Relax there has already been major changes at the club, macca gone, Jennings gone, max rook change in coaching position, in the second half of the year the delivere into the forward 50  scoring rate improved, but without almost all of last years forward line on the injury list. 

9 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Does a CSI team go into their work with the culprits in tow ?

No

Many want to brand the idea of external as being by people who have no understanding of the game and it's administration. This  is a croc.

It means by OTHER people who understand exactly what ought to be and may not be happening.

Audits are never done by people WITHIN a company. There's a reason for that.

A review is essentially an Audit.

It needs people WITHOUT any stake to make impartial assessment.

Again..you don't send Foxes into the Hen house to do a count

Correct. I am sure Malcolm still has mates inside the Adelaide Football Club he doesn’t want tarnished. 

Those who do the review must understand the business, but be outside the Club. 

The way I see it there are two groups in this conversation.

There are those, like me, who see what has resulted from an internal review (ie. Macca, Jennings Gone, Coaches Reshuffled, and Richardson Added) and think that they've come to the right conclusion and don't need an external review.

Then there are those calling for an external review because of their "Sack Goodwin" agenda.

Have I missed anything?

17 minutes ago, AshleyH30 said:

The way I see it there are two groups in this conversation.

There are those, like me, who see what has resulted from an internal review (ie. Macca, Jennings Gone, Coaches Reshuffled, and Richardson Added) and think that they've come to the right conclusion and don't need an external review.

Then there are those calling for an external review because of their "Sack Goodwin" agenda.

Have I missed anything?

After the mid season reshuffle did anything actually change onfield?

 

29 minutes ago, AshleyH30 said:

The way I see it there are two groups in this conversation.

There are those, like me, who see what has resulted from an internal review (ie. Macca, Jennings Gone, Coaches Reshuffled, and Richardson Added) and think that they've come to the right conclusion and don't need an external review.

Then there are those calling for an external review because of their "Sack Goodwin" agenda.

Have I missed anything?

Yes..Obviously 

There are those who want a thorough  review of the club. Its nots just Sack Goodwin.  Thats an easy out for those that are happy and content. 

The review isn't  about  Goodwin.It's about a club , a business.

So quite possibly  id reverse it upon you and suggest there are those content with everything,  on the assumption  a little  bit of this and a little  bit of that has seemingly  been enacted;  and there are those whi think thats smearing over the cracks and think this club needs a good cold hard look at its machinations and understand  holistically  whats gone wrong and who caused it. And then, do something thorough about it.

58 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Correct. I am sure Malcolm still has mates inside the Adelaide Football Club he doesn’t want tarnished. 

Those who do the review must understand the business, but be outside the Club. 

Yep Blight...all the marbles there....lets just stop coaching. ...in a game Blight !!

Be among the last to listen to.Agenda

10 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Yep Blight...all the marbles there....lets just stop coaching. ...in a game Blight !!

Be among the last to listen to.Agenda

I wouldn't have expected Pert to make wholesale changes from the minute he took over.  It appeared things were tracking ok, PJ ran a reasonably good ship.  Within approx 9 months of Pert starting, he could see things weren't as good as we thought, so started instructing changes to the FD be made.  The bye round was the first realistic opportunity for some changes to be made, and made they were, and even then the club had its critics about the timing of it.

Pert has basically conducted an external review over the past 12 months, and things have already changed, and I'm in no doubt will continue to change over this preseason.  Why you/anyone feels the need to get another external figure to come in at this point in time, is a total waste of time and money.

Give Pert 18-24 months, and if things haven't improved, then absolutely get someone in.  Until then, let the bloke do the job that he's getting paid to do.

Has anyone actually considered attending the AGM to raise their grievances? Or is it just easier to vent on a forum and never actually do anything about it. 

1 hour ago, AshleyH30 said:

The way I see it there are two groups in this conversation.

