The Elephant in the Room

[Jeanette54]

Time and time again posters on this forum have pointed out that we are not a "destination" club. Why is that so ? (With apologies to Professor Miller).

There is no doubt that this has, and will continue, to have a profound effect on our recruiting (and success) in this age of free agent trading.

We all seem to accept this as a fact, but nobody to date has raised this as a specific topic of discussion. and to my knowledge no club official has broached this in an official manner.

We not only pay the price with a lack of FA's being recruited but also with the number of stars who leave.

Why are we not thought of as a destination club ? What are the factors which give rise to this perception ? And, more importantly, what can we do to change this ?

[chef]

Because we arent a big club or a fashionable club or a successful club or a rich club.

Sadly we arent 'relevant' very often and in a market with at least 6 better options we will always struggle.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

It’s just the same old small club thing. Look at North and St Kilda. All the players want to play for the big clubs. FA was designed, or should I say marketed, to be good for equalisation. But everyone knew it would have the opposite effect and it is. Unfortunately those in the media don’t help. I’ll vomit if I hear one more time how good it is having the big Melbourne clubs at the top of the ladder. Unfortunately the AFEL really doesn’t give a dam about equalisation. They only care about $$$ and the smaller clubs exist to simply satisfy a footy craving. But make no mistake, the AFEL don’t have a genuine interest in making the comp equal. The fixture is evidence of that. Until the fixture is equalised, and we are given rights to blockbuster games like pathetic Carlton continue to get, players will continue to choose the big clubs who play in prime time slots and as a result get bigger supporter bases like a viscous cycle. We are seriously lucky we recruited a star in the Bont. And that’s the way we’ll have to continue to get stars, through the draft.....until the eventually leave for the bigger clubs....that viscous cycle

[Bulldog Joe]

I believe the problem is also due to post career options.

There seem to be many more non-football things available from the 'BIG` clubs.

Nathan Brown and Ben Holland were both promised access to property development through Richmond President Clinton Casey.

Chris Judd had the contract as a Visy ambassador.

Who knows what contacts open up via Club coterie groups at several clubs.

Until all those arrangements are captured within the salary cap, we are nowhere near a level playing field.

[Doc26]

Having top notch administration for a sustained period helps enormously, which often leads to sustained on-field success.

It wasn't that far back in the history of the game, talking early mid seventies, where Hawthorn where somewhat of a minnow like ourselves. Off the back of prolonged very strong administration, Ryan/ Lauritz, Dicker, Kennett etc, they've made excellent choices along the journey of identifying and bringing in key personnel to lead and grow the Club to be the power it is today.

To a lesser extent, Geelong have only elevated themselves in more recent times to be the power it is today off the back of incredibly strong and astute administration, talking Frank Costa / Carter / Brian Cook (20+ years).

Following sustained on-field success, Hawthorn became very vulnerable through the mid-late nineties where they were an inch away from merging with Melbourne.Whether these Clubs have done enough now to sustain themselves or shield themselves through the bad times will remain to be seen.

Richmond themselves, now seen as the #1 destination club, where far from that just a handful of years back. Recall Adam Treloar's quote, “A lot of people might think I’m silly because Richmond have a lot of good players … but I think Collingwood have a better list, and a younger list, who in a couple of years’ time can hopefully win a premiership,”. Collingwood had finished 11th and 12th during the lead up to his decision.

Going a little further back, mid to late eighties, the Tiges were on the precipice of a relocation up north. For those old enough to remember, they had their famous call to arms campaign, 'Save Our Skins".

Again, off the back of recent very astute administration under O'Neill and Gale has the tide turned for them. Of course for a Club like Richmond which has such a strong historical base of supporters does help to shield them more from the down times more than it might the minnows of the competition.

Anyway, for mine the lesson over time is it starts at the top, having a high functioning Board, Chairman and CEO in place for a sustained period, and things like becoming a "Destination Club" will come into light.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Part of why I was so frustrated with our inept ability to cope with a Premiership is that we blew an amazing opportunity to forever change our football club.

Instead of getting on the front foot to recruit players who could help us become even better (ie. Richmond now), we let solid depth players leave for nothing (Hamling, Stevens, Hrovat) and recruited a washed up Travis Cloke.

We had a chance to capitalise on our incredible success and feelgood stories but we were too busy drinking bath water with individuals trying to take credit for the flag.

Hawthorn, Geelong and Richmond didn't lose their depth after winning flags - they added to it. We won the best flag in history and had a number of players leave or consider leaving (Adams and Jong at the time) - why?

We have missed the boat to become a destination club for now. If there's a next time, then hopefully we capitalise instead of sitting on our hands.

[Mitcha]

Playing two games in cold and windy Ballarat in front of <6000 people surely can't help when other clubs can point to marquee fixtures in front of massive crowds at the G. Why would any gun prospective free agent want to pick us? Surely makes the list managers job hard selling that scenario.

[ledge]

It’s a fallacy, we have got Boyd , Crozier, Cloke, Trengove , Akermanis, Hall, Winmar, Jackovich, the list goes on as far as big names coming to the club, some didn’t come off but to say we don’t bring big players to the club isn’t true.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

It’s a fallacy, we have got Boyd , Crozier, Cloke, Trengove , Akermanis, Hall, Winmar, Jackovich, the list goes on as far as big names coming to the club, some didn’t come off but to say we don’t bring big players to the club isn’t true.

Not sure that stacks up upon closer inspection.
Jakovich,Winmar,Cloke, Hall & Aker were hardly in great demand and were either coming to the end and/or had few suitors due to particular issues.
Boyd was the only true 'coup' and even then not a bona fide star, but more a highly touted prospect.
Our history suggests more often we end up attracting fringe or solid workman types.
Apart from Hurley when have we been linked to a major trade? Hawks have several almost every year.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

It’s a fallacy, we have got Boyd , Crozier, Cloke, Trengove , Akermanis, Hall, Winmar, Jackovich, the list goes on as far as big names coming to the club, some didn’t come off but to say we don’t bring big players to the club isn’t true.

Boyd, sure - but we paid through the nose. Nevertheless it paid off.

Crozier and Trengove are not big names - they were fringe players.

Cloke was finished, Hall, Aker and Winmar were all at the tail end of their careers.

Compare this with the likes of Richmond, Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn etc. who have all brought in multiple guns entering their prime/at their peak.

[bornadog]

I think players get sucked in by the MCG teams because they guarantee them block busters in front of huge crowds. They see us as a small club, even though we are now debt free, and growing with some assets donated from the Vic government.

As TBB said, if we had started to create a dynasty over the past two seasons, we had the chance to feel like a club you can come to and play finals footy.

I think we have the players to do it, and if we can play regular finals over the next 5 years, players will want to come.

[Twodogs]

I think players get sucked in by the MCG teams because they guarantee them block busters in front of huge crowds. They see us as a small club, even though we are now debt free, and growing with some assets donated from the Vic government.

As TBB said, if we had started to create a dynasty over the past two seasons, we had the chance to feel like a club you can come to and play finals footy.

I think we have the players to do it, and if we can play regular finals over the next 5 years, players will want to come.


Bingo. That and the under the counter payments that clubs like Essendon pay.


If we wanted to be a big club then we shouldn't have let the AFL push us around the way they did (changing rules to counter or strengths like third man up and calling us for throwing the ball whether we handballed it or not) after we won the flag. We also should have gone to war to keep the Good Friday match v North. Last year we were excluded and now we won't ever get access to it again, the AFL plainly want North and Carlton playing in it.

We were pioneers of women's football and we were honouring the pink breast cancer match with Melbourne before any other club were interested, but now that it's a big thing we are out the door. Even the EJ Whitten match was played at Whitten oval in the first place but now we have no connection to it at all.

If we want to be a big club then it has to start with us standing up for ourselves and refusing to be pushed around.

[bornadog]

Well said TD, "If we want to be a big club then it has to start with us standing up for ourselves and refusing to be pushed around."

[Doc26]

Well said TD, "If we want to be a big club then it has to start with us standing up for ourselves and refusing to be pushed around."

So what’s behind why we don’t or haven’t done this? Where does the buck stop? Where is the failing?
I would say this starts at the top and culturally needs to permeate through the Club with leaders that know how to properly identify and engage others to enact on it over a sustained period.

