CC on his last legs?

[Disco08]

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl......oh wait, you're serious. He got it wrong with Sgt. Snooze but Port bailed him out. No luck with Kingy or McMuffin though.

Did he re-sign McMahon?

Port were willing to trade a second rounder for Schulz two years earlier. Think about it when you stop laughing.

It's only a good move if you somehow think CC re-signed Schulz not because he wanted him around for another 2 years but because you think he was planning to trade him down the track to Port for Mitch Farmer and a pick. Is that what you think happened? If not, explain to me why it was a 'good move' because I just can't understand it.

I don't know if I can make it any clearer. Yes, I think resigning him (as opposed to delisting him) had plenty to do with the fact they thought Port would trade for him. Players have agents you know? These agents and other club's staff discuss player movement continuously. They don't just wait for trade week and madly throw ideas around.

 

[Disco08]

But Disco, Wallet doesn't report in any way to the board. He reports to CC who ashead of football is the conduit to the board. No-one else, certainly not the Wallet.
If he felt TW was talking his usual sh!te he should have said that & gone in the direction he thought was best for the club. If he didn't, the responsibility lies 100% with him.

I've heard first hand that the coach gives regular reports to the board Leysy. So they should too. I think we're underselling the importance given to AFL coaches a lot in this thread. In general they're not just people who tell the players what to do.

As I've said previously, I actually think that's exactly what they should be and list and personnel decisions should be made separately by people dedicated solely to that purpose. In reality it's quite obvious that AFL coaches don't sit far from the top of the tree in these organisations.

On the Shulze' re-signing, we relied on one club Port Adelaide having interest in him. What if Williams didnt get re-signed. Not playing the %'s of list management ILO.

Is the coach making these decisions or is their GM of football doing it? I think it's no stretch to imagine Cameron would have known of Port's interest all along.

 

[Leysy Days]

In general they're not just people who tell the players what to do.

Your words. In any case they certainly don't & leysy has never even gone close to intimating as much.

I've heard first hand that the coach gives regular reports to the board Leysy. So they should too. I think we're underselling the importance given to AFL coaches a lot in this thread.

The coach might give updates to the board, though personally not sure of the regularity you speak of. He still doesn't in any way report to the board. He reports to the head of football, who fills in the board & CEO.

Can't speak for anyone else, but leysy doesn't underplay the importance of the role of the coach at all. Not sure where that can be gained from leysy's posts. How our club is now setup there is a specific heirarchy, roles are now well defined so that incumbents know where there land lies & when we recruit people into the organisation we have specific roles, responsibilities & structure that they need to fall under. From the early face of it, it looks that we are being very professional on this aspect.

 

[Disco08]

Can't speak for anyone else, but leysy doesn't underplay the importance of the role of the coach at all. Not sure where that can be gained from leysy's posts.

I got it from this statement:

If he felt TW was talking his usual sh!te he should have said that & gone in the direction he thought was best for the club. If he didn't, the responsibility lies 100% with him.

To me that makes it clear you think Cameron could have overridden Wallet whereas I very much doubt was the case. The title may be GM of football but I think it's still very much a role that supports the coach and his vision. If the coach wants to build a team of speedy flankers and the board supports that vision, the rest of the football administration go about making it happen.

 

[Tigerbob]

What if the board and the coaching staff had the same vision together?

How could Cameron overrule anyone?

What if everyone at the club by the time Cameron was officially in his role had the vision of finals for the Richmond Football Club? Do not forget we were coming off an end of season that had even most of this website excited. Not hard for Wallace to convince the board and everyone involved next year is the year......

Then he decides to change the gameplan the night of the first game. Players are confused, don't know what to do and the season is shot before it starts.

If you look closely enough at our pre season training and games before the bounce of round one, Wallace hadn't decided on many things. Remember putting Andrew Browne in pretty much out of the blue? Will Thursfield told he is out then last minute he is in, then he gets put on a small in Gartlett....

Many factors for why we are where we are. Cameron should put his hand up about some decisions and the *smile* poor year, but he is NOT solely to blame for it.

We start again. So far the decisions being made are good. I will support them in this new vision as I agree with what they are saying and how they want to get there. Clean slate.

3, 19, 35, 44, 51, 67, 72 and 83.

Look forward to that.

 

[jb03]

What if the board and the coaching staff had the same vision together?

How could Cameron overrule anyone?

Then what would the point of his job be? Just have a coach heading up the football department reporting straight to the board.


Hmmm actually, seems Brisbane have adopted that model.

 

[Tigerbob]

Then what would the point of his job be? Just have a coach heading up the football department reporting straight to the board.


