Eade's future in the hands of Top Dogs

[Mantis]

THE fate of Western Bulldogs' coach Rodney Eade is set to be shaped by a four-man group of club officials.

This includes two directors, chief executive Simon Garlick, and the head of the football department, James Fantasia.

While a final decision on whether to offer Eade a contract rests with the club board - standard for all AFL clubs - the subcommittee is expected to make a recommendation on Eade's position. It would be unusual for the other directors to go against the recommendation

Click link (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/eades-future-in-the-hands-of-top-dogs-20110811-1iovq.html#ixzz1UjIZRLo6) for rest of the article.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Fantasia being on the sub-committee isn't a good thing for Eade

[Sedat]

Fantasia being on the sub-committee isn't a good thing for Eade
When I read this, I thought it was a complete waste of time having the review. Even if Eade is reappointed, it is an uneasy relationship (at best) between he and Fantasia - how the hell is that going to assist the workings of our footy dept moving forward? Hate to say it but if I was Rocket, I'd be very keen to catch up with Melbourne and Adelaide.

No wonder he is picking the most competitive possible teams to try and win our remaining games for the season and resisting getting some valuable game time into some of the younger brigade.

[strebla]

To me our year is done get the review done now and stop pissfarting around if we want Eade (and I am sure there are those who don't) we need to get it done now. As for Fantasia I have never met the man but he really needs help in the list management side of things.

[LostDoggy]

What a ridiculous process.

Perception wise, we've gone from one of the better managed clubs off the field to a real rabble. Cam Rose was a bigger loss than we've realised at the time, it seems.

[strebla]

What a ridiculous process.

Perception wise, we've gone from one of the better managed clubs off the field to a real rabble. Cam Rose was a bigger loss than we've realised at the time, it seems.

Could not agree more!!!

[Greystache]

Having Fantasia on the panel could be a massive positive for Eade, should they get into a negotiation Eade might walk out of the room with a 5 year, $8 million deal, and Fantasia's pants!

[Topdog]

Can't stand the thought of these reviews being internal.

[LostDoggy]

What a ridiculous process.

Perception wise, we've gone from one of the better managed clubs off the field to a real rabble. Cam Rose was a bigger loss than we've realised at the time, it seems.

A rabble? Really? Are we just being a bit impatient? (I am too, don't worry, not an attack at you).

We don't know what's going on behind closed doors, and that's the real issue. Lack of communication and transparency.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Can't stand the thought of these reviews being internal.

Who should we get do do it then? Eddie Maguire?


We could have a reality show of all the bush coaches where the winner gets to coach next year.

Perhaps we could get all the fams to SMS their choice of coach?*





*texts charged at 50c/day. You must be over 18. SMS 'STOP' to end. Exit fees and charges may apply.

[LostDoggy]

Who should we get do do it then? Eddie Maguire?


We could have a reality show of all the bush coaches where the winner gets to coach next year.

Perhaps we could get all the fams to SMS their choice of coach?*





*texts charged at 50c/day. You must be over 18. SMS 'STOP' to end. Exit fees and charges may apply.

All good ideas.

[LostDoggy]

A rabble? Really? Are we just being a bit impatient? (I am too, don't worry, not an attack at you).

We don't know what's going on behind closed doors, and that's the real issue. Lack of communication and transparency.

Yep all of the above.

*ps. of course I'm being impatient, but this stuff has been building for a few years now .. I've only been one of a few on WOOF who have been questioning our front office performance, as early as three drafts and trade periods ago.

It was hard to talk about those things in the midst of us being relatively successful on-field and making prelims, but I was concerned (as I know others here were) looking 3, 4, 5, 7 years down the track and what our decisions meant for our long-term future.

It's an interesting duality -- the rhetoric of the club is that it's doing 'well' from an objective standpoint, and it may well be, but in a competition of 17/18 teams, I'm only interested in performance from a RELATIVE standpoint, ie. how we're doing compared to others. It's no good just improving compared to ourselves (ie. absolute improvement), which is what the club seems to be saying, because if other clubs are doing things better than us or improving at a greater rate, the reality is that, relatively speaking, we're falling behind even though we are theoretically improving. Every negotiation we screw up that others don't, every trade we miss out on that another club snags, every draft pick we waste that another club gets right, that's us falling behind incrementally, and they all add up. It's no use measuring us against 'a reasonable standard' -- as a competition, it's beating other clubs we are aiming at (for example, I hate people saying 'well, the other 17 clubs missed out on x player too', or 'other clubs are not doing x' -- we're not measuring ourselves against the average, if the other clubs missed out on x it was a chance for us to have snagged a massive advantage, just as Hawthorn snagged a massive advantage with Buddy when others decided against him etc.)

