Brett Ratten named coach - press conference update p23

gsker1 · **Joined:** Tue May 10, 2005 11:00 am **Posts:** 449

So what's this go to do with Ratts appointment? :shock:

Mark J · **Posted:** Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:15 pm

gsker1 wrote:

So what's this go to do with Ratts appointment? :shock:

Welcome to the convoluted world of TC

Sydney Blue · **Posted:** Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:44 pm

dannyboy wrote:

do you seriously think the restraints in buisness are similiar to a draft or salary cap where the worse you perform the more the system assists you?????

No wonder so many buisnesses go under - they are doing too well :shock:

your confusing "cap" with "draft " Danny

no buisness can work properly under a draft

Many are forced to work with in a cap

By the way I am Happy for Ratts to get appointed

Not exactly my first choice but a very good choice non the less

I cant wait to see who his assistants will be

dannyboy · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:28 am

Sydney Blue wrote:

dannyboy wrote:

do you seriously think the restraints in buisness are similiar to a draft or salary cap where the worse you perform the more the system assists you?????

No wonder so many buisnesses go under - they are doing too well :shock:

your confusing "cap" with "draft " Danny

no buisness can work properly under a draft

Many are forced to work with in a cap

so they are two different things then? :lol:

BIBI01 · **Joined:** Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:43 pm **Posts:** 322

nightcrawler wrote:

Quote:

"These days with that famous word (sic) of corporate governance, you actually look a lot harder at the people that you know and that are involved in the club. And that's what happened."

See if they want to appoint Ratts. That's fine, no real problem with the apointment as I've said previously.

But seriously, do they have to pretend that corporate governance was observed? .... Bond is supposedly the other candidate they were seriously considering, but it has already been reported he wasn't even asked to present to the panel.

i also have some concerns over the process in particular with no secondary interview.

1 interview can tell you a fair bit about someone, but there is only so much you can get from it.

I would have prefered the those in the runnng to at least have a 2nd interview.

After the 1st interview a perspective coach would have a greater insight in the clubs thoughts and the direction they are taking and what they require of a coach.

their 2nd interview or presentaion would have more 'substance' to it as the perspective coach would have something to work with.

raten had a great advantage as he is within the club, here had 1st hand knowledge &had an understanding of what the club wants and the direction they are taking and the requiremenst they want from a perspective coach.

ratten may well be the best man for the job, only time will prove this.

it's just a shame we still seem to be doing things the 'old carlton way'

camel · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:46 am

The trouble is, it will probably take 2 or 3 years, at least, to see if it really has been a "shame" or a shrewd and calculated appointment.

Many thought, at first, it was a good decision to appoint Pagan.

Sydney Blue · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:48 am

camelboy wrote:

The trouble is, it will probably take 2 or 3 years, at least, to see if it really has been a "shame" or a shrewd and calculated appointment.

Many thought, at first, it was a good decision to appoint Pagan.

some of us didn't :lol:

SHHH! · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:44 pm **Posts:** 890

camelboy wrote:

The trouble is, it will probably take 2 or 3 years, at least, to see if it really has been a "shame" or a shrewd and calculated appointment.

Many thought, at first, it was a good decision to appoint Pagan.

10 games won in his first year.
many still think it could have been.
But

It put us too high up the ladder for a decent pick that year.
Who didn't enjoy Davies and the wins?

Jarusa · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am **Posts:** 23123

SHHH! wrote:

camelboy wrote:

The trouble is, it will probably take 2 or 3 years, at least, to see if it really has been a "shame" or a shrewd and calculated appointment.

Many thought, at first, it was a good decision to appoint Pagan.

10 games won in his first year.
many still think it could have been.
But

It put us too high up the ladder for a decent pick that year.
Who didn't enjoy Davies and the wins?

It was his second year when the 10 games were won.

First year in 2003 we were lucky to finish second last.

Warby · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:09 pm

We were so bad under Pagan's reign; we were lucky the AFL didn't bring in a Second Division whereby we would have finished 32nd..........

Dominator_7 · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:19 pm

Warby wrote:

We were so bad under Pagan's reign; we were lucky the AFL didn't bring in a Second Division whereby we would have finished 32nd..........

Thats right.. how quickly people forget the countless thumpings we copped and constant humiliation we felt under Den Den... Now look how much better we re playing even though Ratts is experimenting with a team of mostly kids. The one thing ou always want to see your team do is try.. under Pagan, how many times did the tema look like they just didnt give a toss.... The past month, I've actually felt a little pride in the boys even though we re still losing. From what i've seen of the boys under Ratts, I'm more confident now then I've ever been that we re going to be much much better next year.

budzy · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:17 am **Posts:** 8128

BIBI01 wrote:

nightcrawler wrote:

Quote:

"These days with that famous word (sic) of corporate governance, you actually look a lot harder at the people that you know and that are involved in the club. And that's what happened."

See if they want to appoint Ratts. That's fine, no real problem with the apointment as I've said previously.

But seriously, do they have to pretend that corporate governance was observed? .... Bond is supposedly the other candidate they were seriously considering, but it has already been reported he wasn't even asked to present to the panel.

i also have some concerns over the process in particular with no secondary interview.

1 interview can tell you a fair bit about someone, but there is only so much you can get from it.

I would have prefered the those in the runnng to at least have a 2nd interview.