[bornadog]

So what’s behind why we don’t or haven’t done this? Where does the buck stop? Where is the failing?
I would say this starts at the top and culturally needs to permeate through the Club with leaders that know how to properly identify and engage others to enact on it over a sustained period.

Starts with the President. I thought Smorgan, although good for us, never stood up to the AFL, but then again with debts over our heads at the time, it was difficult.

Now that we are debt free and reporting our third straight year of $1 million profit, things will change and PG should take advantage of it.

[Rocco Jones]

We had Hurley very close to joining us in 2016. Get our shit in order and win a lot of games and the free agents will want to come.

[BulldogBelle]

Our shit is not in order and never has been. Nobody knows why the club exists and what its purpose is. We have a house with no real foundation. It all starts with declaring what you are about and what you plan to do. For example, the team is formed to represent all people with an emphasis on those living the the Western Suburbs of Melbourne and the purpose of the club is to win premierships.

If you do that properly the administration should not continually give contracts to blatantly sub-standard players such as Honeychurch and Jong. We have been doing this sort of thing for years and years.

The purpose of the club being to 'win premierships' can also include being socially responsible and community aware as this will help with sponsorships and memberships that in turn help win a premiership. We have to revise our constitution. Make sure everybody is pulling in the same direction and know what expectations are.

The next main important element (as pointed out by others here) is to have strong and smart leadership and administration with continuity. We have a champion at the moment in the form of Peter Gordon. We need to have quality documented processes and procedures that exceed industry standards. Putting this into place will cost effort, time and money. There are businesses that can guide us through the process but I don't think that the will of the leadership or the money required is there.

We will just keep stumbling along until we start to get truly professional.

For an analogy - an army does not win a war on its own. It needs leadership, industrial might to back it up and ideals to foster its morale.

[bornadog]

Our shit is not in order and never has been. Nobody knows why the club exists and what its purpose is. We have a house with no real foundation. It all starts with declaring what you are about and what you plan to do. For example, the team is formed to represent all people with an emphasis on those living the the Western Suburbs of Melbourne and the purpose of the club is to win premierships.

If you do that properly the administration should not continually give contracts to blatantly sub-standard players such as Honeychurch and Jong. We have been doing this sort of thing for years and years.

The purpose of the club being to 'win premierships' can also include being socially responsible and community aware as this will help with sponsorships and memberships that in turn help win a premiership. We have to revise our constitution. Make sure everybody is pulling in the same direction and know what expectations are.

The next main important element (as pointed out by others here) is to have strong and smart leadership and administration with continuity. We have a champion at the moment in the form of Peter Gordon. We need to have quality documented processes and procedures that exceed industry standards. Putting this into place will cost effort, time and money. There are businesses that can guide us through the process but I don't think that the will of the leadership or the money required is there.

We will just keep stumbling along until we start to get truly professional.

For an analogy - an army does not win a war on its own. It needs leadership, industrial might to back it up and ideals to foster its morale.

Are you sure you aren't stuck in the 70s, because the club is nothing like what you describe.

[Twodogs]

Well said TD, "If we want to be a big club then it has to start with us standing up for ourselves and refusing to be pushed around."

Cheers. I'm just getting a bit sick of the "woe is us" narrative. The supporters seem to suffer from it, the players seem to suffer from us. I really thought it would change after 2016 and a vibrant and confident bulldogs would appear. We blew a huge opportunity.



Are you sure you aren't stuck in the 70s, because the club is nothing like what you describe.

I see James' point and to an extent I agree with it. What's our Mission Statement? What's the point of our existence? I don't think those things are ever fully annunciated and as a result we tend to flop around like a flathead in the bottom of the boat and if we don't get ahead of things like that then our future is going to be pretty the same as that flathead.

We have a huge chance to make ourselves the natural club of the increasing population of the fastest growing corridor in Australia. But it won't just happen. We have to make it happen with consistent football and identified goals. In September and October 2016 there were so many people sporting red, white and blue-I have never seen so many bulldog supporters as I did on the Sunday after the GF. All we had to do was follow up and we would be well on the way to monolith status. I reckon those people would have stuck even after a disappointing year last year if we had a good year this year. But I fear we've blown that situation and it's going to take a LOT of work to win them back.

[BulldogBelle]

Are you sure you aren't stuck in the 70s, because the club is nothing like what you describe.

What is the club like then?

What is our mission statement?

Why do we keep giving contracts to sub-standard players.

Why is the renewal process for memberships always mucked up?

Why has there been so many sackings of management staff?

What is the impression that other people have of us? What is our corporate image like?

How do the majority of our own supporters see ourselves?

I got really sick and tired of the numerous times that Martin Flanagan, in his book, 'A Wink from the Universe', referred to us in a 'poor bugger me' way.

It may have been a lot worse in the 70's but I can't see the club striving for excellence right now.

[Webby]

Cheers. I'm just getting a bit sick of the "woe is us" narrative. The supporters seem to suffer from it, the players seem to suffer from us. I really thought it would change after 2016 and a vibrant and confident bulldogs would appear. We blew a huge opportunity.




I see James' point and to an extent I agree with it. What's our Mission Statement? What's the point of our existence? I don't think those things are ever fully annunciated and as a result we tend to flop around like a flathead in the bottom of the boat and if we don't get ahead of things like that then our future is going to be pretty the same as that flathead.

We have a huge chance to make ourselves the natural club of the increasing population of the fastest growing corridor in Australia. But it won't just happen. We have to make it happen with consistent football and identified goals. In September and October 2016

It's funny how different people can see the same thing in different ways, but I've honestly got a completely different view of all of this. The way I see it, the club has an enormous monkey off its back by cracking a premiership. Now, rather than taking the old Norf or approach of simply trying to finish as high as possible each year, we've switched our focus to building for our next window.

That's the confidence that comes from a flag. I don't think our identity's ever been clearer. We've developed a really strong, reputable VFL club and a system which develops AFL players. Unfortunately we've suffered the biggest injury list in the entire AFL over the past 24 months. (It's a fact that the Bulldogs have had more weeks lost to injury per player than any other club since our flag.) So, when that's the case, you blood kids for your next flag push. That takes confidence and stability.

We've been ruthless with Dahlhaus. We've also been sensible, imo. The beauty of winning a flag is that some players' reputations become inflated beyond reality. Dahl is a limited player. He doesn't hurt teams. He strikes me as being a bit banged up and he's been passed by McLean, Hunter, Macrae and perhaps Daniel. This, with Rhylee West firmly in the shopping cart. If the rumours re Dahl's Geelong contract are true, we're in line for an end of first round compo pick. That's simply good business.

With Stringer, we flicked a player with a poor attitude who was popular with a number of young fans. This, in order to bring in one of the most promising young forwards in the game. In days gone bye, we wouldn't have had the balls to do that. We'd be clinging to a flimsy balance sheet with a self-conscious administration afraid to look long-term.

We've nailed our two top picks in last year's draft. (Did any other club nail a double as good as Naughton and Richards??)
Schache was ultimately very good business. Lynch just looks a 200 gamer. Gowers has been a big bonus, Williams has grown enormously. Crozier is an upgrade on Biggs and (although this is painful to say), Trengove is an upgrade on Roughy.

Libba's knee and Smith's knee and Morris's knee were simply bad luck. They hurt us - particularly at the start of the year. However, in those circumstances, the club has made hay whilst the sun's shone. We have as many good kids as anyone.

Have no doubt, this year was an investment. A good one.

[Go_Dogs]

How much of recruitment and players electing to join a club comes down to money? Existing friendships with the playing list? Coming home? Success? Future opportunities? Media exposure?

There are plenty of factors. Success and our players driving it with their peers seem the most important to me. If you get those things right, a lot of the other stuff happens organically.

[hujsh]

Our shit is not in order and never has been. Nobody knows why the club exists and what its purpose is. We have a house with no real foundation. It all starts with declaring what you are about and what you plan to do. For example, the team is formed to represent all people with an emphasis on those living the the Western Suburbs of Melbourne and the purpose of the club is to win premierships.

If you do that properly the administration should not continually give contracts to blatantly sub-standard players such as Honeychurch and Jong. We have been doing this sort of thing for years and years.





So what's the issue? The club hasn't 'declared' that their purpose is to win premierships? The 'Western' part is kind of in the name since the 90s so that's surely self evident.