As a lower-end club we need all the advantages we can get, and the more innovative and creative and 'leading edge' we can be in areas that DON'T require a lot of extra money (for example, how we time or structure our review processes), the better.

[1eyedog]

Fantasia being on the sub-committee isn't a good thing for Eade

This is true. From what I'm hearing the relationship seems strained and I don't think sustainable in the long-term.

I think waiting until the end of the season to conduct an internal review of Eade is a good thing. If Garlick and Fantasia and the other relevant Board members are not happy with his performance and think we need a change I think that waiting until season's end is a much more measured process than what Melbourne have done and sack the coach with five games left.

You put in a caretaker and nothing else happens and you don't move forward. Furthermore, there is not a lot of coaching talent up for grabs at the moment so it is of no benefit trying to get an early start selecting the next coach.

IMO Eade (and for that matter Bailey) deserve better and I think reviews and renegotiations over the last 4-6 weeks is a distraction to the coach.

We were always told that his position would be reviewed at the end of the year.

[The Underdog]

This is true. From what I'm hearing the relationship seems strained and I don't think sustainable in the long-term.

I've got faith in Garlick and Smorgon though to be able to see through it. Surely they are aware of where the relationship is at. So hopefully all of that is weighed up in the process, HOWEVER, it certainly doesn't seem as if Fantasia is on his way out if he's part of the group making a call on Eade and that certainly makes it a difficult thing to call from the outside (and slightly concerning as far as the review of the football dept overall)

[bornadog]

I don't see anything wrong with the process. The club has said all along that the review will take place at the end of the year and that is what they are doing.

[LostDoggy]

I'm assuming the selection process is criteria based...that is, regardless of who is on the panel, we weigh up what Rocket says against the listed criteria and evaluate accordingly. It usually becomes clear as to who is best suited to the criteria that we have developed. It should have absolutely nothing to do with whether 2 people get on or not.

[LostDoggy]

Metal, that's like saying we may as well have a computer program to decide for us -- input all the data and cross-check against 'criteria', voila out pops an answer. We all know that picking a coach is not a black-and-white, simplistic process. You've mentioned in your post 'evaluate accordingly', and a proper evaluation needs objectivity and subjectivity in the right mix. Conflicts of interest (ie. competing positions, people who have more to lose than most etc.) make this mix nearly impossible to get right.

[Topdog]

Who should we get do do it then? Eddie Maguire?


We could have a reality show of all the bush coaches where the winner gets to coach next year.

Perhaps we could get all the fams to SMS their choice of coach?*

*texts charged at 50c/day. You must be over 18. SMS 'STOP' to end. Exit fees and charges may apply.

Hiring external people who have nothing to do with the club in 2010 and don't have an agenda. My stance is nothing to do with the people involved but these reviews done by people involved in the day to day running of the business are flawed.

Questions like "Did Rocket have everything available to him to be as successful as possible?" Do you think anyone will answer "No I did this and that wrong"? I doubt it esp. when they also may have the end of their own contract coming.

[Topdog]

Metal, that's like saying we may as well have a computer program to decide for us -- input all the data and cross-check against 'criteria', voila out pops an answer. We all know that picking a coach is not a black-and-white, simplistic process. You've mentioned in your post 'evaluate accordingly', and a proper evaluation needs objectivity and subjectivity in the right mix. Conflicts of interest (ie. competing positions, people who have more to lose than most etc.) make this mix nearly impossible to get right.

Unless of course you hire external people to do it....;)

[LostDoggy]

I don't see anything wrong with the process. The club has said all along that the review will take place at the end of the year and that is what they are doing.

BAD -- you are arguing the club line, ie. 'that's what we've said all along, so if we stick to our word we can absolve ourselves of all responsibility if the process turns to pot'. What I'm saying is that circumstances are continually changing, and a dynamic and proactive club will react accordingly: there's no point saying 'we stuck to process and timelines' if Rocket ends up poached or leaving against our wishes. Agility and responsiveness are not only important virtues on-field.

Matthews wrote an interesting piece in June about this, and I'll just quote his conclusion:

"While these three clubs have big decisions to make about where they stand in that shifting balance between perseverance or change, I do believe strongly that July is the crunch month and decisions should be made by the beginning of August so that all parties can plan ahead with certainty."

