The Review .

[Banger9798]

Thank God we're no longer selling home games.
We never won them.
May as well have just sold 4 points.
Plus the depletion from travelling again.

[bobmurray]

Thank God we're no longer selling home games.
We never won them.
May as well have just sold 4 points.
Plus the depletion from travelling again.

We're not very good when we have to travel, have we ever won at Kardinia Park ?

[axcellence]

2.9 Relationship between football and the rest of Club.
The Review highlighted that we should continue to sharpen our focus on football, minimise distractions to the Football Program and maximise support. In particular, we have decided not to sell a home game in 2023 and to apply a strong football lens to any cause games we consider undertaking.

This was such an under observed issue. I had to deal with some St Kilda mgt (without naming names) who was more concerned with the gender make up of our workplace then what we did or were trying to do. Social causes are well and good but aren't why the football club was set in place! It's to play football and win games of footy.

[Laurie]

So the Head of our football dept at the time .survives to live another day after the review..
BOOM BOOM

[Otiman]

Well, Lethlean is out of the football department and Walsh is there to make sure Lethlean keeps his nose out of it.

Promoting someone who has done a bad job is not good business or sporting sense. If the football department was poorly managed, then it must be on Lethlean more than it is on Ratten.

The idea of moving him to a more senior role where he "keeps his nose out of it" is a waste of space and money.

[Bruce G McAbee]

Not selling home games, thank God no game in Cairns this year in 88% humidity.

What next? Are we going to complain about playing games in Brisbane or playing games in Perth?

People have really short memories. Our coaches and players had an issue with going to Tasmania. We watched other teams take the initiative to capture a segment of the market that used to be a stronghold for us and also we missed out on the AFL and Tasmanian government money.

In 2022 the Cairns was just played at the wrong time of the year. They should be played Mid June. I think the AFL also looked after us with the fixture immediately before and after the matches in Cairns with good gaps (rest days in between) in both 2021 and in 2022 when we had to travel to far North Queensland. In 2021 we had the full 7 days prior and 7 days after and in 2022 we had 8 days prior and we had the bye the week after.

In 2021 when we lost to Adelaide it was due to to the weak response of our leaders on field. We were cruising with what looked like an unbeatable lead. We were 5 and a half goals up against Adelaide and Andrew Mackay decided to make a statement and lined up Hunter Clark to break his jaw. Whether the Saints players thought it was a ‘footy contest’ or not it was a brutal act from the opposition and we needed to respond in some way. JB and Brad Hill were close by and they stood still. Before that moment, Adelaide had not scored a goal for the whole first half.

The game in Cairns this year was an issue because we lost, but I think the circumstances again contributed. Port were under the pump after losing the first 5 games in the home and away season 2022 after being prelim finalists the year before. We still had our chances but Port were the more desperate team in the final minutes of the game. Again, it was probably poor on field leadership that cost us…AND not the fact that the game was in Cairns

First of all, Brisbane doesn't get as humid as Cairns and have a proper game. Perth has very low humidity.
According to you, should we try to recapture the Shanghai or New Zealand market?
I am glad that we aren't doing Cairns, let the Queensland teams play up there.
Plus let's not forget Port's dubious substitution of their medical sub at half-time. Their medical sub was more suited to the conditions than the player they subbed, who was surprisingly fine to play the following week.
Actually, if they keep the medical sub, that should be the rule, if you're subbed off, you don't play the following week.

[Sainter_Dad]

I have to say… I’m really miffed at how frustrated people are with the social theme aspect of football.

If there’s one thing that’s destroying football it’s the over corporatisation of the sport…
Constant commercials and sponsored content through the show
Gambling advertisement
Less free games on tv
Unbalanced fixture that limits exposure
Draft not on tv
Pointless family segments, watered down press conferences etc
Blah blah blah

This stuff doesn’t get the hate it deserves but everyone bangs on about how a social cause is detrimental to the game. As if the one week where we have pride game for 2 hours is forced to the point that it ruins the 5 months of the season or whatever but all that other stuff is cool.