After the 1st interview a perspective coach would have a greater insight in the clubs thoughts and the direction they are taking and what they require of a coach.

their 2nd interview or presentaion would have more 'substance' to it as the perspective coach would have something to work with.

raten had a great advantage as he is within the club, here had 1st hand knowledge &had an understanding of what the club wants and the direction they are taking and the requiremenst they want from a perspective coach.

ratten may well be the best man for the job, only time will prove this.

it's just a shame we still seem to be doing things the 'old carlton way'

Swann said that the sub-committee started with an extensive list of prospective candidates and firstly weeded out the ones that didn't fit the sub-committee's initial requirements & profile.
That process left them with 4 candidates, of which they then interviewed.
That interview process clearly defined who best fitted into the sub-committees requirements & profile to coach/develop the team over the next few years.
I can't find an issue with the above process.

thedominator · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:21 pm

budzy wrote:

BIBI01 wrote:

nightcrawler wrote:

Quote:

"These days with that famous word (sic) of corporate governance, you actually look a lot harder at the people that you know and that are involved in the club. And that's what happened."

See if they want to appoint Ratts. That's fine, no real problem with the apointment as I've said previously.

But seriously, do they have to pretend that corporate governance was observed? .... Bond is supposedly the other candidate they were seriously considering, but it has already been reported he wasn't even asked to present to the panel.

i also have some concerns over the process in particular with no secondary interview.

1 interview can tell you a fair bit about someone, but there is only so much you can get from it.

I would have prefered the those in the runnng to at least have a 2nd interview.

After the 1st interview a perspective coach would have a greater insight in the clubs thoughts and the direction they are taking and what they require of a coach.

their 2nd interview or presentaion would have more 'substance' to it as the perspective coach would have something to work with.

raten had a great advantage as he is within the club, here had 1st hand knowledge &had an understanding of what the club wants and the direction they are taking and the requiremenst they want from a perspective coach.

ratten may well be the best man for the job, only time will prove this.

it's just a shame we still seem to be doing things the 'old carlton way'

Swann said that the sub-committee started with an extensive list of prospective candidates and firstly weeded out the ones that didn't fit the sub-committee's initial requirements & profile.
That process left them with 4 candidates, of which they then interviewed.
That interview process clearly defined who best fitted into the sub-committees requirements & profile to coach/develop the team over the next few years.
I can't find an issue with the above process.

Neither can I. If anyone does have an issue with it please enlighten us to why? Other than because Ratts was the one who got the nod and that he was a former team-mate of Kernahan.

Warby · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:26 pm

Yes.....I did envision this site if McKenna got the nod and we struggled.

There would be howls of "We had a proven Carlton Champ there who had respect; yet we bring in Mick Malthouse's Assistant from Collingwood" !!!!

Stuffed if you do....stuffed if you don't.

buzzaaaah · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am **Posts:** 17893

I think some people wanted a 2-3 month process ala Melbourne.

thedominator · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:30 pm

Warby wrote:

Yes.....I did envision this site if McKenna got the nod and we struggled.

There would be howls of "We had a proven Carlton Champ there who had respect; yet we bring in Mick Malthouse's Assistant from Collingwood" !!!!

Stuffed if you do....stuffed if you don't.

Exactly which means you acknowledge that you have the best people running the club at the moment and support the decision that they reach. End of story. Bring on 2008.

AIRCAV · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:46 pm

I trust Swann and Pratt for the succeful and professional operators they are.

Swann did not leave the plum Collingwood job to come to a club and then have his judgement ignored etc.

Melbournes 'process' could very well drag on for weeks with no guarantee its the right process at all. You coudl very well end up with a Cornflakes. Someone who seems perfect in every way, yet come game day, has no plan B.

camel · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:49 pm

buzzaaaah wrote:

I think some people wanted a 2-3 month process ala Melbourne.

I think our 5 year + process has gone on long enough.

BIBI01 · **Joined:** Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:43 pm **Posts:** 322

budzy wrote:

BIBI01 wrote:

nightcrawler wrote:

Quote:

"These days with that famous word (sic) of corporate governance, you actually look a lot harder at the people that you know and that are involved in the club. And that's what happened."

See if they want to appoint Ratts. That's fine, no real problem with the apointment as I've said previously.

But seriously, do they have to pretend that corporate governance was observed? .... Bond is supposedly the other candidate they were seriously considering, but it has already been reported he wasn't even asked to present to the panel.

i also have some concerns over the process in particular with no secondary interview.

1 interview can tell you a fair bit about someone, but there is only so much you can get from it.

I would have prefered the those in the runnng to at least have a 2nd interview.

After the 1st interview a perspective coach would have a greater insight in the clubs thoughts and the direction they are taking and what they require of a coach.

their 2nd interview or presentaion would have more 'substance' to it as the perspective coach would have something to work with.

raten had a great advantage as he is within the club, here had 1st hand knowledge &had an understanding of what the club wants and the direction they are taking and the requiremenst they want from a perspective coach.

ratten may well be the best man for the job, only time will prove this.

it's just a shame we still seem to be doing things the 'old carlton way'

Swann said that the sub-committee started with an extensive list of prospective candidates and firstly weeded out the ones that didn't fit the sub-committee's initial requirements & profile.
That process left them with 4 candidates, of which they then interviewed.
That interview process clearly defined who best fitted into the sub-committees requirements & profile to coach/develop the team over the next few years.
I can't find an issue with the above process.

the concern is with having just 1 interview with each of them and that these interviews were more of an 'informal 2 hour chat'
there is only so much you can get from a meeting like this.

i wouldn't want or expect a 3 month process.

BIBI01 · **Joined:** Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:43 pm **Posts:** 322

AIRCAV wrote:

I trust Swann and Pratt for the succeful and professional operators they are.

Swann did not leave the plum Collingwood job to come to a club and then have his judgement ignored etc.

Melbournes 'process' could very well drag on for weeks with no guarantee its the right process at all. You coudl very well end up with a Cornflakes. Someone who seems perfect in every way, yet come game day, has no plan B.

sure about that- b mitchell is still at the club.

Brett Ratten named coach - press conference update p23

Who is online