Jump to content

btron3000

Donator
  • Content Count

    6,089
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

 Content Type 

Profiles

Store

News Articles

Western Sydney Wanderers Youth Match Reports

Western Sydney Wanderers Match Database

Western Sydney Wanderers Women Match Reports

Western Sydney Wanderers Player Database

Western Sydney Wanderers NPL

Forums

Calendar

Everything posted by btron3000

  1. It’s like having one of those crazy owners of, like, the Romanian second division or something, that just sacks coaches for no reason (or the instability of Turkey, hey Popa!). Except that’s understandable because mad owners can do what they like. In this situation people are voted for and then are meant to appoint who they think is best on behalf of the football community.
  2. Surely the end game should have been to WIN THE ******* WORLD CUP!! Unless he did something horrendous, why would you jeopardise that?
  3. Soooo... anyyyyway... who wants to coach the team? I bet they have heaps of people rushing to be a part of this...
  4. It's unbelievable that they need another review to determine what happened AFTER the sacking has taken place! Surely if you're going to sack someone you'd gather all the info first?
  5. I like this one, plenty of questions to be answered! https://www.ftbl.com.au/news/the-questions-the-ffa-board-must-face-today-519098
  6. Scarev and Pryds, thanks for the insights! Couple of things: It's irrelevant what a clause in a contract says if the clause is illegal. For example, I can't give you a contract saying that you have to work 70 hours a week. Even if you agree to it and want the money, it's an illegal clause. Many employment contracts have a clause that says something like "the company may terminate you for any reason by giving 3 months notice..." To you and me that means that they can sack someone with no cause - "any reason". But to a lawyer, that means that they have to give you 3 months notice, and the "any reason" part means "regardless of the reason". It's weird lawyer talk, but that's what it means. The reason still has to be justified and legal. I would hazard a guess that is why the narrative has changed. One of the Board members came out and said "many coaches have clauses that allow termination for on-field performance" or something like that. They are trying to wedge the "any reason" clause into a "performance clause". If he had a proper performance clause, it would say "team must be number x in the world by x date" or something. Again, it's what they don't say. If they had a clause like that and he didn't hit it, they'd say so. But c'mon, is anyone in world football going to suggest the Matildas haven't hit their targets?? While I like that Mersiades is after them, she's not above being a rat. I read her book about the World Cup. Not once did she take any responsibiity for what happened. She had numerous chances to speak up and she barely did a thing. Then she took a payout. Then in her book she kept suggesting that the consultants that Lowy used were rats themselves but never actually came out and said it directly. It was so passive agressive. I could see why people working with her wouldn't like her. We need someone calling out the sham artists in FFA and FIFA, but she ain't above a little nasty game herself. Like implying certain people were briefed without actually saying who they were. He's hardly innocent. There are plenty of things that he could have done. He could have stood firm against any Board member that wanted the sacking. He could have lobbied other Board members. He could have explained that they'd have a media shitfight on their hands. And if he couldn't convince them, he could have refused to be the one that fronted the media and left it up to the person who wanted the sacking. He could have refused to pull the trigger himself. He even could have resigned. But once again he shows what a Yes Man he is. Spineless and weak. It's all self-interest for him, he doesn't care about what is right, or for the game. Before saying Gallop is not to blame, everyone on this board should ask themselves - regardless of who it was, if you didn't believe that someone should be sacked, would you do it? Now, add another part - would you front the media and deliver weasly words about why it happened? Now, add a further part - what if this was a coach who had given the team a genuine shot at winning the World Cup?? Gallop either believed Stajcic should be sacked, or he didn't have the balls to say NO to someone. He's no victim here.
  7. 100%. And he was only appointed CEO of the NRL because he was a Newscorp stooge and the ARL and Superleague were compromising. The ARL thought they were getting their game back, but they had to accept Gallop as CEO in the deal. The banned fans saga should have been the last straw. I mean, it took Bozza to tell him that he should talk to the fans! hahahaha "Mate, you better go talk to your main stakeholders, without them you haven't got a game". This is what you get when you employ puppets. Uncy Fwank didn't like it when big bad John O'Neill didn't agree with him, so first he got Ben Buckley, and now Gallop. Both absolute flatliners.
  8. For sure. For one, Gallop never acts quickly on anything unless he has been told to e.g. the sacking of Osiek. It's just not his style to go rushing into things. Second, no Board is "forced" to do anything. They got the results in December, and he was sacked a month later. That is plenty of time to get an understanding as to what happened, who knew, etc. etc., which is what they say the review is for. They are just covering their arses because it's blown up. If Gallop withheld info from them until January, they should have taken their time and asked the right questions then.
  9. Though this part: "It is understood the board and its new chairman, Chris Nikou, remained sure their decision to terminate the contract of Stajcic was the correct one for the Matildas but were dismayed they were forced to act in such a manner and so abruptly. Sources suggest the board believes many of the issues around the team's culture should have been flagged much earlier and rectified well before ending in the catastrophic events that tarnished the FFA's brand and damaged the image of Stajcic. suggests the Board - who it seems ultimately made the call - are innocent of any wrongdoing. LOL
  10. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/this-has-trashed-our-brand-gallop-faces-review-over-stajcic-axing-20190212-p50xam.html
  11. Yeah I generally find the thing to look for in these situations is more what they don't say. Stajcic never really expanded on what he thought was wrong with the methodology or process of the first survey, but that could have been as much down to the fact that no journalist asked him to expand on it. The FFA's comment about Stajcic admitting the team was dysfunctional "in the presence of the CEO and an FFA lawyer" speaks volumes. If they could have said "Alen Stajcic was given an opportuity to respond to the reason for his sacking" they would have. Even if they could have said that they met formally to go through the survey feedback, you'd think they would do that. But they didn't say that. It's got the smell of a massive stitch-up. The thing that gets me most now that I think about it, is that ONCE AGAIN the only time Gallop shows any guts whatsoever is when he's attacking someone within the football community. Where was his backbone when the fans had their details hung out to dry by the Tele? Where is his backbone when some AFL stooge puts the boot into football? Where is he when football is being hounded as being a hooligan's game when stats show more violence at other sports? Let's hope they finally punt this imposter.
  12. Yeah how can you get your own fan club if you’re not racing off to celebrate for 5 minutes with the RBB even though you’ve been called offside?
  13. They paid him out? Bizarre. If the FFA had some sort of proof, they should have either sacked him properly or, if it wasn’t clear it was a sackable issue but they wanted to pay him out to be rid of him, had him sign a confidentiality agreement. If he wasn’t going to sign one, and you don’t have certain proof he deserved to be sacked, you’re destined for a court (and PR) battle. This “he admitted it was disfuctional” is entirely dependent on context. If it was a normal conversation and he didn’t know sacking was on the cards, that doesn’t count as giving him an opportunity to respond to the reasons he’s being sacked. What a mess.
  14. Wow. About 1000 times better than anything Gallop has ever written or said. I know that doesn’t clear his name, and he was a bit unclear about what happened between the PFA report and Jan 18, but if the FFA haven’t given him a chance to defend himself they’re ****ed. If true, this has unfair dismissal written all over it, whether the FFA have a good reason to sack him or not. You can’t just march someone out without explaining your decision or allowing them a chance to respond.
  15. btron3000