Also you can't say that the club signing players you consider to be sub standard is the issue. If the club operated on the whims of every supporter it'd be choas. The reality is Bevo and others in the club must rate Honeychurch and Jong to some extent and see current or future benefits to having them on the list. You're within your rights to disagree (I know I do on Honeychurch) but Bailey Williams would have been delisted in round 2 if the club went by what the fans think



The purpose of the club being to 'win premierships' can also include being socially responsible and community aware as this will help with sponsorships and memberships that in turn help win a premiership. We have to revise our constitution. Make sure everybody is pulling in the same direction and know what expectations are.



So things like the development of the Whitten Oval to meet community needs, the mens health initiative the club runs, the promotion of womens football etc? This sounds to me like what the club already does and I've considered the Dogs a good community club personally. Where are they falling short and on what basis do you make that judgement?



The next main important element (as pointed out by others here) is to have strong and smart leadership and administration with continuity. We have a champion at the moment in the form of Peter Gordon. We need to have quality documented processes and procedures that exceed industry standards. Putting this into place will cost effort, time and money. There are businesses that can guide us through the process but I don't think that the will of the leadership or the money required is there.


This seems like something that's almost impossible to judge from the outside. I'm willing to admit I know nothing about the 'processes and procedures' of the club but how do we determine that we aren't above industry standards? How do we determine if we are?

It seems overly simplistic to basically say 'we need to be better than everyone else to win premierships'. Of course you do. That's how it works. Finding how to do that and the people who can make it possible is surely the hard part

[Doc26]

This seems like something that's almost impossible to judge from the outside. I'm willing to admit I know nothing about the 'processes and procedures' of the club but how do we determine that we aren't above industry standards? How do we determine if we are.

The constraint of a public forum is that there may indeed be some, or none, posting here that have a level of appreciation of what’s playing out within the Club but are in no position to divulge sources, nor should they if observed or heard in confidence. And even then it’s often coming from one side of the story. Like any organisation there will always be different opinions and perspectives.

[The bulldog tragician]

We shouldn’t have seen ourselves as a small club after pulling an enormous crowd against the Hawks in the finals, bringing in fantastic TV ratings whenever we played, and delivering one of the most popular, fairytale premierships in history in 2016, It is disappointing if we so quickly return to that narrative. I agree with Two Dogs that we remain too easily pushed around in fixturing and other issues while for one I am sick of us engaging in pointless bickering with a mediocre journalist like Damian Barrett.

I’m not sure about the original question of whether we’re a destination club. We don’t seem to even enter the conversation when a big name comes up. Whether that’s because we’re prudently waiting for our new generation to emerge, or are making overtures that are flatly rejected, who knows.

[hujsh]

The constraint of a public forum is that there may indeed be some, or none, posting here that have a level of appreciation of what’s playing out within the Club but are in no position to divulge sources, nor should they if observed or heard in confidence. And even then it’s often coming from one side of the story. Like any organisation there will always be different opinions and perspectives.

I'm not so much asking JC to reveal his sources, more asking if he has any insight into this that the rest of us don't. I'm willing to take most people here at face value when they say they know something or were told something by a particular individual (eg Wimberga's Jong tip this week)

[Eastdog]

It has been a rough 2 years that's for sure but the club I feel is moving in the right direction overall. There are a number things we have to do better at to go up the ladder but the early foundations are there from what I have seen from the young players this year. We need to make sure we keep some experience heads around the young players but also make changes in the list which is what we look like doing quite a bit of this off season. Dahlhaus hasn't been the same players for a while now and losing him I'm not that concerned about. In saying that there are players that I think must stay Wallis for example.

Off the field we are doing well and as BAD said we are debt free now which is great. First time probably in our history to be in that position. The Sons and Daughters of the West health programs are going strong and I've heard we have expand out into the northern suburbs now with the Sons of the West program. There are also many other community initiatives that we are involved in if you go onto the website.

Are we a destination club? I would think we were after the premiership but we probably still are with the exciting young list we have.

[ledge]

JC is pretty daming of us as a club but is a lover of the club .. guess we ask the same James what would make you follow a club like us ? Blind faith ?
Not meant as an insult but it begs the question ;-)

[Eastdog]

It has been disheartening in that we couldn't do a better flag defence but we need to move on learn from it and hopefully if we get into that position again not allow it to happen.

[ledge]

It has been disheartening in that we couldn't do a better flag defence but we need to move on learn from it and hopefully if we get into that position again not allow it to happen.

Refer hawks 2008 :-)

[Eastdog]

I saw 2 Doggies supporters down at Knox city today. Maybe one of them was EasternWest :) But yeah that's good to see. Always a good number of Dogs people when I train it in to games.

We have historically had a smaller supporter base but in recent years had the highest membership in our history. Need to continue to maintain that and continue to grow.

[EasternWest]

I saw 2 Doggies supporters down at Knox city today. Maybe one of them was EasternWest :) But yeah that's good to see. Always a good number of Dogs people when I train it in to games.

We have historically had a smaller supporter base but in recent years had the highest membership in our history. Need to continue to maintain that and continue to grow.

Not guilty your honour!

[Eastdog]

Not guilty your honour!

One day we should catch up at the Irish for a drink EW.

[Webby]

It has been disheartening in that we couldn't do a better flag defence but we need to move on learn from it and hopefully if we get into that position again not allow it to happen.

Reckon there’ll be other flags to defend...!

[1eyedog]

Not sure that stacks up upon closer inspection.
Jakovich,Winmar,Cloke, Hall & Aker were hardly in great demand and were either coming to the end and/or had few suitors due to particular issues.
Boyd was the only true 'coup' and even then not a bona fide star, but more a highly touted prospect.
Our history suggests more often we end up attracting fringe or solid workman types.
Apart from Hurley when have we been linked to a major trade? Hawks have several almost every year.

CramerI at the time and McDougall of course.

[BulldogBelle]

So what's the issue? The club hasn't 'declared' that their purpose is to win premierships? The 'Western' part is kind of in the name since the 90s so that's surely self evident.

Also you can't say that the club signing players you consider to be sub standard is the issue. If the club operated on the whims of every supporter it'd be choas. The reality is Bevo and others in the club must rate Honeychurch and Jong to some extent and see current or future benefits to having them on the list. You're within your rights to disagree (I know I do on Honeychurch) but Bailey Williams would have been delisted in round 2 if the club went by what the fans think



So things like the development of the Whitten Oval to meet community needs, the mens health initiative the club runs, the promotion of womens football etc? This sounds to me like what the club already does and I've considered the Dogs a good community club personally. Where are they falling short and on what basis do you make that judgement?



This seems like something that's almost impossible to judge from the outside. I'm willing to admit I know nothing about the 'processes and procedures' of the club but how do we determine that we aren't above industry standards? How do we determine if we are?

It seems overly simplistic to basically say 'we need to be better than everyone else to win premierships'. Of course you do. That's how it works. Finding how to do that and the people who can make it possible is surely the hard part

The club continuing to re-sign sub-standard players is a huge issue. First and foremost the club has to be in business TO WIN PREMIERSHIPS. If this is not the club's number one aim then of course it can continue to sign on sub-standard players who just do not have the ability to help win premierships. The fall-out from this is that you just do not win as many premierships, do no have a bigger supporter base, do not have better facilities, do not have a better image etc. I don't know what Bevo and the Football department think of Jong and Honeychurch. For example they may have been given contract extensions based upon something completely unrelated.

Signing on sub-standard players is not a whim. The club has forever given further contracts on numerous occasions when it is known that the player is sub-standard and will never come up to scratch - here are a few names Roarke Smith, Lucas Webb, Declan Hamilton, Liam Jones, Shane Birss, Lin Jong, Fletcher Roberts, Ben Harrison, Patrick Bowden, Nathan Hrovat, Koby Stevens, Michael Talia, Jason Tutt, Andrejs Everitt, Mitch Honeychurch, Adam Morgan, Trent Bartlett, Sam Darley, Tom Young, Nathan Djerrkura, Justin Sherman, Zephaniah Skinner, Brodie Moles, Tim Callan, Brad Murphy, Scott Bassett, Christian Howard, Nick Lower, James Mulligan, Ed Barlow, Andrew McDougall, Malcolm Lynch, Damien McCormack, Travis Baird, Steven Koops, Nick Bruton. The further you go back, the more you will list.

