15 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

 

Well if Adelaide has done it, it must be the correct course of action!

Collingwood had one in 2017 and jumped from 11th to 3rd. 

1 minute ago, olisik said:

Collingwood had one in 2017 and jumped from 11th to 3rd. 

Oh, is that how to rise up the ladder. Well let's have 37 external reviews then...

3 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Oh, is that how to rise up the ladder. Well let's have 37 external reviews then...

Or let’s have none and not find out where the real issues are....oh wait

9 minutes ago, olisik said:

Or let’s have none and not find out where the real issues are....oh wait

Your logic is that other clubs rose up the ladder after a review, so we must too.

Post hoc ergo proptor hoc

4 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Your logic is that other clubs rose up the ladder after a review, so we must too.

Post hoc ergo proptor hoc

Really? Where did I state that? Oh wait! I didn’t. Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth.

What I did state is a fact that Collingwood jumped up the ladder after doing an external review, most likely from finding out where the issues lay and actually remediating them. 

Edited August 26, 20195 yr by olisik

3 minutes ago, olisik said:

Really? Where did I state that? Oh wait! I didn’t. Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth.

What I did state is a fact that Collingwood jumped up the ladder after doing an external review, most likely from finding out where the issues lay and actually remediating them. 

No, you said Coll did one and jumped up the ladder. Thats all. Didn't say the rest of it. 

All clubs would do it if it resulted in moving up the ladder.

53 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Reviews are the new boot camps apparently...

yep. I think we have to think like true leaders here and do reviews of the review, both internal, external and nocturnal. Just leave no stoned unturned. Then appoint an eternal review officer to make sure we are doing the most reviews. every day. every week of the year. and then review every game since norm smith. except last years prelim which cannot be reviewed.

Should Todd Viney’s position at the club be questioned as opposed to Mahoney?

1 hour ago, Beetle said:

Should Todd Viney’s position at the club be questioned as opposed to Mahoney?

why not both?

Demonland proves some guarantees. 

One of them is that the same posters who are currently complaining about us making decisions before this “review” is complete, would be complaining if we had not made those decisions and waited instead (“Nero fiddled while Rome burns” would surely have got a run). 

7 hours ago, Beetle said:

Should Todd Viney’s position at the club be questioned as opposed to Mahoney?

Don't even know what his job is other than apparently leaning on the fence at training 

I have asked on here a few times 

Does anybody know?

On the other matter of course we need a review to suggest we don't is absurd.

For our dear little friends O & SK, et al:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2019-the-flawed-methodology-behind-adelaide-crows-external-review/news-story/865e60ba3a611cd937dad441eb420975

Of particular note:

“You appoint people at football clubs to do roles,” Roos said.

“You’ve got a board, a footy manager, a CEO … if you have to go external to the football club, then sack your CEO and sack your football manager straight away.
“The internal reviews are the ones that work the best. You can still be objective.
“If you don’t know what’s going wrong by the end of the season, I don’t think you need someone external to tell you.”

Gerard Whateley was equally as exacting, saying there were “huge risks with an external review” given outsiders might not know what issues are most pressing.

“The best reviews that have been done in recent times are Brian Cook at Geelong, Peter Murphy at Collingwood and Brendan Gale at Richmond,” Whateley said on AFL 360.
“They knew their club intimately. I expect they knew what they were looking for, the questions to ask and then they drew the right conclusion.
“To have four people with no intimate knowledge of the club conduct those interviews and then draw their own conclusions, I mean the chairman today virtually committed himself to the recommendations that come from the review. I was really surprised by that.
“Change is obviously necessary, but I think the flawed methodology is the external review.
“The best case studies are those who are intimately involved and actually employed to run the club to scratch as far as needed to find the right answers. In all three cases, Cook, Murphy and Gale found the right answers and set the course.”

Do we see now?

12 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

For our dear little friends O & SK, et al:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2019-the-flawed-methodology-behind-adelaide-crows-external-review/news-story/865e60ba3a611cd937dad441eb420975

Of particular note:

 

 

 

 

Do we see now?

Your logic is sound Mach5, the evidence is obvious regarding the success of reviews at Geelong and Richmond. Collingwood less so but still with merit. 

The external review suggests to me the Adelaide board has already made decisions on the senior people within the club, e.g. not capable of conducting an objective, non-biased & effective review. 