There are those, like me, who see what has resulted from an internal review (ie. Macca, Jennings Gone, Coaches Reshuffled, and Richardson Added) and think that they've come to the right conclusion and don't need an external review.

Then there are those calling for an external review because of their "Sack Goodwin" agenda.

Have I missed anything?

Yes mate THE POINT

 

15 minutes ago, Kent said:

Yes mate THE POINT

 

Which is?

My first point pretty much sums up what I think and some are arguing, the second point was a jab at those wanting Goodwin sacked. If there is to be a full external review, there's only one outcome from that; the coach sacked. You'll see it with Adelaide in the coming days/weeks.

My point was that I don't think Goodwin was the root cause of the issues this year. There were a lot of mitigating circumstances that led to the horrible year Melbourne had. I believe that the department revamp we've seen is exactly what was needed. We've seen it at Richmond and Collingwood that internal reviews can do a lot of good (not that I'm saying it will work at Melbourne like it did for them). An external review is what I would expect if we had repeated years of horrible seasons, not just one. (And before someone argues about our past, please don't. We've been in an upward trajectory every year prior to this one, and if you think that was Roos/Jackson only, you're sorely mistaken).

This year revealed cracks, yes, but I don't believe the internal review has just paved over them. Time will tell though, and if we have the same year next year, Goodwin will be gone. Guarantee it.

A full review simply is that. The result  is you then have a better image of everything.  It may be Goody goes...it might be stays and others go...or a number of permutations. 

Those who are open to this..a full review make no preconditions  for it. 

A review is just that...a review.

I don't mind the review being internal only, i just don't think Mahoney is the right person, not because i don't rate him but i consider him a part of the football department. i think it should fall on the CEO, and i wouldn't mind the club asking Roosy to come back as an outside set of eyes to have a look as well. though i think some would think that's inappropriate which is fair enough. 

from the outside the questions i'd want to answer are 

Does Simon Goodwin listen to his assistants, does he delegate well enough, what's his relationship like with the players, is it too "Matey"?

do we have the right leadership model with the co captains we currently have, or do we need a change in that space, i suspect Jones time as captain is probably done, and i wouldn't mind letting Viney focus on becoming the best player he can be and staying injury free without the added pressure. especially with a leader like Max at the absolute top of his game. 

does the current game plan stack up with the game styles that are pushing deep into finals, i know we made a prelim but will it continue to take us deep moving forward, i'd suggest we don't value defense enough to win a premiership but that's just my opinion.

I think a lot of the fitness/injury questions are moot with the signing of Burgess. but maybe there are question marks around the attitude and commitment of the players that didn't come back ready for pre season in good condition. 

59 minutes ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

I don't mind the review being internal only, i just don't think Mahoney is the right person, not because i don't rate him but i consider him a part of the football department. i think it should fall on the CEO, and i wouldn't mind the club asking Roosy to come back as an outside set of eyes to have a look as well. though i think some would think that's inappropriate which is fair enough. 

from the outside the questions i'd want to answer are 

Does Simon Goodwin listen to his assistants, does he delegate well enough, what's his relationship like with the players, is it too "Matey"?

do we have the right leadership model with the co captains we currently have, or do we need a change in that space, i suspect Jones time as captain is probably done, and i wouldn't mind letting Viney focus on becoming the best player he can be and staying injury free without the added pressure. especially with a leader like Max at the absolute top of his game. 

does the current game plan stack up with the game styles that are pushing deep into finals, i know we made a prelim but will it continue to take us deep moving forward, i'd suggest we don't value defense enough to win a premiership but that's just my opinion.

I think a lot of the fitness/injury questions are moot with the signing of Burgess. but maybe there are question marks around the attitude and commitment of the players that didn't come back ready for pre season in good condition. 

I can agree to that. There is no way Mahoney should be part of the investigation, he has been part of the organization to long. 

Fresh eyes are needed

5 hours ago, Smokey said:

Has anyone actually considered attending the AGM to raise their grievances? Or is it just easier to vent on a forum and never actually do anything about it. 