Whether or not I’m passionate about whatever the theme of the week is… none of it bothers me all that much compared to the BS that’s a problem every game

Skeptic - I have NO problem with the cause games - but we are F@rken IRRELEVANT in the football landscape - and the board should be spending more time getting things right on field before we worry about off field. At the moment I feel like we are an independent candidate who was elected on a Motoring ticket banging on about Climate Change. It is an important subject - absolutely - but his power to make change is limited by the 'relevance' of the mouthpiece

I am hoping that this review is the first step to us becoming RELEVANT

GET RELEVANT St KILDA - ON THE F@RKEN FOOTBALL FIELD

[B.M]

Wasn’t a great idea in the first place - going to Cairns


But if that’s was an outcome of the review- what a farce

The selling of games has nothing to do with the running of the football dept?!
Why we couldn’t win a game we sold, she have been the question?
Port had to travel to Cairns - they won!

We look for excuses- not reasons - that’s the fkn problem!

Not playing a game in Cairns is nice, but not a mechanism to help us improve.

We MUST be able to play away. And win away from Docklands.


So for that to be an outcome of the review- is farcical

[Yorkeys]

Wasn’t a great idea in the first place - going to Cairns


But if that’s was an outcome of the review- what a farce

The selling of games has nothing to do with the running of the football dept?!
Why we couldn’t win a game we sold, she have been the question?
Port had to travel to Cairns - they won!

We look for excuses- not reasons - that’s the fkn problem!

Not playing a game in Cairns is nice, but not a mechanism to help us improve.

We MUST be able to play away. And win away from Docklands.


So for that to be an outcome of the review- is farcical

A determination not to make obviously poor decisions; to prioritise creating a winning environment (and to give an example of that) seems a good outcome to me.

[Vortex]

Well, Lethlean is out of the football department and Walsh is there to make sure Lethlean keeps his nose out of it.

Promoting someone who has done a bad job is not good business or sporting sense. If the football department was poorly managed, then it must be on Lethlean more than it is on Ratten.

The idea of moving him to a more senior role where he "keeps his nose out of it" is a waste of space and money.

Bassett and Lethlean have pulled off one of the biggest con jobs I have seen in a very long time, they timed their move to avoid scrutiny while hypnotising the fanboys. Their time will come though, bookmark this, the media will already be salivating at the prospect of pulling these two conmen apart, they will bide their time and wait until they get maximum exposure and response to their stories...in-season that is of coarse. For now we bask in the glory of past legends in the off season.

They are everything that is wrong with this world at the moment, executive managers strutting about the elite class, with their base qualities being narcissism, psychopathy and sycophantic. These types are all to eager to climb over a fellow human being to advance their own deluded goals and the AFL has become fertile ground for any aspirational sycophant wishing to use the executive landscape who is planning to climb the greasy pole. I see this side of human behaviour up close and it's ugly and is in polar opposition to how mankind should behave and exist.

That PR media release that masquerades as a summary of the review is nothing more than a puff piece designed to deflect and promote Bassett and Lethlean, almost chocked on my cornflakes laughing hysterically when basset alluded to the debt as some kind of positive.

Finishing on a positive football note, I am on the record as stating I have much man love for RL so from a pure entertainment perspective I will benefit watching him up close again at our club, I will be incredibly hopeful that he can succeed this time at rebuilding a list and I will watch with incredible interest at how the four pillars go about solving a problem that soooooo many have failed before them...accumulation of talent capable of becoming a sustained top 4 side.

Like gold fish and moths to a flame.

[Vortex]

Wasn’t a great idea in the first place - going to Cairns


But if that’s was an outcome of the review- what a farce

The selling of games has nothing to do with the running of the football dept?!
Why we couldn’t win a game we sold, she have been the question?
Port had to travel to Cairns - they won!

We look for excuses- not reasons - that’s the fkn problem!

Not playing a game in Cairns is nice, but not a mechanism to help us improve.

We MUST be able to play away. And win away from Docklands.


So for that to be an outcome of the review- is farcical

Fanboys are bedazzled by this claim made by Bassett that there is now all of a sudden this determination to succeed...anyone wondering what his values in leadership were before this epiphany?

If will all end in beer N skittles if we win a flag with this new found determination...gee he better hope the wins come quickly though, St Kilda people don't give long honeymoon periods.

[B.M]

A determination to not make poor decisions?

What was poor

Selling a home game
Or
Not winning that sold game

Which area should the review focus on??

Agree we shouldn’t be playing there… but that was not the problem! Losing was the problem.
Why we lost needs to be the point that was addressed

And the answer CANNOT be - because it was in Cairns
Port had to play there!!!

