Watters' position is now untenable

[ctqs]

There are some problems at the club. That much is obvious. There are issues with Watters, Pelchen and some Players. Fair enough, it is what it is. Let those in charge sort it out.

No doubt some people, including some on this forum, know a little more than some others. Some may think they know more than others based on the fact that they know other people who either know more than others or at least say they know more than others.

For the record I know nothing.

But what I find most bizarre is that some “supporters”, both on here and in particular on Twitter, almost willing the club to implode in order to say “I told you so”.

It’s actually quite sad

i agree.....i wouldn't post anything harmful to the club...i might post that i disagree with decisions...like the big boy one...but i would not deliberately set out to harm or do damage to my club.......finey must have other ideas...as do a couple on here...


won't be long before the scum press ..who hang around here for some of their scoops...will be running the dwarf story as linked to the coach, as fact.......

They already know about it, mate. And a bit more, too. The leaking is disgraceful as are the supposed reasons for it.

[SemperFidelis]

A guy who's 6' 5"and who is prepared to play all 38 players each week (even though that will lead to some huge fines and loss of points) but still go to all the Sandy games (even though we'll only have Rookies playing, and even they will be in the Sandy Development Squad) and talk to all the Sandy guys and shake their hands and give them all a gift basket with lots of chocolates and a nice bottle of wine.

Nailed it Doc. Also needs to have a ripping sense of humour about harmless Mad Monday combustible pranks; after all, boys will be boys ...

And don't forget the new bloke requires Finey approval ...

[ctqs]

Hahaha, I can read the desperation in all these posts, all trying to get Jaxons to spill, all trying different ways. He has been voted legitimate, and the gossip mongering at our club has been approved by us all.

I want to know the rest in truth. But he's not going to reveal the rest, because he knows how damaging the truth may be. So it must be bad.

But I am trusting the review to have been done and for the reviewers to be at least as in the know as Jaxons!

Therefore, if they decide SW can continue, I have to trust that they know the worst and still think he is worth continuing with.

My opinion is that hiring a dwarf as a figure to mock SW is actually a bit strange. Some might say twisted.

The real issue is 'the half if it' that wasn't said, ie how rubbish/hated SW is. It's hard to gain the trust of a playing group when you lose most of your games. Players don't play to lose, even if they understand the theory of giving rookies experience. Once Scott's methods start gleaning success, I'm sure he'll get more love from his players.

It will get out before too long, sadly, because it's obviously doing the rounds and people can't help but spread news, which I find interesting given it seems to be ok to send an email around to people yet if it's published in a newspaper or online, it's shot down as garbage.

[Con Gorozidis]

A guy who's 6' 5"and who is prepared to play all 38 players each week (even though that will lead to some huge fines and loss of points) but still go to all the Sandy games (even though we'll only have Rookies playing, and even they will be in the Sandy Development Squad) and talk to all the Sandy guys and shake their hands and give them all a gift basket with lots of chocolates and a nice bottle of wine.

Add in 5 year extensions for all the 'class of 09' and show them their due respect with brass statues at Seaford and an honour Board for 'almost premiers' and yes the coach will be loved by all and sundry!

[mullet]

So far all we have is watters is no good because

a) he is short
b) he said we were in a rebuild and upset the egos of some sr players who wanted to be told they were awesome and had jobs for life because they were good in 09 .

Ffs

You are very funny Con. Thanks for making me laugh I really needed it today

[bozza1980]

Great post joffaboy.

Caroline Wilson's is yet another piece of pure speculation, apparently if enough people speculate this becomes fact.

So far this off season everyone bar the waterboy has been repotedly on the trade table. The club in response categorically claims under no circumstances will Joey or Roo be traded. Next day the Hun has Riewoldt in a Collingwood jumper on the back page.

Not happy with these denials, the Hun again flies the Montagns to Essendon rumour. The club again categorically states he will not be traded but further, they have not and will not discuss trading him. Not satisfied with this, Jay Clark goes on radio and blindly speculates in response, that it must be Joey investigating on his own.

Since when has people wildly speculating, based on previous wild speculation been classed as fact?

