Navy Blue Horse wrote:
Cretylus wrote:
Navy Blue Horse wrote:
With all the focus on Mick, Swanny and Sticks, this little fella somehow continually slips under the radar.
Personally, I'd settle for him gone long before any of the others. He's been around too long, poster boy for the boys club, and has been a part of so much mediocrity over so many years.
Sticks said OTC tonight that Gleeson is the Football Director on the Board, so I'd like to think he should take a fair whack of responsibility for so many years of mediocrity on field. Presumably recruiting sits under his portfolio also.
Time to go into hibernation, Bear.
did you agree with Bear's direction to chase Mick Malthouse at the end of 2012?
What about Daisy?
Yes and no, in that order. How's Daisy travelling?
So if he makes 50 bad decisions and 1 maybe correct one, that's ok?
name the 50 bad decisions.
what decisions do you think directors make anyway???
Swann is the main man for decision making. Directors do just that - provide a direction philosophy for the club to take.
Its like saying AD decided to set up two near teams in Queensland and NSW. These are big picture decisions taken at board level. AS's job is to oversee these operations - he can appoint people, allocate funding to different areas etc.. He cant for example decide to set up a team in the NT or in Tasmania.
Getting daisy or not signing up Betts wouldn't be a decision for Gleeson. that's footy department, Swann etc...
A senior coach like ratten having his contract terminated would need board approval for sure.
Robert Wiley coming to the club as director of coaching and development would be a Mick appointment - like a package. Directors wouldn't need to approve that - there is a budget for assistant coaches and staff positions - Swann needs to oversee the budget.
Its an interesting demarcation between management and direction
Well that's decided. The suburban financial planner stays.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
