Let's try and keep chat on it here rather than spread across the other threads.
Damning NZF Report - The Muir you know
https://twitter.com/pineyzb/status/1047296243653734400
Utterly galling that Andy Martin and Andreas Heraf can walk away from NZF with (reportedly) large payouts, given the havoc they have wreaked and the negligence and dreadful behaviour they have displayed, which have now been confirmed by the Muir Report. Appalling.
Might sadly explain why the AWs have had no games since the frebbie tourney in India, and appear to have no games in the near future.
Cashflow at NZF has taken a hit. Add in the cost of lawyers putting this report together.
Simpson Grierson would not come cheap. A small law firm charges $400 per hour so I would imagine that Simpson Grierson would charge significantly more. They interviewed approx 80 people so there would be a hefty bill.
Clearly The Board have sat by and done stuff all. How many times did they express confidence in Martin after cock ups?
NZF is so, so, so borked it's almost beyond saving. It's a clear case of institutional incompetence and self aggrandisement.
Having said that it has to change, and it can. The waka has to be turned around sharply - sharply enough that a few of those standing up at the front giving orders lose their balance and fall out, so they can be replaced by the right people. I look forward to some positive changes.
Be interesting to know if they are dipping into the 'International Teams Fund' (ie cash generated by AWs), to pay for everything.
I imagine that's their main source of cash reserves.
Simpson Grierson would not come cheap. A small law firm charges $400 per hour so I would imagine that Simpson Grierson would charge significantly more. They interviewed approx 80 people so there would be a hefty bill.
Clearly The Board have sat by and done stuff all. How many times did they express confidence in Martin after cock ups?
I don't know the business or industries that have the capability to do this work so not sure what the cost should be (could be anything from market research that focuses on issues management to law and consultancy firms)
Simpson Grierson would not come cheap. A small law firm charges $400 per hour so I would imagine that Simpson Grierson would charge significantly more. They interviewed approx 80 people so there would be a hefty bill.
Clearly The Board have sat by and done stuff all. How many times did they express confidence in Martin after cock ups?
I don't know the business or industries that have the capability to do this work so not sure what the cost should be (could be anything from market research that focuses on issues management to law and consultancy firms)
Sure it needs to be independant but a large expense which could have been averted if The Board did its job by keeping tabs on Martin and challenging him when he cocked up. Instead they gave him a vote of confidence so he could go his merry way.
https://twitter.com/pineyzb/status/1047296243653734400
Utterly galling that Andy Martin and Andreas Heraf can walk away from NZF with (reportedly) large payouts, given the havoc they have wreaked and the negligence and dreadful behaviour they have displayed, which have now been confirmed by the Muir Report. Appalling.
hard to form a view on what this bullying was given the very vague description of events. The findings should result in change but my voyeuristic nature has not been satisfied
I have more respect for the women footballers involved than needing to know the details about how Heraf treated them like shark. The above comment smacks of someone who is suspicious that the silly ladies were crying because a man was manly with them and would like to tell women whether they've been "bullied/abused sufficiently" for his standards.
interesting the report states that it appears grassroots is in great shape (something NZF have latched on to), when they do f all for grassroots
and is Deryk Shaw made of Teflon?
dump them all, flush the dunny and move on
Appalling
interesting the report states that it appears grassroots is in great shape (something NZF have latched on to), when they do f all for grassroots
why can't I like this several times
interesting the report states that it appears grassroots is in great shape (something NZF have latched on to), when they do f all for grassroots
which is probably why it's in great shape!
I have more respect for the women footballers involved than needing to know the details about how Heraf treated them like shark. The above comment smacks of someone who is suspicious that the silly ladies were crying because a man was manly with them and would like to tell women whether they've been "bullied/abused sufficiently" for his standards.
That seems to be a key basis of the report dealing with the issues with the Ferns ie male and female players need to be treated differently. See paragraph 19(d). There are all sorts of issues raised here but I do like others wonder where the “coaching” stopped and the “bullying” started. It’s a valid question, especially if we are going to learn something. Should all Ferns coaches have had previous women’s coaching experience for example?
