Non release of Review findings
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Sun 04 Apr 2004 12:03pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7282
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:31am
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 142 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
I knowLinton Street Saint wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 1:09pm They are going to release them, they explicitly said that.
BUT think that is very poor
saint4life
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6285
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 260 times
- Been thanked: 1097 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
The review is probably not completed - just the part that relates to Ratten - and wanting to get on the front foot before Draft day
“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2005 10:11pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 36 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
Just my opinion but I think it would be very unlikely that details of the review will be made public as they would highlight weaknesses of individuals and processes that could be highly embarrassing to those concerned. They would also give ammunition to our competitors.
Cheers!
Cheers!
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6285
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 260 times
- Been thanked: 1097 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
I agree - in the details - but the findings for areas may need releasing - like - our fitness etccps wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 2:06pm Just my opinion but I think it would be very unlikely that details of the review will be made public as they would highlight weaknesses of individuals and processes that could be highly embarrassing to those concerned. They would also give ammunition to our competitors.
Cheers!
“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
- Munga
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5287
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:00am
- Has thanked: 525 times
- Been thanked: 98 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
Couldn't care less about the findings not being released today. A few more important matters going on than to type it up nicely to present to the public.
High level doc is fine for getting the point across. No need to embarrass people or roles in detail.
High level doc is fine for getting the point across. No need to embarrass people or roles in detail.
Gehrig emerged from scans yesterday saying he was "as sweet as a bun"
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Tue 09 May 2017 5:39pm
- Has thanked: 199 times
- Been thanked: 248 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
Basset said that they would only release the "high level findings of the review". Members deserve the entire report where names can be changed to protect privacy. A member of the media will no doubt get access to it so why shouldn't the most important stakeholders (us) be privy also? It's time for the club to come to the party and start treating the lifeblood of the club (members) with the respect and transparency we deserve. Our membership money would have contributed towards the report (as well as Ratten's expected payout btw) so it's the least they can do as far as I'm concerned.Linton Street Saint wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 1:09pm They are going to release them, they explicitly said that.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2005 10:11pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 36 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
Too risky IMHO - other clubs will be straight onto it and pick it apart.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2005 10:11pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 36 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
Also, do you think it's fair on Brett Ratten (who appears to be a great person BTW) to have his faults and mistakes made public for all the world to see?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4241
- Joined: Fri 15 Sep 2006 10:35am
- Location: earth
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1390 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
They have no obligation to release the full details. They've just sacked a guy. Explaining why in detail would only humiliate an already humiliated coach. Ever thought of that? I'm sure Ratten's family and friends would love all his dirty linen displayed to the public. Some things should be kept in-house. Just because the media and some supporters want to know absolutely everything doesn't mean they have the right to.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4304
- Joined: Fri 17 Nov 2006 1:05am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 240 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
Caught a glimpse of the review
Basically we need more cowbell !![🐄](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f404.svg)
![🔔](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f514.svg)
Basically we need more cowbell !
In red white and black from 73
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3580 times
- Been thanked: 2844 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
Agreed.cwrcyn wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 3:26pm They have no obligation to release the full details. They've just sacked a guy. Explaining why in detail would only humiliate an already humiliated coach. Ever thought of that? I'm sure Ratten's family and friends would love all his dirty linen displayed to the public. Some things should be kept in-house. Just because the media and some supporters want to know absolutely everything doesn't mean they have the right to.