I mean its turmoil at St Kilda beacuse a second year coach is only contracted for one more season, we plan to trade 1 of our gun midfielders and speculative pieces regarding two other guns has been categorically denied. Spare me.

[Scollop]

How many games did we lose this year because our senior players made bad decisions or can't kick straight?

The previous coach blamed the players for not kicking straight...the current players are blaming SW for their bad kicking!! How ironic is that...understandable though...I understand how RL has had such an effect on their thinking

farkn little spoilt player brats need to grow up and take some responsibility and get on with the job without all the hysterics

[markp]

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

[mullet]

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

thanks grasshopper

[Cairnsman]

On the internet it is virtually impossible to ascertain 'credible facts'. What's the point in badgering the bloke to reveal his source or back up his integrity. No-one can or should give up their source. What we have to go on is the poster's previous form in breaking scoops and whether or not there is other corroborating evidence from other sources.

When Finey first went off tap, I doubted what he was saying. Now we're hearing the same from a number of anonymous internet sources, including jaxons and some bf posters. These being long time posters or as in jaxons case a recent incident of being 'in the know'.

Today we read of direct quotes from our own president regarding relationships in the footy dept. Also Caroline Wilson reports almost identical concerns to those raised last week on the internet and by Fine.

By now, I think weight of evidence suggests that not all is hunky dory in the footy dept at the club.

What needs to be done about it is a matter of opinion. As others point out, many coaches in history have not necessarily been universally liked. I remain on the fence about what needs to be done. I don't see there as being a massive rush to get a new coach in, so I like the 'wait and see' approach that the board appear to be adopting.

You can lead a horse to water...

[Dis Believer]

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

Excellent, succinct post. Perfect summation.

[Cairnsman]

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

thanks grasshopper

Confucius say...if things don't change they stay the same.

He also say man who paint toilet not necessarily sh1thouse painter.

[The OtherThommo]

The moment the players organised dwarfs at Mad Monday Watters position was untenable.
For those smart enough to realize who the dwarfs were representative of shows how the coach is viewed by the playing group.
We need to bite the bullet now and change things before 2014 becomes a waste of time.

Absolutely and totally disagree. Our little friends were also booked for 2 other Mad Monday events ( AFL) as well as other events at AFL level. To think Joey hired them and the players agreed because of the coaches size is wrong. Absolutely wrong. As for your credibility, it's probably the same as mine. We are all anonymous on this site. And as for Mc.Evoy quite a few knew he was up for trade a couple of weeks before the deal was done. You got the details correct however.

Welcome back Tony.

This 'ere to and fro left me reflecting on the 27 years I spent working at a reasonable sized subsidiary of a global conglomerate. I found myself continually recalling numerous events of the types playing out at our footy club at the moment. We went through numerous restructures, management changes, taking over other mobs, being sold, recessions, industry changes, regulatory and legal changes, increasing influence of various social movements, people defrauding, on site violence, strikes (some of them long), sudden influxes of appalling managers, dreadful personnel initiatives, staff cuts, technology change, market changes, high $, low $ - the normal ebb and flow of work life and business.

During those various upheavals, some more serious than others, the workplace was always a veritable Petri dish for culturing rumour. But, I am really struggling to recall a single instance when someone was in possession of all the facts, chose to disseminate those facts and was acclaimed as ultimately correct in reportage and forecast outcome.

What I do recall as absolutely regular was the dissemination of individual or sectional perspectives, involving some fact, some speculation and a whole lot of interpretation off limited insight. Factions, silos, differing motivations, differing personalities, some sociopathy, a little altruism, a touch of grandstanding, lots of confusion, varying urgencies, alternate agendas etc, etc.

The common denominator - nobody, ever, proved to be the repository of all knowledge, capability and presience.

Which is why groups of any size have a board of directors and they are charged with overseeing the organisation, setting policy and monitoring adherence. Often times, when performance is less than optimal, or when improvement on optimal is demanded, they'll commission an audit............which is just a review by another name.

And, once the review is complete, accepted by the board and begins implementation, the various sectional or individual perspectives, borne of way less than omniscience, can choose to either welcome the decisions made via fuller information and broader capacities, or they can labour under the inevitable misapprehension that they knew more.