Surely the whole board needs to go?
If they haven't seen fit to put any accountability on Martin, they're complicit via their inaction.
Surely the whole board needs to go?
If they haven't seen fit to put any accountability on Martin, they're complicit via their inaction.
Should all Ferns coaches have had previous women’s coaching experience for example?
Yes, absolutely. Women's football is quite different from men's in a lot of ways and requires a slightly different approach. Heraf seems to mistakenly believe that one size fits all when you really have to tailor your coaching style to your players to get the best out of them.
Maybe a men's coach who understands that could come in and adapt but with the opinions Heraf expressed it was clear he was never going to do it.
Should all Ferns coaches have had previous women’s coaching experience for example?
Yes, absolutely. Women's football is quite different from men's in a lot of ways and requires a slightly different approach. Heraf seems to mistakenly believe that one size fits all when you really have to tailor your coaching style to your players to get the best out of them.
Maybe a men's coach who understands that could come in and adapt but with the opinions Heraf expressed it was clear he was never going to do it.
if Heraf bullied men - they would tell him where to go as well
wait, none of this is news until Sam Malcolmson has been interviewed for his opinion. Has anyone heard from him yet? He is the real voice of football in nz...
Sorry I went off track.
RE: Heraf bullying - i have heard rumours that when he was talking to people within the local game in WGTN and AKLD, he did pretty much tell them that they didnt know anything and that he was going to implement his system with little regard for their ideas/knowledge/expertise. With light being shone on his other dealings with people, I wonder if he tried to bully people into seeing his way.
Should all Ferns coaches have had previous women’s coaching experience for example?
Yes, absolutely. Women's football is quite different from men's in a lot of ways and requires a slightly different approach. Heraf seems to mistakenly believe that one size fits all when you really have to tailor your coaching style to your players to get the best out of them.
Maybe a men's coach who understands that could come in and adapt but with the opinions Heraf expressed it was clear he was never going to do it.
if Heraf bullied men - they would tell him where to go as well
wait, none of this is news until Sam Malcolmson has been interviewed for his opinion. Has anyone heard from him yet? He is the real voice of football in nz...
Sorry I went off track.
RE: Heraf bullying - i have heard rumours that when he was talking to people within the local game in WGTN and AKLD, he did pretty much tell them that they didnt know anything and that he was going to implement his system with little regard for their ideas/knowledge/expertise. With light being shone on his other dealings with people, I wonder if he tried to bully people into seeing his way.
Sam was interviewed yesterday, I think?
"Perhaps it worked in the past with his men's teams that he coached ... perhaps that was the style that he used and that worked in the past.
"He's said on a couple of occasions that there's no difference in coaching men and women, so perhaps he just thought that's the way to do it."
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/sport/367878/former-football-fern-says-coach-should-not-have-had-job
wait, none of this is news until Sam Malcolmson has been interviewed for his opinion. Has anyone heard from him yet? He is the real voice of football in nz...
Sorry I went off track.
RE: Heraf bullying - i have heard rumours that when he was talking to people within the local game in WGTN and AKLD, he did pretty much tell them that they didnt know anything and that he was going to implement his system with little regard for their ideas/knowledge/expertise. With light being shone on his other dealings with people, I wonder if he tried to bully people into seeing his way.
Sam was interviewed yesterday, I think?
yes rather disappointedly he was on RNZ Checkpoint. As usual didn't really add much, called for Deryck Shaw to be sacked and then started his usual bleat on about how no one talks to him and the old school (Fallon, Adshead, Herbert, Turner etc) anymore
Not a great look when an independent review recommends setting up something that your statutes already say you should have.
NZ Football's statutes call for the existence of six standing committees, one of which "shall deal with general issues related to high performance at all levels".
No such committee exists as of October 2018, and it is unclear whether one has at any point since those statutes came into effect in September 2014.
Having watched Sam in action coaching girls would not lend any credibility to anything he had to say, Sam comes from the old school of yelling at players and belittling them. Hope nobody takes him seriously on this.
No-one talks to Ricki because his post-2010 coaching career is one flop after another.