As it is, there are suspicions that Rocket is planning the rest of the year with his short-term future in mind (ie. performance) rather than the club's long-term future (ie. development).

Finally, if we end up deciding we want Rocket, but he leaves anyway for a better offer because of our tardiness (how hard was it to foresee any of this? We're not the first club in history to have a coach entering the final year of a contract), it would be a massive blow to our club's reputation, psyche and standing in relation to other clubs, not to mention throw us right to the back of the queue in a search for a new senior coach, both in terms of a timeline as well as a desired destination for aspiring senior coaches. Our risk and reputation management leaves a lot to be desired, and if the club's response is simply sticking to the party line of 'we sticking to a timeline we set at the start of the year', then we'll get what we deserve in a cut-throat competitive cauldron.

[1eyedog]

BAD -- you are arguing the club line, ie. 'that's what we've said all along, so if we stick to our word we can absolve ourselves of all responsibility if the process turns to pot'. What I'm saying is that circumstances are continually changing, and a dynamic and proactive club will react accordingly: there's no point saying 'we stuck to process and timelines' if Rocket ends up poached or leaving against our wishes. Agility and responsiveness are not only important virtues on-field.

Matthews wrote an interesting piece in June about this, and I'll just quote his conclusion:

"While these three clubs have big decisions to make about where they stand in that shifting balance between perseverance or change, I do believe strongly that July is the crunch month and decisions should be made by the beginning of August so that all parties can plan ahead with certainty."

As it is, there are suspicions that Rocket is planning the rest of the year with his short-term future in mind (ie. performance) rather than the club's long-term future (ie. development).

Finally, if we end up deciding we want Rocket, but he leaves anyway for a better offer because of our tardiness (how hard was it to foresee any of this? We're not the first club in history to have a coach entering the final year of a contract), it would be a massive blow to our club's reputation, psyche and standing in relation to other clubs, not to mention throw us right to the back of the queue in a search for a new senior coach, both in terms of a timeline as well as a desired destination for aspiring senior coaches. Our risk and reputation management leaves a lot to be desired, and if the club's response is simply sticking to the party line of 'we sticking to a timeline we set at the start of the year', then we'll get what we deserve in a cut-throat competitive cauldron.

But do we actually want Rocket and are we definately in a position to know that now? Clarkson is in the same position at Hawthorn (have they moved on that yet?)

Rocket has always said he wants to stay coaching the Bulldogs and I believe was under the impression that there would be a review at year's end. I would assume that the Adelaide and Melbourne coaching positions would not even gear up until after season's end, when both clubs know exactly what coaches were on the cards. Rocket has time to sign a contract after the end of the season with us as well as sign a contract with another club if necessary. There seems to be a lot of unnecessary tension around this issue because of the position we are going to finish on the ladder, stiff bickies, there is a review process in place and as far as I am concerned to make a decision now would be a reactive decision; reactive to a situation. I think post-season reviews are a more measured process were emotion(s) have less impact on the decision making process, but that's just me.

As for risk and reputation, reputation is thrown out the window when clubs start sacking coaches with four weeks of football left if you ask me. You make it sound like no-one wants tocome and coach at the Bulldogs and we will not get who we want if we don't want Rocket and don't act now.

[bornadog]

BAD -- you are arguing the club line, ie. 'that's what we've said all along, so if we stick to our word we can absolve ourselves of all responsibility if the process turns to pot'. What I'm saying is that circumstances are continually changing, and a dynamic and proactive club will react accordingly: there's no point saying 'we stuck to process and timelines' if Rocket ends up poached or leaving against our wishes. Agility and responsiveness are not only important virtues on-field.

Matthews wrote an interesting piece in June about this, and I'll just quote his conclusion:

"While these three clubs have big decisions to make about where they stand in that shifting balance between perseverance or change, I do believe strongly that July is the crunch month and decisions should be made by the beginning of August so that all parties can plan ahead with certainty."

As it is, there are suspicions that Rocket is planning the rest of the year with his short-term future in mind (ie. performance) rather than the club's long-term future (ie. development).

Finally, if we end up deciding we want Rocket, but he leaves anyway for a better offer because of our tardiness (how hard was it to foresee any of this? We're not the first club in history to have a coach entering the final year of a contract), it would be a massive blow to our club's reputation, psyche and standing in relation to other clubs, not to mention throw us right to the back of the queue in a search for a new senior coach, both in terms of a timeline as well as a desired destination for aspiring senior coaches. Our risk and reputation management leaves a lot to be desired, and if the club's response is simply sticking to the party line of 'we sticking to a timeline we set at the start of the year', then we'll get what we deserve in a cut-throat competitive cauldron.

