Post-flag plummet was always possible

[Grantysghost]

Yep, that's precisely where Granty's comments fail the sniff test for mine.

What sniff test? You guys are losing me. There's no conspiracy ! Bag me out, I'm a lurker, I don't post much. What i do is pump alot of money into the club and I'm fortunate enough to be able to go to all home games and talk to people like Gary Kent ( who was not happy on the weekend I can tell you ! ). I've been to 8 prelims with one victory, the GWS prelim was the pinnacle for me. Guys, people at the club are doing their best, they love the place they work their arses off they have been responsible for four club flags in four years. Yep we aren't going that well at the moment but surely we can see the simple explanation of a young list. Forget the rhetoric I think. See whats happening at the club with your own eyes. It's pretty bloody good.

[bulldogtragic]

My question is what you think we could do differently?

Hire better communications staff. Team's performance rise and fall. My problem with our communications/media department who give up owns goals far too often. As posted above, we've got some good news stories which are starved of oxygen because I think we are inept in this regard. This article to me is another example, which as I've said, is a reflection on who gave Turtle the talking points.

In a past life I was a media manager for a while, have a limited media interest now. I know how the game is played with editors/producers and especially journos, how your meant to play the game and what good and bad performance is. Things in this area are worse than our on field performance to be honest. We sent out our most credible face to the media, and more importantly our members, and inextricably left him wide open thinking his credibility could cover the poor messaging. The media will have all filed this, and the likes of Barrett will weaponise it when it will hurt us the most. It was a poor idea backed up with poor talking points from people charged with this responsibility which has done nothing for the club or Turtle.

So I would've done things differently over the past year in getting ahead of Stringer & Alberti (particularly bad), explained Danny's move to a different club role more effectively, executed the draft video to what it could've been (which was potentially good) and in trying to get ahead of a possibly bad back half of the year I would've fine tuned the comm's strategy to the enth degree, worked out the talking points to a more palatable or easily digestible level and then, and only then sent Turtle out. What I'd do differently in the future, is I'd get new people. Own goals are the ones that hurt the most, and easily avoidable.

[bulldogtragic]

What sniff test? You guys are losing me. There's no conspiracy ! Bag me out, I'm a lurker, I don't post much. What i do is pump alot of money into the club and I'm fortunate enough to be able to go to all home games and talk to people like Gary Kent ( who was not happy on the weekend I can tell you ! ). I've been to 8 prelims with one victory, the GWS prelim was the pinnacle for me. Guys, people at the club are doing their best, they love the place they work their arses off they have been responsible for four club flags in four years. Yep we aren't going that well at the moment but surely we can see the simple explanation of a young list. Forget the rhetoric I think. See whats happening at the club with your own eyes. It's pretty bloody good.

Common ground. Yes, the GWS prelim was the best game to attend ever. I don't think anyone is pissed at Bains, Kent, especially Turtle, Kent, PG, the board. And in this respect the footy department isn't in the firing line. One area in particular to me is a weak link, the comm's area. We need to fix it up. And I'll use a Tibetan Buddhist metaphor, tweaked a bit:

Imagine you're standing on the top of a mountain.
The club is generally very good off field. Like a bright blue sky.
Our comm's area are dark and threatening clouds covering the sky.
The sky is still bright blue (which we know), but because of these shit house comm's dark clouds not everyone can see it.
If those dark clouds get moved on, then we can stand on the top of the mountain seeing nothing but blue sky basking in sunshine.

We need to move the clouds on for the betterment of the club, not in spite of it.

[bornadog]

So I would've done things differently over the past year in getting ahead of Stringer & Alberti (particularly bad), explained Danny's move to a different club role more effectively, executed the draft video to what it could've been (which was potentially good) and in trying to get ahead of a possibly bad back half of the year I would've fine tuned the comm's strategy to the enth degree, worked out the talking points to a more palatable or easily digestible level and then, and only then sent Turtle out. What I'd do differently in the future, is I'd get new people. Own goals are the ones that hurt the most, and easily avoidable.

I have been reading all the posts and just shaking my head. Those issues above that you have outlined are really minor and forgetable and give very little reason to bag the club.

[bulldogtragic]

I have been reading all the posts and just shaking my head. Those issues above that you have outlined are really minor and forgetable and give very little reason to bag the club.

I respectfully disagree. What they are are a pattern of incompetence. If it's mentionable, it's manageable. Some need to be managed out. It should be an easy fix, with fast return on investment. Why wouldn't we want to have a far better media presence?

