AFL appoints US company to find footy’s next boss

[DavidSSS]

It appears someone here was at the Richmond AFLW presentation and can say with authority that the presentation was bad. After all, we would never see someone here accusing another poster of speculating when they are speculating themselves.

Pokie licences are valid for ten years, then they have to be renewed. If RFC didn't renew, they'd be allocated to someone else - unless you are suggesting RFC keeps renewing in perpetuity.

I don't know about how pokie licences work, but the salient point is that getting out of pokies and just selling off the licence to someone else is just posturing, contributes a sum total of Sweet F*ck All to solving the gambling problem. Worse than that it is virtue signalling with no virtue.

DS

 

[jb03]

The AFL dramatically changed the rules to curb us. Can't get much more vindictive or anti-club (us) than that.

We must have the only socialist sporting governing body in major world sport that actively tries to restrict and harm the best team in the comp, rather than have clubs aspire to be better than the best.

 

[Redford]

tried before, its pointless, especially to a man who thinks culture doesn't exist. pundits have regularly said there are 'problems' between Richmond and the AFL for last 2 years. Hocking bringing in stand rule to rein in us, I think you don't buy that so whatever, the Womens side, Caro said at the time we were shafted, Peggy alluded to it but alluded might be a bit subtle right? There are many more individual examples that have been discussed thoughtfully and compellingly on here.

One mans tin foil hat is another mans the AFL just plain don't like us.

Even Mince Whately referred to the angst between the AFL and Richmond when discussing on radio Gale’s potential (or lack of) to be the next CEO of the AFL. Made a clear point of suggesting the relationship was not great. Been saying that myself for a few years.

 

[IanG]

He sits on the board and no doubt provides plenty of advice to them.

Sorry, hadn't realised you were in the room when they presented.

Why accept your presentation may have fallen short on merit when you can pop on a tin foil hat and blame an AFL conspiracy?

Sorry I didn't realise you were in the Board room when they made decisions on Board changes, and likewise I take it you were also in the presentation Richmond gave the AFL on AFLW....

 

[bob]

As usual, I dont agree in the main with TBR. My view is that it was actually a bit of a spiteful post.
I wont even go into the reasons why I dont agree, many of you have debated the reasons well.

Anyone who says the AFL does not have an anti-Richmond agenda is simply naive or being mischievous - again, wont bother with the numerous examples.

What I do agree with - and I have posted this before many times - is that the AFL do not rate Brendon's commercial skills. And it pains me to say this, but I have to agree.

Without knowing the discussions (who could) at our Board level, or within AFL HQs, whilst everything Benny has done towards our football success is amazing - and anyone who says CEOs dont really have a lot to do with success on the field is also being naive - we should be doing better with sponsorship and money. I look at the sponsors signed up, in both $, longevity of tenure and quality of the sponsor, of other 'big' clubs and I feel we arent as well represented as we should be given how big we are as a club. I dont believe its a strength of Benny's. For a while, Cain Liddle's strength in these areas helped us enormously. We havent replaced that to the level needed. All good leaders will surround themselves with 2ICs who make up for the CEO's lack of skills in a certain area - and Benny would be one of those great leaders who isnt threatened by not being good at everything, but we havent hired an outstanding commercial director these last few years to get us back on track.

We are a bit hampered as a club in that we dont seem to have as many wealthy individual supporters (no Mathiesons or Pratts for us), or as many combined wealthy groups that Essendon has. And the Pies had Eddie who is simply outstanding in the commercial area - he really could sell sand to the Arabs.

But still... commercially, we have been underwhelming for a long long time.

There are other more important reasons why the AFL wont have Benny to replace Gil = cultural reasons - but I can also appreciate why the commercial reasons are also there.

 

[TT33]

It appears someone here was at the Richmond AFLW presentation and can say with authority that the presentation was bad. After all, we would never see someone here accusing another poster of speculating when they are speculating themselves.



I don't know about how pokie licences work, but the salient point is that getting out of pokies and just selling off the licence to someone else is just posturing, contributes a sum total of Sweet F*ck All to solving the gambling problem. Worse than that it is virtue signalling with no virtue.

DS

People are lauding the Bulldogs, Roos etc for getting out of pokies but they just sold the licences afaik. They didn't just walk away from them.

 

[momentai]

Hope Brendon gets the job.
HQ is failing the game with its poorly thought through rule changes, its reinterpretation of rules it hasn't actually changed and more generally its poorly thought through decisions in regard to the establishment of new franchises. This list could go on.
It is now in a position where it has two clubs GC and GWS, which have to be financially supported and with no end to that need in sight, (plus the Saints).

