Due Diligence

[Whispering_Jack 29,812]

FMD. I reckon this post and the issue highlighted is like an IQ test in disguise.

This is not about neeld; it is about the way we got him.

Think of it this way: EVERYTHING a footy club does is about people. The product is the quality of footy you play - dependent on the players, their coaches (the footy club culture is mainly a product of the interaction of these two variables) and the facilities. The facilities are dependent on the board and the footy admin (business side).

So, every single thing that you need at a footy club is produced by a person or utterly depedent on a person (or team of them). This makes PEOPLE the most crucial resource of the club.

In my mind this means that, if you want success, you need good people. Maybe great people. How do you get great people? Now, I would presume that this would be different for each area you looked at. However, at the heart of things is that you need an emphasis on how you find, attract and retain great people.

The recruiting of the coach, the firing of DB, the selection of players are all examples of areas where we have failed to have a thorough and/or successful process. If we stuff up the basic business of footy - getting great people - then we are effed.

Are you suggesting that you're fully aware of all the steps taken by those given the task of selecting the coach? Is there only one single correct process which, if not followed to the letter, means the selection of Mark Neeld was flawed? And why is this related to the decision not to breach normal protocol and go behind his manager's back? So we shouldn't concern ourselves with developing a culture of honesty and integrity or care about what happens when we next deal with this particular manager or any other in that fraternity? What about the other clubs that didn't select Lyon as their coach and who thought Lyon might be good for one club at a particular part of its cycle but not for theirs? How can we then extend the conclusion you've reached which, to my mind hasn't been satisfactorily thought out, to other decisions made.

Ron Baraasi was sought out by North Melbourne and signed his contract on a serviette. It was done in a very short time. A decision arrived at in haste. That too was a decision borne out of a flawed process.

[Sir Why You Little 36,987]

Lets rate Neeld in exactly 12 months.

[Blistering 538]

Lets rate Neeld in exactly 12 months.

And let's rate the process when we know a bit more about it.

[Hardnut 327]

Are you suggesting that you're fully aware of all the steps taken by those given the task of selecting the coach? Is there only one single correct process which, if not followed to the letter, means the selection of Mark Neeld was flawed? And why is this related to the decision not to breach normal protocol and go behind his manager's back? So we shouldn't concern ourselves with developing a culture of honesty and integrity or care about what happens when we next deal with this particular manager or any other in that fraternity? What about the other clubs that didn't select Lyon as their coach and who thought Lyon might be good for one club at a particular part of its cycle but not for theirs? How can we then extend the conclusion you've reached which, to my mind hasn't been satisfactorily thought out, to other decisions made.

Ron Baraasi was sought out by North Melbourne and signed his contract on a serviette. It was done in a very short time. A decision arrived at in haste. That too was a decision borne out of a flawed process.

If this is an attempt to justify the process of selection of Neeld, it's pretty sloppy WJ - perhaps try rethinking your questions so they are not dependent and have greater clarity.

[Sir Why You Little 36,987]

And let's rate the process when we know a bit more about it.

Sure. But Neeld's performance in exactly 12 months will be the most accurate proviso. How he got there is neither here nor there to me. The papers are signed.

I wanted MM we got Neeld i was happy. Still am. But the temp goes up tonight.

[Hardnut 327]

And let's rate the process when we know a bit more about it.

What more do you need to know? Sounds like another attempt by the defence.

[Whispering_Jack 29,812]

If this is an attempt to justify the process of selection of Neeld, it's pretty sloppy WJ - perhaps try rethinking your questions so they are not dependent and have greater clarity.

Pardon me but I thought this was about the process and not whether Neeld is or is not the correct choice.

If it's about criticising the process adopted, then I expect the critics to tell me that they're fully cognisant of the details of that process and why it's inadequate.

IMO only a few people know the precise detail of how Lyon and co went about making their selection and whether what was adopted was flawed. I certainly don't pretend to know and I don't believe any of those who have posted here would know either.

[Hardnut 327]

Pardon me but I thought this was about the process and not whether Neeld is or is not the correct choice.

