Boot Camp 2017 cancelled by Players

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

I don’t know really what to think about this other than to say that it is not a positive development. It’s just not, on any construction.

What concerns me is that Goodwin seems not to be absolutely in tune with some of the players on the list. The 19th century master-servant stuff that some here doggedly adhere to is not the way the best coaches manage their players anymore. While it can still work, it generally doesn’t.

The communications (and the general vibe) around the Watts trade was poorly handled. The club has since all but acknowledged this (even if utlimately it was the right decision/result). 

Here too, after presumably so much planning and thought around the camp, the communications and the execution of it have clearly been poor.

I hope Goodwin discretely seeks out Roos over the break, has a coffee with him, and invites a bit of feedback and mentoring about how to deal with this issue. I reckon Roos would know exactly what Goodwin should do in the circumstances.

 

[Gator 16,891]

10 hours ago, Jack Jack Tappy said:

Their main issues were, one deconditioning, some players lost 5kgs over that 3 days, abuse and risk of injury.  

Can you expand on this particular point ?

Do you mean some mean words directed at them ?  Or is there some other concern here ?

[jnrmac 18,914]

On 12/18/2017 at 12:14 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

Frawley, the former head of the AFLCA, having a go at the players for seeking advice from the AFLPA. 

What would Frawley have preferred, the coach and FD refuse to take on board the concerns of 1/3 of the list and push ahead anyway with a "my way or the highway" attitude?

Frawey has had mental health issues - does he think it weak if a player sought advice from the AFLPA about how to approach his club about a mental health issue?

His hypocrisy is breathtaking.

[64" 97]

As l understand Jones was not one of the 14 players who complained about the 2 day camp?

[jnrmac 18,914]

1 hour ago, Ron Burgundy said:

I don’t know really what to think about this other than to say that it is not a positive development. It’s just not, on any construction.

What concerns me is that Goodwin seems not to be absolutely in tune with some of the players on the list. The 19th century master-servant stuff that some here doggedly adhere to is not the way the best coaches manage their players anymore. While it can still work, it generally doesn’t.

The communications (and the general vibe) around the Watts trade was poorly handled. The club has since all but acknowledged this (even if utlimately it was the right decision/result). 

Here too, after presumably so much planning and thought around the camp, the communications and the execution of it have clearly been poor.

I hope Goodwin discretely seeks out Roos over the break, has a coffee with him, and invites a bit of feedback and mentoring about how to deal with this issue. I reckon Roos would know exactly what Goodwin should do in the circumstances.

 

1. You have no evidence of this - it is pure speculation

2. This is garbage. Watts was given the clear message that he would be best finding another club.

3. Another garbage point with no basis at all in fact.

You seem to confuse what comes out in the media as what happens at the coal face of the club. The club under Peter Jackson has very clear guidelines on how to manage player commmunication. Just because some some flea in the media or on social media makes a claim or a statement doesn't make it true.

There are 1700 accredited AFL media. They are trying to earn a living and are scrapping for stories. They are largely irrelevant and i would prefer my club to manage players rather than focusing on external commentary. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

13 hours ago, daisycutter said:

a totally chalk and cheese analogy. ldvc. i'm surprised you can't see that

this was not an issue that should have gone to the union at the very outset

It's easy to say they're not chalk and cheese in hindsight. But not at the time the Essendon fiasco began. Remember, it was only afterwards that the players realised that, at best, they were misled. At the time the supplements program began, the players were advised of a particular course of action which they accepted apparently willingly because it was what their football department and coaching staff instructed them to do. They didn't know it was to involve banned substances and, crucially, it would appear not one of the players spoke to anyone outside their inner sanctum.

If nothing else, the problems with Essendon have likely made all players more wary about blindly following the instructions of football departments and coaching staff without considering their own rights. I think that's a good thing. And if our players were seeking advice from the AFLPA, good on them for having the gumption to check and not allow themselves to take the risk of being mistreated. That's not to say the bootcamp would necessarily have been inappropriate, but I see nothing wrong in seeking external advice as to whether it might or might not be.