Tasmania won't accept a North Melbourne switch, and the Presidents are quite reasonably saying we can't afford to create a new franchise, which like GC and GWS, has no reasonable chance of being able to support itself.
Brendon is a football person and has proven himself to be a first class administrator. He will want a Tasmanian team, which won't drag the game down. The only way through will include a combination of State Govt and Private enterprise ownership. Tasmanian's absolutely deserve their own team.
Hate to lose him but I suspect Brendon is one of very few who has both the ability and connections to get this done.

 

[TT33]

Hope Brendon gets the job.
HQ is failing the game with its poorly thought through rule changes, its reinterpretation of rules it hasn't actually changed and more generally its poorly thought through decisions in regard to the establishment of new franchises. This list could go on.
It is now in a position where it has two clubs GC and GWS, which have to be financially supported and with no end to that need in sight, (plus the Saints).

Tasmania won't accept a North Melbourne switch, and the Presidents are quite reasonably saying we can't afford to create a new franchise, which like GC and GWS, has no reasonable chance of being able to support itself.
Brendon is a football person and has proven himself to be a first class administrator. He will want a Tasmanian team, which won't drag the game down. The only way through will include a combination of State Govt and Private enterprise ownership. Tasmanian's absolutely deserve their own team.
Hate to lose him but I suspect Brendon is one of very few who has both the ability and connections to get this done.

Unfortunately/fortunately That's why he won't get the job + he's not a bona fide member of the AFLs boys club.

He'd do a fantastic job if he got it, but!!!!!!

 

[momentai]

Even Mince Whately referred to the angst between the AFL and Richmond when discussing on radio Gale’s potential (or lack of) to be the next CEO of the AFL. Made a clear point of suggesting the relationship was not great. Been saying that myself for a few years.

Mince has a very cosy relationship with HQ, which includes advance knowledge of news. Will continue to support the insiders and put down Gale at every opportunity.

 

[The Big Richo]

tried before, its pointless, especially to a man who thinks culture doesn't exist. pundits have regularly said there are 'problems' between Richmond and the AFL for last 2 years. Hocking bringing in stand rule to rein in us, I think you don't buy that so whatever, the Womens side, Caro said at the time we were shafted, Peggy alluded to it but alluded might be a bit subtle right? There are many more individual examples that have been discussed thoughtfully and compellingly on here.

I don't buy those things because the prosecution is weak. The stand rule theory was born because a third tier Herald Sun journo wrote something like 'it is believed Hocking observed Trent Cotchin working the mark in the hub' or something similar. No quotes, no facts, just weak half speculation. I've never seen any evidence beyond that.

As for the AFLW rejection the first episode of the Originals podcast on the RFC website is worth a listen where O'Neal and Gale discuss it. They essentially say we thought we had a really strong bid and can't understand why it was rejected. I'd imagine that's how anyone who ever prepared a rejected submission would feel. It's human nature.
Gale also says “I think the thing we did learn is you’ve got to really lobby. Lobby really hard. You’ve got to push you’ve got to politick, you’ve got to influence. And we probably thought we were above that, to be honest,”
“And maybe it was a hubris. We probably thought: we’re strong in this space, we’ve got a really strong record and we deserve a licence.”
So there's at least a sense that maybe we were too comfortable and didn't go hard enough to make our case. He also says at another point that the strongest part of our bid was having a female president. Not sure about that logic either.

When you talk about thoughtful and compelling arguments here's where I sit. You've got a very successful organisation in the AFL who are about to make one of it's biggest investments of all time in creating a new female competition, a competition that is facing enormous challenges in terms of finances and support. The suggestion is then that the AFL look at a group of bids, one of whom is from a very successful club with a huge supporter base and say you know what, we desperately want this competition to work, we've got a huge amount of money riding on it, and that is a great bid but we don't like them so stuff them. I'm afraid I don't find that logic thoughtful or compelling.

As usual, I dont agree in the main with TBR. My view is that it was actually a bit of a spiteful post.

It's not a spiteful post at all. It's a post considering reasons why Gale might not be a favoured candidate as AFL CEO beyond just the AFL hate us.

I'm genuinely curious as to why Gale doesn't seem to be in the mix for the job and as I don't buy the anti-Richmond AFL angle, I'm looking for what the reasons might be.

