I don't believe he was impressed - AKER: COACHES PAID TO MAKE BIG DECISIONS. Questions whether the leadership group has too much power.

Fast-forward to 2006 and I again found myself sitting in front of Daniher.

This time, though, he was with Chris Fagan, the Demons' football operations manager, and we were talking about where I would play in 2007.

We talked about lots of stuff, but what amazed me most about that meeting was how they passed power to the club's player leadership group.

Neale said if I wanted to join he would ask the leadership group if they wanted me.

I said that I liked player empowerment -- I think it is an important part of the growth of groups -- but that on the flip side I thought it was the coach who should carry the most weight when decisions like this were made.

Yes? No? Many leadership models have the boss on the same level as the rest of the group until a crucial decision has to be made.

I understand that you would consult your leadership group. Absolutely, no problem there.

But why would you defer a big decision like this to them?

The whole thing left me a little uncomfortable and when I left that meeting, I knew Melbourne wasn't for me.

I'm not questioning the individuals who make up the club's leadership group but I reckon he's right about the coach being the ultimate power at the club.

Certainly an interesting insight especially considerig those who were empowered to be this leadership group and how many of them essentially failed in the primary function of this group.. i.e to lead !!

Well he is gone now just shows you

SEN had Fagan on yesterday morning and he said aker got his wires crossed, he said ND would talk to the leadership group amongst a host of others for their opinions but ultimatley the decision was ND's.

SEN had Fagan on yesterday morning and he said aker got his wires crossed, he said ND would talk to the leadership group amongst a host of others for their opinions but ultimatley the decision was ND's.

Aker is a [censored], he only sees what he wants to see, I'm glad he didn't come to Melbourne because he's more trouble than he's worth.

Aker is a [censored], he only sees what he wants to see, I'm glad he didn't come to Melbourne because he's more trouble than he's worth.

A pity because he would have looked very good in a Sandringham guernsey with that shock of blond hair and ginger beard.

SEN had Fagan on yesterday morning and he said aker got his wires crossed, he said ND would talk to the leadership group amongst a host of others for their opinions but ultimatley the decision was ND's.

As I read the article I thought I bet Akers misunderstood. I did not and could not believe that any coach would defer this to a Leadership Group of players!

I'm glad he didn't come to Melbourne because he's more trouble than he's worth.

I recall Daniher making the remark that if the club were going to consider drafting Aker, the decision process would involve the playing and leadership group. We can only speculate as to the weight of their input, or can we?

Don't forget it was the leadership group at Brisbane that made the ultimate decision to suspend Aker. Maybe Aker has a gripe with leadership groups having impact on important decisions.

How this man got a weekly column is beyond me. He must have some darn good editors working for him.

Dunno if anyone saw his gripe last week, was about being prank-called fcs. That's not insight into anything, dry ya eyes aker, i don't give a rats.

Rodney Eade made a point of speaking to his leadership group before embarking on the Akermanis sideshow and garnered the attitude from the players' representatives , so he is obviously just 'shooting from the hip' as expected .

out of interest i think the process would have gone something like this:

ND: do we want aker guys?

Leadership group: No way, we definitely don't want him (unanimous)

ND: OK we won't.

OR

ND: Do we want aker guys?

LG: Yeah we'd be happy to get him, he is a good player and will add to the team.

ND: OK, well we'll think about it and i'll make a decision tomorrow, thanks for the input.

I don't think the LG group would have made the decision to get him, but if they were strongly against it it probably would have been a big no because of the disruption it would cause...

i am glad we did not shell out massive cash for this cat...

the bulldogs did exactly the same thing - eade is quoted as having consulted his leadership group...

has aker delivered this year? is he playing ahead of kids on form??

as noted, not sure how he would cope with the weather at sandy!!

Must say I'm pretty glad we didn't pick him up.

He has been ordinary at best for the Dogs.

kinda reminds me a bit of byron - used goods with their best behind them. Not worth the crust they're paid.

I think you will find Sydneys leadership group decided on Everitt, so it can happen.

I think you will find Sydneys leadership group decided on Everitt, so it can happen.

Sydney's leadership group picked their coach, they wield alot of power up there.

Sydney's leadership group picked their coach, they wield alot of power up there.

No quite, but damn close......

I think you will find the membership also had a hell of a lot to say on Paul Roos getting the gig up here permanently

I think you will find Sydneys leadership group decided on Everitt, so it can happen.

