buck_nekkid

The Australian article is worth the read. Not an apologist's arse wipe, like the other drivel about this case. When Hird took full responsibility he was on the right path. His advisers swooped in an whispered in his ear. He has not won a single appeal. He looks like a sullen schoolboy, now playing the victim. All of these idiots should have given him better counsel, rather than trying to turn him into a martyr on his death bed (or ICU bed).

This whole EFC thing is a joke. The Board is ultimately responsible from an organizational point of view for setting the culture and allowing stuff to happen with poor oversight. The CEO carries the can as responsible executive. As an analogy, poor Jimmy Hird is just the confused 'sales manager' promoted above his capability. He was a great sales rep, but a crap sales manager. He had no idea that everyone else was doing all sorts of stuff. He is, however, accountable for his actions and those of his direct reports. At a minimum his lack of awareness and ability to ask simple questions of what was occurring is astounding. He had a lovely trip to INSEAD to do a management course whilst everyone else copped the heat. Even there he failed to learn about responsibility and governance. Little Jimmy sales manager was happy to take credit for the results, but had no clue about anything else. Speaks of over-promotion and under preparation of JAH. The whole EFC needed a revolutionary clean out (Bellamys is having the same thing happen now). However, the lack of ownership and accountability of all involved (even the GIll-fish and Vlad) is most galling. Blame everyone else and take no responsibility. Play the victim. Defend the victim. Enough. They should have been put out of business, not have turned over half their list by the time sanctions rolled around, got first prize in the beauty contest (draft pick #1) and be ready to move into the 8 already. The AFL have a lot to answer for, letting the EFC get away with the equivalent of trading (morally) insolvent. The destruction of records is a willful, criminal act. The 'heads up' given to EFC by the AFL is complicit.

Now Casey are done, do we expect season exit interviews today or tomorrow, and potential list announcements thereafter?

It is difficult to articulate any degree of insight when we (and the journalists) are not in the room. Saying that they were avoiding anchoring bias is about as valuable as suggesting they had mapped out the MNP's, or whatever. It's rewriting history (like the Harvard case study method, BTW), and offers us no insight into how they did it, or whether it was anchoring or first positioning. A behind the scenes review and interviews of each step of the deal would offer more insight. We could then understand then negotiations and how they played out. We could also learn if the two guys who went to Harvard were even involved, or if this was just a spurious link. Anyway, if you enjoyed it, that's cool. It just seemed like a stretch too far to give the piece an angle.

Learned at Harvard....and any decent negotiation or sales course. Wow, a simple behavioural concept of anchoring bias made into an article to suggest that the Adel/Geel was somehow special. Obviously fluff filler whilst nothing else is going on.

Isn't he under age? Otherwise he would have been a lions Father/Son possibility? Think he is next year.