If it's about criticising the process adopted, then I expect the critics to tell me that they're fully cognisant of the details of that process and why it's inadequate.

IMO only a few people know the precise detail of how Lyon and co went about making their selection and whether what was adopted was flawed. I certainly don't pretend to know and I don't believe any of those who have posted here would know either.

You put Neeld's name in your post WJ.

Anyone critical of the process would be working on the same public knowledge that you are - is no-one allowed to comment on anything unless they are 'fully cognisant' of all the detail? There would be very few posts on Dland if that was a prerequisite!

[Blistering 538]

FMD. You could hardly avoid putting Neeld's name in a thread about the process involved in selecting him, could you?

Tell us the details if the process please?

[Hardnut 327]

FMD. You could hardly avoid putting Neeld's name in a thread about the process involved in selecting him, could you?

Tell us the details if the process please?

I didn't bring Neeld's name into this - WJ did.

You should be as aware of the process as anyone, based on public knowledge - it's flawed on that alone.

What more do you want?

Seems like a circular discussion to me.

[Whispering_Jack 29,812]

I didn't bring Neeld's name into this - WJ did.

You should be as aware of the process as anyone, based on public knowledge - it's flawed on that alone.

What more do you want?

Seems like a circular discussion to me.

Yep. And you're the one going around in circles. I think you'll find several posters mentioned Neeld before I did on this thread which, just in case you haven't figured it out yet, is about due diligence in the process that was used to ultimately employ, um, Mark Neeld.

[tonatopia 278]

The selection process was obviously flawed because Mathews was not even propositioned. In dire times, people normally turn to proven, experienced leaders. The MFC on the other hand chose the other path, inexperience.

Does this sound like due diligence in identifying what was required, what was at stake, who was available, and whom should make the decision on the new coach.

It seems we got blindsided, panicked, then just selected neeld before anyone else could grab him.

Let me list the available candidates at the time;

Mathews (stated that he was considering the poaition but was not contacted) - due diligence - no.

Malthouse (Eddie declared he was off limits, so g.Lyon did not even interview him, for obvious reasons) - no

Sanderson (not sure)

Ross Lyon (not contacted) - due diligence- no

Paul Roos (not contacted) - due diligence - no

We did not even wait until malthouse had finished his finals campaign. It seemed very rushed. I was immediately disappointed, and 2012 has re-emphasized my disappointment with the selection process.

[deejammin' 2,370]

*Face palm*

Sheedy tied down windsocks and won 4 flags.

Maguire poached Malthouse from the Eagles when he had a year to go on his contract.

Carlton had Elliott cheating salary caps and won flags.

Graeme Richmond gave out brown paper bags at the Tigers and won flags.

And you talk of "protocol" ? It's your type of thinking that has held this club back for 40 years.

BH we have agreed many times in the past but this thread frustrates me in the extreme.

No.1 how do you know G. Lyon or other members of the selection panel didn't talk to Ross directly? Can you categorically say that no-one from MFC had a conversation with the man? Lyon was playing a dangerous game, if anyone had got wind of his Freo deal before it got through serious S*&^ would have hit the fan with Freo, Harvey, Lyon's Management and St Kilda all involved heavily in a shifty dealing he was trying to rush through before they were aware of it. Lyon could hardly have played Melbourne and Freo in a bidding war behind all of these parties backs so the most likely scenario is that Melbourne spoke to both Lyon's management officially and Lyon unofficially and were told the same thing, that he was staying at St Kilda. Maybe we offered less money than Freo and thats why he never considered us, maybe its the list or maybe we never discussed money as both the coach himself and his management said he was unavailable whatever the reason I don't think the MFC is at fault or didn't do due diligence on Lyon.

No. 2, You seem to approve of the club engaging in illegal or immoral practices to secure coaches etc. In the examples above these practices backfired heinously for Carlton and Richmond, Carlton has had the worst period in the clubs history (which to me looks set to continue), while Richmond has played less finals in the past 30 years than Fitzroy and hasn't looked close to a flag for a very long time! Richmond looks like it is turning around in a time where it has stuck by its unproven coach and made fair trades and drafts to build its list. Lastly, many have forgotten how frustrated Collingwood were with Malthouse in 2009, the whole Buckley/Malthouse saga emerged as Eddie and co thought Mick was heading in the wrong direction and saw this as the best plan for future success. The whole Malthouse contract was hardly the raging success Collingwood thought it would be. 2010 was a suprise, which emerged on the back of a perfect storm at Geelong (G.Ablett and Bomber) and the ball bouncing the wrong way in the first Grand Final.