Hmmm actually, seems Brisbane have adopted that model.

His job is to come up with a vision with the rest of the football department and take it to the board, then once all approved go out and try and achieve that vision.

Pretty hard when you get appointed and the vision is in place. So he does what's best for that vision. Also don't forget he was a major player in the review to sort out this football club.....So far it has achieved some good things we can all be happy about.

Mate we were a mess last season, I think the factor of Wallace going into his fifth year created an angst and a win at all cost mode, remember the uncertainty of the Cousins situation? Everyone was responsible for the mess but as I said, there was factors.

Better to look forward and support the new vision in my opinion.

 

[the claw]

One point that I reckon's been overlooked so far, and even critisized in the original post of this thread, is the resigning of Schulz. While many here would have delisted him after Miller inexplicably declined pick 28 from Port for him, resigning him enabled us to pick up Farmer and an extra couple of spots late in the draft. Good move if you ask me.

apart from going against good list management practice in re- signing him i have to ask why two yrs why not the one.
i think there was a bit of two bob each way going on here in ccs mind.

whilst i consider it a mistake to not delist him it was not the end of the world. players will be kept and prove good decisions and players will be kept and they will prove poor decisions. the thing is have a plan and a process and you will get most right. again processes have a process that enables ypou to rate players correctly and you will get most of these decisions right.

what we dont know and would be interesting is how cc rated sarges performances and how he viewed his weaknesses and strengths.

imo one overriding factor why schulz was kept was a dearth of kpfs but it still does not explain why he gave him two yrs.

 

[Tigers of Old]

apart from going against good list management practice in re- signing him i have to ask why two yrs why not the one.
i think there was a bit of two bob each way going on here in ccs mind.

whilst i consider it a mistake to not delist him it was not the end of the world. players will be kept and prove good decisions and players will be kept and they will prove poor decisions. the thing is have a plan and a process and you will get most right. again processes have a process that enables ypou to rate players correctly and you will get most of these decisions right.

what we dont know and would be interesting is how cc rated sarges performances and how he viewed his weaknesses and strengths.

imo one overriding factor why schulz was kept was a dearth of kpfs but it still does not explain why he gave him two yrs.

Yes 2009 was very poor from Schulz but I think quite a few are forgetting that he had a half decent season in 2008 at HB.
Perhaps they football department felt he'd finally turned the corner and as you say our dearth of KPPs had plenty to do with the 2 year deal too.
That decision of Cameron's hasn't cost us much now that he's at Port & I think some need to build a bridge that we missed pick 28 for Sarge 3 years back which still obviously rankles. That's when the damage was done but Greg Miller was the one responsible for that, not Craig Cameron.

 

[Scoop]

Port had already flagged interest in him. If you don't think Cameron was in touch with them all the while when negotiating a new contract with Schulz I suggest you have a lot to learn about how major sporting organisations are run.

Why in the blue blazers would Cameron be in touch with Port durring the negotiations? What would he be saying?

"Err, Listen Choco, I am going to give *smile* a two year deal but if it goes bad, Can you bail me out with some sort of deal?. I know you offered pick 28 when he has some value but we just want to be totally sure that this bloke is David Bourke Part 2 and not Francis Bourke Part 2. If it doesn't work and we play him at Coburg all year you will still give me something? Great, done deal. By the way thanks for Adam Thomson, he is nothing like Josh Francou."

 

[Disco08]

You don't think these guys are discussing possible trades throughout the year? You think they just all pile in to trade week and start from scratch?

 

[Scoop]

You don't think these guys are discussing possible trades throughout the year? You think they just all pile in to trade week and start from scratch?

Sure, there would be prelimenary discussions but to give someone a two year deal on the off chance that you may be able to parlay into a unproven back pocket and to improve a draft pick after 70 is crazy. Not playing the odds and a strategy that will lead this club to more pain. The *smile* deal is nothing to hang your hat on. Even if one of mates had done that on EA sports I would laugh at them, let alone someone who is being trusted to rebuild this club.

 

[Disco08]

What, giving a 23 year old, 193cm swingman who'd previously attracted interest from a club in his home state a 2 year deal? Bit harsh I reckon mate.
The upshot is if he'd delisted him instead of resigning him we'd have gotten nothing, and to my mind a 20 year back pocket prospect and a slight draft upgrade is far better than nothing.