Yes. I'm going and will raise my concerns about the clubs comms (short version, they're rubbish).

After attending the AGM a few years back I emailed the club with my concern that no-one acknowledged the traditional owners. To their credit they responded and committed to doing so at all future like events. Which they have (and also do a welcome to country). 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 20195 yr by binman

21 minutes ago, binman said:

Yes. I'm going and will raise my concerns about the clubs comms (short version, they're rubbish).

After attending the AGM a few years back I emailed the club with my concern that no-one acknowledged the traditional owners. To their credit they responded and committed to doing so at all future like events. Which they have (and also do a welcome to country). 

 

 

 

Good on ya mate

On 8/19/2019 at 12:09 PM, Bring-Back-Powell said:

In reality, the 'fix' may not be as great nor widespread as we might imagine. Independence in a thorough review must not have been situated - so that analyses that may occur have no biases from either internal or external sources. A review conducted under dispositions is not a review - and it will fail in its purpose if so undertaken. Looking into the cupboard for spring cleaning is, however, essential for the MFC to ensure that there are limited 'rainy-day' dependencies. 

On 8/27/2019 at 12:44 PM, Lucifer's Hero said:

Roos and Whately have strongly condemned Adelaide's external review respectivley saying it was 'alarming' and 'risky' and a 'flawed methodologhy'.

Recent history is on their side with them quoting the most successful reviews are by insiders.  eg Cook at Geelong, Murphy at Collingwood, Gale at Richmond.

Crows External Review.

Agree with them and I think Pert (with external/AFL  input/feedback) and Mahoney are the right combo for us.

I haven't bothered to read what Roos and Wheatley said but my view is that you do an external review when you need to justify changes at the CEO, President and Board level. If the CEO and President cannot run a whole of club review then they shouldn't be in the position. Further, in an external review who owns the actions and outcomes and what if the CEO, president and board don't agree with the issues and recommended actions.

16 hours ago, AshleyH30 said:

Which is?

My first point pretty much sums up what I think and some are arguing, the second point was a jab at those wanting Goodwin sacked. If there is to be a full external review, there's only one outcome from that; the coach sacked. You'll see it with Adelaide in the coming days/weeks.

My point was that I don't think Goodwin was the root cause of the issues this year. There were a lot of mitigating circumstances that led to the horrible year Melbourne had. I believe that the department revamp we've seen is exactly what was needed. We've seen it at Richmond and Collingwood that internal reviews can do a lot of good (not that I'm saying it will work at Melbourne like it did for them). An external review is what I would expect if we had repeated years of horrible seasons, not just one. (And before someone argues about our past, please don't. We've been in an upward trajectory every year prior to this one, and if you think that was Roos/Jackson only, you're sorely mistaken).

This year revealed cracks, yes, but I don't believe the internal review has just paved over them. Time will tell though, and if we have the same year next year, Goodwin will be gone. Guarantee it.

Faith Hope Think

 

18 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

After the mid season reshuffle did anything actually change onfield?

 

Yes was def worth all those changes & effort SW... Fritschkrieg went forward!

2 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

Yes was def worth all those changes & effort SW... Fritschkrieg went forward!

I am talking coaches. The Game Style was very similar 

Skills did not improve either sadly, would love to know why

11 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I am talking coaches. The Game Style was very similar 

Skills did not improve either sadly, would love to know why

coach not up to it???

1 minute ago, Kent said:

coach not up to it???

Some of them certainly aren’t

22 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

After the mid season reshuffle did anything actually change onfield?

 

oh why bother

Just now, Pennant St Dee said:

oh why bother

Yes i ask the same question. 

If you think we improved post the bye round i pity you

8 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i ask the same question. 

Over and over and over and over again.  Ad infinitum.  Ad nauseam.

Your Native American tribal name would be "Five Horses".   Nag, nag, nag, nag, nag.