Interesting backpage snippet from Dwayne Russel in the Age yesterday. He claimed that we were going to take Cam Cloke in the pre-season draft, despite Pagan's preference for Ty Zantuck.

Now I don't want this to turn into an episode of Pagan bashing (though I am sure it will end up that way for some), so let's put a variable in here. Suppose we were being coached by somebody in whom you had faith or belief in their abilities. Maybe it is Pagan, maybe it is Neil Craig, maybe Paul Roos, or John Worsfold. The question is:

Under what circumstances should the coach be allowed to have the final say in the Club's recruiting strategy? Are there any circumstances in which the coach should be allowed to get exactly the player he wants?

Will be interested in the responses

It's an interesting question.

It should not be about what the coach or the recruiting staff want but rather what the team needs.

Right now I have no idea what that is. Is it a Zantuck or a Cloke?

They are both rejects who have questionable dedication to being the best that they can be. Zantuck working his arse off at pre-season training should simply be seen as him applying fora spot in the team rather than a new found dedication to the game.

So in answer to your question, there should be consultation between coach and recruiting staff with the final decision resting with the recruiting.

_________________
“It is a state of mind, a system of belief, a way of seeing the world, a deep faith that, because you are Carlton, you belong to something great.” - Mike Fitzpatrick articulating what Out of the Blue means.

The senior coach, the head of football operations, the club's medical staff and any recruiting staff briefed to keep an eye on players already in the system. These are the people who should have the say on recruiting from within the system.

If the board feels they have to intervene, it means they have no faith in their football people, which means they should replace them.

Any other situation is untenable.

If this 'snippet' is true then who exactly is making the call on Cloke vs Zantuck vs Another 17yo? Is it Smorgon? Diggins? Kernahan? Grant Williams? Wayne Hughes? Who?

A Cloke?!

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

It's Verbs because it is not important.

One only has to see the power Sheedy has on recruiting an individual to see that it varies from coach to coach, and club to club.

The coach should have the final say in his area in this case the football department. That's not to say that others shouldn't have input (as well run organisations need different views) but like any management structure the buck stops with the top person within every department.
The board have been interfering with Pagan's department for 3 years now and that alone tells us that the board has no faith in their manager and therefore have the wrong person (in their eyes) running the department.
The solution is remove the boards decision making within the football department and allow the manager to run his area as he sees fit or remove the manager.
Anything else is a system for disaster.

the coach with the football dept should decide.

the board employ a coach and a football dept to make football decisions, so let them do their job.

if the board do not have faith in the football dept, then they need to replace the football dept.

no point having a player on the list if the coach does not want him there.

The coach should have some say when its NOT DENNIS PAGAN.......

I was under the impression (as per smorgans words) that we will not recruit anybody who isn't able to give us 100games or 5 years.............(pretty sure he said this when we looked like taking Gardiner).

So...............does this mean that we see Zantuck & Cloke as 100 gamers for the blues?

_________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit"
- Aristotle

Ryan.....the Club put out a statement last Thursday that we would not be taking Zantuck in the PSD.

You're right BIBI01, so therefore the board should be replaced to restore correct protocol and due process.

_________________
There's so much I could say...

So what you lot are saying is if the football department wanted to trade away all our draft picks the board shouldn't intervene? get a clue please.

_________________
"Davies could eventually become a player of Judd's ability" - Paganite03 Click here to see for yourself!

Don't try and oversimplify the argument, CG.

You know full well that the job of executive management (in this instance, the board) is to set broad goals and parameters - ie, the club is in rebuilding phase/the club is just two top-up players off a premiership... and the job of middle management (coaching and recruiting staff) is to implement those broad strategies using the most appropriate tactics.

Good executive management puts the right people in place and lets them act without interference, providing middle management is working towards the broader goal.

There's no contradiction in the football department having autonomy AND the board of directors having the ultimate responsibility.

Of course, if the football department attempts to make decisions that are clearly contrary to the overall agenda then the board should have a say.

I don't think anyone would be suggesting otherwise.

So we see Cloke as a 100+gamer?

I dunno, i don't get to see him train so perhaps he's gonna bring something to Carlton that he didn't offer to Collingwood.
But i can help but think that there are better players out there to pick.

_________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit"
- Aristotle

From memory i believe the board have a policy they make the call when a player is offered a 3 year contract, only then.

On what basis do they want Cloke? Can't be supporter feedback if it is meant to be behind closed doors now can it!!

This will be another nail in the coffin of Smorgan and Co, another Caro article on the board split and the disharmony with Pagan.....

Blah....Blah....Blah.....

_________________
Mjonc signing off at 8888

if we HAD to take any cloke i would prefer Jason.

_________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit"
- Aristotle

A say? sure
the FINAL say? never

coaches should not have the final say on recruitment, and they also shouldn't have the buck stop at them in a review.

I've argued this a million times before and I can't be bothered going over it again at detail, but the the Hawthorn model is the best one by far...

There needs to be a person employed in a role like Chris Felching, a person who is impartial who can make decisions based on a long-term strategy.... reporting to either a head of football or the CEO.

The coach is too close to his own tenure. He can definitely advise on players/strategies but not make them. No way, no how. Even if it wasn't Pagan.

The coach is there to get the most of the players he has. THATS what he should be judged on, not ladder position.

The coach has absolutely no place in having the last say on recruiting.

and ESPECIALLY when its Denis Pagan!!!!!!!!

(but everyone else as well)

Its the way of the future.

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

When Sheedy tells Dodoro....."I'd love Mal Michael"....they listen.

exactly why no one should operate under that system

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me