The Board, Administration & Culture

[London Calling 25]

Hi All, long time reader first time poster.

I think we are all in agreement that we have a pretty ordinary culture at our great footy club. Some trace it right back to the sacking of Norm Smith, and that could well be true. I think that currently it has a lot to do with sacking Junior and Co. (not just the act but the way it was done), the fighting between admin and the football department, and most importantly the tanking strategy. We weren't the only ones who did it but we seem to be the ones who did it most brazenly and to be honest hamfistedly.

The first point I'd like to make about the whole tanking debarcle is in relation to the knowledge of the Administration and the Board. Did they know about it or did they not? I think it is daming either way. If a strategy that has such a wide-ranging impact on the clubs future is put in place without the knowledge of the Adminstation or the Board then what sort of organisation are they running? What else is being put in place which they don't know about? On the other hand if they did knowingly put in place a strategy of deliberately losing then they are directly responsible for the debarcle that unfolded.

Now I keep hearing that Mark Neeld and Co have been given a remit to changing the culture, as if the culture of the club is just about the footbal department and players. I contend that the culture of the coaching and playing group is a symptom of the poor culture of the entire club, which is a result of the above.

Organisations don't change culture from the bottom-up, they change it from the top down. Asking Neeld and Co to change the culture is like asking the Factory Manager at Altona to change Toyota's culture.

I'm tired of hearing McClardy and Schwab off-loading responsibility for changing the culture without any acknowledgement that maybe they are responsible for creating it in the first place or any discussion on what they are doing to change the culture. All I hear is about what a great job they are doing. I'm not sure what there mesurement for this is, personally I use finals appearances, flags and membership numbers as the KPI's of a footy club, none of which I would give a satisfactory mark for over the last 40 or even 6 years.

[Delta 28]

But do we really want a spill in round 2?

Will it somehow magically change the team's fortunes for Round 3?

Cultural change is effected over a long period.

And whilst I'd like there to be change, who exactly is competent and lining up to replace the incumbents?

Surely that needs to be a consideration.

What's the point of a spill if we only bring in people at the same level of competency or worse?

[jazza 1,323]

we appointed a coach and set no recruitment parameters, dave rodan will not ensure our present or future teams. j rivers could be a suitable recruit for the knitting together of the backline players such as grimes, trengrove garland, watts.mitch clark has to be made captain asap, garry lyon is not allowed to be able to be in a position of chief headkicker for 6 weeks and then walk away with clean hands. we had a football manager alredy doing the job , but being on the cusp of finals under bailey wasnt good enough for our gazza.and finally, importing a coach who s only ideas were already being used by collingwood, does not breed success. i have been in the committee position and you have to either get better ot get out.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

Hi All, long time reader first time poster.

I think we are all in agreement that we have a pretty ordinary culture at our great footy club. Some trace it right back to the sacking of Norm Smith, and that could well be true. I think that currently it has a lot to do with sacking Junior and Co. (not just the act but the way it was done), the fighting between admin and the football department, and most importantly the tanking strategy. We weren't the only ones who did it but we seem to be the ones who did it most brazenly and to be honest hamfistedly.

The first point I'd like to make about the whole tanking debarcle is in relation to the knowledge of the Administration and the Board. Did they know about it or did they not? I think it is daming either way. If a strategy that has such a wide-ranging impact on the clubs future is put in place without the knowledge of the Adminstation or the Board then what sort of organisation are they running? What else is being put in place which they don't know about? On the other hand if they did knowingly put in place a strategy of deliberately losing then they are directly responsible for the debarcle that unfolded.

Now I keep hearing that Mark Neeld and Co have been given a remit to changing the culture, as if the culture of the club is just about the footbal department and players. I contend that the culture of the coaching and playing group is a symptom of the poor culture of the entire club, which is a result of the above.

Organisations don't change culture from the bottom-up, they change it from the top down. Asking Neeld and Co to change the culture is like asking the Factory Manager at Altona to change Toyota's culture.