[saynta]

Well, Lethlean is out of the football department and Walsh is there to make sure Lethlean keeps his nose out of it.

Promoting someone who has done a bad job is not good business or sporting sense. If the football department was poorly managed, then it must be on Lethlean more than it is on Ratten.

The idea of moving him to a more senior role where he "keeps his nose out of it" is a waste of space and money.

Bassett and Lethlean have pulled off one of the biggest con jobs I have seen in a very long time, they timed their move to avoid scrutiny while hypnotising the fanboys. Their time will come though, bookmark this, the media will already be salivating at the prospect of pulling these two conmen apart, they will bide their time and wait until they get maximum exposure and response to their stories...in-season that is of coarse. For now we bask in the glory of past legends in the off season.

They are everything that is wrong with this world at the moment, executive managers strutting about the elite class, with their base qualities being narcissism, psychopathy and sycophantic. These types are all to eager to climb over a fellow human being to advance their own deluded goals and the AFL has become fertile ground for any aspirational sycophant wishing to use the executive landscape who is planning to climb the greasy pole. I see this side of human behaviour up close and it's ugly and is in polar opposition to how mankind should behave and exist.

That PR media release that masquerades as a summary of the review is nothing more than a puff piece designed to deflect and promote Bassett and Lethlean, almost chocked on my cornflakes laughing hysterically when basset alluded to the debt as some kind of positive.

Finishing on a positive football note, I am on the record as stating I have much man love for RL so from a pure entertainment perspective I will benefit watching him up close again at our club, I will be incredibly hopeful that he can succeed this time at rebuilding a list and I will watch with incredible interest at how the four pillars go about solving a problem that soooooo many have failed before them...accumulation of talent capable of becoming a sustained top 4 side.

Like gold fish and moths to a flame.

One would hope that you don't get away with calling our president and CEO conmen. f****** outrageous and clearly a breach of the rules. Come on mods , no sleeping on the job.

[Vortex]

A determination to not make poor decisions?

What was poor

Selling a home game
Or
Not winning that sold game

Which area should the review focus on??

Agree we shouldn’t be playing there… but that was not the problem! Losing was the problem.
Why we lost needs to be the point that was addressed

And the answer CANNOT be - because it was in Cairns
Port had to play there!!!

Like I say...smoke N mirrors and a masterful illusion trick to deflect attention away from incompetent executive management who at the very least have been asleep at the wheel.

[Templar]

Not playing a game in Cairns is nice, but not a mechanism to help us improve.

Not to worry. The AFL will make up for it in the 2023 draw and ensure that we travel far and wide.

[Sanctorum]

I don't think it's fair to take potshots at Bassat and Lethlean for the failure of the team to perform better in 21/22, nor the problems within the coaching panel mentioned in yesterday's statement.

It's true that it has taken a long time for the ship of state to be turned around but if you're going to lay blame at individuals you have to point the finger at long-term CEO Matt Finnis rather than Simon Lethlean who would have had his hands tied to achieve the sort of changes that the Review has identified.

In my book the buck stops with the CEO and for all the good things that occured during Finnis' time (move back to Linton Street and major renovations to facilities and the Danny Frawley Centre), he has obviuously not given sufficient focus to Football Operations during hs tenure.

Given the fact that Finnis was appointed CEO in March 2014, incoming club president Andrew Bassat in 2019 would have had to rely heavily on the advice of the incumbent CEO who was also an ex-officio member of the Board.

I don't regard the summary of the review released yesterday to be in any way a con-job, it explains what the members of the review panel reported to the Board and the actions taken to remedy the situation to set the team up for long-term success.

It is quite likely that the Board decided that once Finnis was out of the way iot was opportune to shake the place up...

[asiu]

One would hope that you don't get away with calling our president and CEO conmen. f****** outrageous and clearly a breach of the rules. Come on mods , no sleeping on the job.

faark the rules ... they're wrong

and , leave the mods out it

its fair commentary
given his views expressed

if one cant call con men con men
what worth the discussion

isn't this exactly
what the Club
just started demanding of itself

honest talk ?

creating the opportunity
for such

[asiu]

It is quite likely that the Board decided that once Finnis was out of the way iot was opportune to shake the place up...

yep

i'm in that camp



(but , i'm also a bit wary of Lethlean
'n his 'get out of jail' free card
... where as , i was a bit fan boi)

[samuraisaint]

Thank God we're no longer selling home games.
We never won them.
May as well have just sold 4 points.
Plus the depletion from travelling again.

