Do we need a FULL SCALE review? !!

Eastern · Post: # 588133Post **Eastern** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 4:32pm

Do we need a FULL SCALE REVIEW of our entire Football Department? I say, YES WE DO.

I believe that this review should be conducted by Archie Fraser & Andrew Thompson and they should be given free reign to do the job. Archie would be there for his business acumen and his ability to remove the emotion from the situation, Thommo would be there for his footy expertise as well as his business skills. Perhaps they could ask Brian Cooke and/or Campbell Rose for some tips, or maybe even the template they used at their respective clubs.

There are plenty on here and elsewhere who spruke that this player is chyte or that plaer is chyte or the coach is chyte or his assistants are chyte or I am chyte etc, etc.

This review can cover EVERY ASPECT of our football Department and get to the bottom of our problems (if indeed we have problems) in a methodical and systematic way.

I'm hoping that AF, GW, AT and the Board are planning this already !!

meher baba · Post: # 588142Post **meher baba** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 4:48pm

I agree with this, and agree with the use of AT, but not of Archie Fraser, who would clearly have a major conflict of interest.

I would have a three person team: AT, another board member (what's the name of that woman with corporate experience) and an outsider of some sort: perhaps a former player or club office-holder (Ross Oakley - if he remains acceptable - or Andrew Plympton).

St DAC · Post: # 588143Post **St DAC** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 4:51pm

Conflict of interest??? He's the bloody CEO, not the Senior Coach or Football Manager. Who better to have an impartial look-see?

You don't think Brian Cook was involved with the now famous Geelong Full Review? I do.

ausfatcat · Post: # 588147Post **ausfatcat** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 4:57pm

regardless there should be a full scale review every year.

yipper · Post: # 588152Post **yipper** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 5:00pm

Totally agree. Keep Archie involved (he is the CEO) but add Andrew Plympton and Nathan Burke.

markp · Post: # 588155Post **markp** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 5:03pm

Would they necessarily announce it if they were conducting one?

I'd hope if one isn't already underway, that one is about to be conducted... there are not many wheels left to fall off.

bob__71 · Post: # 588156Post **bob__71** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 5:04pm

Haha...the poor old Saints are being run more and more like a public service department

the shadow · Post: # 588157Post **the shadow** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 5:06pm

The reason Archie shouldn't be part of the review is that many inside the club think he's a major part of the problem!

bobmurray · Post: # 588159Post **bobmurray** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 5:08pm

Eastern wrote:Do we need a FULL SCALE REVIEW of our entire Football Department? I say, YES WE DO.

I believe that this review should be conducted by Archie Fraser & Andrew Thompson and they should be given free reign to do the job. Archie would be there for his business acumen and his ability to remove the emotion from the situation, Thommo would be there for his footy expertise as well as his business skills. Perhaps they could ask Brian Cooke and/or Campbell Rose for some tips, or maybe even the template they used at their respective clubs.

There are plenty on here and elsewhere who spruke that this player is chyte or that plaer is chyte or the coach is chyte or his assistants are chyte or I am chyte etc, etc.

This review can cover EVERY ASPECT of our football Department and get to the bottom of our problems (if indeed we have problems) in a methodical and systematic way.

I'm hoping that AF, GW, AT and the Board are planning this already !!

The way i see it,If a full review didn't end up saying the playing lists mix is shite then it would have failed,it would have been a waste of everyones time.....

ausfatcat · Post: # 588160Post **ausfatcat** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 5:12pm

the shadow wrote:The reason Archie shouldn't be part of the review is that many inside the club think he's a major part of the problem!

who??

Or are you refering to the posters here which really aren't insiders.

meher baba · Post: # 588164Post **meher baba** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 5:18pm

St DAC wrote:Conflict of interest??? He's the bloody CEO, not the Senior Coach or Football Manager. Who better to have an impartial look-see?

You don't think Brian Cook was involved with the now famous Geelong Full Review? I do.

My comment was not particularly an anti-archie comment

Of course he should be consulted as part of the review

But wouldn't the whole point of such a review be to get an outside perspective? And archie is surely an insider par excellence

St DAC · Post: # 588175Post **St DAC** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 5:30pm

AT and NB are both on the board now, so they are not impartial either. And particularly Thommo, having played last year under RL, could not be, although I have no idea as to his opinion of the coach.