It's a choice. I've made mine.

[Cairnsman]

The moment the players organised dwarfs at Mad Monday Watters position was untenable.
For those smart enough to realize who the dwarfs were representative of shows how the coach is viewed by the playing group.
We need to bite the bullet now and change things before 2014 becomes a waste of time.

Absolutely and totally disagree. Our little friends were also booked for 2 other Mad Monday events ( AFL) as well as other events at AFL level. To think Joey hired them and the players agreed because of the coaches size is wrong. Absolutely wrong. As for your credibility, it's probably the same as mine. We are all anonymous on this site. And as for Mc.Evoy quite a few knew he was up for trade a couple of weeks before the deal was done. You got the details correct however.

Welcome back Tony.

This 'ere to and fro left me reflecting on the 27 years I spent working at a reasonable sized subsidiary of a global conglomerate. I found myself continually recalling numerous events of the types playing out at our footy club at the moment. We went through numerous restructures, management changes, taking over other mobs, being sold, recessions, industry changes, regulatory and legal changes, increasing influence of various social movements, people defrauding, on site violence, strikes (some of them long), sudden influxes of appalling managers, dreadful personnel initiatives, staff cuts, technology change, market changes, high $, low $ - the normal ebb and flow of work life and business.

During those various upheavals, some more serious than others, the workplace was always a veritable Petri dish for culturing rumour. But, I am really struggling to recall a single instance when someone was in possession of all the facts, chose to disseminate those facts and was acclaimed as ultimately correct in reportage and forecast outcome.

What I do recall as absolutely regular was the dissemination of individual or sectional perspectives, involving some fact, some speculation and a whole lot of interpretation off limited insight. Factions, silos, differing motivations, differing personalities, some sociopathy, a little altruism, a touch of grandstanding, lots of confusion, varying urgencies, alternate agendas etc, etc.

The common denominator - nobody, ever, proved to be the repository of all knowledge, capability and presience.

Which is why groups of any size have a board of directors and they are charged with overseeing the organisation, setting policy and monitoring adherence. Often times, when performance is less than optimal, or when improvement on optimal is demanded, they'll commission an audit............which is just a review by another name.

And, once the review is complete, accepted by the board and begins implementation, the various sectional or individual perspectives, borne of way less than omniscience, can choose to either welcome the decisions made via fuller information and broader capacities, or they can labour under the inevitable misapprehension that they knew more.

It's a choice. I've made mine.

Are you for hire?

[mullet]

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

thanks grasshopper

Confucius say...if things don't change they stay the same.

He also say man who paint toilet not necessarily sh1thouse painter.

One of my Dad's favorites is "you dont look at the mantlepiece when you are stoking the fire"
It still makes me laugh
but has nothing to do with the saints

[Scollop]

Did someone say suppository?

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/fe ... 6695541167

[The OtherThommo]

Only for parties involving plenty of libations, Cairnsman. Nothing too formal though.

I've also been reflecting on the media coverage and comparing how the football media responded to my initial forays into the E'dope saga. I got in touch with about 6 football journos and commentators with a couple of bits of unreported fact I'd gleaned from reading the ACC report and WADA Code. I got no response from any of 'em.

By comparison, Richard Baker responded about 5 minutes after I sent it to him and McKenzie. Why? Because I presented him with facts he hadn't seen and could corroborate. I helped him flesh out a very complex picture and he was able to use that information to further his own investigations. But, the football journos? Not interested because a) the complexity was beyond their comprehensions and b) reporting as B & M do restricts the opportunities to extrapolate and opine, which is the stock and trade of soft reporting and commentary. In short, they've got nothing at stake, whereas journos like B & M, because they go to the core of aberrant behaviour, are constantly referring to the legal framework. They live or die, professionally, by verifiable fact.

I've also spent a lot of time recently trying to understand what's unfolding in the US Congress at the moment. Again, in short, the US and world economies are being held to ransom by a sectional, relatively minor, ideologically driven bloc of people who are under little threat of losing their jobs (because of the gerrymandered election districts in the House of Rep's). This group is significantly shy of the necessary capability to understand complexities like economies and global interdependence. But, they're hell bent on having a win, and don't care what they blow up to achieve their win (however pyhrric).