I'll have to go over my posts, I didn't realise I was bagging the club.

[bornadog]

I respectfully disagree. What they are are a pattern of incompetence. If it's mentionable, it's manageable. Some need to be managed out. It should be an easy fix, with fast return on investment. Why wouldn't we want to have a far better media presence?

I'll have to go over my posts, I didn't realise I was bagging the club.

Ok, I will take each of your concerns:

1. Stringer - you know he had to go, what else do you think we could have said and done?

2. Alberti - Club made a statement on why she wasn't allowed through the Players and officials gate- what else do you want done here?

3. Banner man - That was explained in an address to members? I don't like the decision, but we were told by the club what they were doing in future. Not the end of the world, its just a banner.

4. Bagging the club - I was generalising.

[Sedat]

What sniff test?

The message being conveyed for the first time this weekend that we "always knew there could be a potential drop-off" is contradicted by our minimal list changes, re-contracting a number of fringe players on multi-year deals and the bringing in of Cloke/trumpeted return of Crammers/Bob/Wally. This message has already been contradicted by Zaine Cordy on 3AW yesterday.

I don't necessarily disagree with what Granty said per se, but it goes against everything we've said since Oct 1st 2016 until yesterday, and our actions in that time don't reflect yesterday's message at all.

[Sedat]

Those issues above that you have outlined are really minor and forgetable and give very little reason to bag the club.

Are you happy with the performance of our communications dept that these 'minor' issues have been given significant negative media air time while the fantastic good news stories have not generated any publicity whatsoever? I'm not.

[Ozza]

I think there is a level of overreaction to Chris Grant’s comments. I suspect there will be a week of similar overreaction in the media, because it is a very easy angle to look at a team that is not performing on field and then find comments the past that contradict what Chris Grant has said.

And to be clear, I am not disputing that Chris has contradicted some of the previous messaging. But some perspective please, the club communicates to the media/supporters/public through a variety of mediums and with dozens of people at the club as their mouthpieces in any given week or month. I don’t think that it is realistic to expect that contradictions will never occur, especially if we are talking about a timeline over a 20 month period.

If the club had have scraped through to the finals last year, maybe even won a final - and then this year was marginally better in the W/L column, then its likely that the views expressed by Grant, which were obviously held internally - would never have come out publically.

I respect all the ranges views on here - but what I would probably hope is that they were slightly more accepting that when we are talking about a football club - we are talking about a high pressure environment, heavily scrutinized in terms of public comment and one where the outcome on a weekend can change narratives and the trajectory careers drastically and quickly. Nobody is doing it perfectly all of the time.

[bulldogtragic]

Ok, I will take each of your concerns:

1. Stringer - you know he had to go, what else do you think we could have said and done?

2. Alberti - Club made a statement on why she wasn't allowed through the Players and officials gate- what else do you want done here?

3. Banner man - That was explained in an address to members? I don't like the decision, but we were told by the club what they were doing in future. Not the end of the world, its just a banner.

4. Bagging the club - I was generalising.

1. Stringer had to go. 100%. Announcing it the way did lacked any sophistication. We should have had a war counsel on the topic and used strategic messaging to try, at least, to position negotiations a bit better. It would also have allowed the club to manage membership expectations or improve the messaging to us as to the reasoning (to the extent we wanted some details, but not all out). Would it have made a difference to the trade, trade period, circus around him, members etc? I don't know, but I think it could've been better than it was.

2. Alberti - A statement was not enough. We should've been way ahead of this, assuming we wanted this to a be a red line issue that we couldn't live with. Whether you think the own goal was ours, or hers for us, it was an own goal that should've either been resolved quietly or more active in the media. This was a debacle. A story is just the finished product, the point of having comm's people is to not have a grenade blow up in your lap. A statement or talking head is only a small piece of the process.

3. Danny - Again, we could've been a fair bit more engaged in the strategic comm's on this for it to land a bit better.

4. Thanks. So you're just bagging me? It's ok, I'm just generalising your point 4

5. The draft day video last year. Again, something that was a good idea but the messaging was so bad it left me and many on here feeling like it was a propaganda video. That should've and could've been a lay up, but the tone and messaging was way off

6. We don't seem to have a good relationship with the footy media as a generalisation. You'd like to think we are capable of doing more or doing better.

7. The article of this thread is just another example. I've said my piece already on it. But it's a pattern of competence to me.