Of course signing on these players for further years has an opportunity cost. And that is that you don't get to sign on a new player who might be a gun (eg JJ and M Boyd), who will help you to win a premiership. Extrapolating that means that it costs you premierships to hang onto dud players. The club has to be better at cleaning out the rubbish. There is a slight risk that the player who should be delisted may come good. This is a risk that you have to take. Seems to me that the football department are wimps, too afraid to make a considered and calculated - if they are not wimps then why have they such a very, very poor record?

Your comment about whims and delisting Bailey Williams on the basis of popular support. Well I do not know if that was ever the case. I never said that players should be delisted based upon popular support. You started with a false assumption.

As a side comment - I remember that I spoke to Bailey Williams' landlady after he had played about his second game for Footscray telling her that I thought that he was going to be a star. Said the same to Bailey Williams himself a week later. However, I am not talking about delisting the sub-standards on the basis of popular support. My opinion is that generally speaking, the people who write in these forums (yourself excluded) have a better opinion of whom should be delisted or not than do the football department.

I can't believe that the football department at the club think that the likes of Honeychurch, Jong, Webb, Roberts and in the recent past Howard and Hamilton will ever rise to be anything but a slightly sub-standard player. There has to be some other reason why they are given contracts, surely nobody can be that stupid. That reason I suggest to you would be in conflict with why I think the club should be in existence - TO WIN PREMIERSHIPS.

You mention 'things like the development of the Whitten Oval to meet community needs, the mens health initiative the club runs, the promotion of womens football etc? This sounds to me like what the club already does and I've considered the Dogs a good community club personally. Where are they falling short and on what basis do you make that judgement'.

I never mentioned that the club was falling short here nor did I say that those things do not help us TO WIN PREMIERSHIPS, as matter of fact I stated the opposite. Your question cannot be answered as it is based upon a false premise.

You ask 'how do we determine that we aren't above industry standards? How do we determine if we are?'.

Its fairly easy, just observe what happens. If the administration was up to ISO 9001 standards or had a quality management system in place it would say so in its letterheads. You would notice the difference. I bet that most people on the staff have never heard of Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman.

[bornadog]

The club continuing to re-sign sub-standard players is a huge issue. .

In your opinion.

[hujsh]

The club continuing to re-sign sub-standard players is a huge issue. First and foremost the club has to be in business TO WIN PREMIERSHIPS. If this is not the club's number one aim then of course it can continue to sign on sub-standard players who just do not have the ability to help win premierships. The fall-out from this is that you just do not win as many premierships, do no have a bigger supporter base, do not have better facilities, do not have a better image etc. I don't know what Bevo and the Football department think of Jong and Honeychurch. For example they may have been given contract extensions based upon something completely unrelated.

Signing on sub-standard players is not a whim. The club has forever given further contracts on numerous occasions when it is known that the player is sub-standard and will never come up to scratch - here are a few names Roarke Smith, Lucas Webb, Declan Hamilton, Liam Jones, Shane Birss, Lin Jong, Fletcher Roberts, Ben Harrison, Patrick Bowden, Nathan Hrovat, Koby Stevens, Michael Talia, Jason Tutt, Andrejs Everitt, Mitch Honeychurch, Adam Morgan, Trent Bartlett, Sam Darley, Tom Young, Nathan Djerrkura, Justin Sherman, Zephaniah Skinner, Brodie Moles, Tim Callan, Brad Murphy, Scott Bassett, Christian Howard, Nick Lower, James Mulligan, Ed Barlow, Andrew McDougall, Malcolm Lynch, Damien McCormack, Travis Baird, Steven Koops, Nick Bruton. The further you go back, the more you will list.

Of course signing on these players for further years has an opportunity cost. And that is that you don't get to sign on a new player who might be a gun (eg JJ and M Boyd), who will help you to win a premiership. Extrapolating that means that it costs you premierships to hang onto dud players. The club has to be better at cleaning out the rubbish. There is a slight risk that the player who should be delisted may come good. This is a risk that you have to take. Seems to me that the football department are wimps, too afraid to make a considered and calculated - if they are not wimps then why have they such a very, very poor record?

Your comment about whims and delisting Bailey Williams on the basis of popular support. Well I do not know if that was ever the case. I never said that players should be delisted based upon popular support. You started with a false assumption.

As a side comment - I remember that I spoke to Bailey Williams' landlady after he had played about his second game for Footscray telling her that I thought that he was going to be a star. Said the same to Bailey Williams himself a week later. However, I am not talking about delisting the sub-standards on the basis of popular support. My opinion is that generally speaking, the people who write in these forums (yourself excluded) have a better opinion of whom should be delisted or not than do the football department.

I can't believe that the football department at the club think that the likes of Honeychurch, Jong, Webb, Roberts and in the recent past Howard and Hamilton will ever rise to be anything but a slightly sub-standard player. There has to be some other reason why they are given contracts, surely nobody can be that stupid. That reason I suggest to you would be in conflict with why I think the club should be in existence - TO WIN PREMIERSHIPS.


So the club simply needs to be able to employ 20/20 hindsight on current and prospective players. Great. Very helpful. My point around Williams is that you're listing players you don't like now who are fringe and have now added a list of players who have not make it (which you could do for every single club) but the only criteria to determine if players are sub standard is your personal judgement and the club operate's on the judgement of other AFL professionals instead of yours.

Also Fletcher Roberts is already a premiership player.

EDIT: Perhaps this was a bit unfair. So you are advocating moving players on sooner essentially. I think plenty here will agree we have a tendency to hold onto some players too long or sign them for extra years unecessarily but some you listed like Everitt and Stevens were players who had shown genuine talent and the ability to play at top level. Stevens would probably still be playing if not for injury. It wasn't necessarily the wrong choice to keep them as long as we did.

Edit Edit: I'm coming around again as I think it's revisionist history to look at the likes of Sherman and Talia and say 'they were never going to make it'. Sherman's a great example that doesn't prove your point because Rocket signed him specifically because he thought he'd help us win a premiership. He had played good footy at Brisbane, had real line breaking pace and only cost a pick in the high 20's. History says he was a fantastic failure but it's never that simple at the time. Talia looked like being a genuine 200 game player the very year we let him go. Earlier in the year most of us would have had him in our best 22. Many of us here thought Liam Jones would come good and didn't want him to leave but he makes your list as well. Sorry but while there are lessons to be leaned in some of the above your overall point doesn't wash with me.

How many of those players above even got second contracts after being signed? It'd be like roasting the club for signing Porter last year with the pick in the 50s or whatever we used on him. Will he be on your list in 3 years time? Short of having the powers of captain hindsight I don't think the club can ever truly satisfy you on this front. Players on your list like Jong and Roberts played finals in 2016 so they clearly are or were capable on contributing in a successful finals team.




You mention 'things like the development of the Whitten Oval to meet community needs, the mens health initiative the club runs, the promotion of womens football etc? This sounds to me like what the club already does and I've considered the Dogs a good community club personally. Where are they falling short and on what basis do you make that judgement'.

I never mentioned that the club was falling short here nor did I say that those things do not help us TO WIN PREMIERSHIPS, as matter of fact I stated the opposite. Your question cannot be answered as it is based upon a false premise.

Implicit in your statement appears to be the assumption that this is not something we adequately do. Nowhere did I state or indicate you believe these things hinder our ability to win a premiership and my questions operated on your assumption that they do (which I am not challenging). If you believe the club is already doing these things well then there's no need for further clarification though I suppose.






You ask 'how do we determine that we aren't above industry standards? How do we determine if we are?'.

Its fairly easy, just observe what happens. If the administration was up to ISO 9001 standards or had a quality management system in place it would say so in its letterheads. You would notice the difference. I bet that most people on the staff have never heard of Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman.

Others here may perhaps be better situated to speak to the suitability and quality of these practices. I'll admit I'm not familiar.

[MrMahatma]

I think James just wants to see the PowerPoint slide that outlines our Vision, Mission and Values written out.

Maybe ask the club to wack it in this year’s annual report.

[Mantis]

Its fairly easy, just observe what happens. If the administration was up to ISO 9001 standards or had a quality management system in place it would say so in its letterheads. You would notice the difference. I bet that most people on the staff have never heard of Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman.

Out of interest how many sporting organisations around the world are accredited with ISO 9001?

