Asolutely Nil Accountability

[Newtown]

heres a question, dont know if anyone can answer it.
if we had not changed the board and sheens had not been sacked where the hell would we have been come next year if our cap is so stuffed, surely the people who were doing our player recruitement had some sort of plan.or was the club just going to fold, so what iam getting at they have been buying players in the past back loading and carring on without any real probs yet now the new board comes in and the sun has fallen from the sky, i just dont get it.

Simple answer BP is that the new board has discovered all the dirty lurks that the previous administrations were responsible for carrying out. The new board is now trying to clean up the resultant mess as best as possible. In the meantime the previous administrations have left the club and are now scot free.

 

[2041]

heres a question, dont know if anyone can answer it.
if we had not changed the board and sheens had not been sacked where the hell would we have been come next year if our cap is so stuffed, surely the people who were doing our player recruitement had some sort of plan.or was the club just going to fold, so what iam getting at they have been buying players in the past back loading and carring on without any real probs yet now the new board comes in and the sun has fallen from the sky, i just dont get it.

They talk about this phenomenon a lot in American sport, particularly baseball where there are some very long contracts given out. Basically it comes down to unaligned interests between the people doing roster management and the team itself.

The GM and his staff at a baseball team know that if they don't produce a good team in the next couple of years they will probably be out of a job, so they have an incentive to the short term. This is why baseball players in their 30s get signed to 10-year deals which everyone involved knows will be absolute millstones by the second half of their life - because the person giving the contract basically thinks "if we win in the next couple of years I'll be fine, and if we don't I'll not be here anyway".

In our case, I imagine the Sheens/Humphreys/McDonald/old board regime put all their eggs into the basket of winning the comp with the Farah/Marshall team - including doubling down on the likes of Blair. If we'd won a comp in 2010-12 I imagine they thought the fans would live with the subsequent consequences (arguably the Dragons got three or four years out of the 2010 afterglow, and anyway Bennett was off before things got nasty). And if we didn't, they all assumed they'd be gone before the mucky stuff hit the fan. As has more or less proved to be the case.

The good news is that in baseball it has been shown time and again that when you get to the stage of having a lousy team full of overpaid old guys, the best response is to completely blow it up, accept that you're going to be bad for two or three years, and start again with cheap young players. In the meantime the roster gets filled with lottery tickets: reclamation projects and long shots. What never, ever works is trying to paper over the cracks with one or two mediocre signings of yet more old players on high wages.

In baseball as in the NRL it is very clear that free agents will sign with whoever gives them the best deal, regardless of whether or not a team has done well in recent times: other than having more money, the Yankees don't have any inherent advantage in signing free agents over Toronto or Miami, say.

So assuming this really is what the Tigers are doing, and everyone who matters internally is on side, I'm all for it. I wish they'd be a bit more open about it but then again it doesn't sell a lot of memberships if you say "we're going to be garbage this year, and probably next as well". What I'm hoping for is some good signing news for 2017 to get me through what will in all likelihood be a shocking 2016.

 

[bp_tiger]

heres a question, dont know if anyone can answer it.
if we had not changed the board and sheens had not been sacked where the hell would we have been come next year if our cap is so stuffed, surely the people who were doing our player recruitement had some sort of plan.or was the club just going to fold, so what iam getting at they have been buying players in the past back loading and carring on without any real probs yet now the new board comes in and the sun has fallen from the sky, i just dont get it.

They talk about this phenomenon a lot in American sport, particularly baseball where there are some very long contracts given out. Basically it comes down to unaligned interests between the people doing roster management and the team itself.

The GM and his staff at a baseball team know that if they don't produce a good team in the next couple of years they will probably be out of a job, so they have an incentive to the short term. This is why baseball players in their 30s get signed to 10-year deals which everyone involved knows will be absolute millstones by the second half of their life - because the person giving the contract basically thinks "if we win in the next couple of years I'll be fine, and if we don't I'll not be here anyway".

In our case, I imagine the Sheens/Humphreys/McDonald/old board regime put all their eggs into the basket of winning the comp with the Farah/Marshall team - including doubling down on the likes of Blair. If we'd won a comp in 2010-12 I imagine they thought the fans would live with the subsequent consequences (arguably the Dragons got three or four years out of the 2010 afterglow, and anyway Bennett was off before things got nasty). And if we didn't, they all assumed they'd be gone before the mucky stuff hit the fan. As has more or less proved to be the case.