People need to get over this idea that questioning or criticising Richmond people is out of bounds. Just like anyone they have strengths and weaknesses and it is ok to discuss them.

 

[tigerman]

I'm genuinely curious as to why Gale doesn't seem to be in the mix for the job and as I don't buy the anti-Richmond AFL angle, I'm looking for what the reasons might be.

Where has it been said that Benny "doesn't seem to be in the mix for the job".......It is the AFL who doesn't want Benny to be the next CEO.
Most of the media outlets that I've read have said that he would be a good choice.



"Richmond CEO Brendon Gale, the former players’ union boss who helped turn the Tigers from basketcase to triple premiers, should be the standout external candidate but bizarrely is not highly rated by the AFL commission."

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-source-reveals-josh-frydenberg-not-in-line-to-replace-outgoing-ceo-gillon-mclachlan/news-story/181d607e4fd2dcce93739b377df4911c

"The 244-game Tigers veteran and Richmond chief executive since 2009 has proven time and again that he has the ability to turn the unattainable into reality.
A lawyer by trade — and the former chief executive of the AFL Players' Association — Gale inherited a basket case of a club in 2009, with the Tigers $5 million in debt and finishing perennially in the unhappy half of the AFL ladder."

From Mamamia to the wonderful world of Disney: Who's next in line to become the AFL's boss?

Gillon McLachlan has announced he will stand down as the AFL's chief executive at the end of 2022. The field is wide open to replace him, but several candidates have taken an early lead.

www.abc.net.au

"The leading internal candidates are the AFL’s legal counsel and general manager of football operations Andrew Dillon and the head of finance, clubs and broadcasting Travis Auld, while Richmond CEO Brendon Gale leads the set of club-based candidates."

The main contenders: Who will take over from Gillon McLachlan?

AFL chairman Richard Goyder says he’s excited at examining the potential successors to AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan. Here are the top contenders for the job.

www.theage.com.au

 

[IanG]

I'm genuinely curious as to why Gale doesn't seem to be in the mix for the job and as I don't buy the anti-Richmond AFL angle, I'm looking for what the reasons might be.

People need to get over this idea that questioning or criticising Richmond people is out of bounds. Just like anyone they have strengths and weaknesses and it is ok to discuss them.

It is the way you frame your posts. You aren't simply questioning as you claim here.

 

[The Big Richo]

Where has it been said that Benny "doesn't seem to be in the mix for the job".......It is the AFL who doesn't want Benny to be the next CEO.

Yes, in the AFL eyes.

 

[tigerman]

Yes, in the AFL eyes.

Because he has been a poor CEO at Richmond?

 

[tigersnake]

I don't buy those things because the prosecution is weak. The stand rule theory was born because a third tier Herald Sun journo wrote something like 'it is believed Hocking observed Trent Cotchin working the mark in the hub' or something similar. No quotes, no facts, just weak half speculation. I've never seen any evidence beyond that.

As for the AFLW rejection the first episode of the Originals podcast on the RFC website is worth a listen where O'Neal and Gale discuss it. They essentially say we thought we had a really strong bid and can't understand why it was rejected. I'd imagine that's how anyone who ever prepared a rejected submission would feel. It's human nature.
Gale also says “I think the thing we did learn is you’ve got to really lobby. Lobby really hard. You’ve got to push you’ve got to politick, you’ve got to influence. And we probably thought we were above that, to be honest,”
“And maybe it was a hubris. We probably thought: we’re strong in this space, we’ve got a really strong record and we deserve a licence.”
So there's at least a sense that maybe we were too comfortable and didn't go hard enough to make our case. He also says at another point that the strongest part of our bid was having a female president. Not sure about that logic either.

When you talk about thoughtful and compelling arguments here's where I sit. You've got a very successful organisation in the AFL who are about to make one of it's biggest investments of all time in creating a new female competition, a competition that is facing enormous challenges in terms of finances and support. The suggestion is then that the AFL look at a group of bids, one of whom is from a very successful club with a huge supporter base and say you know what, we desperately want this competition to work, we've got a huge amount of money riding on it, and that is a great bid but we don't like them so stuff them. I'm afraid I don't find that logic thoughtful or compelling.

As usual I find your logic flawed and odd. At the broad level, you can pluck out a single example and question it, thats fair enough, but when those single examples mount up and become a trend, thats when it gets compelling. And that is where we are at with the AFL. A clear trend. But you always focus on any given example and question it. Fair enough, but that is not how political analysis works. Its all about the trend.