The way I understand the Everitt to the Swans situation is that the club (and the world) knew it needed another top class ruckman immediately (open window and all that), while Everitt was coming out of contract and apparently unhappy at the Hawks, so the conclusion is fairly logical, but the club wanted to make sure that his personality would fit in at the Swans, which can be a fairly tough group.

I don't think the leadership group at Sydney made the final decision alone, that would just be illogical, but it certainly doesn't hurt the club to ask for an opinion from a trusted group of senior players, especially a group which has proved to be very strong and in command of a hell of a lot within the team.

But Jarka is right the Sydney leadership group does wield a large, maybe an almost unprecedented, amount of power.

i reckon, that if north had money their leadership group might get a similar gig. but atm north just do whatever they can for publicity and money they are still famed for their shinboner spirit...as a group they are much tighter than the mfc will ever be...

Must say I'm pretty glad we didn't pick him up.

He has been ordinary at best for the Dogs.

yep agree, but if it true ND and Neitz probably had an unhealthy relationship, like Aker said the coach is there to make the decisions

i reckon, that if north had money their leadership group might get a similar gig. but atm north just do whatever they can for publicity and money they are still famed for their shinboner spirit...as a group they are much tighter than the mfc will ever be...

Why is 'Shinboner spirit' only ever mentioned when the Roo's are winning, does it suddenly disappear for a loss?

Why is 'Shinboner spirit' only ever mentioned when the Roo's are winning, does it suddenly disappear for a loss?

not sure about that...i think it still exists. i think the shinboner spirit is a term that defines them as a close group. they play for each other and for the club. not for the money. i think it describes their unfortunate situation with arden street and finances, describes a backs against the wall mentality. obviously if they get belted and play like a rabble its not there, but consider how you rate north melbournes list, and how everyone rates them preseason, they seem to always win a few more than you expect them, pull each other to a better level, and thats what im talking about. i believe that if the club was in a better situation, that spirit is the prerequisite for what sydney have with their group, which i reckon is fantastic.

out of interest i think the process would have gone something like this:

ND: do we want aker guys?

Leadership group: No way, we definitely don't want him (unanimous)

ND: OK we won't.

OR

ND: Do we want aker guys?

LG: Yeah we'd be happy to get him, he is a good player and will add to the team.

ND: OK, well we'll think about it and i'll make a decision tomorrow, thanks for the input.

I don't think the LG group would have made the decision to get him, but if they were strongly against it it probably would have been a big no because of the disruption it would cause...

Yeah, basically Akers heard what he wanted to hear. It definitely would have been refer to the leadership group to see if they'd want this Turnip coming to the club considering all the baggage he has, then the coaching panel would've taken that on board. From what remember most clubs in the hunt for Aker consulted their playing group beforehand.

out of interest i think the process would have gone something like this:

ND: do we want aker guys?

Leadership group: No way, we definitely don't want him (unanimous)

ND: OK we won't.

OR

ND: Do we want aker guys?

LG: Yeah we'd be happy to get him, he is a good player and will add to the team.

ND: OK, well we'll think about it and i'll make a decision tomorrow, thanks for the input.

I don't think the LG group would have made the decision to get him, but if they were strongly against it it probably would have been a big no because of the disruption it would cause...

Actually I think it went something like this:

ND: So Aker.... (Thinks to self: how do I break the news to this guy that he is slightly off centre...)... I'll talk to my leadership group about you

Aker: What you talkin bout?

ND to Leadership Group: I spoke to Aker, you're right, he's mentally unstable.

ND to Aker: Sorry mate, my boys are dead against you *cough*

Actually I think it went something like this:

ND: So Aker.... (Thinks to self: how do I break the news to this guy that he is slightly off centre...)... I'll talk to my leadership group about you

Aker: What you talkin bout?

ND to Leadership Group: I spoke to Aker, you're right, he's mentally unstable.

ND to Aker: Sorry mate, my boys are dead against you *cough*

Why does anyone listen to this [censored]. Absolute ego-maniac - realised that Daniher wasn't that keen on him so attacks his ability as a coach and saves his diatribe until Daniher's exit as if this is some kind of vindication. In other words, he's saying Daniher should have gone after him and his departure proves that he didn't know what he was doing.

Aker, you used to be a good player. Now you are very average and the club you chose is not a good as you thought they were. So, you don't have much else to do but mouth off in the press to try and get the attention taht no longer comes from playing good footy. Daniher would never stoop to your lowly bad-mouthing tactics. He is a thoroughly decent bloke. You are a tool.