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 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.

[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]

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.

[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!!!

[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.

[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.

[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.