For mine Geelong is the best team of the past 5 years with 3 premierships, 4 Grand Finals and a Prelim and it acheived this by sticking fat with its under siege coach (Bomber), keeping its integrity and sticking by both Thompson and Ablett when they were screwing them. Then took a risk on a young unproven coach, who won a Premiership in his first year. This is the example we should follow. Geelong have shown you can have integrity in your off-field plans and enjoy success, in fact they are still way ahead of both Richmond and Carlton whose shady dealings continue to hurt them. They will also [censored] Ross Lyon's Freo in yet another win for integrity.

Also, we couldn't have got Chris Scott he was already contracted at Geelong and coaching in a finals series, your timing is wrong. Also Matthews is past it, Malthouse was definately approached and wasn't ready/was off limits/had legal and financial implications far beyond us. Neeld hasn't had a great year, but I don't think that any of the examples you have mentioned show a lack of due process.

[deejammin' 2,370]

The selection process was obviously flawed because Mathews was not even propositioned. In dire times, people normally turn to proven, experienced leaders. The MFC on the other hand chose the other path, inexperience.

Does this sound like due diligence in identifying what was required, what was at stake, who was available, and whom should make the decision on the new coach.

It seems we got blindsided, panicked, then just selected neeld before anyone else could grab him.

Let me list the available candidates at the time;

Mathews (stated that he was considering the poaition but was not contacted) - due diligence - no.

Malthouse (Eddie declared he was off limits, so g.Lyon did not even interview him, for obvious reasons) - no

Sanderson (not sure)

Ross Lyon (not contacted) - due diligence- no

Paul Roos (not contacted) - due diligence - no

We did not even wait until malthouse had finished his finals campaign. It seemed very rushed. I was immediately disappointed, and 2012 has re-emphasized my disappointment with the selection process.

Where are your facts coming from? I have it on good authority that all those candidates were at least contacted, (except Matthews who is way past it and no-one is considering him), not necessarily officially (as most often occurs at football clubs). Roos was not interested in leaving his media gig, see above for Lyon and Malthouse, our club wanted Neeld more than Sanderson. You are speculating without foundation, show me proof that these candidates weren't considered.

Edited September 2, 2012 by deejammin'

[Guest Rassilon]

Lets rate Neeld in exactly 12 months.

Neeld has a 3 year deal. So your "exactly 12 months" will be closer to 24 months as it should be, as it has to be at the MFC.

[dpositive 1,663]

FMD. I reckon this post and the issue highlighted is like an IQ test in disguise.

This is not about neeld; it is about the way we got him.

Think of it this way: EVERYTHING a footy club does is about people. The product is the quality of footy you play - dependent on the players, their coaches (the footy club culture is mainly a product of the interaction of these two variables) and the facilities. The facilities are dependent on the board and the footy admin (business side).

So, every single thing that you need at a footy club is produced by a person or utterly depedent on a person (or team of them). This makes PEOPLE the most crucial resource of the club.

In my mind this means that, if you want success, you need good people. Maybe great people. How do you get great people? Now, I would presume that this would be different for each area you looked at. However, at the heart of things is that you need an emphasis on how you find, attract and retain great people.

The recruiting of the coach, the firing of DB, the selection of players are all examples of areas where we have failed to have a thorough and/or successful process. If we stuff up the basic business of footy - getting great people - then we are effed.

I couldn't let this go as the post has awoken many very reasonable points from both sides.

Ultimately we know the process has not yet yeilded success but it seems from most posts that do not know if it lacked thoroughness.

You are right that a footy club is about people but you did neglect perhaps the most interested and passionate part of the club culture the supporters. Administrators and players engage with the supporters to create the club culture.

just as a very minor and incorrect example the perception of the culture of Melb is a club where supporters are more interested in going to the snow than following their club.