Narrow interests, differently vested than the greater good, are a pox on their House, and they ain't the only ones.

[Wayne42]

she is the scum of the earth why would anyone take anything she says seriously...

Funny how many thought she was the best thing since sliced bread when she was reporting on Essendon.

Suddenly she is garbage because she presented some facts about the Saints.

Does anyone think it is a co-incidence that the new Pres ordered a full club review?

Nobody was sacked, reporting positions were clarified.

Watters still has a year to go of his contract, maybe if he takes on board the review recommendations he will get an extension.

Contrary to many, I believe that results on field next season will mean little regarding Watters.

The whole club is painfully aware where we stand as far as the playing list is concerned.

If Watters is being judged on that, well yes his position is untenable. But I believe he will be judged moreso how the football department works from here on in.

Results are important, but and here is that word....process....will be just as important.

Yep

[BigMart]

Absolute gold

What a thread....

In the red corner, the defenders of the faith...... In the blue corner, the prophets of doom

I tend to believe the fact we're a shamble ATM. I don't think even the staunchest supporter could argue that we are not in a healthy state.... But they will making excuses for it though....

I love the negative comment about the egos of Malthouse, Sheedy, Lyon and Co.... Who wouldn't accept being told what they must do? They are the ones with the runs on the board...
Leadership vs Management ......

You will never convince me that it's better that a coach does not have control over the football dept. he is the one the players MUST follow..... He is the LEADER!!!

[Verdun66]

The moment the players organised dwarfs at Mad Monday Watters position was untenable.
For those smart enough to realize who the dwarfs were representative of shows how the coach is viewed by the playing group.
We need to bite the bullet now and change things before 2014 becomes a waste of time.

Absolutely and totally disagree. Our little friends were also booked for 2 other Mad Monday events ( AFL) as well as other events at AFL level. To think Joey hired them and the players agreed because of the coaches size is wrong. Absolutely wrong. As for your credibility, it's probably the same as mine. We are all anonymous on this site. And as for Mc.Evoy quite a few knew he was up for trade a couple of weeks before the deal was done. You got the details correct however.

Welcome back Tony.

This 'ere to and fro left me reflecting on the 27 years I spent working at a reasonable sized subsidiary of a global conglomerate. I found myself continually recalling numerous events of the types playing out at our footy club at the moment. We went through numerous restructures, management changes, taking over other mobs, being sold, recessions, industry changes, regulatory and legal changes, increasing influence of various social movements, people defrauding, on site violence, strikes (some of them long), sudden influxes of appalling managers, dreadful personnel initiatives, staff cuts, technology change, market changes, high $, low $ - the normal ebb and flow of work life and business.

During those various upheavals, some more serious than others, the workplace was always a veritable Petri dish for culturing rumour. But, I am really struggling to recall a single instance when someone was in possession of all the facts, chose to disseminate those facts and was acclaimed as ultimately correct in reportage and forecast outcome.

What I do recall as absolutely regular was the dissemination of individual or sectional perspectives, involving some fact, some speculation and a whole lot of interpretation off limited insight. Factions, silos, differing motivations, differing personalities, some sociopathy, a little altruism, a touch of grandstanding, lots of confusion, varying urgencies, alternate agendas etc, etc.

The common denominator - nobody, ever, proved to be the repository of all knowledge, capability and presience.

Which is why groups of any size have a board of directors and they are charged with overseeing the organisation, setting policy and monitoring adherence. Often times, when performance is less than optimal, or when improvement on optimal is demanded, they'll commission an audit............which is just a review by another name.

And, once the review is complete, accepted by the board and begins implementation, the various sectional or individual perspectives, borne of way less than omniscience, can choose to either welcome the decisions made via fuller information and broader capacities, or they can labour under the inevitable misapprehension that they knew more.

It's a choice. I've made mine.

. Having worked at various places of a similar nature to you, I have been thinking much the same things. But wouldn't have put it as eloquently as you I must say! I have been in some absolute snake-pits of fear and loathing, but somehow people managed to get on with things, and work carried on. And things would settle after periods of instability. Think this will all blow over. And if not, someone will go, and we'll move to the next thing.