[Wiseblood 24,636]

16 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

1. You have no evidence of this - it is pure speculation

2. This is garbage. Watts was given the clear message that he would be best finding another club.

3. Another garbage point with no basis at all in fact.

You seem to confuse what comes out in the media as what happens at the coal face of the club. The club under Peter Jackson has very clear guidelines on how to manage player commmunication. Just because some some flea in the media or on social media makes a claim or a statement doesn't make it true.

There are 1700 accredited AFL media. They are trying to earn a living and are scrapping for stories. They are largely irrelevant and i would prefer my club to manage players rather than focusing on external commentary. 

We don't always see eye to eye jnr, but on this we do.  Very well said.

[Sir Why You Little 34,420]

1 hour ago, Ron Burgundy said:

The communications (and the general vibe) around the Watts trade was poorly handled. The club has since all but acknowledged this (even if utlimately it was the right decision/result). 

 

 

What are you talking about? Watts knew exactly what was required..

and what has the club said that shows it was all poorly handled? Club hasn’t said a word on that, apart from “Jack is a great bloke” and “For both Jack and the club we think it was best he moved on”

i think you are a little delusional on all this Ron

[Bay Riffin 1,413]

1 hour ago, Ron Burgundy said:

I don’t know really what to think about this other than to say that it is not a positive development. It’s just not, on any construction.

What concerns me is that Goodwin seems not to be absolutely in tune with some of the players on the list. The 19th century master-servant stuff that some here doggedly adhere to is not the way the best coaches manage their players anymore. While it can still work, it generally doesn’t.

The communications (and the general vibe) around the Watts trade was poorly handled. The club has since all but acknowledged this (even if utlimately it was the right decision/result). 

Here too, after presumably so much planning and thought around the camp, the communications and the execution of it have clearly been poor.

I hope Goodwin discretely seeks out Roos over the break, has a coffee with him, and invites a bit of feedback and mentoring about how to deal with this issue. I reckon Roos would know exactly what Goodwin should do in the circumstances.

 

agree it doesn't look good.

 

Not sure on the Watts trade. why was that poorly handled?. it was never going to be easy but they got a fair trade in the end i.e second rounder. how else could they have done it?

[Bay Riffin 1,413]

11 hours ago, Jack Jack Tappy said:

The players did go back to the coach and two days later the coach said the camp was still on with some modifications from last year, such as a doctor being there who might be able to deal with Tysons dislocated knee cap. Some players weren't happy and spoke to the Aflpa. Their main issues were, one deconditioning, some players lost 5kgs over that 3 days, abuse and risk of injury.  The majority of players saw no advantage in the camp at all which   was proven late in the season.  Maybe the players were right to protect themselves against a FD that might be wrong. Maybe we should congratulate them for standing up??

proven ? proven late in the season ? how was it proven? a camp7 or so months earlier ?

 

if this is the case I would be seething as a coaching group. absolutely seething.

[Jack Jack Tappy 112]

1 hour ago, Bay Riffin said:

proven ? proven late in the season ? how was it proven? a camp7 or so months earlier ?

 

if this is the case I would be seething as a coaching group. absolutely seething.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  My understanding of the camp was to show the boys that when they think they are absolutely spent, such as in the last quarter of a game with finals on the line, that they actually can go again. This clearly didn't happen in rd 23

[The Chazz 4,077]

First comment I'm making on this.

While it certainly doesn't look great, mostly thanks to the media for their usual spin, there's too many things that I'm not privy to, to either start keying some players' cars, or to start sending Goody hate mail.

Things like did the players approach Goody first before going to the AFLPA?  Who was influencing what the younger players thought?  What "side" was Jones on?

I'd like to think the leadership group made the initial contact with Goody, then if he responded in with answers that they didn't like, then I'm happy for them to go to the AFLPA.  While we want them to be robotic, they do still have their rights, and the AFLPA provides a platform for this.

