One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on May 29, 2014, 03:44:19 AM
-
Lloyd wrong to point finger at Tiger president
Beverley O'Connor
Herald-Sun
May 29, 2014
THE Tigers may need some tough love but what they don’t need is a blabbermouth president.
In admitting that his teammates have asked him for a more aggressive leadership style, captain Trent Cotchin continued to feed one of the year’s great debates: what has gone wrong at Tigerland?
Mind you, he did it from the vantage point of Richmond’s 113-point smashing of Greater Western Sydney. And there’s nothing better than a thumping win to silence your critics. And no one did it more emphatically than Jack Riewoldt.
His bizarre antics during the week were quickly forgotten after he kicked a career-best 11.2.
He had to make amends for clumsily analysing his beleaguered coach Damien Hardwick’s game plan.
Someone else who may need to make amends is former Essendon great Matthew Lloyd.
Now, I’m a big fan of Lloyd’s — he’s developed into a confident, assured commentator.
But his comments about Richmond president Peggy O’Neal were ill-timed and ill-thought-out.
He started something of a sideline frenzy, carried on by others, questioning why the recently appointed Tiger chief wasn’t getting out there explaining herself and the club, and reassuring anxious fans that all was well when it clearly wasn’t. But he went further.
“What does she bring to the table that makes her a great president?’’ he asked.
Before posing a question like that, he should have done his homework.
While she’s been in the job for only eight months, her credentials have been well documented and, really, they’re not all that different from many other presidents before her.
Significant legal, corporate and board experience with several years on the Richmond board under her belt.
And, as she herself pointed out while batting away the obvious implication that the only reason the question was posed was because she was a woman, it was a question that insulted the rest of the directors around the table who had demonstrated their faith in electing her.
And I can hardly imagine it would have been asked of a newly installed male who had also chosen to take a measured approach to the media feeding frenzy. In fact, I can think of many over the years who preferred not to make the game about themselves and provide a running commentary at every turn. David Smorgon at the Doggies, stuff Costa at the Cats.
Larger-than-life, highly vocal presidents can be a godsend for a club ... but they have their downside too. Charismatic presidents like Eddie McGuire and Jeff Kennett can become the story themselves and a distraction for the players and club executives.
McGuire’s unfortunate comments about Adam Goodes were raised again just this week, months after the furore, when former Pies coach Mick Malthouse took a veiled swipe at the way that incident was handled by the AFL community.
When Kennett was in charge at Hawthorn, the club was forever putting out spot fires because he was prone to planting his foot firmly in his mouth, something that became a source of running tension between the president and coach Alistair Clarkson.
Not the least of those incidents was the “Kennett Curse”, when he declared the Cats didn’t have the mental toughness to beat the Hawks. It took five years to shake off!
Some of the most effective presidents have been quiet achievers and it’s perfectly reasonable for Peggy O’Neal to fashion herself on that model.
WHEN she did speak in a measured, calm interview on radio she provided some reassurance for fans and rejected any knee-jerk reaction like sacking the coach a few months into an extended contract.
“One of the things that good clubs do is they remain stable, they continue to question themselves, but if you’re always looking to make drastic changes, you’re always starting over ... you don’t build great teams by starting over all the time,” she told SEN.
And CEO Brendon Gale was also at pains to point out that it was the football department that had to provide answers to the perplexing form slump, not the president.
And it’s not that O’Neal and the rest of the board are ignoring the signs and football boss Dan Richardson has been charged with the job of finding answers. That’s what good governance boards do: they don’t meddle where they don’t have real expertise.
That’s not to say that things didn’t run off the rails last week ahead of the emphatic statement the players themselves finally made on the ground.