[Austinnn]

Please -

1) Tell me the dissaffected players? Can anyone name the players?
2) Tell me why Watters is still at the club if he is so bad?
3) tell me why is Pelchan still at the club if he is so bad?
4) Tell me why Mark Fine and Caroline Wilson know more about the club than Andrew Thompson who conducted the review.

I dont doubt that Watters has had some issue at the club, that Pelchan and Watters dont see eye to eye that some players are disgruntled (as players at all clubs are - why is Delaney and Bruce wanting to come to the saints from their current clubs?) but this surmising and putting rumour and ponderings into negative theories about the club, is to me, tin hat stuff.

All the unsubstantiated rumour just serves as confirmation bias.

Why is jaxons uniformly believed by (edit: while) someone with just as good a pedigree in Tony74 is dismissed when he says the issues aren't nearly as bad as the Henny Penny's are making out?

Oh well, believe what you like. To me I couldn't care less if they sacked Watters tomorrow, if Montagnea walked of if Roo came back a woman. I support St.Kilda FC and not any individual.

if any need to go they need to go. However I only will deal in the facts when substantiated, and they only facts substantiated are in press releases for the club, Emails from the club and Pelchan to me, and public statements from both Pelchan and Bains.

Pity shock jocks and Fox "journo's" dont have to deal with the consequences of their unprofessionalism.

Puh-REEECH! as they say...

Absolutely. Let's have an ITK battle between Jaxons and Tony74, each of them dropping juicy tidbits until only one's credibility is left standing.

Totally agree that if SW is so bad, how did he keep his job?
Was the review board and Andrew Thompson so incompetent as to not do due dilgence, or to not get the weak link out?
Would the president be happy to employ such incompetent personnel?
Are the players happy to whinge to people who have contact with SEN/footy fourms, but not sufficiently upset to say anything to the Review Board?
If so, what kind of characters do that sort of thing and should we be happy to have them representing our club?
Will they be positive or negative influences on rebuilding this squad?

We'll see won't we? My Tip is that next year SW will coach the players of St Kilda to between 3-10 wins and get his contract extended, not based on results, but player buy-in and direction. Mr Fine will still be employed by SEN to churn out lies that destablise the club he loves and a lot of the folks here will listen and SEN ratings will validate his continued employment.

FWIW, How is mocking the coaches stature by hiring a dwarf somehow indicative of a deep-seated hatred/disrespect? And were the dwarves just supposed to be there? Very subtle, almost TOO subtle. Were they supposed to wear Scotty masks or something? Maybe Mr Big didn't get paid because he forgot to bring the Scott Watters mask he was supposed to wear.

But hey, we don't know the half of it. Can you imagine what it could be? Wow, maybe they call him "Mini bus" or something. I read something a few weeks ago that the players were confused by the changing gameplan in matches, maybe its to do with that. What kind of sick twisted coach would CHANGE THE GAMEPLAN MID-GAME??? In fact, my criticism of Watters is that he didn't have a plan B, so maybe the real problem is he needs players better suited to following multiple instructions.

Looks like we'll never know as Scott has got the OK to continue for now, and seems - from what his manager says - to be happy to continue, no players have requested to be traded, so we can assume that whatever the problem is, everyone involved is adult and professional enough to put it aside and get on with their jobs.

Maybe we should do the same.

[twirlyhair]

she is the scum of the earth why would anyone take anything she says seriously...

Because she is generally right in what she writes.

[Austinnn]

They already know about it, mate. And a bit more, too. The leaking is disgraceful as are the supposed reasons for it.

It will get out before too long, sadly, because it's obviously doing the rounds and people can't help but spread news, which I find interesting given it seems to be ok to send an email around to people yet if it's published in a newspaper or online, it's shot down as garbage.

So do you/the club know where the leaks are coming from? Are steps being taken to plug the leak? I assume someone is trying to get someone fired, that old story. People playing politics with our club, with us as supporters. It's not cool.

Perhaps once trade period is over the full story will come out, the journos have to save something for the lean months.

Well St Kilda will survive as long as we want it to, and hopefully in the coming years we'll thrive.

