The Reasons re Watters

[jaxons]

Everyone has been asking me why Watters is no longer coach, what were the reasons behind his sacking.
I won't break any confidence but I will highlight some grabs of some of the articles from journos today, all of these bits are accurate, there is a lot more not reported and better that it doesn't come out.
The club have been measured at not baking Scott in public.

Here are only the truths taken out of each article as reported in the paper:

Jon Ralph - Herald Sun

* In truth it was a decision that had been building for the last six weeks of the season, influenced by poor relationships with players, assistant coaches and the board.
* Right or wrong, St Kilda has lost all faith in Watters.
* In attempting to take control of this club he put too many noses out of joint.
* Assistant coaches said he began taking every facet of training, effectively selecting the team by himself, and all but abandoning match committee at times.
* St Kilda players who had achieved plenty under Ross Lyon felt he gave them no credit for their achievements in that time, as he attempted to rid the club of Lyon's tactics and legacy.
* The whispering campaign became stronger as assistants, football managers and development coaches left the club. Sources within St Kilda were telling the Herald Sun that they held Watters responsible for that exodus.
* Too many believed he did not have an upside as a coach.
* His mixed messages also hurt him.


Sam Edmund and Scott Gullan - Herald Sun

* There were also increasing concerns over his coaching, particularly on match day, where frequently changing tactics and mixed messages were common.
* It came after Thompson’s review of the football department revealed an “endorsement that we have the right people in the right roles”. But in the weeks since the club had become convinced that Watters’ behaviour wasn’t going to change.


Jay Clark - Herald Sun

* Simply, some people felt they could not trust the coach any more. Not his behaviour or his football teachings.
* He assured Saints fans everyone was on the same page at Seaford, but it could not have been further from the truth, following breakdowns in relationships with key football officials and senior players.
* Yesterday may look like a disaster, but the board decided things were only going to get worse had Watters stayed, which is why the trigger was pulled.


Mark Robinson - Herald Sun

* Scott Watters was delusional.
* In the end he was delusional about his power at the club, delusional about his support, and, most importantly, delusional about his standing against the new head of football Chris Pelchen.
* You coach, he was told, and leave the running of the football department to Pelchen. Watters agreed to the "buy-in", but over the next two weeks, continued to act the all-encompassing football coach.
* In effect, Watters couldn't or wouldn't let go.
* It was known that Watters and Pelchen had an uneasy relationship, which affected the large group of support staff.
* It has been said that Watters wasn't too choosy with who he aired his dirty laundry with, which included members of staff, which is always fraught.
* There was also the savaging Watters gave the group after the dwarf fire debacle, which has been described as withering.
* It has also been said Watters address at the club's best and fairest, where he spoke about not accepting mediocrity bemused the gang of 2009 and 2010.
* He played Ahmed Saad at the Gabba in the week it was revealed he'd had tested positive to taking a performance-enhancing drug.
* That's all good, the support of the coach to a player, but it's believed the executive didn't know of the decision.
* Watters' dismissal isn't down to one act or one conversation, it's about a collective which finally skewered him.


Caroline Wilson - The Age

* Watters was placed on a short leash, yet continued to insist he would soon receive the contract extension that had appeared to become an obsession with him. How he could have so misunderstood his position remains a mystery.
* The decision to play Ahmed Saad despite the positive banned substance sample hanging over the club was one example of the coach bypassing process and going to the board.
* That and Watters' tendency to turn to board members as his power base and not his immediate superiors.
* The coach's poor relationship with more experienced players has been well documented and became poisonous after the Mad Monday episode in which certain players not only allowed one dwarf entertainer to be set alight but also hired those entertainers in the first place as a dig at the coach.
* Watters insisted as recently as Friday morning that too much was being read into staff departures when, again, he appears to be in denial. Jaymie Graham chose to return to Perth reportedly for family reasons but other coaches at the club claim he no longer wanted to work with Watters, who lost two high-performance bosses in two years and then, several days ago, Dean Laidley. There were fears more would leave.
* And Watters never became comfortable working in the shadow of Ross Lyon's legacy.
* Even in recent weeks as the fallout from the football review continued the board became aware that younger coaches too often felt they were working in a climate of fear.
* His vision of his own role was of a soccer-style manager who during the season flew to woo players for the future.

[st.byron]

Interesting read. Thanks for that Jaxons. I guess other stuff will come out in time. Perhaps though it's better it doesn't.

[Verdun66]

If there's more it's no wonder they didn't say it in the press conference! Sounds like very little in those articles is anything other than the truth. A very unfortunate appointment to say the least. I supported him to finish his term, but wasn't aware of these things. Clearly there was a massive problem. Pelchen may have added to it, but why SW didn't pull his head in who can say? It brought to mind an anecdote I was told two years ago. Relevant or not, I thought of it these past few days.

