Football Department Review

[Thryleon]

Interesting reading:

The best reviews are where the staff in the department feel the review is for the department, not on the department. That the reviewer is there to make everyone better rather than look for scapegoats. This requires great communication, relationships and explanation of the nuance. It feels as though this horse may have bolted with the Carlton process and it will require strong leadership to bring it back.

Now articles in the newspaper are a bit non genuine.

"you dont do a review and then sack the boot studder"

makes it out to show that a review is there to review people.

They arent.  These consultants are brought in regularly across all works of life, to check what people do, and how they do it, and whether or not the PROCESS, STRUCTURE and RESPONSIBLITIES measure up with the currently leading standards of who, what, where, when and how in terms of running a football club.

This will review the people indirectly, and give them reasons to see what isnt working, and how to fix.

This process is one of identification, not one of excuses.

Our club has earned the mantle of needing a reason to sack a coach, but I suspect this is a bit different based on the statements made by liddle and co, and just by the sheer volume of turnover we have had.

When you change all the people and things still dont work, at some point, you need to look beyond the people and how the place runs.