[ctqs]

Only for parties involving plenty of libations, Cairnsman. Nothing too formal though.

I've also been reflecting on the media coverage and comparing how the football media responded to my initial forays into the E'dope saga. I got in touch with about 6 football journos and commentators with a couple of bits of unreported fact I'd gleaned from reading the ACC report and WADA Code. I got no response from any of 'em.

By comparison, Richard Baker responded about 5 minutes after I sent it to him and McKenzie. Why? Because I presented him with facts he hadn't seen and could corroborate. I helped him flesh out a very complex picture and he was able to use that information to further his own investigations. But, the football journos? Not interested because a) the complexity was beyond their comprehensions and b) reporting as B & M do restricts the opportunities to extrapolate and opine, which is the stock and trade of soft reporting and commentary. In short, they've got nothing at stake, whereas journos like B & M, because they go to the core of aberrant behaviour, are constantly referring to the legal framework. They live or die, professionally, by verifiable fact.

I've also spent a lot of time recently trying to understand what's unfolding in the US Congress at the moment. Again, in short, the US and world economies are being held to ransom by a sectional, relatively minor, ideologically driven bloc of people who are under little threat of losing their jobs (because of the gerrymandered election districts in the House of Rep's). This group is significantly shy of the necessary capability to understand complexities like economies and global interdependence. But, they're hell bent on having a win, and don't care what they blow up to achieve their win (however pyhrric).

Narrow interests, differently vested than the greater good, are a pox on their House, and they ain't the only ones.

Love it. Sports journos, especially footy writers, get away with blue murder and there's no accountability. They're as bad as any Canberra press gallery.

[Cairnsman]

Absolutely and totally disagree. Our little friends were also booked for 2 other Mad Monday events ( AFL) as well as other events at AFL level. To think Joey hired them and the players agreed because of the coaches size is wrong. Absolutely wrong. As for your credibility, it's probably the same as mine. We are all anonymous on this site. And as for Mc.Evoy quite a few knew he was up for trade a couple of weeks before the deal was done. You got the details correct however.

Welcome back Tony.

This 'ere to and fro left me reflecting on the 27 years I spent working at a reasonable sized subsidiary of a global conglomerate. I found myself continually recalling numerous events of the types playing out at our footy club at the moment. We went through numerous restructures, management changes, taking over other mobs, being sold, recessions, industry changes, regulatory and legal changes, increasing influence of various social movements, people defrauding, on site violence, strikes (some of them long), sudden influxes of appalling managers, dreadful personnel initiatives, staff cuts, technology change, market changes, high $, low $ - the normal ebb and flow of work life and business.

During those various upheavals, some more serious than others, the workplace was always a veritable Petri dish for culturing rumour. But, I am really struggling to recall a single instance when someone was in possession of all the facts, chose to disseminate those facts and was acclaimed as ultimately correct in reportage and forecast outcome.

What I do recall as absolutely regular was the dissemination of individual or sectional perspectives, involving some fact, some speculation and a whole lot of interpretation off limited insight. Factions, silos, differing motivations, differing personalities, some sociopathy, a little altruism, a touch of grandstanding, lots of confusion, varying urgencies, alternate agendas etc, etc.

The common denominator - nobody, ever, proved to be the repository of all knowledge, capability and presience.

Which is why groups of any size have a board of directors and they are charged with overseeing the organisation, setting policy and monitoring adherence. Often times, when performance is less than optimal, or when improvement on optimal is demanded, they'll commission an audit............which is just a review by another name.

And, once the review is complete, accepted by the board and begins implementation, the various sectional or individual perspectives, borne of way less than omniscience, can choose to either welcome the decisions made via fuller information and broader capacities, or they can labour under the inevitable misapprehension that they knew more.

It's a choice. I've made mine.

. Having worked at various places of a similar nature to you, I have been thinking much the same things. But wouldn't have put it as eloquently as you I must say! I have been in some absolute snake-pits of fear and loathing, but somehow people managed to get on with things, and work carried on. And things would settle after periods of instability. Think this will all blow over. And if not, someone will go, and we'll move to the next thing.

Eloquently is only one word that begins to describe the prose of TOT...I wish I could articulate half as good as he does.