Finey on SEN

[Mr Magic]

I've got to put my hand up 'and take some responsibility' for Finey.
According to his oldest sister, I'm a big part of the reason he barracks for the Saints - my brother and I used to take him along with us to Moorabbin to watch the Saints play when he was a young kid. Once he started driving himself he progressed to being a fully fledged member of the 'Animal Enclosure'.

Mea Culpa.

[Con Gorozidis]

The players had no clue about Lyons game.plan in the first two years. Now it's considered the best in the business. Maybe our players are slow learners.

Either way we should draw a line in the sand. 2009 is ancient history.
When was the last time I heard the hawks talk about 08.
If finey wants to flog off about kosi and grammy they can start their own team.
Otherwise f*** off and start looking fwd.not back.

[SaintPav]

I'm not into telling people here including great St Kilda folk to suck eggs but.......

SEN live and die on ratings and the advertising rates they can charge.

Work back from that on anything and everything that goes on or is said at that station or any media outlet.

[Kickit]

In regards to a confusing gameplan, I'm torn on that one.

There has certainly been times this year I've scratched my head as to what is going on, question marks even in regards to roles and structures.

However all I've known as a fan the past 6 or so years, is a coaching style that was heavily based on preparation, and implementing roles and structures more often than not predetermined.

Perhaps that's not how it's done across the comp, perhaps other coaches focus more on game day rather than the leadup to it, and try to pay a game according to how it is panning out. More flexible, more adaptable to respond to the opposition?

Maybe it's just different rather than wrong?

Things turned pair shaped early in the season.
If it was a good year for trying new players, it was a good year for experimenting with game plans too. ( were we tanking )?
Watters also stated earlier on that sometimes the players weren't following the game plan ( wasn't complaining , they were young and learning ).
I thought Laidley for one was credited for being a good game day tactician.

[howlinwolf]

I'm not so sure on that. They didn't do their ratings any favours backing Timmy and his Bombers in the "poor governance" saga.
They lost a lot of listeners from what I can see.

[thejiggingsaint]

They're losing more now! Dreadful station at times.

[SainterK]

Ross is gone, he's not coming back...

Will Scott work out?

Maybe, maybe not.

It's worth a try isn't it?

[saint75]

They're losing more now! Dreadful station at times.

Most of the time these days. It is a real 'boys club'. The only time I tune in regularly is when Cameron Mooney or Demot Brereton are on. Love their insights and knowledge and are impartial (well, most of the time.....). Actually, Friday night should be interesting on the pre game. Dermot is a good friend of Scott and would be interested to hear what his opinion is on Fineys' comments.

[The OtherThommo]

I'm not so sure on that. They didn't do their ratings any favours backing Timmy and his Bombers in the "poor governance" saga.
They lost a lot of listeners from what I can see.

I reckon they read it wrong, 'wolf, and thought they could sell the shallow line being taken by most of the tabloid end of the coverage. They don't have anyone with depth on the station and probably thought all the listeners were easy prey for their confected outrage. No audience of any media outlet is so amorphous as to be so thoroughly suggestible.

For any station to think it reasonable to have someone in Tim Watson's conflicted position do their bidding (and have their coat tails overloaded with the likes of Fine), with absolutely zero authority in matters of PED drug efficacy and safety, or the labyinthine supply networks and the myriad consequences they cause, showed just how devoid of capability and ethics they really are.

B & M are heading down some very interesting investigative paths. If they can get sufficient corroboration to publish it is going to render people like Watson and Fine complete and utter idiots, for ever.

Icebergs and tips.

[Stephen Theodore]

Reckon Devilhead's post a couple of minutes ago has totally nailed it.

So do I

[Jacks Back]

I should probably know this but who or what is B & M?

[Cairnsman]

I'm not so sure on that. They didn't do their ratings any favours backing Timmy and his Bombers in the "poor governance" saga.
They lost a lot of listeners from what I can see.

I reckon they read it wrong, 'wolf, and thought they could sell the shallow line being taken by most of the tabloid end of the coverage. They don't have anyone with depth on the station and probably thought all the listeners were easy prey for their confected outrage. No audience of any media outlet is so amorphous as to be so thoroughly suggestible.

For any station to think it reasonable to have someone in Tim Watson's conflicted position do their bidding (and have their coat tails overloaded with the likes of Fine), with absolutely zero authority in matters of PED drug efficacy and safety, or the labyinthine supply networks and the myriad consequences they cause, showed just how devoid of capability and ethics they really are.