8. If people who love having a Wallis at the club, or the legion of kids who love Dahl, let's hope our messaging is better or it will be brutal if either decide to look for opportunities at another club.

Simply, I just think we can and should do better. We're doing so very well financially that we can afford new or more staff to help us achieve our ends. Because if they're doing their jobs well, media is better, selling memberships may increase, members are happier etc.

[bornadog]

Are you happy with the performance of our communications dept that these 'minor' issues have been given significant negative media air time while the fantastic good news stories have not generated any publicity whatsoever? I'm not.

Not at all, I don't believe anything written in newspapers/Media and only half of what people tell me. Media these days look for the most minor thing and report negatively about it.

[GVGjr]

What sniff test? You guys are losing me. There's no conspiracy ! Bag me out, I'm a lurker, I don't post much. What i do is pump alot of money into the club and I'm fortunate enough to be able to go to all home games and talk to people like Gary Kent ( who was not happy on the weekend I can tell you ! ). I've been to 8 prelims with one victory, the GWS prelim was the pinnacle for me. Guys, people at the club are doing their best, they love the place they work their arses off they have been responsible for four club flags in four years. Yep we aren't going that well at the moment but surely we can see the simple explanation of a young list. Forget the rhetoric I think. See whats happening at the club with your own eyes. It's pretty bloody good.

Yes there is a number of positive things happening at the club, and feel free to start threads on that, and we will hear about the positive efforts on Tuesday night but challenging the words of Chris Grant in the article shouldn't be seen as being negative towards the club.
It certainly doesn't change my view or my commitment towards the club and I doubt it's an issue for anyone else either.
The vast majority who have contributed towards the discussions aren't playing the man just the words, and if that is being negative in other peoples eyes then so be it. Some are frustrated, very very few are negative.

[bulldogtragic]

Not at all, I don't believe anything written in newspapers/Media and only half of what people tell me. Media these days look for the most minor thing and report negatively about it.

True. I don't read his column, but the weaponising of it will it be something like:

IF, Chris Grant believes the dogs would fall off after the 2016 flag - THEN, (insert reason to slag off Bevo)

He gets a three for one. Slams Bevo, slams Dogs & slams our most credible ambassador (this part sucks especially). That's not great considering most people read and believe newspapers, opinion columns like his and apparently like Bruce, BT, Ling, Basil etc. (or else how else would they be the free to air commentators!?!?!). It's easy to dismiss it as media BS, but it's not helpful for the club. We need Essendon to be caught doping again to get under the cover of a bigger story.

[bornadog]

True. I don't read his column, but the weaponising of it will it be something like:

IF, Chris Grant believes the dogs would fall off after the 2016 flag - THEN, (insert reason to slag off Bevo)

He gets a three for one. Slams Bevo, slams Dogs & slams our most credible ambassador (this part sucks especially). That's not great considering most people read and believe newspapers, opinion columns like his and apparently like Bruce, BT, Ling, Basil etc. (or else how else would they be the free to air commentators!?!?!). It's easy to dismiss it as media BS, but it's not helpful for the club. We need Essendon to be caught doping again to get under the cover of a bigger story.

No one cares about us. If you listen to SEN, or watch any of the footy shows, they rarely talk about us. They don't even know who Toby Mclean is and only found out about Macrae a few weeks ago when he racked up 40 plus two weeks in a row. Guys like Barrett are trying their guts out to find dirt, but there isn't anything. Chris was probably quoted out of context, who knows what he said and what question he as answering. I just don't believe anything the media write.

There are a couple of comments, particularly on the first page of this thread, are just made with emotion after losing yesterday, instead of with some thought. That is what pisses me off.

[MrMahatma]

I'm gutted by our season. Another one wasted.

But, as the glass half full guy I am, I reckon we're 1 more English preseason and 1 gun mid with pace (pick 5 this year) away from being a threat again. Our defence is building well. We've found 3 in Naughton, Richards and Williams this year.

Our midfield lacks depth by Macrae and McLean are both having career best seasons and surely Bont is injured.

Our fwd line will settle down when Boyd doesn't have to ruck and Shcache (who is already showing good signs) has another 15-20 matches under his belt.

So the decline may have always be possible. The proof (in our ability to see the issue and respond to it) will be in us getting back up for a sustained crack at it very soon.

I reserve the right to still be ropeable after every loss. Particularly if we lose to Port as I'm planning on being there.