Presuming the above took place, then I sincerely hope this is a one-off.  I still expect the FD to control everything, but hopefully in a way that exceeds their expectations, but at the same time satisfies the players.  Under no circumstances, however, do I want to see the players make this a habit.  That if they are being pushed out of their comfort zone, and they don't like something, that they just go to the AFLPA and get their way.  I have great trust (could be blind) in the playing group, and in particular our leaders, to ensure this doesn't happen again.

If all of the above didn't/doesn't happen, then quite simply, we're rooted.

[daisycutter 28,459]

4 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

First comment I'm making on this.

While it certainly doesn't look great, mostly thanks to the media for their usual spin, there's too many things that I'm not privy to, to either start keying some players' cars, or to start sending Goody hate mail.

Things like did the players approach Goody first before going to the AFLPA?  Who was influencing what the younger players thought?  What "side" was Jones on?

I'd like to think the leadership group made the initial contact with Goody, then if he responded in with answers that they didn't like, then I'm happy for them to go to the AFLPA.  While we want them to be robotic, they do still have their rights, and the AFLPA provides a platform for this.

Presuming the above took place, then I sincerely hope this is a one-off.  I still expect the FD to control everything, but hopefully in a way that exceeds their expectations, but at the same time satisfies the players.  Under no circumstances, however, do I want to see the players make this a habit.  That if they are being pushed out of their comfort zone, and they don't like something, that they just go to the AFLPA and get their way.  I have great trust (could be blind) in the playing group, and in particular our leaders, to ensure this doesn't happen again.

If all of the above didn't/doesn't happen, then quite simply, we're rooted.

like you i'm not privy to all all the details

but as i sifted what was said, i got the strong impression that the players went to the aflpa first

make what you want from that

[The Chazz 4,077]

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

like you i'm not privy to all all the details

but as i sifted what was said, i got the strong impression that the players went to the aflpa first

make what you want from that

Daisy, I've heard (in this thread) that the players went straight to the AFLPA, and I've also heard that some went to Goody first.

I can't make anything from that!!!

[daisycutter 28,459]

3 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

Daisy, I've heard (in this thread) that the players went straight to the AFLPA, and I've also heard that some went to Goody first.

I can't make anything from that!!!

i just got that impression based on the relative strength of the various "sources"  - ymmv - cheers

[Drunkn167 5,093]

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

Can you expand on this particular point ?

Do you mean some mean words directed at them ?  Or is there some other concern here ?

Getting screamed at while sleep deprived and doing super intense physical work isn't everyone's cup of tea 

[ProperDee 1,698]

Yeah, there is no place for that BS in our game. Completely unnecessary.  This is a footy club, not a paramilitary organisation. There are many alternative, modern psychological development strategies available today. 

As an aside....Danny Frawley is a f log.

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

16 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i suspect no-one on this forum has any real objective evidence that the players are in any better nick at this time than at the same time last year.

just typical subjective pre-season optimism

of course though wiseblood, i do hope that you are correct  

I have chap, most are lifting more metal than ever before and we have had some improvement in the 2k times

And a couple of the youngsters now have a man's body, King,  Weed

Also Mr Gawn is in exceptional nick, his running has gone to another level

[Gator 16,891]

13 minutes ago, Drunkn167 said:

Getting screamed at while sleep deprived and doing super intense physical work isn't everyone's cup of tea 

Somehow I can't imagine a Michael Voss, Luke Hodge, or Joel Selwood citing this as an issue.  Or Jack Viney for that matter.

It takes all types, but clearly we have some delicate souls.

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,851]

On 19/12/2017 at 11:51 AM, Dr. Gonzo said:

We don't know the discussions that took place. Was the playing group told participation would be mandatory even for those recovering from injury/surgery (McDonald and Viney in particular)? We're their concerns dealt with by saying there will be doctors and specialists onsite to manage any injuries? Perhaps this wasn't enough for those who feared the risk outweighed the benefits and sought advice as to whether it was placing them at an unnecessary risk and what their obligations were to participate. Like it or not this IS a profession for them even if a profession unlike most others and the club DOES have OH&S obligations.

