Adam The God
-
Posts
18,918 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
34
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Adam The God
-
-
2 minutes ago, mo64 said:
And Butterrs is as tough as you get.
I'd put him in the skills over toughness category personally.
-
4 minutes ago, ChaserJ said:
The guys at Baseline have posted some footage of Riak’s game last weekend.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C_e5KKOTljJ/?igsh=a3FpZ2Jvd3F0M2FhThat link up through the corridor and off half back. 🤩 Exciting. Ceiling could be anything.
What's Riak's decision making like as a rule mate?
-
Just now, Satyriconhome said:
No, always the optimist, why make your life miserable by being a pessimist., although some on here seem to enjoy that, like watching footy games for mistakes only.
Just support my team, as I have said before, instead of hiding behind nicknames and avatars, if I have an issue with anybody at the club, I ask them face to face.
Not a fan of Brad Green's attitude to lockdown but understood it, think he will make a good interim chairman, he is not carrying any baggage (apart from maybe the trouser thing), so hopefully the noise will settle down and the ever hungry media pack will move onto Port or maybe Beveridge again if the Dogs lose tonight
I wouldn't say I am a pessimist. I'd say I'm an optimist. Get things right off the field and we're a huge shot at a flag in 2025.
As for Green, I'll get banned if I say what I really think of him, but let's just say our views align on him.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:
Yes. Because the longer you stay up the harder it is to keep filling holes.
The big problem with Kenny is he’s always overvalued skills over toughness. Can take the boy out off the half back flank but can’t take the half back flanker out of the ball
The first bit is definitely spot on.
But his midfield has had Wines and Drew for a while. Neither fit the skills over toughness review
-
I reckon if Mao was President of the MFC you'd be clapping along, Saty.
-
2
-
7
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:
I actually have always thought he gets the best out of a list which has huge holes in it. And he seems like a top bloke.
However, as anyone who has read my posts - all one of you- world know, I am not dissatisfied with the current coach.
Can you have 12 years of not addressing holes and not even a GF?
-
I'd be going for someone to balance Goody, not another people person. We need someone in the role that can have tough conversations hold the top standards.
Judging by the last 12 months, that's not Richo.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, dees189227 said:
Interesting. Now we'll get headlines about board trouble
Will we? The board is reviewing itself. Green has been on the board since November 2020.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:
Maybe the review of the board will find that they’ve failed in properly managing the administration and will therefore nominate someone external to review that side of the club?
Let's hope so.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:
How did you read the Roffey/Green statement?
I've only read the statements on the club website, but it's pretty clear that you're spot on. Green will review the board and Pert will review the FD. So who reviews Pert?
Get PJ in to do FFS. Let's be serious about this.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Demon17 said:
Perts KPI's
membership growth - tick
Financial stability- tick
On-field growth and performance- Flag and 3 top 4 finishes.
he should go because??
He can't get out and kick the ball for the team.
Look at his role objectively.
Pert is responsible for setting the culture of the club.
Not only do we leak like sieve, we have clear discontent within the FD and playing group.
Under PJ we did not leak.
Surely, you can see the commercial impacts of continued leaks.
-
10
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:
The Board statement said: Green said he would lead a review of the Board aimed at resetting and refreshing its performance.
Doesn't seem to include Pert or the organisation.
iirc, Roffey said Pert is leading an internal reiview, which sounds like the usual EOS review. Could be wrong.
This would be a disaster if Green reviews the board and Pert reviews the FD and escapes scrutiny himself...
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Lucifers Hero said:
There has been a fair bit of change in Constitution, election processes etc at Board level and on the basis of 'one can't review onself' a Board review would need to be driven by AFL House which I doubt would happen.
Sure there was a need to honour existing contracts. There were other ways of doing it without putting them in charge of departments. Those contracts would have expired sometime in the last four years which was the time to change personnel if there was a will to do so.
Agreed, it's just unfortunate that most of the constitutional change has been pushed from the outside. The board wanted the status quo and electioneering to remain, hence us as members being told who to vote for 3 years in a row.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, mo64 said:
Just as I don't believe that Houston moves the needle for us, I feel the same about him at the Saints. They already have Sinclair and Wanganeen-Milera who can play the same role at the same level as Houston. They've recruited a couple of guns in the past 2 drafts in Phillipou and Wilson. They need to continue down that path.