Airing your dirty laundry can be counter-productive and, as Riewoldt ably demonstrated, only adds weight to the fears that something is going badly wrong. Pulling closely together and internally going through the rigorous process of asking the right questions will always yield the better outcome.
http://www.news.com.au/national/lloyd-wrong-to-point-finger-at-tiger-president/story-e6frfkp9-1226934955631
-
Well done Lloyd good question in still asking the same thing
Woman and their rights bull poo, first Timmy Lane now this one
Please
-
I think Beverley is the one who is incorrectly pointing the finger on the basis of gender.
Would she have written the same thing had Caro asked the same question?
Lordo may well have needed to do his homework when questioning Peggy's credentials but to suggest it was a gender based query is paranoid and unfair.
Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt Beverly and perhaps you could next time take your own advice, do some research and phone up Llordo and ask him yourself before putting an accusation to print.
-
I agree with her.
Lloyd did criticize her as did many on this site. I made a statement initially tongue in cheek about Peggy fixing the problem by putting on some footy boots.
I think she has handled the whole affair well. The board have asked the head of the footy department Dan Richardson to investigate what has gone wrong and have internally demanded answers. That is exactly how a good corporation goes about it. They don't rant and rave out in public.
When Lloyd questioned what SHE brought to the table, I doubt if he would have said the same thing about a bloke with the same qualifications. In fact, he would have been in awe of a male that had won the awards she has and that had achieved the same success in their profession.
I am a bloke too but I have taken off my sexist sun glasses and can see what many are refusing to here.
-
The problem with Lloyd's question is the fact he has never asked the same question of other presidents
He never asked the same of Summers (Saints) when they were imploding last season as they sacked Watters. Didn't ask the same of Bartlett at Melb, Koch at Port, the new Pres up in Brisbane
And he was deafly silent when the President of his own Club Little made that deplorable statement regarding the Bombers making a mistake "self reporting" about the supplements debacle
The fact that these presidents weren't questioned but the RFC president was/is the reason why people have raised the sexism issue
As for Peggy's credentials they are on record, whether people chose to acknowledge them is another argument all together.
The one thing I do think has got lost in this is and Peggy said it and Beverley O'Connor mentions in her piece, to question Peggy being in the position is an insult to those who voted her into that position and that is her fellow directors. They obviously believe she is the right person. So why aren't we trusting their judgement?
-
He can mince all he likes but Lloyd came across as sexist no doubt.
-
Regardless of anything he says Lloyd is just a flog
-
I have to agree 100% with her article. Lloyd did make himself out to be sexist rightly or wrongly, and should have done some groundwork before choosing his words more carefully if he truly believed O'Neal was being derelict in her duty to the club.
-
Llyod should stick to threatening caro
-
Lloyd should stick to threatening turf with a dive
-
The problem with Lloyd's question is the fact he has never asked the same question of other presidents
He never asked the same of Summers (Saints) when they were imploding last season as they sacked Watters. Didn't ask the same of Bartlett at Melb, Koch at Port, the new Pres up in Brisbane
And he was deafly silent when the President of his own Club Little made that deplorable statement regarding the Bombers making a mistake "self reporting" about the supplements debacle
The fact that these presidents weren't questioned but the RFC president was/is the reason why people have raised the sexism issue
As for Peggy's credentials they are on record, whether people chose to acknowledge them is another argument all together.
The one thing I do think has got lost in this is and Peggy said it and Beverley O'Connor mentions in her piece, to question Peggy being in the position is an insult to those who voted her into that position and that is her fellow directors. They obviously believe she is the right person. So why aren't we trusting their judgement?
+1 to this. Articulate as always WP
-
l'm with Matthew Lloyd on this one. His question where our president was & what she was doing to take control of the club on field & off field performances is well within his rights as a commentator & like anyone wanting to know what's going on down there at Tigerland. Even the coach & players with staff admitted things needed to be answered. He is correct & he was asking the football question. What do these high rollers bring to the club apart from money & business people. The big $ of course but l think Matthew Lloyd has not over stepped the mark & l see nothing at all sexiest about his remarks. people need to get over this sexiest & racsit rubbish that has taken hold in Australia
-
Lloyd should stick to threatening turf with a dive
And then when he loses the battle, rip it up. :shh
-
Very disappointed to see Lloyd painted as a sexist here. Had Richo said this about a woman president I dare say the response would be all :clapping
-
Very disappointed to see Lloyd painted as a sexist here. Had Richo said this about a woman president I dare say the response would be all :clapping
The difference is Richo would never say the things Lloyd said. Get real.