I don't agree Lantern, why should the club behold to the threat of outside forces in relation to choosing their coach. Rocket knows what the process is and has already stated he wants to coach the Bulldogs again from next year. Now he must wait for the process to be completed and then he can make his decision. Hopefully he is an Honorable person and if he is offered something else he weights up all the offers before finally deciding.

We don't need a gun held to our head to make a decision.

[Sockeye Salmon]

What would you do if you were Eade and Melbourne put a contract in front of you this week?

Rodney, the jobs yours if you want it but we can't afford to wait, we have to know in case we need to look elsewhere.



Why would you risk not getting either job?

(This is precisely what Collingwood did to Mark Neeld when we were talking to him about an assistant position)

[LostDoggy]

But do we actually want Rocket and are we definately in a position to know that now? Clarkson is in the same position at Hawthorn (have they moved on that yet?) .

We are not in a position to know or do anything because we are reactive. Just as in the last two trade periods, we will end up with whatever we end up with. Hawthorn are in a slightly different position considering that they are sitting in a top 4 position.


As for risk and reputation, reputation is thrown out the window when clubs start sacking coaches with four weeks of football left if you ask me. You make it sound like no-one wants tocome and coach at the Bulldogs and we will not get who we want if we don't want Rocket and don't act now.

Of course we will have a senior coach at the start of 2012. The question is, would we still be able to attract the best candidate? Believe me, if we lose our coach to another team unwillingly because we were too slow there WILL be damage to our reputation and desirability as a coaching destination -- the last time we lost a coach at a time not of our choosing we ended up having Rohde as the only choice left to us.

Also, you better believe that Adelaide and Melbourne are already well into their process of recruitment for 2012 -- they appointed headhunting agencies the week they sacked their former coaches.

[LostDoggy]

I don't agree Lantern, why should the club behold to the threat of outside forces in relation to choosing their coach. Rocket knows what the process is and has already stated he wants to coach the Bulldogs again from next year. Now he must wait for the process to be completed and then he can make his decision. Hopefully he is an Honorable person and if he is offered something else he weights up all the offers before finally deciding.

We don't need a gun held to our head to make a decision.

I'm not talking about the threat of outside forces -- the facts internal to the club are:


Rocket is on the last year of his contract
Our season was shot halfway through


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to start planning for 2012 based on that summation. The reality is that it will potentially have an impact on match-day selection if a coach is coaching for his survival (and reputation) or for the longer-term, so it's not as simple as saying 'oh well, too bad'.. it has a DIRECT impact on the future of our playing list.

The final year of a coaching contract is always a difficult situation -- I argue that clubs should never let it get to this point anyway: if a coach is performing well (and three prelims in the last three years suggest Rocket falls in this category) he should be getting his contract regularly extended to have at least 2 years left on his contract so that if a bad year comes along he doesn't have the twin pressures of bad performance and media pressure due to it being the final year of his contract, and the club has an extra year to make a decision (you don't have to extend his contract during a bad year, and if he turns the club around in the final year, then you can easily extend it then).

Someone brought up Clarkson, and he's a good example of how a club handles bad performance -- he had his contracts regularly extended after the good years the club's had, so even though last year was a bad year for the Hawks, Clarkson didn't get the media scrutiny he would have if it was the final year on his contract. The Hawks didn't extend his contract since it was a bad year but he did get this year to turn it around.

[bornadog]

Someone brought up Clarkson, and he's a good example of how a club handles bad performance -- he had his contracts regularly extended after the good years the club's had, so even though last year was a bad year for the Hawks, Clarkson didn't get the media scrutiny he would have if it was the final year on his contract. The Hawks didn't extend his contract since it was a bad year but he did get this year to turn it around.

Then why aren't Hawthorn locking in Clarkson right now? The only difference between the Hawks situation and ours is they are a top four this year and we are struggling to make the top 8.

[1eyedog]

What would you do if you were Eade and Melbourne put a contract in front of you this week?

Rodney, the jobs yours if you want it but we can't afford to wait, we have to know in case we need to look elsewhere.



Why would you risk not getting either job?

(This is precisely what Collingwood did to Mark Neeld when we were talking to him about an assistant position)

It's a different situation and purely a hypothetical one. If the decision was critical I would hope that the board would look at fast tracking the review process, but I would be a little pissed off at Melbourne telling me they wanted a decision within the next 3 days while I still have another four games to coach (ala Terry Wallace).