Whilst I see the value of a detailed QMS I'm not sure how relevant it is in this field... maybe we should have one and have a whole section on Player Contracts with the number 1 point being - Don't re-sign sub-standard players. (Please refer to WOOF poster James Cuming to get a run down on who is shit or not) Would that make you happy?

[EasternWest]

Please refer to WOOF poster James Cuming to get a run down on who is shit or not) Would that make you happy?

Lucky James is the only one on this board that makes commentary on signing what he terms sub standard players. Imagine how many people would need reprimanding over having an opinion.... Oh, wait.

[BulldogBelle]

Quote Originally Posted by James Cumming View Post
The club continuing to re-sign sub-standard players is a huge issue.


In your opinion.

You mean you do not think that it is a huge issue? (matches are won on small percentages).

Take Declan Hamilton as a prime example.

He was obviously no good and we should have delisted him as soon as we could.
He was given an extended contract. Amazing, on what basis did they give him an extra contract. How could they justify that? The mind boggles.

Then after his extension finished and he is still obviously no good, they give him another contract. WTF??? Unbelievable! I fall over.

Then after that contact is finished and he is still no good, they sign him on again. This is just plain stupidity. I fall over again and do a backflip. Surely the football department isn't that bad at judging talent. Its recklessness.

Hasn't anybody heard of OPPORTUNITY COST?

The path goes something like this:

1. Extend the contract of a non-competent player.

2a. Therefore you have absolutely no chance of replacing the player with a champion player eg M Boyd, JJ.

2b. Therefore the team loses more matches than they should because they do not have as good a team as they could.

3a. Therefore the team doesn't win premierships because it doesn't have enough good players.

3b. Therefore other good players get injured because they have to player harder.

4a. Therefore not winning premierships reduces the fan base.

4b. Therefore we do not win matches and premierships, not winning premierships reduces sponsorship opportunities.

5. Therefore the club gets substantial less income because it loses matches.

6. Therefore the club cannot afford better assets or facilities and more or better staff.

7. Therefore the club wins less premierships.

I have left a few obvious steps out in between some of the above, but you should get the gist of it.

So what is the opportunity cost of extending the contract of incompetent players, its not winning premierships . You want to put a dollar figure on it? Would ten million dollars seem OK?

We extend the contracts for more than one poor player every year. Sometimes we have about 12 players on the list who are just no good and should have been let go years earlier. What is our strike rate of picking up a good player as a late draft pick or rookie pick About 1 in 3.

[Topdog]

Lucky James is the only one on this board that makes commentary on signing what he terms sub standard players. Imagine how many people would need reprimanding over having an opinion.... Oh, wait.

Does anyone else do it with such arrogance?

[Ozza]

This thread is hilariously bad.

[1eyedog]

Quote Originally Posted by James Cumming View Post
The club continuing to re-sign sub-standard players is a huge issue.



You mean you do not think that it is a huge issue? (matches are won on small percentages).

Take Declan Hamilton as a prime example.

He was obviously no good and we should have delisted him as soon as we could.
He was given an extended contract. Amazing, on what basis did they give him an extra contract. How could they justify that? The mind boggles.

Then after his extension finished and he is still obviously no good, they give him another contract. WTF??? Unbelievable! I fall over.

Then after that contact is finished and he is still no good, they sign him on again. This is just plain stupidity. I fall over again and do a backflip. Surely the football department isn't that bad at judging talent. Its recklessness.

Hasn't anybody heard of OPPORTUNITY COST?

The path goes something like this:

1. Extend the contract of a non-competent player.

2a. Therefore you have absolutely no chance of replacing the player with a champion player eg M Boyd, JJ.

2b. Therefore the team loses more matches than they should because they do not have as good a team as they could.

3a. Therefore the team doesn't win premierships because it doesn't have enough good players.

3b. Therefore other good players get injured because they have to player harder.

4a. Therefore not winning premierships reduces the fan base.

4b. Therefore we do not win matches and premierships, not winning premierships reduces sponsorship opportunities.

5. Therefore the club gets substantial less income because it loses matches.

6. Therefore the club cannot afford better assets or facilities and more or better staff.

7. Therefore the club wins less premierships.

I have left a few obvious steps out in between some of the above, but you should get the gist of it.

So what is the opportunity cost of extending the contract of incompetent players, its not winning premierships . You want to put a dollar figure on it? Would ten million dollars seem OK?

We extend the contracts for more than one poor player every year. Sometimes we have about 12 players on the list who are just no good and should have been let go years earlier. What is our strike rate of picking up a good player as a late draft pick or rookie pick About 1 in 3.

Therefore a meteor falls out of the sky and smashes into Written oval.

I don't know how many late bloomers are there? 1 in 3? Probably less. You draft a player you give him every opportunity. Fair number of players failed to perform in 2-3 years at their first club and went onto long and successful careers at others. Maybe we wait a tad too long for breakout games from some of our past players (Howard, Cordy, Hamilton) but I'm not amazed this happens at our club. It happens at most clubs.

[BulldogBelle]

Out of interest how many sporting organisations around the world are accredited with ISO 9001?

Whilst I see the value of a detailed QMS I'm not sure how relevant it is in this field... maybe we should have one and have a whole section on Player Contracts with the number 1 point being - Don't re-sign sub-standard players. (Please refer to WOOF poster James Cuming to get a run down on who is shit or not) Would that make you happy?

I don't understand what you mean here? Are you saying that I am the only person who can tell which players are shit? Does nobody else realise that Jong, Roberts (despite the fact that he is a premiership player) and Honeychurch are sub-standard? I think not.

Are you quite happy that the club signs on these type of players year after year?

You, probably like me go to most matches for Footscray and Western Bulldogs and see the players in action. I guess like me you have seen the doggies play in well over 1000 matches. Are you trying to tell me that you can't pick a dud player after seeing him a dozen or so times? Don't believe you.

I have no idea which or how many sporting organisations are quality management accredited.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I don't understand what you mean here? Are you saying that I am the only person who can tell which players are shit? Does nobody else realise that Jong, Roberts (despite the fact that he is a premiership player) and Honeychurch are sub-standard? I think not.

Are you quite happy that the club signs on these type of players year after year?

You, probably like me go to most matches for Footscray and Western Bulldogs and see the players in action. I guess like me you have seen the doggies play in well over 1000 matches. Are you trying to tell me that you can't pick a dud player after seeing him a dozen or so times? Don't believe you.

I have no idea which or how many sporting organisations are quality management accredited.

There is such thing as depth players. We can't have a team of 40 awesome players. No team can.

[bornadog]

There is such thing as depth players. We can't have a team of 40 awesome players. No team can.

We also don't know what roles these players play. We can look at Jong and his stats and think wow for example, he only had 15 disposals, yet he could have been playing a negating role or whatever the coach wanted him to do.

As you said BTT, we need depth players and soldiers for cover.

[BulldogBelle]

Therefore a meteor falls out of the sky and smashes into Written oval.

I don't know how many late bloomers there are? 1 in 3? Probably less. You draft a player you give him every opportunity. Fair number of players failed to perform in 2-3 years at their first club and went onto long and successful careers at others. Maybe we wait a tad too long for breakout games from some of our past players (Howard, Cordy, Hamilton) but I'm not amazed this happens at our club. It happens at most clubs.

Late bloomers are pretty rare, it wouldn't be as good as 1 in 3. Probably Easton Wood, Tory Dickson and hopefully Brad Lynch may be late bloomers. You know talls take longer to develop so I wouldn't call those late bloomers.

We can't afford to wait to see if a player is going to be a late bloomer. Have to make a professional assessment. If we have a program whereby we delist sub-standard players early then we are obviously going to make some mistakes. Seems to me that the football management hang onto players too long because they are too afraid to make a mistake and delist them. This is WAP.

I think that Hawthorn are more efficient at delisting or trading off dud players. You may correct me there if I am wrong. I think that they made a boo-boo when they traded Josh Kennedy to Sydney.

[bornadog]

This thread has gone off the rails. The OP is asking about being a destination club.

[BulldogBelle]

There is such thing as depth players. We can't have a team of 40 awesome players. No team can.

Depth players are just the players who are not as good as the players who get a game. The football department recruits players of certain types to cover in the event of injuries. You don't keep dud players on for depth.

You say we can't have a team of 40 awesome players (salary cap will probably prevent that), but that should be our target.