B & M are heading down some very interesting investigative paths. If they can get sufficient corroboration to publish it is going to render people like Watson and Fine complete and utter idiots, for ever.

Icebergs and tips.

I see B & M might be tipping another iceberg of their own shortly.

[Jacks Back]

I should probably know this but who or what is B & M?

B & M - Bryant & May (redhead matches)?

[Cairnsman]

I should probably know this but who or what is B & M?

B & M - Bryant & May (redhead matches)?

Baker & McKenzie...Fairfax Journos.

[Kickit]

I'm not so sure on that. They didn't do their ratings any favours backing Timmy and his Bombers in the "poor governance" saga.
They lost a lot of listeners from what I can see.

I reckon they read it wrong, 'wolf, and thought they could sell the shallow line being taken by most of the tabloid end of the coverage. They don't have anyone with depth on the station and probably thought all the listeners were easy prey for their confected outrage. No audience of any media outlet is so amorphous as to be so thoroughly suggestible.

For any station to think it reasonable to have someone in Tim Watson's conflicted position do their bidding (and have their coat tails overloaded with the likes of Fine), with absolutely zero authority in matters of PED drug efficacy and safety, or the labyinthine supply networks and the myriad consequences they cause, showed just how devoid of capability and ethics they really are.

B & M are heading down some very interesting investigative paths. If they can get sufficient corroboration to publish it is going to render people like Watson and Fine complete and utter idiots, for ever.

Icebergs and tips.

FWIW I don't think Watson was all that comfortable with being thrust out there as the unofficial Essendon spokesman. Prior to the doping saga he seemed to be at pains to remain neutral and nto to mention Jobe unnecessarily.

[saintly]

Some comments from a person who was very highly placed at the club until recently but is no longer there, but still has involvement with many of the players:
- playing group is very unhappy with Scott. Main gripe is that he has multiple game-plans, and tries to switch between them too often within a quarter, let alone a game. This annoys the older players and confuses the younger ones. Older players therefore concernced for development of younger group.
- Main factor in Scott's appointment was media skills. Club was getting feedback from members and sponsors that the Ross-era (ie the bubble) was too insular and shut key stakeholders out. Led to club wanting a more open coach.
- At time of appointment, Scott's view was that rebuild was not required and we could challenge for top-four again in short-term - ie underestimated extent of decline post 2010 and didn't address it initially.
Also made scathing comments about CEO, but not relevant here.

Main concern for me is the development of the younger players - we all know that, assuming it takes a long while to get good again, Scott won't be around as coach to get the benefit of that because clubs are too impatient. Therefore his prime responsibility in that time is to develop the kids - ie good habits (training, diet, behaviour etc) and learning what to do on field (positioning, structures, drills etc). I worry if this is not getting done properly because younger group being confused. The fact is, like any rookie coach, Scott is getting his on the job training at our expense. Hopefully he gets good quickly enough to help rather than hinder our young players.

ross lyon also learn't on the job, the number of gaffs he made in the media in his first year or so was cringeworthy.

[fingers]

We've been living off 1966 for 47 years. And call 97 09 and 2010 successes.

Guess what ....since 1966 we've achieved sweet FA

Things need to change.

[plugger66]

We've been living off 1966 for 47 years. And call 97 09 and 2010 successes.

Guess what ....since 1966 we've achieved sweet FA

Things need to change.

But will they change with the person in charge not being popular with the older guys and more importantly some younger guys? All i know is we shouldnt sack SW now and we also shouldnt give him extra time now. And I also know Finey has no more insight into the club than some on here. I may even know where he heard what he said this week and it hasnt come directly from players but through a third person so does it even carry to much weight? Who knows.

[Jacks Back]

I should probably know this but who or what is B & M?

B & M - Bryant & May (redhead matches)?

Baker & McKenzie...Fairfax Journos.

Thanks Cairnsman.

[dragit]

We've been living off 1966 for 47 years. And call 97 09 and 2010 successes.

Guess what ....since 1966 we've achieved sweet FA

Things need to change.

But will they change with the person in charge not being popular with the older guys and more importantly some younger guys? All i know is we shouldnt sack SW now and we also shouldnt give him extra time now. And I also know Finey has no more insight into the club than some on here. I may even know where he heard what he said this week and it hasnt come directly from players but through a third person so does it even carry to much weight? Who knows.

