Lunchtime Catch Up Podcast - Swans review show out- with a message to Papely

That’s fair enough. I see it a little different and I personally am not convinced Andrew directly drove the poor footy results and on balance be held responsible. Everyone sees it differently.

That was my take too👌

1 Like

Have any of them mentioned list management as an issue?

It’s not just Andrew. He’s just the one up for reelection.

All the incumbents and their ‘unique skills’ are a part of the mess we are in.

For the 8 years Andrew has been on the Board , how many coaches have we been through?

How many times has Xavier Campbells contract been renewed?

If an external review is the biggest thing you can point to after so long, then it’s time to hand it over to others to implement.

If he was part of the high wealth supporters who dug us out of the financial hole then I thank him for that, no doubt.

But as far as the tenure of him and the other incumbents on the Board, time has told.

I don’t recall any of the recent few mentioning list management.

At Essendon, we just sack coaches when things get tough.

List Managers are for life.

2 Likes

Where my view differs to yours is that you include Andrews candidacy to the broader boards performance, and there’s a very good rationale to back this up. Especially given his long tenure. However I differ slightly in that I’d rather look more at individual board members contributions in isolation and base my decision more on that. Your theory definitely makes sense.

From my perspective, I see Andrew as fundamentally in the ‘change’ group with Barham and believe he has long been sceptical of the status quo approach (internal review etc) in how footy was managed. He alluded to being an advocate of a CEO with a different philosophy and also supported the external review. Given this, and his skillset, I’d be more inclined to support his candidacy than some of the others whom I’m not convinced bring to the table enough substance and unique skill…. Other than enacting change for changes sake.

2 Likes

All clubs keep their list managers for 25+ years.

You didn’t know?

1 Like

Thanks for the discussion dmaplestone.

You are quite correct, I have lumped Andrew in with his other long term cohorts.

I haven’t had the opportunity to rub shoulders with these luminaries to quite comprehend each of their unique skills.

I am a mere pleb with a 4 game country membership who might occasionally catch a glimpse of our governance leaders behind the glass, sipping surely nice wines, while I’m looking for a pie and a beer.

And I apologise if this comment is inaccurate but I do not recall this chap ever making an attempt to engage with the masses …… until of course reelection is up.

The only board members to seemingly make an effort were Cousins and Lio. Now obviously posting on blitz is not a comprehensive illustration of their member engagement but it’s not nothing either.

So, yes my comments are simplistic, my concerns and ideas to overcome them are naive but without more information, it’s what I have.

7 Likes

All good points. You go with what feels right for you. I’m fully behind the external review approach and believe Andrew was supportive of this concept for some time. Given we’ve now gone down this path, with Welsh (a good addition) and Rioli coming on with the others I think stability would make sense to ensure smooth execution of the review and backing of the new CEO.

Your points on fan engaged additions to the board are valid and make sense. However one of the key recommendations of the external review was reconnecting to fans and Barham indicated family days, member open forums, Rioli spearheading reconnecting with our indigenous fans around the country as examples of what they want to do. So I trust this will occur irrespective of which person wins a seat on the Board. The CEOs job will be to see to this, overseen by the Board.

Whilst I haven’t made final decisions, my head is leaning slightly towards retaining Andrew on the Board at this point.

1 Like

Must admit i am not expecting a board member to answer to list management. I expect the List manager, Coach, Head of football operations and CEO to be the chain of people i would question. That is management. Not a governance position like board

3 Likes

How do you differentiate that from commenting on our development coaches?

There a slight difference as there was very little development team actually established. So that was more an emphasis on creation of setting up a team and not so much managing current setup

1 Like

Apparently there were 2 development coaches last year and 5 this year. One of last year’s team has been promoted to Head of.

I’m not sure why we aren’t discussing if our List Management team needs reinforcing or upgrading.

I mean we always think we have a great young list but do we? Could we be doing list management better?

It shouldn’t be a taboo topic for a governance role.

Muir did point out that there are recommendations of the external review that can’t be implemented until we have a CEO. Staffing or structure changes to the list management department would be the CEO’s role not the boards.

2 Likes

If we do hire a female ceo who are some of the candiates?

Margaret Court?

1 Like

Stuff her

Correct. And to be reasonable to the Board, they can’t publicly comment on the potential structural changes to List Management or other areas subject to an overhaul as they likely involve individuals in roles that may be subject to changes…

@CJohns well done on another great show mate - the content (especially over the off-season) for Dons fans is so appreciated. Loved the follow up interview with Cal Twomey as well, and I’m looking forward to another one post-draft.

As a Patreon subscriber & fan of the show, I sincerely hope you take this the right way but if I may offer some advice… you guys (mainly Grant tbh) owe it to yourselves to really put some thought into sharpening the length/wording of your questions when you have guests on.

It’s grown beyond a simple ‘two mates just having a yarn’ footy podcast now, even though that will of course always be the heart of it.

You’ve built it into something really cool, with a much larger following, great guests regularly, a really natural dynamic together, etc which is all fantastic - the only thing that lets the show down sometimes is hearing a million ums and ahs in a question that takes 2 mins to ask! lol

9 Likes

I thought that too, it’s more the Grant bloke though. In interviews like this I like getting the question out quickly so you don’t give them a full minute to think of an answer, more chance of a genuine answer or chance of a slip up from the un polished performer.

2 Likes