Hasler's trail of carnage split club

[Jatz Crackers]

One thing that Upsets me that as far as i know has been under scrutinised.

If Des was doing all the Contract Negotiations, ir would seem mutually benefical with the get out clases put in to the contract, this not only gave des more leverage over the club, but also drove up his worth in negotiation if there was an implication of, "make me happy or Player a,player b and player C could walk with me "

Pretty Unethical if you ask me, and maybe the primary reason Manly needed to wrestle some control back.

Its pretty Scandalous really. and a highly irregular business model.

Yes indeed. And add to that subject the serious implications for the salary cap if contract negotiations are held outside of the clubs financial controls.

I feel the polarised opinions on here in which some blame hasler for his actions before being sacked while some blame the board for their inaction in the 1st place are lopsidedly entrenched.

Its clear to me that if we must asign blame then it cant be on Des' head alone because he clearly had cause to be disgruntled & nor can it be the club board because clearly they had a coach working outside of prudent operational practices.

 

[Matabele]

Especially as Grant Meyer came from the Bulldogs originally...?

It all makes sense why he would trust no one....!

Surely Not? No....Could he have been a plant as part of some massive and dastardly plan to try to destabilise us as far back as then?

Lucky he was sussed by Max and the FC!! LOL

So you can definitively confirm the FC representatives on the Board, and Delmege, did not suggest KPIs should be in place for Hasler as far back as 2008?

Bump

 

[swoop]

What do you make of the allegations in the paper over the weekend that it was Graham Lowe who was against extending Hasler's deal.

From what I can work out, and its only my interpretation, Lowe was the catalyst for cutting Des back to a more normal coaching role, as opposed to running the whole show.

Having one man running as much as Des was must of been identified as a "dangerous situation". They must of decided to change, and Des didnt like it.

I fully understand both sides.

I wonder if it would ever be worth having a head coach who also sat on the board/had some equity in the club.

Imagine being back in 2008/2009 and saying to Des: "Look, we think you're doing a good job. In order to keep you happy and committed to the club (and also to ensure that you'll continue to do a good job), we'd like to offer you a position on the board and make you part owner of the MWSE."

What's the downside? Obviously some time between 2008 and now Des and the club haven't gotten along (understatement of the year), but could that have been avoided if the club realised how important he was (you can't deny that he is a good coach) and showed that feeling too?

Just an idea...

We had one of those but the bulldogs signed him.

 

[Garts]

Especially as Grant Meyer came from the Bulldogs originally...?

It all makes sense why he would trust no one....!

Surely Not? No....Could he have been a plant as part of some massive and dastardly plan to try to destabilise us as far back as then?

Lucky he was sussed by Max and the FC!! LOL

So you can definitively confirm the FC representatives on the Board, and Delmege, did not suggest KPIs should be in place for Hasler as far back as 2008?

Bump

What is the issue with Des having KPI's anyway? To measure performance you need some. I do not see the issue, however maybe they went about it the wrong way.

 

[Matabele]

Well I would suggest his KPIs are to produce a competitive football team within the financial parameters established for him. Which to the best of my knowledge he was doing in 2008 and as far as most seemed concerned, up until 5 weeks ago when, it should be noted the club begged him to remain and threw big dollars at him (regardless of Lowe's apparent opinion of him).

Back in 2008 I distinctly remember fellows like Byso and DSM5 arguing the KPI demand was justified in case the club's performance slipped. News flash: we sit on the longest finals streak of all clubs and have just added another Premiership.

 

[swoop]

Well I would suggest his KPIs are to produce a competitive football team within the financial parameters established for him. Which to the best of my knowledge he was doing in 2008 and as far as most seemed concerned, up until 5 weeks ago when, it should be noted the club begged him to remain and threw big dollars at him (regardless of Lowe's apparent opinion of him).

Back in 2008 I distinctly remember fellows like Byso and DSM5 arguing the KPI demand was justified in case the club's performance slipped. News flash: we sit on the longest finals streak of all clubs and have just added another Premiership.

Yeah, we should of just given Des a blank cheque and hope he doesn't send the place broke.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Well I would suggest his KPIs are to produce a competitive football team within the financial parameters established for him. Which to the best of my knowledge he was doing in 2008 and as far as most seemed concerned, up until 5 weeks ago when, it should be noted the club begged him to remain and threw big dollars at him (regardless of Lowe's apparent opinion of him).

Back in 2008 I distinctly remember fellows like Byso and DSM5 arguing the KPI demand was justified in case the club's performance slipped. News flash: we sit on the longest finals streak of all clubs and have just added another Premiership.

In the context of the success we as a club was experiencing under Hasler I would agree that KPIs were unecessary.

Under the context of a coach who wanted to control everything to the point of effectively excluding the club excercising normal operations KPIs and whatever else required to correct that situation was necessary.

 

[DSM5]

Matabele, there's nothing wrong with asking or setting KPIs. Most astute businesses have them for their staff. Then everyone knows where the business is at, and what are the expectations going forward. I'm certain that Des would have had them for every player. He would have sat down and discussed where he wanted each player to be in certain time frames. There's nothing wrong with that. To refuse to meet and set them out, is a little on the arrogant side don't you think? If that is indeed what happened.

