Non release of Review findings

[chook23]

Thought it was poor not to release the findings which led to sacking today

findings and why to sack

[Linton Street Saint]

They are going to release them, they explicitly said that.

[chook23]

They are going to release them, they explicitly said that.

I know

BUT think that is very poor

[Sainter_Dad]

The review is probably not completed - just the part that relates to Ratten - and wanting to get on the front foot before Draft day

[cps]

Just my opinion but I think it would be very unlikely that details of the review will be made public as they would highlight weaknesses of individuals and processes that could be highly embarrassing to those concerned. They would also give ammunition to our competitors.

Cheers!

[Sainter_Dad]

Just my opinion but I think it would be very unlikely that details of the review will be made public as they would highlight weaknesses of individuals and processes that could be highly embarrassing to those concerned. They would also give ammunition to our competitors.

Cheers!

I agree - in the details - but the findings for areas may need releasing - like - our fitness etc

[Munga]

Couldn't care less about the findings not being released today. A few more important matters going on than to type it up nicely to present to the public.
High level doc is fine for getting the point across. No need to embarrass people or roles in detail.

[outside66]

They are going to release them, they explicitly said that.

Basset said that they would only release the "high level findings of the review". Members deserve the entire report where names can be changed to protect privacy. A member of the media will no doubt get access to it so why shouldn't the most important stakeholders (us) be privy also? It's time for the club to come to the party and start treating the lifeblood of the club (members) with the respect and transparency we deserve. Our membership money would have contributed towards the report (as well as Ratten's expected payout btw) so it's the least they can do as far as I'm concerned.

[cps]

Members deserve the entire report where names can be changed to protect privacy. A member of the media will no doubt get access to it so why shouldn't the most important stakeholders (us) be privy also?

Too risky IMHO - other clubs will be straight onto it and pick it apart.

[cps]

Also, do you think it's fair on Brett Ratten (who appears to be a great person BTW) to have his faults and mistakes made public for all the world to see?

[cwrcyn]

They have no obligation to release the full details. They've just sacked a guy. Explaining why in detail would only humiliate an already humiliated coach. Ever thought of that? I'm sure Ratten's family and friends would love all his dirty linen displayed to the public. Some things should be kept in-house. Just because the media and some supporters want to know absolutely everything doesn't mean they have the right to.

[mr six o'clock]

Caught a glimpse of the review
Basically we need more cowbell !

[skeptic]

They have no obligation to release the full details. They've just sacked a guy. Explaining why in detail would only humiliate an already humiliated coach. Ever thought of that? I'm sure Ratten's family and friends would love all his dirty linen displayed to the public. Some things should be kept in-house. Just because the media and some supporters want to know absolutely everything doesn't mean they have the right to.

Agreed.

At some point the club will need to release some spin as to why he was sacked but it will be just that… spin

[outside66]

Members deserve the entire report where names can be changed to protect privacy. A member of the media will no doubt get access to it so why shouldn't the most important stakeholders (us) be privy also?

Too risky IMHO - other clubs will be straight onto it and pick it apart.

Asif other clubs would care and if they are using our failings as a blueprint for their own success then they've got bigger problems IMO

[outside66]

They have no obligation to release the full details. They've just sacked a guy. Explaining why in detail would only humiliate an already humiliated coach. Ever thought of that? I'm sure Ratten's family and friends would love all his dirty linen displayed to the public. Some things should be kept in-house. Just because the media and some supporters want to know absolutely everything doesn't mean they have the right to.

If they used membership funds to contribute towards this review then absolutely they do. If Basset paid for the review out of his own pocket then fair enough, keep it under the rug and cherry pick what you want to be shared with the members. They are obliged to provide an annual financial report for stakeholders so I can't see how an urgent review into football operations wouldn't also fall into the same category. This isn't just about Ratten as Basset said there "were a bunch of other things" that isn't being done properly. I think the majority of members have lost trust in the club's ability to operate competently so unless it's all out on the table it's hard to see how they will earn that back. If you're happy to be consistently fed crap and be told it's jelly beans then good for you but I can guarantee that there many out there who deservedly expect better communication.

[cps]

Members deserve the entire report where names can be changed to protect privacy. A member of the media will no doubt get access to it so why shouldn't the most important stakeholders (us) be privy also?

Too risky IMHO - other clubs will be straight onto it and pick it apart.

Asif other clubs would care and if they are using our failings as a blueprint for their own success then they've got bigger problems IMO

No, they could use the information to potentially lure players away. For example, say a Saints player is testing the waters at trade time. An opposition club could say something like "Look, we know that when you were at the Saints X, Y and Z were a shambles. We can guarantee that if you come to us that won't be the case". And if they know about the review contents they could be right!

[outside66]

Members deserve the entire report where names can be changed to protect privacy. A member of the media will no doubt get access to it so why shouldn't the most important stakeholders (us) be privy also?

Too risky IMHO - other clubs will be straight onto it and pick it apart.

Asif other clubs would care and if they are using our failings as a blueprint for their own success then they've got bigger problems IMO

No, they could use the information to potentially lure players away. For example, say a Saints player is testing the waters at trade time. An opposition club could say something like "Look, we know that when you were at the Saints X, Y and Z were a shambles. We can guarantee that if you come to us that won't be the case". And if they know about the review contents they could be right!

