AK43 wrote:
I think the entire process has to be completely transparent to our declining membership. We've just taken a $2 million loan from the AFL and are about to give $1.2 mill of it to someone to leave. To have Mitchell appointed without knowing anything about who else was interviewed, to me reinforces the impression that we are a desperate rabble with no plan, whereas something that is communicated clearly to members, i.e we've spoken to A,B,C and D and decided that Barry Mitchell is the best gives me a lot more confidence. I'm not saying he's not the best person for the job, but it appears he's favored for it as much for his cheap price tag, and friendship with Kernahan and Gleeson, as for his coaching ability.
See I don't know if they could actually do that just to make you feel better. They could:
1) outline the rationale behind the decision to sack Denis
2) explain how it is being financed and what the implications for the clubs bottom line are (and why the club sees these as a justifiable cost)
3) Note that a proper (if discrete) process was carried out to select the new coach, and that a number of other candidates were interviewed.
But I doubt the club could actually name the other applicants. It would be a breach of their privacy. They might be heir apparent at another club, and knowing they were shopping around may prejudice their future chances at their current club.
Think about any process to replace a coach. Sometimes clubs make it known they'd like to interview a certain person, sometimes certain people make it known they'd like (or expect) to be interviewed. Sometimes candiates make it known that they were interviewed. But you don't hear the club, having made the decision, publicising who the other applicants were. Oh the names come out eventually - the whole AFL leaks like a sieve. But I doubt you would get the appointing club listing them purely for supporters peace of mind.
Login
Register
FAQ