Second, I find it surprising that you've used that evidence of the discussion of the AFLW bid rejection to strengthen your argument, it actually strengthens mine. Peggy O'Neal is an extremely effective corporate high flyer out in the real world, beyond the AFL (boys club) bubble. If Peggy says she can't understand why the bid was rejected, that's good enough for me.

Often to me BR, you don't seem to understand how politics works. I apologise if thats condescending, but that is the impression I get. The dodgey way the AFL operates, in many ways, isn't unusual. Dirty politics, petty jealousies, favouritism, nepotism, lack of accoutability, all of these things happen in large and small organisations everywhere. I would have thought most people who have worked in a few different jobs, experienced a bit of life, would be aware of that. To me the likelihood is higher in an organisation like the AFL, big money, competitive alpha male environment, no clear and robust accountability mechanism.

 

[Harry]

I don't buy those things because the prosecution is weak. The stand rule theory was born because a third tier Herald Sun journo wrote something like 'it is believed Hocking observed Trent Cotchin working the mark in the hub' or something similar. No quotes, no facts, just weak half speculation. I've never seen any evidence beyond that.

Leppa has stated that he discussed this with Hocking.

 

[tigersnake]

Year of the Tiger posted this in the Tasmania thread. I think its relevant to this thread as well, in case anyone missed it, sorry I don't know how to quote across threads:

"Your right - but I have dealt with the AFL when I lived in Melb for nearly 20 years and I had quite a lot of dealings with the AFL when I was working on the Comm Games and in international trade.

They were appalling to work with, you couldn’t trust them, they were highly unprofessional, manipulative, self interested and unaccountable - and this culture existed for at least the 6 years I was involved in international sport development.

So what I am observing now in regards to a Tassie team is not a surprise - they don’t know what they are doing, will say one thing but do something completely different and will change their mind as quick as you can fart after eating a second hand sausage.

So yes, I am really frustrated because they are leading a whole state up that garden path pretending it will happen.

Rants over - but I am enjoying the debate here."

 

[MD Jazz]

!

Leppa has stated that he discussed this with Hocking.

100%. Leppa admitted as such on SEN, I think it was on a Sat crunch time segment. Hocking and Leppitsch discussed how crucial manning the mark was to the tigers turnover game. Leppa said he didn't mond doing it has he had finished at the tigers. The stand rule was a Hocking brainchild.

 

[The Big Richo]

As usual I find your logic flawed and odd. At the broad level, you can pluck out a single example and question it, thats fair enough, but when those single examples mount up and become a trend, thats when it gets compelling. And that is where we are at with the AFL. A clear trend. But you always focus on any given example and question it. Fair enough, but that is not how political analysis works. Its all about the trend.

Second, I find it surprising that you've used that evidence of the discussion of the AFLW bid rejection to strengthen your argument, it actually strengthens mine. Peggy O'Neal is an extremely effective corporate high flyer out in the real world, beyond the AFL (boys club) bubble. If Peggy says she can't understand why the bid was rejected, that's good enough for me.

At least we have one thing in common then I guess.

The issue I have is your trend seems to be based on every example being questionable, which makes the trend made-up.

Based on all available evidence the Hocking/stand rule/sabotage theory is tissue paper thin. And now you say the supporting evidence of something untoward in the AFLW bid is the person who prepared the bid thought it was really good and is disappointed it was rejected? I'm not sure what else she could be expected to say. I bet every club who prepared one thought their bids were pretty good as well.

I don't profess to have your expertise on matters politics, and maybe my view is naive and gullible but I'm still not understanding the motivation for this alleged anti-Richmond AFL stance.

O'Neal and Gale are basically non-entities when it comes to challenging the AFL, in public anyway. Meanwhile you have other clubs with people like Kennett or Gordon or Cochrane teeing off at them anytime they feel the need. Why aren't they in the naughty corner?

Our coach is also tame compared to the many when it comes to criticism.

Too successful? Where was the campaign to bring Hawthorn down? Or Geelong?

So what is it Richmond have done to provoke this sentiment and incur the wrath of the AFL? I just can't see where it comes from.

 

[The Big Richo]

!

100%. Leppa admitted as such on SEN, I think it was on a Sat crunch time segment. Hocking and Leppitsch discussed how crucial manning the mark was to the tigers turnover game. Leppa said he didn't mond doing it has he had finished at the tigers. The stand rule was a Hocking brainchild.

It would be great to find that interview, I've searched and searched but to no avail.