A good mate who is a Saints fan told me a story he'd heard when Scott got appointed. Scott used to frequent a gym where some other mates from my time in Perth used to go. SW would be there every time spending an inordinate amount of time doing weights in front of a mirror, and then considering himself (and his muscles I suppose!) in that mirror at length without any shred of self-consciousness. They thought he had quite a high self-regard to put it mildly! Not earth shattering and I know that is what body-builders do, but personally I find it odd. The delusional aspect he has been exhibiting is something that is hard to explain. Psychologists would have a field day.

[VODM]

Thanks for that jaxons - it seems that the Board attempted to reign him in after the Review and set parameters for him to work within which SW ignored. There have been alot on here critisizing the Board and its actions but given the the above then perhaps the Board was left with no alternative.

I am sure that the Board was well aware of how the sacking would be received and the amount of negative comment that would follow - but they have acted in the best interests of the Club as it appears that to continue with SW, in light of the media comment you highlight above, would have left us in a far worse position.

I can understand the Club not wishing to elaborate at all about its reasons - SW has a contract and obviously the legal side of things will decide whether he receives a full amount or whether he has bought about his own downfall and perhaps lessens what he receives. In the end it may be that by acting so strongly the Board has given us a chance to move forward and upward. Time will tell.

Go SAINTS.

[Schillaci]

That is some list. If there are some elements of truth to every bullet point in jaxons' post then you are left wondering if there are good points. I mean there's not much left.
If it was that bad then clearly the club had to act. Watters is never going to be a senior AFL coach again. He will struggle to get any half decent job as coach. Our new president might not have "baked" him in public and given reasons for his dismissal, choosing to be politically correct and hiding behind "that's confidifential between the club and Scott", but he may as well have baked him. The media, through their sources at the club, have ensured it's all out there. Jaxons is happy to say there it is.
Now I'm left feeling:
1. Glad that the decision was made to sack SW.
2. Annoyed that the president didn't have the balls to say SW was a poor fit for the St.Kilda Football Club he had to go because he....reasons listed.
3. Have concerns about staffers with their own interests at heart who are happy to spread sensitive information about the inner workings of the club if it will help them achieve what they believe is best for the club.
4. Pissed at those who appointed SW in the first place...if we are to believe everything in the OP he is one of the worst AFL appointments ever...up there Blight.
5. Excited...and hoping we can get this coaching appointment right.

[maverick]

The reasons don't add up for me, it feels like power games right through the club....
I would hope the more that Jaxon has is more specific and cuts to the bone.
I suppose given his previous knowledge I have no reason to doubt him....

[spert]

Communication within any organisation is only as good as what management puts in place, and the people they put in place. It is more than obvious that the previous president, the board and CEO mismanaged the club in most areas.

[cwrcyn]

In any management environment, there needs to be clear lines of authority, where people are given control over certain sections of the organisation. Watters ignored this. What if the CEO came into the coaching box each game and told the coach who to take off the ground and at what time? You can't have it both ways. Coaches cannot be everything, and we can see where things fall apart with the perfect example of James Hird. In the past we've had coaches interfere, or take control of the recruiting/trading, with disastrous results (remember Andrew Lovett, remember Luke Ball, remember Michael Frost?). Pelchen, like him or not, was employed to oversee the list management and recruitment of players and to rebuild the list.

It perplexes me that a young AFL coach would not just focus on the coaching aspect, leaving others to do what they were employed to do. Wouldn't you want to make sure that you have established yourself as an effective coach before trying to influence other sections of the club? You don't even have to read between the lines to get an understanding that his assistant coaches were having difficulty working with him, some to the point where they needed to leave.

AS for the media coverage, yes they have been critical of the club, but there is a fair smattering of question marks over Watters himself, something that journalists are very careful in wording. I think John Ralph summed it up best, but all the articles I've read have pointed to Watters having obvious issues with his management style and his 'finger in every pie' approach.

In 2001 , the club made the gutsy decision to sack Malcolm Blight, knowing it would be pilloried by the media. But it was the correct decision. Blight was arrogant, disrespectful, and just plain lazy. The club has again made an unpopular decision, but like the the Blight decision, it has had the guts to do the right thing, knowing that again the knives would be out.

I respect an administration that can make these types of decisions, rather than cowering in fear of a rapid football media or supporter backlash. Having said that, I suspect that most people in the football media have a fair handle on what's been happening regarding Watters for a while now.

[saintsrus]

Thanks Jaxons
IMO i dont care to know anymore, thats enough having worked in a similar environment.

Our Pres needs to learn how to deal with the Jorno questions, they ate him for breakfast.

[saintspremiers]

Why did we ever appoint this idiot Watters on the first place?

Was he given any official warnings?

I thought Lyon was a lowlife but SW really takes the cake.