At some point the club will need to release some spin as to why he was sacked but it will be just that… spin
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Tue 09 May 2017 5:39pm
- Has thanked: 199 times
- Been thanked: 248 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
Asif other clubs would care and if they are using our failings as a blueprint for their own success then they've got bigger problems IMO
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Tue 09 May 2017 5:39pm
- Has thanked: 199 times
- Been thanked: 248 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
If they used membership funds to contribute towards this review then absolutely they do. If Basset paid for the review out of his own pocket then fair enough, keep it under the rug and cherry pick what you want to be shared with the members. They are obliged to provide an annual financial report for stakeholders so I can't see how an urgent review into football operations wouldn't also fall into the same category. This isn't just about Ratten as Basset said there "were a bunch of other things" that isn't being done properly. I think the majority of members have lost trust in the club's ability to operate competently so unless it's all out on the table it's hard to see how they will earn that back. If you're happy to be consistently fed crap and be told it's jelly beans then good for you but I can guarantee that there many out there who deservedly expect better communication.cwrcyn wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 3:26pm They have no obligation to release the full details. They've just sacked a guy. Explaining why in detail would only humiliate an already humiliated coach. Ever thought of that? I'm sure Ratten's family and friends would love all his dirty linen displayed to the public. Some things should be kept in-house. Just because the media and some supporters want to know absolutely everything doesn't mean they have the right to.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2005 10:11pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 36 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
No, they could use the information to potentially lure players away. For example, say a Saints player is testing the waters at trade time. An opposition club could say something like "Look, we know that when you were at the Saints X, Y and Z were a shambles. We can guarantee that if you come to us that won't be the case". And if they know about the review contents they could be right!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Tue 09 May 2017 5:39pm
- Has thanked: 199 times
- Been thanked: 248 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
Yeah good point but if we acted on recommendations where we were no longer in shambles then that would render that approach irrelevant. If we released it right before the trade period then your theory would hold up but if we can't change it up in a year then we don't deserve to keep x,y, & z.cps wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 3:58pmNo, they could use the information to potentially lure players away. For example, say a Saints player is testing the waters at trade time. An opposition club could say something like "Look, we know that when you were at the Saints X, Y and Z were a shambles. We can guarantee that if you come to us that won't be the case". And if they know about the review contents they could be right!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2005 10:11pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 36 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
My understanding is that financial operations and football operations are basically completely separate and that the club isn't obliged to make a review of football operations public. Most (all?) clubs would review their football operations at the end of each season. How many have been made public?They are obliged to provide an annual financial report for stakeholders so I can't see how an urgent review into football operations wouldn't also fall into the same category. This isn't just about Ratten as Basset said there "were a bunch of other things" that isn't being done properly. I think the majority of members have lost trust in the club's ability to operate competently so unless it's all out on the table it's hard to see how they will earn that back. If you're happy to be consistently fed crap and be told it's jelly beans then good for you but I can guarantee that there many out there who deservedly expect better
Regarding "the majority of members have lost trust in the club's ability to operate competently" I think the fact that we had record membership last season says that's not the case.
All my opinion of course
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2005 10:11pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 36 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
By "X, Y and Z" I meant things like training standards, game day coaching, selection integrity" etc. Some of these things take time to change.outside66 wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 4:08pmYeah good point but if we acted on recommendations where we were no longer in shambles then that would render that approach irrelevant. If we released it right before the trade period then your theory would hold up but if we can't change it up in a year then we don't deserve to keep x,y, & z.cps wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 3:58pmNo, they could use the information to potentially lure players away. For example, say a Saints player is testing the waters at trade time. An opposition club could say something like "Look, we know that when you were at the Saints X, Y and Z were a shambles. We can guarantee that if you come to us that won't be the case". And if they know about the review contents they could be right!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Tue 09 May 2017 5:39pm
- Has thanked: 199 times
- Been thanked: 248 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
I'm not sure of other clubs operate (Essendon bankrolled their EY external audit via coterie influence I believe) but once you outsource external input I assume that they need to be paid. If it's completely internal then that remains the organisation's business. Unless the AFL offered Noble for free as part of his payout from North, then some of his payment (and anyone else externally involved) would have come from membership contributions. With regards to the 60000 members, majority would have jumped onboard when we were sitting at 8-3 coming off similar in the back half of 2021. If you asked the 60000 as to their level of trust from the midseason break to now, then I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised with their response. In any case, I wouldn't confuse loyalty with trust. We are the most loyal supporters in the competition yet we get treated like dirt from the club (once they've taken our money).cps wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 4:09pmMy understanding is that financial operations and football operations are basically completely separate and that the club isn't obliged to make a review of football operations public. Most (all?) clubs would review their football operations at the end of each season. How many have been made public?They are obliged to provide an annual financial report for stakeholders so I can't see how an urgent review into football operations wouldn't also fall into the same category. This isn't just about Ratten as Basset said there "were a bunch of other things" that isn't being done properly. I think the majority of members have lost trust in the club's ability to operate competently so unless it's all out on the table it's hard to see how they will earn that back. If you're happy to be consistently fed crap and be told it's jelly beans then good for you but I can guarantee that there many out there who deservedly expect better
Regarding "the majority of members have lost trust in the club's ability to operate competently" I think the fact that we had record membership last season says that's not the case.