    A-league 18/19 Round 18

    So... does anyone watch this so-called “A-League” anymore?
  16. btron3000

    Squad Development 2018/19 Part 2

    No-one is slating anyone here, there’s just a bit of fun being had regarding the continual false rumours all A-League clubs experience, especially ours! We’d all love him to come (unless he’s just wants a final holiday).
  17. Isn’t #savehakeem a political banner? Shouldn’t that be banned?
  18. btron3000

    Coach and Staff Thread 2018/19

    One last thing on the generational stuff - I agree with the above, it's more a lack of quality than any kind of generational characteristic. That's why it was a silly comment. You can't blame Babbel for Hamill's pass, and you can't say that Hamill doesn't care. With his level of talent, caring is the only thing keeping him going and getting him selected! Our problem isn't that this whole generation of players don't care, it's that we have a **** group of players from this generation!
  19. btron3000

    Coach and Staff Thread 2018/19

    Exactly. As Wendy pointed out, there is a big difference between creating a culture whereby it is "us against them" and "you guys against them". When a coach gives the players the hairdryer treatment behind closed doors but protects them publicly, he is essentially saying "I'm in this with you. WE are going to get through it. But to do that you have to hear these blunt words". When he blasts them publicly, he is saying "I'm good enough, you're not". That's not to say that castigating some players in the media doesn't work. But it's usually a last resort. At the start I thought he was doing it well, protecting some by not talking about them publicly, but calling out the ones that really needed it, like Roly. Perhaps that's where Markus is with this group - feeling the need to call them out publicly - but it does't seem planned or part of a bigger strategy of his. Everything a coach does, from all the back-end work to the way they handle the media, should be designed with improving the players, the team, and the club. At the moment it just seems it's more about his own feelings and concerns. He's a playing legend, and has done fairly well (but patchy) coaching overseas. That should give him some grace, with players, fans and management. But it won't last long.
  20. btron3000