The good news is that in baseball it has been shown time and again that when you get to the stage of having a lousy team full of overpaid old guys, the best response is to completely blow it up, accept that you're going to be bad for two or three years, and start again with cheap young players. In the meantime the roster gets filled with lottery tickets: reclamation projects and long shots. What never, ever works is trying to paper over the cracks with one or two mediocre signings of yet more old players on high wages.

In baseball as in the NRL it is very clear that free agents will sign with whoever gives them the best deal, regardless of whether or not a team has done well in recent times: other than having more money, the Yankees don't have any inherent advantage in signing free agents over Toronto or Miami, say.

So assuming this really is what the Tigers are doing, and everyone who matters internally is on side, I'm all for it. I wish they'd be a bit more open about it but then again it doesn't sell a lot of memberships if you say "we're going to be garbage this year, and probably next as well". What I'm hoping for is some good signing news for 2017 to get me through what will in all likelihood be a shocking 2016.

i get where ur coming from a clean start and all, but we are not because we have already over paid teddy, moses, brooks, sirro, woods and they all come off contract at the same time, so when this comes around we will still be in the same crap.

 

[2041]

heres a question, dont know if anyone can answer it.
if we had not changed the board and sheens had not been sacked where the hell would we have been come next year if our cap is so stuffed, surely the people who were doing our player recruitement had some sort of plan.or was the club just going to fold, so what iam getting at they have been buying players in the past back loading and carring on without any real probs yet now the new board comes in and the sun has fallen from the sky, i just dont get it.

They talk about this phenomenon a lot in American sport, particularly baseball where there are some very long contracts given out. Basically it comes down to unaligned interests between the people doing roster management and the team itself.

The GM and his staff at a baseball team know that if they don't produce a good team in the next couple of years they will probably be out of a job, so they have an incentive to the short term. This is why baseball players in their 30s get signed to 10-year deals which everyone involved knows will be absolute millstones by the second half of their life - because the person giving the contract basically thinks "if we win in the next couple of years I'll be fine, and if we don't I'll not be here anyway".

In our case, I imagine the Sheens/Humphreys/McDonald/old board regime put all their eggs into the basket of winning the comp with the Farah/Marshall team - including doubling down on the likes of Blair. If we'd won a comp in 2010-12 I imagine they thought the fans would live with the subsequent consequences (arguably the Dragons got three or four years out of the 2010 afterglow, and anyway Bennett was off before things got nasty). And if we didn't, they all assumed they'd be gone before the mucky stuff hit the fan. As has more or less proved to be the case.

The good news is that in baseball it has been shown time and again that when you get to the stage of having a lousy team full of overpaid old guys, the best response is to completely blow it up, accept that you're going to be bad for two or three years, and start again with cheap young players. In the meantime the roster gets filled with lottery tickets: reclamation projects and long shots. What never, ever works is trying to paper over the cracks with one or two mediocre signings of yet more old players on high wages.

In baseball as in the NRL it is very clear that free agents will sign with whoever gives them the best deal, regardless of whether or not a team has done well in recent times: other than having more money, the Yankees don't have any inherent advantage in signing free agents over Toronto or Miami, say.

So assuming this really is what the Tigers are doing, and everyone who matters internally is on side, I'm all for it. I wish they'd be a bit more open about it but then again it doesn't sell a lot of memberships if you say "we're going to be garbage this year, and probably next as well". What I'm hoping for is some good signing news for 2017 to get me through what will in all likelihood be a shocking 2016.

i get where ur coming from a clean start and all, but we are not because we have already over paid teddy, moses, brooks, sirro, woods and they all come off contract at the same time, so when this comes around we will still be in the same crap.

The club has pretty much said that its hands are tied until 2017, so what does it matter who comes off the books then? If Brooks and Sironen turn out not to be up to it we can cut them loose and have plenty of cap to replace them. If Tedesco is the best full back in the game we have plenty of cap to give him the best offer.

