the review

[the claw]

when are the findings being released. when terry gate was happening we were told nothing would be done until the reviews findings came thru mid season. so what the hell is going on.are the members/supporters going to be kept in the dark again as usual.
it had damn well better be comprehensive and most importantly honest even if it bags the head honchos.

 

[The_General]

Claw, the review will probably not be widely available.

You might see generic stuff like, we don't believe we've spent enough money on player development, or skills etc, but you probably won't see/hear specific comments about employees.

The club has to be careful with what it does, as it is discussing the very futures of some employees, and their perceived skills and short comings. No employee should have that published in any industry, it should remain in house.

 

[Freezer]

I'd have thought the review ended when Wallace left. Surely no football department review could exist when there isn't a coach? What would be the point? Any necessary restructuring can only take place once the coach is in place.

 

[The_General]

Because the review takes into account everything, up to and including the coach.

It looks at player development, it looks at strength and conditioning, player welfare, recruitment, etc, etc.

Just because the head coach is gone, doesn't mean the assistant won't be looked at, as to whether they should continue. Doesn't mean our S & C trainers should stay. We might find we don't have enough recruiters.

 

[the claw]

Claw, the review will probably not be widely available.

You might see generic stuff like, we don't believe we've spent enough money on player development, or skills etc, but you probably won't see/hear specific comments about employees.

The club has to be careful with what it does, as it is discussing the very futures of some employees, and their perceived skills and short comings. No employee should have that published in any industry, it should remain in house.

ah so its a white wash why have it if its not open to scrutiny or only open to those who may be scrutinised.

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

ah so its a white wash why have it if its not open to scrutiny or only open to those who may be scrutinised.

Are you aware of any similar review of any other club that has been made fully public?

 

[jb03]

I think the review is a myth. We just going to wheel it out to get rid of Wallace if we needed another reason.

 

[waiting]

I guess Claw the review will not be made public to you and i and us supporters.

The proof will be in the steps they take from who they select as coach and all those underneath him.

Money has to be spent in key areas. Funds are now available.

Skills, Fitness, Recruiters, Assistants= people proven in their field who have had success.

NO STONE UNTURNED TO GET THE BEST AVAILABLE TO OUR CLUB.

 

[hopper]

In review we trust!!

 

[johnson2richo2003]

ah so its a white wash why have it if its not open to scrutiny or only open to those who may be scrutinised.

Cant recall Geelong making its review for public consumption

 

[Nico]

I think the review is a myth.

I share your scepticism.

Can anyone advise when this review process commenced? Are external consultants involved? How long does a review of a football club take anyway? This is a footy club with 40 odd players and a few dozen employees, not NASA.

I just can't come to terms how a thorough review can't be conducted in a few months by an experienced consultancy firm with access to all areas.

 

[meltiger]

when are the findings being released. when terry gate was happening we were told nothing would be done until the reviews findings came thru mid season. so what the hell is going on.are the members/supporters going to be kept in the dark again as usual.
it had damn well better be comprehensive and most importantly honest even if it bags the head honchos.

Even though I disagree, one could make the argument the club owes the members enough to make it public, however given you're not a member, the club really owes you diddly squat.

 

[TOT70]

I jumped in the car yesterday. SEN were inerviewing Port Power's new Chairman about the situation with MArk Williams. He talked about their review, which had been conducted out of the public eye. Apparently, they had started it, finished it and implemented it, without telling anyone.

These reviews are becoming like Alien sightings. We know they are out there but where is the proof that they really exist?

 

[Redford]

Poo poo to the review ?

 

[Tigers of Old]

The review worked if we improve.
It didn't if we don't.

It's one thing to work out the problems, another thing altogether rectifying them.

 

[The_General]

I share your scepticism.

Can anyone advise when this review process commenced? Are external consultants involved? How long does a review of a football club take anyway? This is a footy club with 40 odd players and a few dozen employees, not NASA.

I just can't come to terms how a thorough review can't be conducted in a few months by an experienced consultancy firm with access to all areas.

The review started 2 years ago after the Sydney game.
One of the recommendations to come out of the review was to move Greg Miller away from recruitment etc.

As you can what happened when we moved Greg on, the club wants to keep the rest of the review controlled as possible.

 

[year of the tiger]

Hopefully the review remains private. I don't want all the other clubs picking over what RFC plans strategically over the coming years.

The review should inform what type of person (skills etc) that we need to move the club into the top 8, and what support structures they require to get the max out of our list.

 

[In the Blood]

Even though I disagree, one could make the argument the club owes the members enough to make it public, however given you're not a member, the club really owes you diddly squat.

What do you mean CLAW is not a member? Surely not.

 

[tigers80]

so how long has this review been going now 2 years... :rofl