Why is the appointment of Neeld seen as a culture changer? Why is Viney talked of as a culture changer?

I think that it is seen as adding a harder edge to our club I also think the supporters existing have wanted that for some time and potential future supporters will demand that. What we need however the culture is developed is success as success guarantees the supporters who build the team the coaches and the admin. It is a chicken and egg scenario and I cannot provide the instant answer. A thorough process will and will guarantee replication.

[nutbean 8,838]

Firstly - I wouldn't think any of would know exactly what approaches were and werent made as many are done in season when they shouldn't be.

To me it is not so much about due digilence but more about getting the hands dirty. Freo (Note - from all reports!) - did no due diligence but just went out and got their man - whilst it way harsh, it was ballsy and I like Ballsy.

I like the way we went and got big Mitch who was heading back to WA and I like the way we grabbed the fitness guru.

Figure what you want and go get it. No doesnt necessarily mean no.

[Devo 104]

In the context at the time of Neeld's appointment, there was not much time for a lengthy and exhaustive process. Melbourne, Footscray, Adelaide, Fremantle and St Kilda were all hunting for a coach at roughly the same time last year and there was a limited pool of candidates. Rarely do we have so many teams looking for a coach at the same time and time was of the essence to make sure you got the guy you wanted. An exhaustive process carried out over a lengthy period of time probably would've hurt the club and we might've missed out on Neeld. We could've ended up with someone with a personality type/coaching style that isn't as well suited to the difficult job that Neeld is being asked to do and we'd be worse off than we are now. Adelaide were supposedly hours away from appointing Neeld themselves before MFC pinched him. Having a sound process is good and I see the point that the OP is trying to make, but I think the time came when the club had to make a quick decision and cut short whatever process the MFC had put in place.

[Dr. Mubutu 831]

The posters on here saying we should have gone for Sheedy and Malthouse must have rocks in their heads.

Sheedy was coming off a horrible period at Essendon, where with a half-decent list, he took them to 15th then 12th. Favourite son, not going to be renewed. He was obviously not up to it at that stage. Doubt he is even now. Next year will be telling, with GWS not having Choco anymore. I'd be very surprised if we see any improvement from them.

And as other posters have said in this thread, what exactly has Malthouse done, other than be pumped up by the media?

[timD 994]

Are you suggesting that you're fully aware of all the steps taken by those given the task of selecting the coach? Is there only one single correct process which, if not followed to the letter, means the selection of Mark Neeld was flawed? And why is this related to the decision not to breach normal protocol and go behind his manager's back? So we shouldn't concern ourselves with developing a culture of honesty and integrity or care about what happens when we next deal with this particular manager or any other in that fraternity? What about the other clubs that didn't select Lyon as their coach and who thought Lyon might be good for one club at a particular part of its cycle but not for theirs? How can we then extend the conclusion you've reached which, to my mind hasn't been satisfactorily thought out, to other decisions made.

Ron Baraasi was sought out by North Melbourne and signed his contract on a serviette. It was done in a very short time. A decision arrived at in haste. That too was a decision borne out of a flawed process.

Hey Jack. Sorry I missed the post - damn newborns and their agendas! Benjamin Charles D born on 3/9/12 at 3.30 pm. Baby and mother doing well. Am yet to sign him up - will try for today.

i think that if you are trying to find the best people then you need to do more than interview them because interviews are full of bias and really only tease out social skills. And that finding has been clear for 85 years. There is not one method or set of tests - they are dependent on what you want and what you want to screen for. But to not interview more widely, to not bother with psych tests and to use interviews as the main tool is plain ignorant. Now most people do not need to know about excellence in hiring at executive level. The board does. The CEO does. Not everyone needs to understand how to create a great atmosphere - the board and CEO do. Are you satisfied that they get it - that without great people were are dead - and that they have the insight and talent to implement the right methods to do this?