 

[bones]

News flash: we sit on the longest finals streak of all clubs

Only because the storm were not playing for points last year. Had they been Manly would have finished 9th.
2009 and 2010 were both unacceptable results considering the calibre of coach and the playing roster.

 

[Matabele]

Well I would suggest his KPIs are to produce a competitive football team within the financial parameters established for him. Which to the best of my knowledge he was doing in 2008 and as far as most seemed concerned, up until 5 weeks ago when, it should be noted the club begged him to remain and threw big dollars at him (regardless of Lowe's apparent opinion of him).

Back in 2008 I distinctly remember fellows like Byso and DSM5 arguing the KPI demand was justified in case the club's performance slipped. News flash: we sit on the longest finals streak of all clubs and have just added another Premiership.

In the context of the success we as a club was experiencing under Hasler I would agree that KPIs were unecessary.

Under the context of a coach who wanted to control everything to the point of effectively excluding the club excercising normal operations KPIs and whatever else required to correct that situation was necessary.

If that was indeed the case (and this is a response to Swoop too) why the big offer for him to coach beyond 2013 and why the desire to retain him for 2012? Surely if he was as bad as you are all being led to believe then it would have been a case of "no need for the option, Toovey will coach next year, and all the best with the open market".

I contend history is being rewritten by the jilted.

---

News flash: we sit on the longest finals streak of all clubs

Only because the storm were not playing for points last year. Had they been Manly would have finished 9th.
2009 and 2010 were both unacceptable results considering the calibre of coach and the playing roster.

Well finishing 5th in 2009 and being knocked out by the salary cap cheats was not so bad. If Delmege hadn't flashed his Gold Amex at the season launch we probably would have gone back to back. 2010 was poor by recent standards but still good enough o have several clubs interested in Des' services should he become available.

And if 2010 was so diabolical what inspired you to attend every game in 2011?

 

[swoop]

I don't doubt his coaching ability, imo he was a control freak and was out of control. As far as the offer is concerned I think he had signed elsewhere well before that offer came along. The problem I see with the board is how did they let it get into that situation and not rein him in sooner.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

If that was indeed the case (and this is a response to Swoop too) why the big offer for him to coach beyond 2013 and why the desire to retain him for 2012? Surely if he was as bad as you are all being led to believe then it would have been a case of "no need for the option, Toovey will coach next year, and all the best with the open market".

They always wanted to retain him & given the successes, who wouldnt have. I dont see that wanting to correct those problems precludes retaining Hasler.

 

[Matabele]

I don't doubt his coaching ability, imo he was a control freak and was out of control. As far as the offer is concerned I think he had signed elsewhere well before that offer came along. The problem I see with the board is how did they let it get into that situation and not rein him in sooner.

This control freak sentiment is revisionist. It was virtually unheard of five weeks ago, the only thing previous that was mentioned was his desire to fly under the radar and control who of the players did media ops. Not only was this understandable in the post-Stewart situation, it was also widely applauded here.

I think we need to be careful to sift through the propaganda carefully and not be too eager to diminish Hasler's achievements. After all, this very thread has an FC Board member admitting selective emails and appraisals were provided to the Herald for the sole reason of tarnishing Hasler. It's just that I struggle to see how Lowe's supposed opinion of Hasler is relevant five weeks ago when the club threw big dollars at Hasler in a last ditch attempt to keep him. if anything it is damning of Lowe and indicative of the opinion in which he was held, seeing as his recommendations are from last year and were patently ignored.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

The control freak thing has been around for ages. Some of the details about the extent were definitely missing & came as a surprise. So too Haslers attitude in certain matters.

And I think everyone here acknowledges Haslers achievements. I suspect most peoples disappontment is a form of reflection of that.

I still see entrenched positions on this.

 

[swoop]

I don't doubt his coaching ability, imo he was a control freak and was out of control. As far as the offer is concerned I think he had signed elsewhere well before that offer came along. The problem I see with the board is how did they let it get into that situation and not rein him in sooner.

This control freak sentiment is revisionist. It was virtually unheard of five weeks ago, the only thing previous that was mentioned was his desire to fly under the radar and control who of the players did media ops. Not only was this understandable in the post-Stewart situation, it was also widely applauded here.

I think we need to be careful to sift through the propaganda carefully and not be too eager to diminish Hasler's achievements. After all, this very thread has an FC Board member admitting selective emails and appraisals were provided to the Herald for the sole reason of tarnishing Hasler. It's just that I struggle to see how Lowe's supposed opinion of Hasler is relevant five weeks ago when the club threw big dollars at Hasler in a last ditch attempt to keep him. if anything it is damning of Lowe and indicative of the opinion in which he was held, seeing as his recommendations are from last year and were patently ignored.

As I said before, I believe he'd already signed with the dogs. Des wasn't sacked on Lowe's comments as you would lead us to believe. How come you bring up Lowe's comments and not others. What about Arko's comments, Krilich's comments and so on. Des was supposedly close to Penn and Zorba so why was Des so quick to sign with the Dogs with 18 months still left on his contract?