Exactly, change for the sake of change does not necessarily do anything to improve a history of failure…

Brisbane are an absolute laughing stock at the moment, sacking their coach with absolutely no-one decent ready to come in.

The demons sacked Bailey to get a better coach…

[maverick]

We've been living off 1966 for 47 years. And call 97 09 and 2010 successes.

Guess what ....since 1966 we've achieved sweet FA

Things need to change.

But will they change with the person in charge not being popular with the older guys and more importantly some younger guys? All i know is we shouldnt sack SW now and we also shouldnt give him extra time now. And I also know Finey has no more insight into the club than some on here. I may even know where he heard what he said this week and it hasnt come directly from players but through a third person so does it even carry to much weight? Who knows.

See that bothers me even more that he went and used such a public mouthpiece.
Why isn't SW well liked, what are some examples, is it just circumstances, is it the right approach, whose right?
How can anyone tell these things without understanding the facts.

If any of the senior players are unhappy with the way Steve Milne has been handled then I will be very annoyed for example.

The sooner the players realise that their behaviour affects revenue streams and ultimately our success the better.
We need strong admin more than good players right now.

[WinnersOnly]

I understand it would be a terrible time to change coaches but for the life of me I cant see what people or the club saw in WATTERS to give him the job. For me he comes across as a 'spoilt twat' who should be in politics not running and AFL club. He has shown absolutely zero in his match day coaching, he has poor communication with the team and other integral persons at the club, which doesn't surprise me given his profile. Apparently the junior development for which he is heralded for is the work of other coaches not himself.

What has he done that deserves the club to persist with him after next year? I don't think he should be sacked now but give him the remainder of his current contract period to prove himself and in that time find a suitable replacement.

[Scollop]

We've been living off 1966 for 47 years. And call 97 09 and 2010 successes.

Guess what ....since 1966 we've achieved sweet FA

Things need to change.

The coaches and players and the board and the whole footy club including all staff that were part of 09/10 are always respected and appreciated but their faeces is not any better than ANY other St Kilda team of the past 47 years

ANY coach or player or ANY group of players who think that their contribution is greater than that of our 1966 team is also kidding themselves

[kosifantutti]

I'm not so sure on that. They didn't do their ratings any favours backing Timmy and his Bombers in the "poor governance" saga.
They lost a lot of listeners from what I can see.

I reckon they read it wrong, 'wolf, and thought they could sell the shallow line being taken by most of the tabloid end of the coverage. They don't have anyone with depth on the station and probably thought all the listeners were easy prey for their confected outrage. No audience of any media outlet is so amorphous as to be so thoroughly suggestible.

For any station to think it reasonable to have someone in Tim Watson's conflicted position do their bidding (and have their coat tails overloaded with the likes of Fine), with absolutely zero authority in matters of PED drug efficacy and safety, or the labyinthine supply networks and the myriad consequences they cause, showed just how devoid of capability and ethics they really are.

B & M are heading down some very interesting investigative paths. If they can get sufficient corroboration to publish it is going to render people like Watson and Fine complete and utter idiots, for ever.

Icebergs and tips.

I see B & M might be tipping another iceberg of their own shortly.

Baker and Milne, bringing back "Saints Scared"

[plugger66]

We've been living off 1966 for 47 years. And call 97 09 and 2010 successes.

Guess what ....since 1966 we've achieved sweet FA

Things need to change.

But will they change with the person in charge not being popular with the older guys and more importantly some younger guys? All i know is we shouldnt sack SW now and we also shouldnt give him extra time now. And I also know Finey has no more insight into the club than some on here. I may even know where he heard what he said this week and it hasnt come directly from players but through a third person so does it even carry to much weight? Who knows.

See that bothers me even more that he went and used such a public mouthpiece.
Why isn't SW well liked, what are some examples, is it just circumstances, is it the right approach, whose right?
How can anyone tell these things without understanding the facts.

If any of the senior players are unhappy with the way Steve Milne has been handled then I will be very annoyed for example.

The sooner the players realise that their behaviour affects revenue streams and ultimately our success the better.
We need strong admin more than good players right now.

I dont think it has anything to do with Milne. Just a personality clash with some guys. The funny thing is many on here have RL pegged as the guy who ran the show completely with no player imput and SW nearly 180 degrees the other way. i reckon those people are 180 degrees wrong.