All my opinion of course![]()
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Tue 09 May 2017 5:39pm
- Has thanked: 199 times
- Been thanked: 248 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
oh got ya. Well if done properly, all of those things could be resolved early in the season.cps wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 4:11pmBy "X, Y and Z" I meant things like training standards, game day coaching, selection integrity" etc. Some of these things take time to change.outside66 wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 4:08pmYeah good point but if we acted on recommendations where we were no longer in shambles then that would render that approach irrelevant. If we released it right before the trade period then your theory would hold up but if we can't change it up in a year then we don't deserve to keep x,y, & z.cps wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 3:58pmNo, they could use the information to potentially lure players away. For example, say a Saints player is testing the waters at trade time. An opposition club could say something like "Look, we know that when you were at the Saints X, Y and Z were a shambles. We can guarantee that if you come to us that won't be the case". And if they know about the review contents they could be right!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2005 10:11pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 36 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
I get your frustration and I'd like to know the findings of the review too, but I think that the information is too sensitive to be released publicly.We are the most loyal supporters in the competition yet we get treated like dirt from the club (once they've taken our money).
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2005 10:11pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 36 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
Also, in light of Ratten being sacked, I think the review must have found something seriously wrong. It must have been something that was irreconcilable.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2730
- Joined: Sun 25 Apr 2021 9:43pm
- Has thanked: 691 times
- Been thanked: 773 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
Christopher Walken to coach?mr six o'clock wrote: ↑Fri 14 Oct 2022 3:29pm Caught a glimpse of the review
Basically we need more cowbell !![]()
We'd have 100,000 members in no time
The Artist formerly known as Fugazi
- WellardSaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8256
- Joined: Sat 26 May 2012 11:25am
- Location: Perth- the best weather in Oz, but the worst rednecks.
- Has thanked: 1849 times
- Been thanked: 869 times
Re: Non release of Review findings
One article says that Glenn Luff was involved in presenting review findings to the review committee- Bassat, Lethers, Jason Blake, and someone else who I forget.
They said Glenn Luff was list manager at Norf for a short time, and left midway thru 2022.
Prior to Norf, he worked at Champion Data for 17 yrs as an analyst.
Number cruncher.
The thing about number crunchers is they're obssessed with numbers, statistics, dollars, etc, but I don't think they have a soul at all.
How would he really know anything about footy?
I recall he got bagged and belittled on social media by Kane Cornes or someone similar, not long ago
They said Glenn Luff was list manager at Norf for a short time, and left midway thru 2022.
Prior to Norf, he worked at Champion Data for 17 yrs as an analyst.
Number cruncher.
The thing about number crunchers is they're obssessed with numbers, statistics, dollars, etc, but I don't think they have a soul at all.
How would he really know anything about footy?
I recall he got bagged and belittled on social media by Kane Cornes or someone similar, not long ago
A real Sainter will pledge allegiance to the ❤![🤍](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f90d.svg)
and despise the Pies, the Blues, and the Injectors.
Remember one of the 10 Commandments : Thou shalt have no other team before thee
Remember one of the 10 Commandments : Thou shalt have no other team before thee