 

[Rex]

This control freak sentiment is revisionist.

Say what? You been hiding in Outer Mongolia for the last five years?

The control freak side of Des was part of his path to two premierships. Plus a third of being the top legit team. And without the injuries in 09 and 10, who knows what might have happened?

It was when the control freak side was heavily directed at attacking within that the end of the road began looming.

 

[Matabele]

I don't doubt his coaching ability, imo he was a control freak and was out of control. As far as the offer is concerned I think he had signed elsewhere well before that offer came along. The problem I see with the board is how did they let it get into that situation and not rein him in sooner.

This control freak sentiment is revisionist. It was virtually unheard of five weeks ago, the only thing previous that was mentioned was his desire to fly under the radar and control who of the players did media ops. Not only was this understandable in the post-Stewart situation, it was also widely applauded here.

I think we need to be careful to sift through the propaganda carefully and not be too eager to diminish Hasler's achievements. After all, this very thread has an FC Board member admitting selective emails and appraisals were provided to the Herald for the sole reason of tarnishing Hasler. It's just that I struggle to see how Lowe's supposed opinion of Hasler is relevant five weeks ago when the club threw big dollars at Hasler in a last ditch attempt to keep him. if anything it is damning of Lowe and indicative of the opinion in which he was held, seeing as his recommendations are from last year and were patently ignored.

As I said before, I believe he'd already signed with the dogs. Des wasn't sacked on Lowe's comments as you would lead us to believe. How come you bring up Lowe's comments and not others. What about Arko's comments, Krilich's comments and so on. Des was supposedly close to Penn and Zorba so why was Des so quick to sign with the Dogs with 18 months still left on his contract?

You believe he had signed with the Dogs but not one iota of evidence points to this. I guess all his meetings with Penn etc after the GF might have been a charade. It is plausible, I guess?

As my mate Rex suggests, no one seemed to haves trouble with the control freak until his very success became a threat to some within, arguably those with the least experience and savvy in matters football. If I was winning Premierships I too would have an issue with attempts to hobble me by fellows of inferior distinction and pedigree in the field within i was achieving unprecedented success So like Mayer before him, he suffered the ides of March, or in this instance October.

 

[manlywarringah]

Maybe we should ask ourselves one question which has been lost in all of this.

Could we really afford the $750,000 a season that Des was asking for? It was only $50,000 extra in the first instance but grew another $250,000 once he contacted the bulldogs.

Considering it was only a grand final victory that we were able to break even, i am a little relieved that we won't be paying out that much money after all. While i feel sad that Des won't be there, we have to remember we are not a wealthy club.

If we did re-sign him and didn't win the title, we'd be behind the eightball money wise every year.

Des is good but maybe we just couldn't afford him in the end.

Toovs will be on maybe the same as Des and hopefully he can have similar success.

 

[swoop]

I don't doubt his coaching ability, imo he was a control freak and was out of control. As far as the offer is concerned I think he had signed elsewhere well before that offer came along. The problem I see with the board is how did they let it get into that situation and not rein him in sooner.

This control freak sentiment is revisionist. It was virtually unheard of five weeks ago, the only thing previous that was mentioned was his desire to fly under the radar and control who of the players did media ops. Not only was this understandable in the post-Stewart situation, it was also widely applauded here.

I think we need to be careful to sift through the propaganda carefully and not be too eager to diminish Hasler's achievements. After all, this very thread has an FC Board member admitting selective emails and appraisals were provided to the Herald for the sole reason of tarnishing Hasler. It's just that I struggle to see how Lowe's supposed opinion of Hasler is relevant five weeks ago when the club threw big dollars at Hasler in a last ditch attempt to keep him. if anything it is damning of Lowe and indicative of the opinion in which he was held, seeing as his recommendations are from last year and were patently ignored.

As I said before, I believe he'd already signed with the dogs. Des wasn't sacked on Lowe's comments as you would lead us to believe. How come you bring up Lowe's comments and not others. What about Arko's comments, Krilich's comments and so on. Des was supposedly close to Penn and Zorba so why was Des so quick to sign with the Dogs with 18 months still left on his contract?

You believe he had signed with the Dogs but not one iota of evidence points to this. I guess all his meetings with Penn etc after the GF might have been a charade. It is plausible, I guess?

So all your comments are based on fact are they? You put up Lowe's comments as facts yet everyone else's is propaganda and lies. Penn himself said that he had numerous meetings with Hasler and believed there had been a deal struck only to have the goalposts shifted. But that was in the same article as Lowe's comments so are they both lies or just one of them?

 

[Matabele]

Well as Jonesy has already admitted, the Board made the leak to the Herald. I doubt they did a full dump, so it's probably a selective leak (no puns intended). Lowe's comments appear damning now, but given they lay dormant for over 12 months and Penn, as you say had numerous meetings, clearly they were ignored. So what is there relevance except to revise history?

Similarly Penn's comments in the same article, assuming they are quotes. Revisionist history. And so we have it, a rush to damn Hasler. But where was that rush 6 weeks ago when fans were screaming for his retention and the Board scurrying around to secure it?