[pantaloons 2,019]

In the context at the time of Neeld's appointment, there was not much time for a lengthy and exhaustive process. Melbourne, Footscray, Adelaide, Fremantle and St Kilda were all hunting for a coach at roughly the same time last year and there was a limited pool of candidates.

We did sack Bailey at the beginning of August though, before any other club gave their coach the chop.

And as other posters have said in this thread, what exactly has Malthouse done, other than be pumped up by the media?

Won three premierships. You did ask!

Hey Jack. Sorry I missed the post - damn newborns and their agendas! Benjamin Charles D born on 3/9/12 at 3.30 pm. Baby and mother doing well. Am yet to sign him up - will try for today.

Congrats! Welcome to the world of no sleep. At least it puts footy into perspective.

[Whispering_Jack 29,812]

Hey Jack. Sorry I missed the post - damn newborns and their agendas! Benjamin Charles D born on 3/9/12 at 3.30 pm. Baby and mother doing well. Am yet to sign him up - will try for today.

i think that if you are trying to find the best people then you need to do more than interview them because interviews are full of bias and really only tease out social skills. And that finding has been clear for 85 years. There is not one method or set of tests - they are dependent on what you want and what you want to screen for. But to not interview more widely, to not bother with psych tests and to use interviews as the main tool is plain ignorant. Now most people do not need to know about excellence in hiring at executive level. The board does. The CEO does. Not everyone needs to understand how to create a great atmosphere - the board and CEO do. Are you satisfied that they get it - that without great people were are dead - and that they have the insight and talent to implement the right methods to do this?

Hi Tim and congratulations on the arrival of Benjamin Charles. I hope you and the missus derive a great deal of joy from him and that by the time he’s ready to go to the footy, the Dees are in a position of dominance.

I’ve been assured by those who should know that Neeld was interviewed extensively and impressed in those interviews. He came with the strong endorsement of people who worked with him previously including Mick Malthouse.

However, I wasn’t involved in the process and don’t know all of the details of who was and wasn't considered and why.

I am aware that it wasn’t considered necessary to conduct psych tests but also understand that very few coaches appointed in the past have undergone such testing and I suppose we’re just going to have to differ on the importance of and the emphasis that needs to be placed on psych tests in the process of appointing a coach.

I know of one successful AFL coach who is on the way to a premiership this year who would’nt pass a psych test if his life depended on it. I doubt that even Sheeds would do well under such testing but who knows?

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Carlton job. They seem to have bypassed any semblance of a process and gone straight for the man they want in Mick. Now’s that really is plain ignorant!

[dpositive 1,663]

Hey Jack. Sorry I missed the post - damn newborns and their agendas! Benjamin Charles D born on 3/9/12 at 3.30 pm. Baby and mother doing well. Am yet to sign him up - will try for today.

i think that if you are trying to find the best people then you need to do more than interview them because interviews are full of bias and really only tease out social skills. And that finding has been clear for 85 years. There is not one method or set of tests - they are dependent on what you want and what you want to screen for. But to not interview more widely, to not bother with psych tests and to use interviews as the main tool is plain ignorant. Now most people do not need to know about excellence in hiring at executive level. The board does. The CEO does. Not everyone needs to understand how to create a great atmosphere - the board and CEO do. Are you satisfied that they get it - that without great people were are dead - and that they have the insight and talent to implement the right methods to do this?

The skills of the interviewer are a necessary part of the total recruitment process as you say. Most businesses acknowledge this and have specialist Human Resources specialists. There are as in all aspects of life some who are better at this than others and unfortunately as in player recruitment good intentions can often not be met

A solid HR practitioner will look not only at the recruitment but also the organisational requirements and the development resources available. Your right we need the insight and talent to identify and utilise the best.

Congratulations on the next generation

I hope you understand the impact of the name as Denis Cometi will no doubt pick up that the D"s are developing alphabetically.should Benjamin Charles grace the colours.

[rpfc 28,265]

Dean Bailey did pysche testing to get the job in 2007.

I was really enamoured with the process that got Dean Bailey.

I liked the process more than the decision.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Why doesn't everyone take a bex and watch what develops over next two seasons. This is all Hardwick meets Clarko hysteria. I.e jumping the gun.