 

[tigeress]

I know this is not a new theme and some of you will probably switch off immediately when you start reading this…..Everyone, it is time to get tough when it comes to team selections. I am absolutely sick and tired of the Tigers culture of nil accountability and the reward of mediocrity. For years, starting with the Sheens boys club then the shackled Potter and, finally, the clueless Taylor, we have had to endure uninspiring and perplexing team lists. Players who are obviously out of form, out of their depth or even over the hill keep getting picked. Also, I'm fed up with the excuse that there is no one to replace the underachievers. Firstly, there has to be SOME players in the lower grades who deserve a chance. Secondly, I'm a strong believer that players who are not performing or not putting in MUST be dropped in order to send a message to the WHOLE CLUB - a message that a lack of performance or a lack of effort will not be tolerated. And this should apply to ALL PLAYERS, seniors and rookies. Lots of players this year, at different times, have deserved to be dropped. These include Galloway, Richards, Lovett, Sironen and Buchanon. I'd also add Brooks to the list. I'm confident that he will eventually make it as a first grade footballer but at the moment he's clearly not ready and seems to be rapidly losing confidence. He should of been replaced by the steadier Drinkwater weeks back. It was an inept and listless performance against the Sharks, which was hot on the heels of a poor effort against the Knights. There should have been consequences.....but, no, once again mediocrity was rewarded. Pathetic.
:deadhorse:

No need for me to say more this post tells it all :master: Good on you for saying what a lot of us have been thinking for years. After such a horrific 2015 season, maybe someone will listen and start dropping some players or (maybe even fine them) for underperforming, but certainly do not reward them :bash

 

[Newtown]

I know this is not a new theme and some of you will probably switch off immediately when you start reading this…..Everyone, it is time to get tough when it comes to team selections. I am absolutely sick and tired of the Tigers culture of nil accountability and the reward of mediocrity. For years, starting with the Sheens boys club then the shackled Potter and, finally, the clueless Taylor, we have had to endure uninspiring and perplexing team lists. Players who are obviously out of form, out of their depth or even over the hill keep getting picked. Also, I'm fed up with the excuse that there is no one to replace the underachievers. Firstly, there has to be SOME players in the lower grades who deserve a chance. Secondly, I'm a strong believer that players who are not performing or not putting in MUST be dropped in order to send a message to the WHOLE CLUB - a message that a lack of performance or a lack of effort will not be tolerated. And this should apply to ALL PLAYERS, seniors and rookies. Lots of players this year, at different times, have deserved to be dropped. These include Galloway, Richards, Lovett, Sironen and Buchanon. I'd also add Brooks to the list. I'm confident that he will eventually make it as a first grade footballer but at the moment he's clearly not ready and seems to be rapidly losing confidence. He should of been replaced by the steadier Drinkwater weeks back. It was an inept and listless performance against the Sharks, which was hot on the heels of a poor effort against the Knights. There should have been consequences.....but, no, once again mediocrity was rewarded. Pathetic.
:deadhorse:

There are a lot feeling that Farah has been unlucky but I feel so much more for the young lower grade players who have been trying all season yet have not had a look into first grade selection all season even though those selected for first grade have been playing badly in first grade week in and week out. They would be have been quite disheartened all season.

 

[stevied]

First of all, I was asked who should be dropped. When I said players should be demoted, I didn't mean just from the Sharks game but at different times during the season. Who would I drop from last weeks's team? Galloway, Lovett and Brooks. Secondly, it was commented that every game benefits Brooks. Really? I'll repeat, I think he is a talent and will probably eventually make it but right now he is down on confidence and would be better off developing his organizing and tackling skills at a lower tier level. But it's probably too late now anyway. And I'll add that Rowe, while not a world beater, is probably better value in general play than Richards. I remember he had a dead set blinder against the Roosters last year.

 

[stevied]

Drinkwater had one opportunity in first grade behind a set of forwards going backwards. He has an excellent kicking game and, right now, would be a better foil for Moses. The whole point I'm making, is that despite second tier restrictions, there should be SOME response to poor performance, especially after multiple chances. Yes, it's good that Farah's being moved on. He's way overpaid, has fading skills and is blocking Cherrington. But maybe, more to the point, his negativity and domineering personality can be removed and I guess that's accountability.