I would take the offer to Fantasia, Garlick, Smorgon and any other relevant board members and say 'you'd better start that review process'.

If they refused I would accept the Melbourne job and then quit at season's end. Maybe that's what has already happened and maybe we have already started interviewing likely candidates.

Hypotheticals.

[1eyedog]

I'm not talking about the threat of outside forces -- the facts internal to the club are:


Rocket is on the last year of his contract
Our season was shot halfway through


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to start planning for 2012 based on that summation. The reality is that it will potentially have an impact on match-day selection if a coach is coaching for his survival (and reputation) or for the longer-term, so it's not as simple as saying 'oh well, too bad'.. it has a DIRECT impact on the future of our playing list.

The final year of a coaching contract is always a difficult situation -- I argue that clubs should never let it get to this point anyway: if a coach is performing well (and three prelims in the last three years suggest Rocket falls in this category) he should be getting his contract regularly extended to have at least 2 years left on his contract so that if a bad year comes along he doesn't have the twin pressures of bad performance and media pressure due to it being the final year of his contract, and the club has an extra year to make a decision (you don't have to extend his contract during a bad year, and if he turns the club around in the final year, then you can easily extend it then).

Someone brought up Clarkson, and he's a good example of how a club handles bad performance -- he had his contracts regularly extended after the good years the club's had, so even though last year was a bad year for the Hawks, Clarkson didn't get the media scrutiny he would have if it was the final year on his contract. The Hawks didn't extend his contract since it was a bad year but he did get this year to turn it around.

I brought him up and I think we need to take into consideration that he is a premiership coach at the team he is still coaching which is a bit different to our coach who has not recently won us a premiership and is currently sitting in 11th position or wherever we are.

[GVGjr]

What would you do if you were Eade and Melbourne put a contract in front of you this week?

Rodney, the jobs yours if you want it but we can't afford to wait, we have to know in case we need to look elsewhere.


Why would you risk not getting either job?


Why should we be dictated to by the threat of what other clubs might do?

Unless we are as good as a 100% certain we will either reappoint him or let him go I don't think we should rush the decision. Market pressures are always there but it's not a sufficient threat to make hasty decision. As we all know it's an important decision and whilst we obviously can't dawdle, unless Rocket demands a decision now we should complete a thorough review. I'd give it 2 weeks to be completed.

I think there is more cause for concern about if we have the right people making this decision rather than what the Melbourne FC might do.

I was very surprised to read that Fantasia was one of the committee.

[mjp]

But both SS and GVGjr are right.

If Eade gets the offer, he should take it to the Dogs. The Dogs - if they are committed to the review - will thank him for the information and tell him that they have decided to stick to their original plan. Eade then accepts the position at Melbourne. Bulldogs review is then extended to incorporate a coaching search.

[Ghost Dog]

Why should we be dictated to by the threat of what other clubs might do?

Unless we are as good as a 100% certain we will either reappoint him or let him go I don't think we should rush the decision. Market pressures are always there but it's not a sufficient threat to make hasty decision. As we all know it's an important decision and whilst we obviously can't dawdle, unless Rocket demands a decision now we should complete a thorough review. I'd give it 2 weeks to be completed.

I think there is more cause for concern about if we have the right people making this decision rather than what the Melbourne FC might do.

I was very surprised to read that Fantasia was one of the committee.

So was I. I was a bit let down.

[Go_Dogs]

Having Fantasia on the panel could be a massive positive for Eade, should they get into a negotiation Eade might walk out of the room with a 5 year, $8 million deal, and Fantasia's pants!

Plausible.


I don't see anything wrong with the process. The club has said all along that the review will take place at the end of the year and that is what they are doing.

Nothing wrong with having a review process, but the review should be of the whole football department, ie. including a review of Fantasia's position and performance. To me, this isn't thorough enough.


Why should we be dictated to by the threat of what other clubs might do?

I think there is more cause for concern about if we have the right people making this decision rather than what the Melbourne FC might do.

I was very surprised to read that Fantasia was one of the committee.

Agree with that.

From media interviews it appears Rocket very much wants to stay involved with the club, and I'm sure Melbourne, and to a lesser extent the Crows, will both go through their own processes and probably won't be in a position to make an offer to any potential coaches until the close of the season anyway.

The club needs to make the right decision, and if that means waiting until seasons end for the decision to be finalised, so be it.

I do share the same concerns re the review though.