God riddance and enjoy another career because I doubt any club will have you and unlike GT you'd be boring as batshyte in the media

[ctqs]

When a performance review involves 24 people, none of whom had much favourable to say, you may be the cause of the problem. When you're an autocrat, who won't allow others to do their job, you may be the cause of the problem. When you are undisciplined to the point you flout a company directive even though you've already been put on notice and know you are on thin ice, you may not just be the cause of the problem, you're thick as well. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Eastern]

After hearing and reading PLENTY on this over the past 24 hours, the ONLY person remotely connected to football who is defending Scott Watters is Dermott Brereton !!

[ctqs]

And what would Brereton know about St Kilda? Has anyone seen him at training? He's defending a mate. It's funny how he labelled Watters, Eade and Terry Wallace as the three best footy brains he knows. Only one grand final as a coach between them, for no premierships. As for Brereton, he king hit Spud Frawley, said we didn't have the cattle at the start of the 1997 season when we made the grand final, and now slags off at us to defend a mate who is clearly deserving of his fate. Yeah, real credibility there.
Allan Jeans thought very highly of Chris Pelchen and that's good enough for me. Who cares if Dermott Brereton doesn't?

[spert]

And what would Brereton know about St Kilda? Has anyone seen him at training? He's defending a mate. It's funny how he labelled Watters, Eade and Terry Wallace as the three best footy brains he knows. Only one grand final as a coach between them, for no premierships. As for Brereton, he king hit Spud Frawley, said we didn't have the cattle at the start of the 1997 season when we made the grand final, and now slags off at us to defend a mate who is clearly deserving of his fate. Yeah, real credibility there.
Allan Jeans thought very highly of Chris Pelchen and that's good enough for me. Who cares if Dermott Brereton doesn't?

I agree- Yabby was far above some the clowns who use the media to be critical of the club. Brereton was top a player, but other than that is just a motor-mouth playboy

[ctqs]

Watters gives a new definition to the term "dwarf tosser".

[Sobraz]

The Saad selection shocked me the most.. I hated the decision at the time & was baffled by it.. It was also a dismal failure as Saad played terribly.. Had the info of how he was selected came to light then, I would've supported a sacking that week.. Unacceptable & unprofessional.

[8856brother]

The Saad selection shocked me the most.. I hated the decision at the time & was baffled by it.. It was also a dismal failure as Saad played terribly.. Had the info of how he was selected came to light then, I would've supported a sacking that week.. Unacceptable & unprofessional.

He couldn't walk. Serious questions should have been asked at that point.

[philtee]

Thanks jaxons. Bravery points to the Board who had the 'nads to do it, especially Summers who must
feel that he's jumped on a bucking bull. I can only think his arrival on Sept 6 has been a real catalyst
for change, and that the decks have now been cleared for action. Pity it all had to happen at the start
of the membership drive, because numbers may take a hit. Every message from now on has to be
positive. And a clutch of wins early in the season wouldn't go astray.

[saint-stu]

Bravery points to the Board who had the 'nads to do it, especially Summers who must
feel that he's jumped on a bucking bull. I can only think his arrival on Sept 6 has been a real catalyst
for change, and that the decks have now been cleared for action.

Hasn't Summers been on the board this whole time?

[BigMart]

So are we actually saying there has been some mismanagement now?

Is that allowed now?!

[plugger66]

So are we actually saying there has been some mismanagement now?

Is that allowed now?!

Its always been allowed. Its people who change opinions or forget their opinions just to start something.

[HitTheBoundary]

So are we actually saying there has been some mismanagement now?

Is that allowed now?!

It's always been allowed.
However, using the argumentative style and sooking manner of a five year old is frowned upon.
(With apologies to mature five year olds.)

[SainterK]

Let me guess the guys who couldn't and wouldn't work with him moving forward...

Max, Hamill?

Bourke, Thompson?

Am I warm?

[arpstk]

Great post Jaxons...thank you.

Possibly the reason President wont say anything about why SW had to go is because of legal issues.

The coach's poor relationship with more experienced players has been well documented and became poisonous after the Mad Monday episode in which certain players not only allowed one dwarf entertainer to be set alight but also hired those entertainers in the first place as a dig at the coach.


This was the set up of the century by the players (well done boys very clever) and was the conclusion to Goddards hobbit comment (which SW handled poorly too).

The dwarfs in question are regular tv personalities whom were hired to create a media stunt which they did admirably and Watters didn't see it coming...probably too late by then but his response.

There was also the savaging Watters gave the group after the dwarf fire debacle, which has been described as withering.

It reminded me of a school teacher we had giving us a bake for smoking down the oval while the kid who gave us the smokes (school captain) stood next to him looking very stern.

So for me its all positive SW couldn't cut it and our warriors have finally been given the chance to go forward again.

Go Sainters!

[sippo]

As another little "aside" when interviewed once i heard him say he lived by those american " sales books", ya know the ones i mean. Yes you can take some salient points from em, but to be a true believer and live by them???? ...AMWAY all over again!