 

[the claw]

What, giving a 23 year old, 193cm swingman who'd previously attracted interest from a club in his home state a 2 year deal? Bit harsh I reckon mate.
The upshot is if he'd delisted him instead of resigning him we'd have gotten nothing, and to my mind a 20 year back pocket prospect and a slight draft upgrade is far better than nothing.

keeping him has cost us though disco and its something that is always forgotten. what did it cost the opportunity to have a young kpp in our system who may be a 10 yr player, its not as if we have ever been inundated with them. and mate even for you its a pretty long bow your drawing.
so he made a mistake it was a mistake that panned out okay in the end its certainly nothing to hang the hat on and it certainly isnt the sort of process if you can call it that that you want to see them go thru.

simpl;y put schulz like all of our players should have been properly assessed and promptly delisted. instead of getting little to nothing from schulz for five yrs re-signing him gave us little to nothing for 7 yrs its this that regularly kills us. simply put and i think most people would agree this is the real failure.

 

[craig]

Agreed

 

[Tigers of Old]

simpl;y put schulz like all of our players should have been properly assessed and promptly delisted. instead of getting little to nothing from schulz for five yrs re-signing him gave us little to nothing for 7 yrs its this that regularly kills us. simply put and i think most people would agree this is the real failure.

Schulz should not have been delisted after his 2008 season claw.
He showed enough to get at least another one year deal whether you liked it or not. Whether he could have been moved on then in a trade I'm not sure..
Whether it should have been two is a fair question, however right now he'd be at Port for nix if that had been the case so it's worked out ok.
Again Miller not trading him for 28 clearly still burns but that cannot be attributed to Cameron which is what this thread is about.

 

[the claw]

Schulz should not have been delisted after his 2008 season claw.
He showed enough to get at least another one year deal whether you liked it or not. Whether he could have been moved on then in a trade I'm not sure..
Whether it should have been two is a fair question, however right now he'd be at Port for nix if that had been the case so it's worked out ok.
Again Miller not trading him for 28 clearly still burns but that cannot be attributed to Cameron which is what this thread is about.

hmm my bad oldie im a yr out in my thinking. but never the less a reasonable 08 or not if we go thru a proper process and rate his overall performance he should have been given the flick. not 5 yrs but 6 yrs of what from schulzand we gave him a two yr contract. anyway on this one like you i can cut cameron some slack its not the end of the world but ir is still a mistake imo.

in all honesty im not teribly fussed about mistakes we all make em its the processes we go thru in making them. not saying it very well but its a bit like playing the percentages its about giving yourself the best possible chance of getting it right knowing you wont get em all right.. again i didnt say it well i hope you get the gist.

 

[Massai]

*smile* should have been sacked for losing the TAC Club Sponsorship. I argued long and hard with GM at the time, my point being DISCIPLINE, but obviously GM thought differently. If *smile* had gone then, we have had to recruit a KPP to replace him and that would have been the better option than what we have endured for the past 8 years.

 

[Disco08]

keeping him has cost us though disco and its something that is always forgotten. what did it cost the opportunity to have a young kpp in our system who may be a 10 yr player, its not as if we have ever been inundated with them. and mate even for you its a pretty long bow your drawing.
so he made a mistake it was a mistake that panned out okay in the end its certainly nothing to hang the hat on and it certainly isnt the sort of process if you can call it that that you want to see them go thru.

simpl;y put schulz like all of our players should have been properly assessed and promptly delisted. instead of getting little to nothing from schulz for five yrs re-signing him gave us little to nothing for 7 yrs its this that regularly kills us. simply put and i think most people would agree this is the real failure.

6 years mate, not 7.

Haven't I just been reading you saying we need to have patience with young talls? 5 years seems pretty standard to me.

There's no way Schulz was ever first in line for delisting over the last few years. There's been plenty that could have gone before him so saying Schulz has been costing us the opportunity of having another young KPP on the list is drawing a very long bow indeed.

Again you're presuming this was a mistake on Cameron's part, but if it's true that he knew Port would trade for Schulz this year how can that be the case?

 

[Barnzy]

Again you're presuming this was a mistake on Cameron's part, but if it's true that he knew Port would trade for Schulz this year how can that be the case?

So you think CC signed him up because he had a guarantee/strong interest from Port that they would trade for him in the future? If that was the case why wouldn't he just sign him up to a 1 year deal then instead? Stop trying to palm this off as a win for CC, it was a stroke of luck that Port actually took him after his dismal performances but it still remains a massive blunder by CC to re-sign him to a 2 year deal and let's not forget the re-signing of that little unskilled runt King.

Starting to see a lack of foresight with CC, the '08 draft where he had to enforce his power and take the club in the right direction in relation to number of picks, number of 18 year old's, etc but he didn't. Then there was these decisions just talked about and the Jackson one, his trade value will never be higher but he was just re-signed. This club has accepted mediocrity for a very long time and with these type of players still being re-signed that will continue.