Our aim should be to keep turning over our players until we have a team full of Patrick Dangerfields.

[BulldogBelle]

So the club simply needs to be able to employ 20/20 hindsight on current and prospective players. Great. Very helpful. My point around Williams is that you're listing players you don't like now who are fringe and have now added a list of players who have not make it (which you could do for every single club) but the only criteria to determine if players are sub standard is your personal judgement and the club operate's on the judgement of other AFL professionals instead of yours.

Also Fletcher Roberts is already a premiership player.

EDIT: Perhaps this was a bit unfair. So you are advocating moving players on sooner essentially. I think plenty here will agree we have a tendency to hold onto some players too long or sign them for extra years unecessarily but some you listed like Everitt and Stevens were players who had shown genuine talent and the ability to play at top level. Stevens would probably still be playing if not for injury. It wasn't necessarily the wrong choice to keep them as long as we did.

Edit Edit: I'm coming around again as I think it's revisionist history to look at the likes of Sherman and Talia and say 'they were never going to make it'. Sherman's a great example that doesn't prove your point because Rocket signed him specifically because he thought he'd help us win a premiership. He had played good footy at Brisbane, had real line breaking pace and only cost a pick in the high 20's. History says he was a fantastic failure but it's never that simple at the time. Talia looked like being a genuine 200 game player the very year we let him go. Earlier in the year most of us would have had him in our best 22. Many of us here thought Liam Jones would come good and didn't want him to leave but he makes your list as well. Sorry but while there are lessons to be leaned in some of the above your overall point doesn't wash with me.

How many of those players above even got second contracts after being signed? It'd be like roasting the club for signing Porter last year with the pick in the 50s or whatever we used on him. Will he be on your list in 3 years time? Short of having the powers of captain hindsight I don't think the club can ever truly satisfy you on this front. Players on your list like Jong and Roberts played finals in 2016 so they clearly are or were capable on contributing in a successful finals team.


Implicit in your statement appears to be the assumption that this is not something we adequately do. Nowhere did I state or indicate you believe these things hinder our ability to win a premiership and my questions operated on your assumption that they do (which I am not challenging). If you believe the club is already doing these things well then there's no need for further clarification though I suppose.



Others here may perhaps be better situated to speak to the suitability and quality of these practices. I'll admit I'm not familiar.


No the club does not employ 20/20 hindsight. I never said that. The club should make a proper assessment in the first place.

I am not listing players who are now fringe. I am listing players who are obviously sub-standard and I think will always be so. The list of past players that I gave were of players who I assessed to be sub-standard at the time but were given a further contract. Some were given multiple further contracts. It was not just me who recognised that the players were no good, there were a number of people who would have delisted them. The players were known amongst the fans to be sub-standard.

I don't know why the AFL professionals didn't delist these players earlier. Maybe they never heard of OPPORTUNITY COST or never got a direction from their management, or maybe there was some other reason.

You can argue about certain players (Stevens, Talia, Roberts or Sherman), I thought they were never much good. Based on our past history if we delisted those four when it was realised they were no good, based upon our recruiting history we would have picked up a very good player. That player would have played in our 2016 premiership and maybe the one in 2017 as well. We didn't make the 2017 premiership because of injuries and too many duds in the team. OK, past performance is no indicator of future performance.

You mention Cal Porter. He hasn't shown much. Doesn't look good for him at the moment. He doesn't get a lot of the ball but he doesn't fumble either and he goes in hard. He has to improve next year or its the chop I reckon. But things never looked too good for Fergus Greene or Brad Lynch in the early days and they may yet come good.

[BulldogBelle]

This thread has gone off the rails. The OP is asking about being a destination club.

We are not a destination club because we don't have our shit together.

We don't win enough premierships.

Our corporate image is crap.

From Google:
"Corporate image" was once advertising jargon but is today a common phrase referring to a company's reputation. ... The concept is usually associated with large corporations, but small businesses also have a corporate image even if neither their owners nor customers think of it that way.

A corporate image is the manner which a corporation, firm or business presents themselves to the public (such as customers and investors as well as employees).

Corporate image is one of the most important assets of an organisation. It acts as a comfort factor for customers and assures them that they are buying from the best. Moreover, it influences attitudes of not only customers but also employees, media, analysts, influencers etc. towards an organization.

[bornadog]

We are not a destination club because we don't have our shit together.

We don't win enough premierships.

Our corporate image is crap.

You need a trip down to the club. Things have changed since the 70's.

We have zero debt, and posted $1 million profits for the last 3 years, we turn over more than $40 million in revenue with hundreds of staff. We have a professional CEO and a successful passionate president. Yeah, people come and go, and we can always do things better.

Our facilities are second to none having spent more than $40 million over the past 10 years to improve the club facilities and we have just negotiated a parcel of land from the Victorian government (free and worth millions), which will help us to assure our future. Stay tuned to some exciting development news in the next few months.

We can always do much better on field, but at least we have added to the trophy cabinet over the past few years with an AFL premiership, two VFL and one AFLW premiership.

Not sure where you get the corporate image crap thing from, but that is your opinion which I don't agree with.

[mjp]

First and foremost the club has to be in business TO WIN PREMIERSHIPS.

Well...I don't really agree with this. I want the club to be in the business of putting a competitive product on the park every year...I want to be CONTENDING for premierships every year and finishing in the top 8 seven times out of every 10 and in the top 4 TWICE. I want a team I can go and watch every week and have a legitimate opportunity for a winning outcome.


Of course signing on these players for further years has an opportunity cost.

Well, it becomes opportunity cost versus SUNK cost. All the players on the list have a heap of '$' (be it coaching time, s&c time, whatever) pumped into them. As long as those players are improving, it is going to create a difficult decision for the list management team.

1/. We drafted player 'x' because we thought he could develop into 'Y'.
2/. He is definitely improving and the coaches 'trust' that he could - at worst - be a match day contributor.
...
So - how do you delist that player in favour of an 18yo who has a list of deficiencies a mile long, who clearly WONT contribute at senior level for 2 years (minimum), who might need to be relocated, who doesn't know a single thing about being a professional so is going to soak up even MORE coaching time...

Sure, JJ is an amazing story but as someone who coached against him in the 18's, I can tell you he was the 22nd player in a team of 22 and NO-ONE saw his draft selection coming...that selection remains the biggest reach of any I have ever seen (except maybe the one for Zephi Skinner which was insanity of the highest order)...

So - if you continually reach into the 18's pool on the basis of (maybe) one elite/transferable skill, then you end up with a team similar to those constructed by Scott Clayton - and I don't think anyone wants that. At the same time - I get what you are saying - selecting 'good soldiers' such as Honeychurch (and Porter tbh) you are going to get what you get...and they will improve but their ceiling will never be more than 'steady contributor who you are looking to upgrade'.

I don't know the answer but being able to accurately assess your listed players with those available in the draft and work out who has a higher 'capability' is the hardest thing in the game.

[Twodogs]

Well...I don't really agree with this. I want the club to be in the business of putting a competitive product on the park every year...I want to be CONTENDING for premierships every year and finishing in the top 8 seven times out of every 10 and in the top 4 TWICE. I want a team I can go and watch every week and have a legitimate opportunity for a winning outcome.



Well, it becomes opportunity cost versus SUNK cost. All the players on the list have a heap of '$' (be it coaching time, s&c time, whatever) pumped into them. As long as those players are improving, it is going to create a difficult decision for the list management team.

1/. We drafted player 'x' because we thought he could develop into 'Y'.
2/. He is definitely improving and the coaches 'trust' that he could - at worst - be a match day contributor.
...
So - how do you delist that player in favour of an 18yo who has a list of deficiencies a mile long, who clearly WONT contribute at senior level for 2 years (minimum), who might need to be relocated, who doesn't know a single thing about being a professional so is going to soak up even MORE coaching time...

Sure, JJ is an amazing story but as someone who coached against him in the 18's, I can tell you he was the 22nd player in a team of 22 and NO-ONE saw his draft selection coming...that selection remains the biggest reach of any I have ever seen (except maybe the one for Zephi Skinner which was insanity of the highest order)...

So - if you continually reach into the 18's pool on the basis of (maybe) one elite/transferable skill, then you end up with a team similar to those constructed by Scott Clayton - and I don't think anyone wants that. At the same time - I get what you are saying - selecting 'good soldiers' such as Honeychurch (and Porter tbh) you are going to get what you get...and they will improve but their ceiling will never be more than 'steady contributor who you are looking to upgrade'.