-
Richo would never question a president?
-
sexist is a word created by women to further incite anger and hatred from the opposite sex.
Cunning little darlings, they are.
Hey Bev - STFU !
White and half, thanks.
-
Richo would never question a president?
No. He wouldn't shoot his mouth off without checking the facts.
-
If u think a female president of an afl team isn't going to be questioned in some way, when her team is playing amateur football on an embarrassingly consistent level, then your an imbecile.
Personally, i believe her silence on the clubs issues isn't good enough.
Perhaps she has NFI about the heart of a traditional football club nor how to have any moral input whatsoever.
Maybe she's merely a corporate queen whose sole duty is to oversee the corporate operations of the club.
At the moment it looks like she has NFI what the job truly requires.
The RFC Is such a, "new age" club, all politically correct.
A shame they're not selling football anymiore.
-
Very disappointed to see Lloyd painted as a sexist here. Had Richo said this about a woman president I dare say the response would be all :clapping
The difference is Richo would never say the things Lloyd said. Get real.
touche :lol
-
Didnt Gary March used to cop criticism on this forum for commenting on football matters and told he should just STFU?
-
Didnt Gary March used to cop criticism on this forum for commenting on football matters and told he should just STFU?
:yep
-
Didnt Gary March used to cop criticism on this forum for commenting on football matters and told he should just STFU?
Lol, sure did. But in true OER style, let's allow a touch of amnesia to justify a good hearty stabbing - spoils the impact and point otherwise. :shh
-
Different things I reckon.
Presidents have no business discussing on-field matters like March did occasionally, but they certainly have a role in speaking to the members about the football structure, coaching tenure etc...
-
Pegs being playing them on a break don't worry about that, she s not :shh
-
Different things I reckon.
Presidents have no business discussing on-field matters like March did occasionally, but they certainly have a role in speaking to the members about the football structure, coaching tenure etc...
They shouldn't be commenting on football structures to the media mid season. These are INTERNAL matters. She already said that Dan Richardson was asked to critically analyze the football department. That is the correct approach.
-
I don't agree with that, when a club is in a crisis it needs strong leadership, no matter what stage of the season.
-
Didnt Gary March used to cop criticism on this forum for commenting on football matters and told he should just STFU?
Anyone with the slightest link to the RFC gets a bagging on this forum
-
The problem with Lloyd's question is the fact he has never asked the same question of other presidents
He never asked the same of Summers (Saints) when they were imploding last season as they sacked Watters. Didn't ask the same of Bartlett at Melb, Koch at Port, the new Pres up in Brisbane
And he was deafly silent when the President of his own Club Little made that deplorable statement regarding the Bombers making a mistake "self reporting" about the supplements debacle
The fact that these presidents weren't questioned but the RFC president was/is the reason why people have raised the sexism issue
As for Peggy's credentials they are on record, whether people chose to acknowledge them is another argument all together.
The one thing I do think has got lost in this is and Peggy said it and Beverley O'Connor mentions in her piece, to question Peggy being in the position is an insult to those who voted her into that position and that is her fellow directors. They obviously believe she is the right person. So why aren't we trusting their judgement?
Spot on.
-
Didnt Gary March used to cop criticism on this forum for commenting on football matters and told he should just STFU?
Lol, sure did. But in true OER style, let's allow a touch of amnesia to justify a good hearty stabbing - spoils the impact and point otherwise. :shh
Yep, lot of hypocrites around here.