So who to conduct the review? Everyone in our administration/board would have a particular view, and all outsiders would not have the necessary understanding of our club's culture (for want of a better description) to do the job justice.

I can't see any better mix than around 50/50 inside/outside, and if that's the case then Archie as the CEO (and whose job ultimately is impacted by club results) should get a guernsey.

WinnersOnly · Mon 16 Jun 2008 6:17pm

EASTERN Perhaps you should partition this and send it in...there is no doubt the club would benefit from such!

Shaggy · Post: # 588218Post **Shaggy** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 6:17pm

We do not need an independent full scale review of the football operations.

I assume we have a Board review every year and should suffice.

AT and NB should be close enough to the players and coaching staff to already have a fair idea of any major problems (apart from the fact that we are playing average footy).

The Board simply needs to make informed decisions after all the presentations from key personell.

WinnersOnly · Mon 16 Jun 2008 6:22pm

Shaggy wrote:We do not need an independent full scale review of the football operations.I assume we have a Board review every year and should suffice.

AT and NB should be close enough to the players and coaching staff to already have a fair idea of any major problems (apart from the fact that we are playing average footy).The Board simply needs to make informed decisions after all the presentations from key personell.

I think sometimes when you are close to things that you are not always that objective. An independant review should maintain that objectivity and would be more readily accepted by those affected.

Shaggy · Post: # 588235Post **Shaggy** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 6:42pm

WinnersOnly wrote:
Shaggy wrote:We do not need an independent full scale review of the football operations.I assume we have a Board review every year and should suffice.

AT and NB should be close enough to the players and coaching staff to already have a fair idea of any major problems (apart from the fact that we are playing average footy).The Board simply needs to make informed decisions after all the presentations from key personell.
I think sometimes when you are close to things that you are not always that objective. An independant review should maintain that objectivity and would be more readily accepted by those affected.

I agree in certain circumstances but not in the current situation. The Board is relatively new, the majority of personell and players were pre their time, there are no divided loyalties, they are not out of the loop as RB was (given GT's lack of co-operation with the old Board) ... there is no reason to doubt the objectivity of any of the directors.

It is always better to make decisions based on first hand information.

the shadow · Post: # 588284Post **the shadow** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 8:07pm

Ausfatcat, the people I have spoken to about AF are several current and two former staff members. Not an easy man to work for apparently. According to them, there is less atmosphere in the place than on the moon. Not a happy ship by all accounts. I know disgruntled employees always bag the boss, but where there's smoke, there's blue cod!

the shadow · Post: # 588286Post **the shadow** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 8:09pm

Ausfatcat, the people I have spoken to about AF are several current and two former staff members. Not an easy man to work for apparently. According to them, there is less atmosphere in the place than on the moon. Not a happy ship by all accounts. I know disgruntled employees always bag the boss, but where there's smoke, there's blue cod!

howlinwolf · Post: # 588294Post **howlinwolf** » Mon 16 Jun 2008 8:27pm

I apologise for posting this from what I posted on another thread but I feel it is as relevant to this thread also.

I believe we could do with a full review. If the results are as poor as they have been it is not ONE singular problem.

Here's an interesting fact to think about.

Mark Thompson as coach at year 7 at Geelong had a win/loss ratio in the negative.
Look where just a bit more patience and soul searching got them.
I heard Matthew Scarlett on SEN today say that when they had the big heart to heart that Bomber was "oh so close to getting the arse" His words.

Does the Stkilda FC have that much patience ?
Probably not. We want blood instead. And therefore we don't have the ultimate success either.

Also there was an interesting article in the Saints/Bulldogs footy record about the opals basketball team. They said to get success there needed to be a system in place that was correct and remained in place regardless of personel. That way when a weakness in personel was targeted that would be addressed and the system remained.
I don't think we have a house that's in order as such.
We could find another coach and it probably wouldn't make any difference.

Do we need a FULL SCALE review? !!

Do we need a FULL SCALE review? !!

Re: Do we need a FULL SCALE review? !!

Perhaps you should partition this and send it in...