I don't know the answer but being able to accurately assess your listed players with those available in the draft and work out who has a higher 'capability' is the hardest thing in the game.

As a matter of interest do you distinguish between players drafted straight onto the main list and players that are rookied? I'm not trying to trap you (as if...) I am genuinely interested.

[hujsh]

Out of interest how many sporting organisations around the world are accredited with ISO 9001?

Whilst I see the value of a detailed QMS I'm not sure how relevant it is in this field... maybe we should have one and have a whole section on Player Contracts with the number 1 point being - Don't re-sign sub-standard players. (Please refer to WOOF poster James Cuming to get a run down on who is shit or not) Would that make you happy?

Couldn't help but laugh for a good while at that

[mjp]

As a matter of interest do you distinguish between players drafted straight onto the main list and players that are rookied? I'm not trying to trap you (as if...) I am genuinely interested.

Not really. I think the rookie list is the place for mature agers who will only be needed if there is an injury on the main list. To me, Gowers was the PERFECT rookie selection...that he forced his way into the team regardless was simply a bonus. I really don't see the point of using the rookie list to take a flyer on an 18yo with one elite skill...I would let him play state league footy for a year (or two) and see if he comes along, rather than paying him to come along. If another club wants to take a flyer, well, good luck to them...

Other PERFECT rookie candidates recently? Hannan (though Melbourne listed him), Van Den Berg...you know, good state league players who have 'done it' but you aren't quite sure about...chuck them on the rookie list, they wont be needed unless there is an injury but at least if there IS an injury, they would have played 20-50 games of senior footy and be ready to go. I look at Marlion Pickett over here at the moment and he would be a good rookie pick - 25 years old, 5 good WAFL seasons, can play back, mid and forward...you might not need him, it might not work out...but if it does, you have a player who is genuinely ready to go NOW. He isn't going to have to spend 2 years in the gym before you can chuck him into it.

Drafts? Other than making sure I picked one ruckman every year and that KPP was the priority early in the draft, that's about that. The best two young mids in the game at the moment are Cripps and Oliver (Bont aside). Cripps was picked in the teens and Oliver was pick 4 overall but couldn't even make the Vic Country team that year...he was a late season 'flyer'. The best mids aren't always the ones you expect them to be and whilst not all the early KPP's turn out, even LESS of them turn out as late selections. Ben Brown is the only one I can think of off the top of my head...

[Mofra]

You mean you do not think that it is a huge issue? (matches are won on small percentages).

Take Declan Hamilton as a prime example.
I agree we kept him for 1-2 years too long but we did win a Premiership while he was on our list so I'm not sure that's the best example.

[Mofra]

Other PERFECT rookie candidates recently? Hannan (though Melbourne listed him), Van Den Berg...you know, good state league players who have 'done it' but you aren't quite sure about...chuck them on the rookie list, they wont be needed unless there is an injury but at least if there IS an injury, they would have played 20-50 games of senior footy and be ready to go. I look at Marlion Pickett over here at the moment and he would be a good rookie pick - 25 years old, 5 good WAFL seasons, can play back, mid and forward...you might not need him, it might not work out...but if it does, you have a player who is genuinely ready to go NOW. He isn't going to have to spend 2 years in the gym before you can chuck him into it.
A bit of talk about Pickett at the moment as draftable - got selected to the state combine as well didn't he?



Drafts? Other than making sure I picked one ruckman every year and that KPP was the priority early in the draft, that's about that. The best two young mids in the game at the moment are Cripps and Oliver (Bont aside). Cripps was picked in the teens and Oliver was pick 4 overall but couldn't even make the Vic Country team that year...he was a late season 'flyer'. The best mids aren't always the ones you expect them to be and whilst not all the early KPP's turn out, even LESS of them turn out as late selections. Ben Brown is the only one I can think of off the top of my head...
KPFs are rare as hell, KPDs do get selected late semi-regularly (Oscar McDonald, Zaine Cordy, Brian Lake/Harris, Fletcher Roberts as a PSD pick).

Ben Brown was late and both Fev and Tippett were picks in the 30s. Pods' 4th chance at AFL level was late too but not sure he really counts.

[BulldogBelle]

Take Declan Hamilton as a prime example.


I agree we kept him for 1-2 years too long but we did win a Premiership while he was on our list so I'm not sure that's the best example.

What you are inferring here is that if a player is a dud during a premiership year then he is less than a dud than he would otherwise be.

You are just making a silly argument.

Its our corporate image that needs a real fix. For example radio and TV personalities just love to get stuck into us when something goes wrong and they drag out our unsuccessful history and throw it in our face with great delight. This commentary effects those listeners and viewers and other players.

For example, you will remember when Ryan Grypon left and Brendan McCartney was sacked. The media really got stuck into us. Did you listen to SEN during that time. Some commentator prick on there gave us stick in a half hour tirade. And there were many of them doing the same thing, gleefully pointing out our history and how bad we have always been and what a basket-case we were.

Never heard any apologies down the track. Never heard of any revenge.

Then there was Gerard Whateley on that TV show he does with Slobbo. Whateley gave us all of the crap that he could, his words still ring out about the sacking of McCartney 'Whether they know it or not...'. How bad and stupid and foolish we are. Supercilious prick.

And what do we do a few months later, we get him to host the Charles Sutton Medal awards night. Unbelievable! Whoever invited him to be MC should have had their arse kicked until it bled. Whateley should not be let anywhere near the place as a lesson that if you put shit on us then you are gone.

Another one easily comes to mind. The player who dobbed poor Libba senior in for defending himself against that attacking thug Mathew Knights (Having to punch him to save his own skin). It was Wayne Campbell. Wayne Campbell the dobber. So what do we do, we give Campbell a coaching job at our club - unbelievable!

We have to take more pride in our club. People who denigrate or work against the club should never be forgiven.

[Mofra]

Take Declan Hamilton as a prime example.



What you are inferring here is that if a player is a dud during a premiership year then he is less than a dud than he would otherwise be.

You are just making a silly argument.
Not at all.
I am inferring that our list management can't be too bad given we won a premiership. Yes we aren't perfect, but no team in the competition has a 100% success rate unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

I dare say 'changing our corporate image' wasn't part of any coaching address during the 2016 finals series.

And people move on. Re: Campbell - years later he was found to be the best candidate for the job. I'd be embarrassed if, as a club, we were so petty that we would not hire the best possible candidate over an on-field incident a decade earlier.

[AshMac]

I believe the problem is also due to post career options.

There seem to be many more non-football things available from the 'BIG` clubs.

Nathan Brown and Ben Holland were both promised access to property development through Richmond President Clinton Casey.

Chris Judd had the contract as a Visy ambassador.

Who knows what contacts open up via Club coterie groups at several clubs.

Until all those arrangements are captured within the salary cap, we are nowhere near a level playing field.


Agree completely! Additionally, we have a small supporter base, don’t get premium game times or fixtures and don’t have the same facilities or resources to surround players when they aren’t on ge field. FA has essentially made the draft redundant for big successful teams as they can trade high draft picks and bring in gun established players. It becomes harder for smaller clubs to hold onto upper mid tier talent - like Higgins - who are the exact ilk of player that wins you a brownlow (assuming they have both arms wrapped around the guns)


NB: wins you premierships unless you have the greatest finals campaign of al time.

[BulldogBelle]

Not at all.
I am inferring that our list management can't be too bad given we won a premiership. Yes we aren't perfect, but no team in the competition has a 100% success rate unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

I dare say 'changing our corporate image' wasn't part of any coaching address during the 2016 finals series.

And people move on. Re: Campbell - years later he was found to be the best candidate for the job. I'd be embarrassed if, as a club, we were so petty that we would not hire the best possible candidate over an on-field incident a decade earlier.

Mofra I do not think
"our list management can't be too bad"
and
"given we won a premiership"

Follow logically.

What about these sentences:
'Our list management was horrific.'
and
'However, we still won a premiership.'

And this one:
'Our list management has been very poor for years.'
and
'We only managed to win one premiership during that time.'

You are saying that we won a premiership so our list management can't be too bad - not a logical step in my view.