Houston may want more game time as a mid, but he doesn't have a track record as one to justify giving up 2 1st round picks for him.
They want Houston for the exact same reason we did - to play in the midfield...
Also, he has played a significant chunk of footy in the midfield. Just not this year.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:
General Comments
- A review needs to be objective and stand up to scrutiny.
- Preferred review period: 2021 - 2024
Roles to Review
- CEO
- FD Management (incl Coaching)
- List Management
- Communications Management
Methodology - Measurable Stuff
- Locate existing KPI’s (ie goals) for each role
- Locate 3 year performance for each KPI
- Identify performance gaps for each KPI
- Identify objective causes for those gaps
- Is the org structure appropriate
- Are the reporting lines/structure being adhered to
There is a high probability the performance in most cases has met the KPI’s during those 3 years BUT the trend will be poor. eg Increased membership rose but has dropped off. Ladder position was high but has gradually dropped off. Perhaps similarly for sponsorships etc
Methodology - Less/Non Measurable Stuff
It is much harder to assess the ‘soft’ stuff like decision, relationships, standards, discontent, etc and will need to be assessed by interviewing staff. Hopefully, they are structured questionnaires that are tried and tested.
An important area is 'external image' in the industry because that has such a critical affect on sponsorships, recruiting etc
It would take to long to list the type of questions for each role to be reviewed.
BUT
- Are they the right KPI’s
- What should the KPI’s be
- How will those KPI’s be measuerd
Reviewer(s)?
The recent trend has been for a panel of ex-footballers (Freo and Adelaide) to undertake it. I doubt they have the methodology for the above review.
When Pert reviewed the FD at the end of 2020 he engaged an external person. I don't know if that was an AFL person or an outside consultant.
To be fair, I thought the 2020 FD review was very good. It resulted in a more appropriate organisation structure and made some badly needed personnel changes. imv the error was the choice of personnel replacements .
Great post mate. Is there a reason you've left the board's performance off the list of areas to review?
Also, vis a vis the 2020 review and the choice of personnel replacements, I do think we were hamstrung by existing contracts and the soft cap, which itself was being squeezed at the time, with lots of uncertainty moving forward as to how that would rise or fall.
-
11 minutes ago, Tim said:
The round 6 video at the 1.50 mark: very Malcolm Blight-like, but not in a good way.
Haha, yep, not a good moment.
-
1
-
-
And I'd also like the Green Goblin or whatever his name was to start posting in this thread again.
Just for a bit if fun.
-
1 minute ago, Roost it far said:
If he leaves we will absolutely be paying part of his salary, that’s a given and one of the reasons we need 2 x top 10 picks for him
Nah. Doubt it.
-
1 minute ago, rpfc said:
We will be paying I reckon maybe a third of his wage if he moves…
Nah. Doubt it.
-
1 minute ago, rpfc said:
We will be eating salary for half a decade all over the shop.
What does this mean?
We'll have huge TPP room if Clarry is traded.
-
11 minutes ago, goodwindees said:
Let me say very clearly that the Dees are not shopping Clayton, but they have been asked if 2 first rounders would get it done, and I believe it wasn’t totally shut down / dismissed.
I take it the two firsts have to be inside the top 10?
What a waste of a year if we end up trading Clarry.
I presume Adelaide might be able to find another top 10 pick to package with their pick 4...
-
52 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:
Saints going to pay a first rounder given they’ll get a first round compo pick for Battle?
So Port will get two first rounders. Their natural and the Battle compo pick after St Kilda's natural first.
I wonder if Port will try and package their two picks to get ahead of Adelaide so they can get Draper?
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, goodwindees said:
My mail is that Houston is off to the Saints. 5/6 years at $850 per year.
Clearly been offered midfield time as St Kilda have a glut of half backs.
Hill, Waganeen-Milerra and Sinclair are all guns back there.
-
Lol, of course you liked Sam Frost.
-
2
-
Mac Andrew
in Melbourne Demons
Posted · Edited by Adam The God
Yeah, in those clips @ChaserJ provided above, he's way more involved in the play than I expected, in a very CJ way. Run and carry.
I'm salivating at the prospect of a backline in 3-4 years time with Riak, Petty and Lever, and a JVR, Turner, White and Mac down the other end.