Yeah good point but if we acted on recommendations where we were no longer in shambles then that would render that approach irrelevant. If we released it right before the trade period then your theory would hold up but if we can't change it up in a year then we don't deserve to keep x,y, & z.

[cps]

They are obliged to provide an annual financial report for stakeholders so I can't see how an urgent review into football operations wouldn't also fall into the same category. This isn't just about Ratten as Basset said there "were a bunch of other things" that isn't being done properly. I think the majority of members have lost trust in the club's ability to operate competently so unless it's all out on the table it's hard to see how they will earn that back. If you're happy to be consistently fed crap and be told it's jelly beans then good for you but I can guarantee that there many out there who deservedly expect better

My understanding is that financial operations and football operations are basically completely separate and that the club isn't obliged to make a review of football operations public. Most (all?) clubs would review their football operations at the end of each season. How many have been made public?

Regarding "the majority of members have lost trust in the club's ability to operate competently" I think the fact that we had record membership last season says that's not the case.

All my opinion of course

[cps]

Members deserve the entire report where names can be changed to protect privacy. A member of the media will no doubt get access to it so why shouldn't the most important stakeholders (us) be privy also?

Too risky IMHO - other clubs will be straight onto it and pick it apart.

Asif other clubs would care and if they are using our failings as a blueprint for their own success then they've got bigger problems IMO

No, they could use the information to potentially lure players away. For example, say a Saints player is testing the waters at trade time. An opposition club could say something like "Look, we know that when you were at the Saints X, Y and Z were a shambles. We can guarantee that if you come to us that won't be the case". And if they know about the review contents they could be right!

Yeah good point but if we acted on recommendations where we were no longer in shambles then that would render that approach irrelevant. If we released it right before the trade period then your theory would hold up but if we can't change it up in a year then we don't deserve to keep x,y, & z.

By "X, Y and Z" I meant things like training standards, game day coaching, selection integrity" etc. Some of these things take time to change.

[outside66]

They are obliged to provide an annual financial report for stakeholders so I can't see how an urgent review into football operations wouldn't also fall into the same category. This isn't just about Ratten as Basset said there "were a bunch of other things" that isn't being done properly. I think the majority of members have lost trust in the club's ability to operate competently so unless it's all out on the table it's hard to see how they will earn that back. If you're happy to be consistently fed crap and be told it's jelly beans then good for you but I can guarantee that there many out there who deservedly expect better

My understanding is that financial operations and football operations are basically completely separate and that the club isn't obliged to make a review of football operations public. Most (all?) clubs would review their football operations at the end of each season. How many have been made public?

Regarding "the majority of members have lost trust in the club's ability to operate competently" I think the fact that we had record membership last season says that's not the case.

All my opinion of course

I'm not sure of other clubs operate (Essendon bankrolled their EY external audit via coterie influence I believe) but once you outsource external input I assume that they need to be paid. If it's completely internal then that remains the organisation's business. Unless the AFL offered Noble for free as part of his payout from North, then some of his payment (and anyone else externally involved) would have come from membership contributions. With regards to the 60000 members, majority would have jumped onboard when we were sitting at 8-3 coming off similar in the back half of 2021. If you asked the 60000 as to their level of trust from the midseason break to now, then I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised with their response. In any case, I wouldn't confuse loyalty with trust. We are the most loyal supporters in the competition yet we get treated like dirt from the club (once they've taken our money).

[outside66]

Members deserve the entire report where names can be changed to protect privacy. A member of the media will no doubt get access to it so why shouldn't the most important stakeholders (us) be privy also?

Too risky IMHO - other clubs will be straight onto it and pick it apart.

Asif other clubs would care and if they are using our failings as a blueprint for their own success then they've got bigger problems IMO

No, they could use the information to potentially lure players away. For example, say a Saints player is testing the waters at trade time. An opposition club could say something like "Look, we know that when you were at the Saints X, Y and Z were a shambles. We can guarantee that if you come to us that won't be the case". And if they know about the review contents they could be right!

Yeah good point but if we acted on recommendations where we were no longer in shambles then that would render that approach irrelevant. If we released it right before the trade period then your theory would hold up but if we can't change it up in a year then we don't deserve to keep x,y, & z.

By "X, Y and Z" I meant things like training standards, game day coaching, selection integrity" etc. Some of these things take time to change.

oh got ya. Well if done properly, all of those things could be resolved early in the season.

[cps]

We are the most loyal supporters in the competition yet we get treated like dirt from the club (once they've taken our money).

I get your frustration and I'd like to know the findings of the review too, but I think that the information is too sensitive to be released publicly.

[cps]

Also, in light of Ratten being sacked, I think the review must have found something seriously wrong. It must have been something that was irreconcilable.

[Banger9798]

Caught a glimpse of the review
Basically we need more cowbell !

Christopher Walken to coach?
We'd have 100,000 members in no time

[WellardSaint]

One article says that Glenn Luff was involved in presenting review findings to the review committee- Bassat, Lethers, Jason Blake, and someone else who I forget.
They said Glenn Luff was list manager at Norf for a short time, and left midway thru 2022.
Prior to Norf, he worked at Champion Data for 17 yrs as an analyst.
Number cruncher.
The thing about number crunchers is they're obssessed with numbers, statistics, dollars, etc, but I don't think they have a soul at all.
How would he really know anything about footy?
I recall he got bagged and belittled on social media by Kane Cornes or someone similar, not long ago