We're not very good when we have to travel, have we ever won at Kardinia Park ?

Please see my thread on 1988.

[samuraisaint]

Hallelujah! No more home games being sold to play in China, New Zealand or Cairns.

Now if we can only stop playing reserves games in Sandringham ...

[samuraisaint]

A determination to not make poor decisions?

What was poor

Selling a home game
Or
Not winning that sold game

Which area should the review focus on??

Agree we shouldn’t be playing there… but that was not the problem! Losing was the problem.
Why we lost needs to be the point that was addressed

And the answer CANNOT be - because it was in Cairns
Port had to play there!!!

Richmond and Melbourne had the same problem as us for years. North did too. If you are going to do things like sell home games for money, then heads needed to roll when we never won them. And I don't mean coaches. The games against the Crows and Port in Cairns were similar with us opening up a handy lead against an opposition having a shocking season, then surrendering that lead and playing completely devoid of intensity in the last quarter. Some of our 'leaders' were very, very poor in both of those games, although it must be said that the team that played in Cairns against Adelaide was severely depleted.

[Vortex]

We'll see, we always do.

It will go down in folklore if it ends in the 2nd Cup, we know how it ends if it doesn't.

[Teflon]

I don't think it's fair to take potshots at Bassat and Lethlean for the failure of the team to perform better in 21/22, nor the problems within the coaching panel mentioned in yesterday's statement.

It's true that it has taken a long time for the ship of state to be turned around but if you're going to lay blame at individuals you have to point the finger at long-term CEO Matt Finnis rather than Simon Lethlean who would have had his hands tied to achieve the sort of changes that the Review has identified.

In my book the buck stops with the CEO and for all the good things that occured during Finnis' time (move back to Linton Street and major renovations to facilities and the Danny Frawley Centre), he has obviuously not given sufficient focus to Football Operations during hs tenure.

Given the fact that Finnis was appointed CEO in March 2014, incoming club president Andrew Bassat in 2019 would have had to rely heavily on the advice of the incumbent CEO who was also an ex-officio member of the Board.

I don't regard the summary of the review released yesterday to be in any way a con-job, it explains what the members of the review panel reported to the Board and the actions taken to remedy the situation to set the team up for long-term success.

It is quite likely that the Board decided that once Finnis was out of the way iot was opportune to shake the place up...

Now I’ve never done this before…so stay with me.
I agree.
Think Bassatt is guilty of listening to his footy Dept too much but that’s also fair enough - you need to let people do their job.
That said, he should’ve been closer earlier imo
Regardless, the moves he’d made admit failings.
Corporate psychopaths (and I’ve worked with and met many) don’t usually do that….self awareness isn’t their strong suit
Kudos to Bassatt
Lethlean was in the wrong role - he’s footy administration not footy operations….those saying he escaped the review also ignore the fact that as a CEO he just might be very good..
Anyway we are all guessing but I can’t fault the moves made or the effort to right the ship
Lastly, the language in the release was always going to be sanitised ….does anyone really expect them to say
“Brett was soft, had favourites and David Rath told him how to get out of bed daily…”

[Sanctorum]

I don't think it's fair to take potshots at Bassat and Lethlean for the failure of the team to perform better in 21/22, nor the problems within the coaching panel mentioned in yesterday's statement.

It's true that it has taken a long time for the ship of state to be turned around but if you're going to lay blame at individuals you have to point the finger at long-term CEO Matt Finnis rather than Simon Lethlean who would have had his hands tied to achieve the sort of changes that the Review has identified.

In my book the buck stops with the CEO and for all the good things that occured during Finnis' time (move back to Linton Street and major renovations to facilities and the Danny Frawley Centre), he has obviuously not given sufficient focus to Football Operations during hs tenure.

Given the fact that Finnis was appointed CEO in March 2014, incoming club president Andrew Bassat in 2019 would have had to rely heavily on the advice of the incumbent CEO who was also an ex-officio member of the Board.