No we don't know what was discussed, but we do know the players went to the ALPA before the coach and that is where the problem lies. Wether or not the camp went ahead or what was discussed is irrelevant, the players grubbed the coach, the same result could of been achieved by going to the coach first.

[daisycutter 28,459]

9 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

I have chap, most are lifting more metal than ever before and we have had some improvement in the 2k times

And a couple of the youngsters now have a man's body, King,  Weed

Also Mr Gawn is in exceptional nick, his running has gone to another level

hey saty, i'm sure you could/would have said exactly the same thing last pre-season

but....don't get me wrong, i do hope the players as a group are fitter now than ever before

[DemonWheels 961]

My interpretation of the interaction with the AFLPA is that the players went to them for ADVICE on how to deal with the situation. Not for the AFLPA to step in and take over. 

Not suggesting thats what happened. But the way people/media are talking about it and the facts become more diluted, the more it starts to be portrayed that way.

I can totally understand and commend them for seeking advice if they truly believed that their conditioning, after 2 months of solid training, was at risk for little or no gain.

Just seems to me that the story got out when it really shouldn't have. Or at the very least it should have been spun from a positive perspective by the club from the outset.

[binman 37,793]

15 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Somehow I can't imagine a Michael Voss, Luke Hodge, or Joel Selwood citing this as an issue.  Or Jack Viney for that matter.

It takes all types, but clearly we have some delicate souls.

It does indeed take all types.

You are no doubt right that Michael Voss, Luke Hodge, Joel Selwood or Jack Viney are unlikely to cite being screamed at as an issue.

Whilst that may be because they don't have an issue with it or it might be because they lack the sort of courage it takes to break with the stereotype that real men tough it out. No easy task to voice your concerns if you think it will some how reflect poorly on your masculinity and identity.

I'd also add that those four blokes are leaders and part of being leaders ifs sometimes speaking up for those who don't have the the confidence to raise their concerns with the coach for fear of looking weak or indeed for fear of not being picked in the seniors.

[Gator 16,891]

9 minutes ago, binman said:

It does indeed take all types.

You are no doubt right that Michael Voss, Luke Hodge, Joel Selwood or Jack Viney are unlikely to cite being screamed at as an issue.

Whilst that may be because they don't have an issue with it or it might be because they lack the sort of courage it takes to break with the stereotype that real men tough it out. No easy task to voice your concerns if you think it will some how reflect poorly on your masculinity and identity.

I'd also add that those four blokes are leaders and part of being leaders ifs sometimes speaking up for those who don't have the the confidence to raise their concerns with the coach for fear of looking weak or indeed for fear of not being picked in the seniors.

I don't think any sportsmen should care about being yelled at on a camp where you know you're going to be yelled at.

The Storm are about to undertake the same camp, albeit a longer version.  It's the 17th year in a row.

I don't know how the poor petals cope. 

At being yelled at.

[sue 8,412]

Just now, Bombay Airconditioning said:

No we don't know what was discussed, but we do know the players went to the ALPA before the coach and that is where the problem lies. Wether or not the camp went ahead or what was discussed is irrelevant, the players grubbed the coach, the same result could of been achieved by going to the coach first.

And where exactly do we know that from?    Seems to me that as usual speculation and rumour quickly become fact. 

In any case if they just went to the PA for information it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the players should gather as much information as they can before they discuss an issue with the coach if they feel the coach has made a very bad decision.   How do we know that some players didn't tentatively raise it with the coach first, saw he was fixed in his position, still thought he was wrong and felt they had to argue again more forcefully?    

When we have one well-connected poster quoting a player saying how much disruption to his physical preparation last years' camp was, I think an exception to 'always do what the coast says' could be warranted.  If a player lost that much conditioning by being out on the town instead of at a boot camp, posters here would be calling for blood. 

It is just possible the FD got it wrong and after seeing how seriously the players felt about it, the FD saw cancelling was the correct decision.  An organization that works that way is far more resilient than one where such interactions are impossible and things fall apart completely after years of pent-up frustration.