agree Watters chosen route is not the way it should be done, what in the hell were KEY directors doing giving him the nod? Exactly who isn't on the same page here? Are those KEY directors still on the board?
The Prescott matter also gets a run. Was a contract signed, or not? Did Watters sign a contract with Prescott, as the responsible football club signatory, when he shouldn't have? Or, did the club not approve Prescott and not provide a contract for signing? If it's the latter, how big a deal is it? If it's the former, then that's a real black mark against Watters (if he wasn't a club approved signatory to such contracts).
Some seem to believe Watters was going to be sacked around 3 weeks ago, but the board baulked. Some believe they baulked because the trade period was underway. If that's the case, that is an extraordinary bit of cynicism. I'm not sure players who spoke to Watters about making the switch (e.g. Longer, who heaped high praise on Watters' role in convincing him to move) will be fully trusting about those running his new environment. Not sure player managers will dismiss it easily, either. We are probably more vulnerable than Brisbane were this year, with the number of young blokes coming out of their 1st contracts in the next 2 or 3 years.
We have heard much mention of "structure" over the last few days. BUT, we have hired a consultancy mob to assist with that structure. It is not clear what the assistance involves; it's also not clear if the structure has even been finalised. The review was finalised....then it wasn't.
Caro mentioned that the club "will NEXT WEEK outline their vision for the future". On Friday Summers mentioned something like 'Vision '17' being ready later this month. What happened to the w/e Oct 25th (given she wrote "next week" on Oct 17th)?
She also mentioned targeting a top level CEO - around 2 weeks later we're told we've just hired another mob to help us find a CEO.
A couple of weeks ago, Summers was quoted as saying 1 of the reasons they hadn't discussed an extension with Watters was because they didn't have every thing in place yet, and it was fairest to Watters to get everything in place before discussing an extension, because he might not be comfortable with what's done, and may decide not to seek an extension. Well, there's a lot still not in place, but they sacked him anyway.
I'm very concerned about the lack of consistency and coherence in what is being presented. I also don't buy this line about protecting Watters' privacy and reputation by saying nothing other than it's the new structure wot did him in. I'm not a media or communications practitioner, but I've read enough statements re giving someone the bullet to know resorting to simplistic references to 'structure' doesn't cut it. Confidentiality clauses are constructs to bury transparency, nothing more. But, anybody who believes there aren't ways to render confidentiality clauses useless have never read a Baker and McKenzie report. Where there's a will, there's a way.
If we were a privately owned club or business, I wouldn't give a rat's. But, we're not. We're part publicly owned business, part club. In the language of managerialism the business part has "stakeholders". The club bit has donors, members and supporters.
I'm not surprised to have read lots of "phew" responses to the media handling of the events of Friday, and since. The coverage has been soft, with numerous speculative pieces about the "real" reasons for the sacking. All sorts of media types are interpreting the significance of the various rumours, leaks and briefings. General relief, all around.
But, if you go back to Caro's Oct 17th article, you can detect suspicion the problems are broader than 1 mid level manager of 1 part of the business/club. Some in the club have been successful in channeling this suspicion in 1 direction - the scapegoat has been identified and purged......for now.
But, if anyone believes the influential media types are all done, they are in cloud cuckoo land. Any hint of inconsistency, failure, being sold BS, and they will come after this football club with a relentless intent. The indications of inconsistency, failure and BS are already there. Any hiccoughs and there won't be many left standing.
'I have no new illusions, and I have no old illusions' - Vladimir Putin, Geneva, June 2021