I don't regard the summary of the review released yesterday to be in any way a con-job, it explains what the members of the review panel reported to the Board and the actions taken to remedy the situation to set the team up for long-term success.

It is quite likely that the Board decided that once Finnis was out of the way iot was opportune to shake the place up...

Now I’ve never done this before…so stay with me.
I agree.
Think Bassatt is guilty of listening to his footy Dept too much but that’s also fair enough - you need to let people do their job.
That said, he should’ve been closer earlier imo
Regardless, the moves he’d made admit failings.
Corporate psychopaths (and I’ve worked with and met many) don’t usually do that….self awareness isn’t their strong suit
Kudos to Bassatt
Lethlean was in the wrong role - he’s footy administration not footy operations….those saying he escaped the review also ignore the fact that as a CEO he just might be very good..
Anyway we are all guessing but I can’t fault the moves made or the effort to right the ship
Lastly, the language in the release was always going to be sanitised ….does anyone really expect them to say
“Brett was soft, had favourites and David Rath told him how to get out of bed daily…”

Good grief Teflon, I almost did what I've never done before on this forum and uttered an expletive

Yeah, Bassat could have acted sooner but if you read betwen the lines in the summary it is obvious that there was serious division, maybe even conflict, within the football department that may have made it diffcult to establish exactly what was going on. Operations departments in football clubs are often populated with individuals that have very big egos!

My further thoughts on this subject are that Jason Blake's appointment to the Board may have been a big factor in the outcomes, and that the sorry state of affairs would have led the Board to decide it was best to go for an experienced coach rather than a rookie.

[Teflon]

I don't think it's fair to take potshots at Bassat and Lethlean for the failure of the team to perform better in 21/22, nor the problems within the coaching panel mentioned in yesterday's statement.

It's true that it has taken a long time for the ship of state to be turned around but if you're going to lay blame at individuals you have to point the finger at long-term CEO Matt Finnis rather than Simon Lethlean who would have had his hands tied to achieve the sort of changes that the Review has identified.

In my book the buck stops with the CEO and for all the good things that occured during Finnis' time (move back to Linton Street and major renovations to facilities and the Danny Frawley Centre), he has obviuously not given sufficient focus to Football Operations during hs tenure.

Given the fact that Finnis was appointed CEO in March 2014, incoming club president Andrew Bassat in 2019 would have had to rely heavily on the advice of the incumbent CEO who was also an ex-officio member of the Board.

I don't regard the summary of the review released yesterday to be in any way a con-job, it explains what the members of the review panel reported to the Board and the actions taken to remedy the situation to set the team up for long-term success.

It is quite likely that the Board decided that once Finnis was out of the way iot was opportune to shake the place up...

Now I’ve never done this before…so stay with me.
I agree.
Think Bassatt is guilty of listening to his footy Dept too much but that’s also fair enough - you need to let people do their job.
That said, he should’ve been closer earlier imo
Regardless, the moves he’d made admit failings.
Corporate psychopaths (and I’ve worked with and met many) don’t usually do that….self awareness isn’t their strong suit
Kudos to Bassatt
Lethlean was in the wrong role - he’s footy administration not footy operations….those saying he escaped the review also ignore the fact that as a CEO he just might be very good..
Anyway we are all guessing but I can’t fault the moves made or the effort to right the ship
Lastly, the language in the release was always going to be sanitised ….does anyone really expect them to say
“Brett was soft, had favourites and David Rath told him how to get out of bed daily…”

Good grief Teflon, I almost did what I've never done before on this forum and uttered an expletive

Yeah, Bassat could have acted sooner but if you read betwen the lines in the summary it is obvious that there was serious division, maybe even conflict, within the football department that may have made it diffcult to establish exactly what was going on. Operations departments in football clubs are often populated with individuals that have very big egos!

My further thoughts on this subject are that Jason Blake's appointment to the Board may have been a big factor in the outcomes, and that the sorry state of affairs would have led the Board to decide it was best to go for an experienced coach rather than a rookie.

Agree re divisions …the wording was softer but still quite damning
It reads as though standards were non existent
Blake would know talking to players as well what was/wasn’t working
I think Bassat has handled it well to be fair
They’ve not flames Ratten, Finnis, etc but said the trajectory they were on wasn’t going to cut it to be top 4
Clear message about getting the club back to footy basics as well which I think is good