Who said 'changing our corporate image' wasn't part of any coaching address during the 2016 finals series.' I never said that or even inferred that. You seem to be making stuff up.

Re Campbell and others like Whateley who dent our cause or denigrate us. They should be, putting it mildly 'sent to Coventry' for ever. Employing these guys after they have crapped on us reeks of 'we don't care, we are a woosy team and we don't care'.

That is not pettyness, that is taking pride in yourself.

[Mofra]

Mofra I do not think
"our list management can't be too bad"
and
"given we won a premiership"

Follow logically.

What about these sentences:
'Our list management was horrific.'
and
'However, we still won a premiership.'
On the balance of likelihood, do you think good list management or poor list management is more likely to lead to a premiership?

We've gotten it right more than we've gotten it wrong. I don't think it's possible to manage a list poorly and win a premiership.

Wood - pick 43
Hamling - DFA
Roberts - PSD
Morris - rookie
JJ - rookie
M Boyd - rookie
Biggs - former rookie, freebie trade (two pick downgrade in the 30s)

They're the seven players that formed the defensive group that took us to a flag. That's outstanding drafting/development list management.

[BulldogBelle]

On the balance of likelihood, do you think good list management or poor list management is more likely to lead to a premiership?

We've gotten it right more than we've gotten it wrong. I don't think it's possible to manage a list poorly and win a premiership.

Wood - pick 43
Hamling - DFA
Roberts - PSD
Morris - rookie
JJ - rookie
M Boyd - rookie
Biggs - former rookie, freebie trade (two pick downgrade in the 30s)

They're the seven players that formed the defensive group that took us to a flag. That's outstanding drafting/development list management.


You are going off-track again.

The point is not to give on-going contracts to players who are substandard. And this, as I have pointed out, is what we have been doing for years. This leads to winning less premierships.

Now see if you can just get that one in your head. Not point to over there, and say, see we did good over there so you must be wrong here. Your logic does not stand up.

The other main issues relate to taking pride in your club and defending its integrity and that our aim should be to win premierships.

Please consider the following:

1. The Western Bulldogs aren't about winning premierships.
That is a statement from page one of Martin Flanagan's book 'A wink from the universe'. You will know this book as it tells the story of our 2016 premiership. Flanagan has been around our club for years and has written a number of books and newspaper articles. He says we are a 'cause'. How do other people see us when they see this sort of literature.

Well if we are not about winning premierships then what the dickins are we about. I don't want to be a cause, I want to win premierships. Oh. We just 'aint got our shit together.

2. Charlie Sutton would not have a champion centreman play for us because he crossed a picket line. He was a scab.
Charlie believed that we were a working class club and always will be. Players basically had to be in a union to get a game. He stood by his principles. What principles do our leaders have when they employ people who denigrate us to our face? And what about the so-called supporters who just don't care. What's our image like? What character do we have?

See the above in the same Flanagan book, page 10.

If we are not about winning premierships then it is OK to let a player have some more time to show us what he can do. If we are about winning premierships then the focus shifts to the club, risking time and effort on a player who is yet to improve himself.

[Mofra]

You are going off-track again.

The point is not to give on-going contracts to players who are substandard. And this, as I have pointed out, is what we have been doing for years. This leads to winning less premierships.

Now see if you can just get that one in your head. Not point to over there, and say, see we did good over there so you must be wrong here. Your logic does not stand up.
Charming.

You were the person who tried to state our list management was woeful even though it led to a premiership. I'm merely responding to your argument, by stating that position is fundamentally illogical.

Sometimes if a player shows glimpses there is a case to be made for giving them one more year noting the sunk costs of player development - sometimes it works (Wood, Cross, Gilbee) and sometimes it doesn't (Prudden, Hamilton).

Now, if you can actually respond in a mature manner we can continue.

[Happy Days]

I can't tell if this is a melt or a troll or what - we aren't a destination club because Nick Bruton played 2 games 15 years ago?

[bornadog]

I can't tell if this is a melt or a troll or what - we aren't a destination club because Nick Bruton played 2 games 15 years ago?

Clearly JM is pissed off. Not sure why he follows us, as we are so terrible in his eyes.

[BulldogBelle]

Charming.

You were the person who tried to state our list management was woeful even though it led to a premiership. I'm merely responding to your argument, by stating that position is fundamentally illogical.

Sometimes if a player shows glimpses there is a case to be made for giving them one more year noting the sunk costs of player development - sometimes it works (Wood, Cross, Gilbee) and sometimes it doesn't (Prudden, Hamilton).

Now, if you can actually respond in a mature manner we can continue.



Was it our list management that led to a premiership.
What part of the list management are you referring to?
Are you referring to the recruitment of good players, or are you saying that hanging onto the sub-standard players won us a premiership? I really do not understand your point.

At one stage about 7 or 8 years ago we had about 13 players on our list who were all duds and should have been delisted years earlier.

Our poor list management, for many years kept us from making a better challenge for a premiership. Eventually the right coach and right players overcame this problem and broke through.

I can't believe that giving contracts after contracts to substandard players for year after year can be beneficial. If you cannot see that we have followed this path after all of this correspondence then I can't see the point in progressing further.

WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS IS TRUE

1. Our list management led to a premiership.
2. We won a premiership even though our list management was woeful!
3. We more than likely would have won many more games and premierships if the list management wasn't so bad.
4. Parts of our list management were successful and that combined with other factors helped us to win a premiership.

Sometimes players show glimpses? OK. They also show fumbling, slowness, indecisiveness, panic (something you have to weigh up). Tell me what glimpses do you think compel the list management people to keep giving contracts to the likes of Roberts, Honeychurch, Jong or Roarke Smith. I can see that Roarke Smith has an elite leap but the other guys??? God almighty, they gave Jong a two year contract. Two years! Do you honestly believe that any of these players will even reach average. Honestly?

I also do not like 'a case to be made for giving them one more year'. I'd rather it be put into risk management terms. That's what it is, its not social club stuff, its taking a further risk based upon a considered opinion. We will risk another year in the expectation that the player will fulfill our expectations.

[GVGjr]

You are going off-track again.

The point is not to give on-going contracts to players who are substandard. And this, as I have pointed out, is what we have been doing for years. This leads to winning less premierships.

Now see if you can just get that one in your head. Not point to over there, and say, see we did good over there so you must be wrong here. Your logic does not stand up.

The other main issues relate to taking pride in your club and defending its integrity and that our aim should be to win premierships.

Please consider the following:



JC, no one appreciates strong views more than myself but lets not play the man.

Thanks

[Topdog]

JC I'm interested in finding out if you think any club has been good at list management

[BulldogBelle]

JC I'm interested in finding out if you think any club has been good at list management


Don't know and am not interested.

[Mantis]

Don't know and am not interested.

But it's completely relevant to the discussion.

Richmond are the competition's benchmark team, but still have players who you would descrive as 'sub-standard' on their list in the likes of Lloyd, Miles, Markov & C.Ellis. Each probably hasn't coem on as they would've liked or have been over-taken by others, but give teh list balance & depth and over time they will be moved on, but it can't happen immediately.

No team or club has perfect list management and sure we have had misses (especially over the past 3-4 years), but we have also had lots of hits which is the nature of the game.

[MrMahatma]

It’s not an exact science.

We can all look back and point to failures that we “knew” were never going to make it. But I’m sure any honest poster could point to players they “knew” were never going to make it, who did. Bailey Williams is my most recent example.

Every decision is easier to make in hindsight, and even easier when it’s not you making the call. Is a raw 17 year old better than a 2-3 year older player who has question marks over them? Not always an easy decision.

[Mofra]

But it's completely relevant to the discussion.
Bingo.
You can point to misses but if you are ahead of 17 other teams, that is still the best result.

The guys we have signed for 1-2 years too long do have an opportunity cost factor (for a late pick only) but not a substantial cap issue considering you Prudden, Hamilton, Collins types would be on floor salary or close to it.

[Topdog]

Don't know and am not interested.

If you don't know how others are doing how can you rate what we are doing

[Twodogs]

Don't know and am not interested.


Then how can you make a meaningful comparison? If you are going to bag how we do things then you have to be prepared a/ to explain how we can do things better. And b/ what other clubs are doing that we could adopt in order for us to get better.

You've had plenty of time and opportunity to mouth off and tell everyone how good you think you are. Now it's time to walk the walk or we are all just going to think you are full of crap.