Edited August 27, 20195 yr by Dee*ceiving

5 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

For our dear little friends O & SK, et al:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2019-the-flawed-methodology-behind-adelaide-crows-external-review/news-story/865e60ba3a611cd937dad441eb420975

Of particular note:

 

 

 

 

Do we see now?

There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

The other important point about an external review is the message it sends to members, fans, the media and the footy public. Which is the club is dysfunctional and in crisis. That message creates its own self fulfilling cycle. 

The dees are neither  dysfunctional or  in crisis, however much some think that to be true. Which of course is not to say everything is hunk dory and smooth sailing - it clearly isn't. It is not a binary equation.

Th other issue is that is nearly impossible for an external review of an AFL football club to be objective given all the emotion involved and the likely interconnections of board members and other involved in the a club with those doing the review. Particularly in a small city like Adelaide. 

An internal review is the prudent and logical thing for the dees to do. That's what Mahoney and the CEO get paid the big bucks to do. And is what they are doing. And have been doing, by the by. A process that has given us Richo and Burgess and seen the departure of Macca and Jennings (and no doubt a number of other assistant coaches and other key people). 

2 minutes ago, Dee*ceiving said:

Your logic is sound Mach5, the evidence is obvious regarding the success of reviews at Geelong and Richmond. Collingwood less so but still with merit. 

The external review suggests to me the board has already made decisions on the senior people within the club, e.g. not capable of conducting an objective, non-biased & effective review. 

 

Not even my logic, but I agree with it.

I think if an external review is deemed necessary, it would demonstrate a damning lack of faith in those who hold the important positions within the club.

Conversely, the lack of an external review, or an internal review, would indicate at least a moderate appreciation for the abilities of those people. Allowing and enabling the cobblers to cobble, so to speak.

2 minutes ago, binman said:

There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

The other important point about an external review is the message it sends to members, fans, the media and the footy public. Which is the club is dysfunctional and in crisis. That message creates its own self fulfilling cycle. 

The dees are neither  dysfunctional or  in crisis, however much some think that to be true. Which of course is not to say everything is hunk dory and smooth sailing - it clearly isn't. It is not a binary equation.

Th other issue is that is nearly impossible for an external review of an AFL football club to be objective given all the emotion involved and the likely interconnections of board members and other involved in the a club with those doing the review. Particularly in a small city like Adelaide. 

An internal review is the prudent and logical thing for the dees to do. That's what Mahoney and the CEO get paid the big bucks to do. And is what they are doing. And have been doing, by the by. A process that has given us Richo and Burgess and seen the departure of Macca and Jennings (and no doubt a number of other assistant coaches and other key people). 

Agree. In terms of the Dees, I think an internal review is justifiable, particularly with a recently appointed Gary Pert in the CEO role who is unlikely to have been affected by croney-ism (just yet) 

For the Crows however, I think the drop has been so unexpected and and playing groups disgust at the culture so severe that they may not have had that option. Or felt that option would simply delay what really needs to be done by a further 12 months. 

19 minutes ago, Dee*ceiving said:

 

For the Crows however, I think the drop has been so unexpected and and playing groups disgust at the culture so severe that they may not have had that option. Or felt that option would simply delay what really needs to be done by a further 12 months. 

That may well be the case. They might be dysfunctional and in crisis. What is certain is that everyone now assumes they are. 

1 hour ago, Dee*ceiving said:

Agree. In terms of the Dees, I think an internal review is justifiable, particularly with a recently appointed Gary Pert in the CEO role who is unlikely to have been affected by croney-ism (just yet) 

For the Crows however, I think the drop has been so unexpected and and playing groups disgust at the culture so severe that they may not have had that option. Or felt that option would simply delay what really needs to be done by a further 12 months. 

We would have gone through a fair external review when appointing Pert, so a full blow review again would be overkill. The Crows though have had CEO for over 5 years now, senior coach for 4 seasons and senior assistant for 8 years. Given we've made changes in 2 of those roles and the senior coach has only had 3 seasons then an internal review should be fine for now.

8 hours ago, Kent said:

Don't even know what his job is other than apparently leaning on the fence at training 

I have asked on here a few times 

Does anybody know?

On the other matter of course we need a review to suggest we don't is absurd.

He is the List Manager, makes lists of stuff mainly regarding the playing group.

Edited August 27, 20195 yr by bluey
I don’t know!