I'm tired of hearing McClardy and Schwab off-loading responsibility for changing the culture without any acknowledgement that maybe they are responsible for creating it in the first place or any discussion on what they are doing to change the culture. All I hear is about what a great job they are doing. I'm not sure what there mesurement for this is, personally I use finals appearances, flags and membership numbers as the KPI's of a footy club, none of which I would give a satisfactory mark for over the last 40 or even 6 years.

So after an 8 month AFL investigation, with 58 interviews with club computers seized, conducted by an ex-police investiagtor and co. which determined that the MFC, and the board were found not guilty of tanking and that this all came down to a comment made by CC which DB acted on you still alledge that we systematically tanked.

"Did they know about it or did they not? I think its daming either way" - yeah right, damned if youre found not-guilty and damned if youre found guilty.

It's clear they did not know about it, its clear there was no systamatic strategy its clear it was a stupid comment. Move on like everyone else.

[Mono 454]

................. but being on the cusp of finals under bailey ..................

Now, that's what I call delusional. FMD

[jazza 1,323]

not happy with anything ive written

Now, that's what I call delusional. FMD

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

How many more topics can we start al stating the same thing, are we going for a record?

The posts on this board at the moment all sound like a broken record.

The one thing we are not seeing in the posts are viable alternatives

You going to nominate for the Board then?

You say you are a long time reader and first time poster, you have just repeated what has been written a thousand times before

Some of the things you state are a bit rich, "we were the only ones that tanked hamfistedly (great word)", how about the Kreuzer Cup, even the dog out on Yarra Park having a [censored] whilst the game was on knew Carlton didn't want to win that game

Edited April 8, 2013 by Satyriconhome

[jazza 1,323]

cut names from the list now. tell the members that the coaches mandate will be to play youth,advertise for an administrater to run the club,no mores quick fixes and no more excuses , i promise to stick by the club with honesty and ethics,

How many more topics can we start al stating the same thing, are we going for a record?

The posts on this board at the moment all sound like a broken record.

The one thing we are not seeing in the posts are viable alternatives

[Born to Run 204]

But do we really want a spill in round 2?

Will it somehow magically change the team's fortunes for Round 3?

Cultural change is effected over a long period.

And whilst I'd like there to be change, who exactly is competent and lining up to replace the incumbents?

Surely that needs to be a consideration.

What's the point of a spill if we only bring in people at the same level of competency or worse?

Dont disagree about the severity of a spill, and I too think it may be premature inthe absence of an alternative that will inspire. But I would say that if a solid alternative was on offer I would be happy to change direction. Dont care about round 3 either. Its the long term impact I want. I want a future where we are the club we all want it to be. Successful, respected and viable long term

[jazza 1,323]

yep, we have to be transparent and work out where we want to be. if cutting names happens so be it, lets just get open and throw some knives and build a future

Dont disagree about the severity of a spill, and I too think it may be premature inthe absence of an alternative that will inspire. But I would say that if a solid alternative was on offer I would be happy to change direction. Dont care about round 3 either. Its the long term impact I want. I want a future where we are the club we all want it to be. Successful, respected and viable long term

[London Calling 25]

It doesn't neccesarilly have to be a spill, but those at the top have to start becoming accountable and taking responsibility for their actions. Afterall that is exactly what we are asking the players to do.

[Delta 28]

Ok.

How exactly do they do that?

In their position, what exactly constitutes being accountable and taking responsibility for their actions?

I don't see anyone shirking their responsibilities.

[London Calling 25]

For a start don't go out publically saying that performance on the field was not the fault of the office-holders off the field nor a reflection on them, as it has been reported that Don McCardy did yesterday. To the players and the coaching staff this says "it's not our fault, it's yours", as though there is two camps in the one football club. Good leaders take responsibility for everything that happens on their watch.

It also wouldn't hurt to acknowledge the errors of the past, say what we have learned from them and how we aren't going to repeat them in the future.

At the moment it feels like the Board/Admin and the Football Dept/Players see themselves as two separate entities. Maybe this reflects their geographic separation.....

[Courtney_Fish 183]

It was interesting to hear Garland say that with the 14 new players the culture has changed. It sounded like he was acknowledging that the culture had been a problem.