    Coach and Staff Thread 2018/19

    Yes, I've been thinking about it from a teaching standpoint too. It's very similar. Teachers can write off kids (and parents!) as acting a certain way because they're from a certain generation, or they can recognise that that is the reality of the situation and deal with it. That's not to say that the kids don't need to learn certain lessons about life, of course they do, but it's much easier to teach them stuff if you understand where they are coming from. The New England Patriots just won their 6th Superbowl since 2001. They've been in the Superbowl 9 times in the last 19 I think it is. This is a league that is designed to be more equal than even the A-league. They have a salary cap, with no marquees outside it, and they have a draft which gives the worst teams the best pick of the next crop coming through. Given there are 32 teams working within this environment of equity, it's a remarkable achievement, and it's all based on finding small edges over other teams, rather than just buying the best players. I am reading a book by a guy who worked with Bill Belichick (the coach) and Tom Brady (the Quarterback) for a few years. This is what he wrote: "Today we operate in a world in which millenials dominate the NFL workforce. Brady, in contrast, is old enough to be the dad of some of the young guys in the locker room. He's a Hall-of-Famer to you and me but a geezer to some of his teammates. To get his job done, though, he must relate to these kids just as any boss does. Therefore, after 2015, our off-season review included detailed discussions about how to work with millenials: how to reach them and motivate them. I promise you, no other NFL team thinks this way." That last line, in particular, is interesting. The NFL is known for having "old-school" guys, who believe in their way of thinking rather than looking at new ways to do things. Belichick is no soft touch. In fact, he has a reputation for ruthlessness. But he, and therefore the Patriots because he runs the entire show, are always searching for new ways of doing things, and they are practical enough to realise when their ways work and when they should change it up.* I gets the feeling that Markus is struggling to change it up and get through to them. His complaints are more him thinking out loud or, as pointed out earlier, protecting his own damaged ego. * It should be noted, there are seasons that the Patriots haven't done so well, and Belichick has admitted that he couldn't seem to motivate them for some reason. So, y'know, take one season with a grain of salt. Two seasons though...
  21. btron3000

    Coach and Staff Thread 2018/19

    If this was true - that WSW bigwigs aren’t happy with Babbel because of the comments - I’d be more concerned about how the info gets to the press than the actual issue. One-off problems (e.g. bad coaches, problem players etc.) can be resolved. But someone from the top brass leaking info to the press is a serious systemic issue.
  22. btron3000

    Coach and Staff Thread 2018/19

    Exactly. Every generation thinks the next one is soft, because the world keeps gets easier to live in. It's up to Babbel to work out how to get the most from this genration.
  23. btron3000

    All Doom and Gloom? There's Hope.

    If they put the derby at ANZ they better be prepared for a bunch of people asking for refunds.
  24. btron3000

    Coach and Staff Thread 2018/19

    Good observation. I don't think pointing out the "generational" problem is a good idea for any coach. If I was the Board or CEO, that would concern me. I'd ask "what are you going to do about it, because the players who you could bring in are of the same generation?" Pointing the finger at millenials is the type of stuff English football has been doing for years. All of a sudden they make the semis of a major tournament and the kids are ok. Had they gone out to Colombia on pens half the country would still be talking about how the players these days don't care. It's a simple excuse for people that can't find other reasons. It's kind of acceptable in a fan who is helpless to do anything about their national team. It's not an acceptable excuse for the coach that needs to work out how to get the best out of this generation of players. He's not gonna be coaching Baby Boomers all of a sudden. I'm still pro-Babbel (for now), but that was a stupid comment. It was only one little one in an entire press conference, so hopefully it's not too big an issue. But it was a stupid thing to say. Was like have Graeme Souness in the presser.
  25. btron3000

    Squad Development 2018/19 Part 2

    Interesting. This seems to reinforce that the A-league is not giving enough opportunities to young players. That, or the quality of young players is drastically reduced. Ever since Topor got injured in the GF, I have thought that A-league benches need to be bigger. Making two bench spots for youth might help. That way, if someone is injured, the coach can choose to play a vet out of position, or bring on a kid. I don't know, but they gotta do something... perhaps the additional two teams will help...
×