[Delta 28]

For a start don't go out publically saying that performance on the field was not the fault of the office-holders off the field nor a reflection on them, as it has been reported that Don McCardy did yesterday. To the players and the coaching staff this says "it's not our fault, it's yours", as though there is two camps in the one football club. Good leaders take responsibility for everything that happens on their watch.

It also wouldn't hurt to acknowledge the errors of the past, say what we have learned from them and how we aren't going to repeat them in the future.

At the moment it feels like the Board/Admin and the Football Dept/Players see themselves as two separate entities. Maybe this reflects their geographic separation.....

So we've gone from a potential quote that we don't have at hand... to unnecessarily bringing up the topic of problems of the past, which would in fact lead to accusations of "making excuses"... to a perception that there might be a psychological separation between the admin and the football dept.

I'm not seeing much substance here.

I just want clearly defined problems and courses of action that will lead to solutions.

Not finger pointing, action for action's sake, and then blind hope it will do some good.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Delta

[deelusions from afar 1,608]

It seems like no matter what happens, there is going to be pain / destabilisation.

It would be great if either (or both) Don and Cam came out and said they will be stepping down from the club at the end of the season / year. They have given their all but realise they are not able to make the changes required. This will give stability, hope and time to find suitable replacements. I'm sure the AFL will be keen to assist.

Having a full board spill / sacking anyone at this stage of the year is not going to solve the onfield issues. Who will want to come with us if we keep tearing each other apart?

Edited April 8, 2013 by deelusions from afar

[London Calling 25]

The first step towards a solution is to acknowledge the problem and the reasons it came about. Until you can do that, any hard actions you take will more than likely be built on shaky foundations. That's why we've had the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions the world over.

We've seen hard actions on shaky foundations over and over again at the Dees, and here we sit with a percentage of 28 after round 2, 5 years after we started a rebuild.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,415]

Brilliant post LC - don't worry about those who can't see the forest for the trees keep up the good work. Very well articulated post about the cultural problems within our club.

[Deebate 7]

For a start don't go out publically saying that performance on the field was not the fault of the office-holders off the field nor a reflection on them, as it has been reported that Don McCardy did yesterday. To the players and the coaching staff this says "it's not our fault, it's yours", as though there is two camps in the one football club. Good leaders take responsibility for everything that happens on their watch.

It also wouldn't hurt to acknowledge the errors of the past, say what we have learned from them and how we aren't going to repeat them in the future.

At the moment it feels like the Board/Admin and the Football Dept/Players see themselves as two separate entities. Maybe this reflects their geographic separation.....

Well said London Calling. I also heard it being reported and thought there is no better way to split the club than by the top man blaming others, very poor form from someone who should know better.

[old dee 22,852]

It was interesting to hear Garland say that with the 14 new players the culture has changed. It sounded like he was acknowledging that the culture had been a problem.

That change seems to been for the worse CF.

Did he say why he is a quarter of the player he was 2 years ago?

Edited April 8, 2013 by old dee

[Cards13 9,117]

cut names from the list now. tell the members that the coaches mandate will be to play youth,advertise for an administrater to run the club,no mores quick fixes and no more excuses , i promise to stick by the club with honesty and ethics,

Playing youth. Have we not done his for the last how many years of fruitless endeavour?

Which youth would you at that has earned a spot in the 1's?

[dees64 104]

No doubt culture is & has been an issue aut our club for decades

A disconnect between admin & footy dept/players not in the same building

The question I ask.... this was even more so when the team was training @ junction oval with crap facilities but yet the team played in 6 final series in 10yrs incl a GF

My question is there a disconnect between coaching & playing group or the players [censored] off with how recent senior players were treated by taking them out of leadership group & forced to retire/;leave?

[old dee 22,852]

Playing youth. Have we not done his for the last how many years of fruitless endeavour?

Which youth would you at that has earned a spot in the 1's?

How many from the last two weeks deserve a spot in the seniors next week?

Yes I know I am being a smart arse but playing 3 or 4 young guys this week could hardly make us worse and might spark up a few others around them.