No-one talks to Fallon because they're afraid of getting headbutted.
The whole thing is quite interesting. The report seems to indicate that NZF has no real processes or clarity about who is responsible for issues between the teams, the CEO and the ExCo. There is a lot of implication that the ExCo was flying blind implying that complaints etc were stopping at Andy Martin and then going no further. Clearly there is a lot implied in the report that isn't spoken about and Martin seems to have been running the show.
On the other hand, should the ExCo actually be involved with issues between coaches and players?
Are the players always right?
And is an employer/employee relationship the right way to view the dynamic between players and coaches? Coaches shout at players all the time, but I would say it's pretty much never acceptable for a manager to shout at an employee. I realise that Heraf proabably breached codes of conduct and the like, but I still think it's quite an interesting overlay if you think about it.
The whole thing is quite interesting. The report seems to indicate that NZF has no real processes or clarity about who is responsible for issues between the teams, the CEO and the ExCo. There is a lot of implication that the ExCo was flying blind implying that complaints etc were stopping at Andy Martin and then going no further. Clearly there is a lot implied in the report that isn't spoken about and Martin seems to have been running the show.
On the other hand, should the ExCo actually be involved with issues between coaches and players?
Are the players always right?
And is an employer/employee relationship the right way to view the dynamic between players and coaches? Coaches shout at players all the time, but I would say it's pretty much never acceptable for a manager to shout at an employee. I realise that Heraf proabably breached codes of conduct and the like, but I still think it's quite an interesting overlay if you think about it.
As McKavanagh said - if it is anything damning to the organisation, then the board should know
There seems to be a feeling among some posters that the "girls" are a bit soft because they might have been shouted at a few times. A reminder that these are players who have played, and are playing, in professional leagues around the world and would have been exposed to lots of different coaching styles.
I'm sure they've been "shouted at" before, so when an independent person who spoke to over 80 people over a few months says there was bullying, then there was bullying.
The whole thing is quite interesting. The report seems to indicate that NZF has no real processes or clarity about who is responsible for issues between the teams, the CEO and the ExCo. There is a lot of implication that the ExCo was flying blind implying that complaints etc were stopping at Andy Martin and then going no further. Clearly there is a lot implied in the report that isn't spoken about and Martin seems to have been running the show.
On the other hand, should the ExCo actually be involved with issues between coaches and players?
Are the players always right?
And is an employer/employee relationship the right way to view the dynamic between players and coaches? Coaches shout at players all the time, but I would say it's pretty much never acceptable for a manager to shout at an employee. I realise that Heraf proabably breached codes of conduct and the like, but I still think it's quite an interesting overlay if you think about it.
If you are coach who finds it neccesary to shout at your players then I think you have failed badly.
With an investigation ongoing, and the knowledge there may be some wrongdoings, how can a board/president sign off confidential golden handshakes to the people who are likely to be in the wrong???
With an investigation ongoing, and the knowledge there may be some wrongdoings, how can a board/president sign off confidential golden handshakes to the people who are likely to be in the wrong???
It is standard corporate practice that avoiding bad publicity and tantrums from outgoing incompetents is preferable to the messy business of holding them to account. Seriously - the business news regularly offers tales of crappy CEOs who get paid to go away quietly, rather than yell, scream, drag their employers through the courts and leak embarrassing info to the press.
Yes, I am suggesting that Andy Martin's silence was bought.
With an investigation ongoing, and the knowledge there may be some wrongdoings, how can a board/president sign off confidential golden handshakes to the people who are likely to be in the wrong???
Its easy when its not their money.
The whole thing is quite interesting. The report seems to indicate that NZF has no real processes or clarity about who is responsible for issues between the teams, the CEO and the ExCo. There is a lot of implication that the ExCo was flying blind implying that complaints etc were stopping at Andy Martin and then going no further. Clearly there is a lot implied in the report that isn't spoken about and Martin seems to have been running the show.
On the other hand, should the ExCo actually be involved with issues between coaches and players?
Are the players always right?
And is an employer/employee relationship the right way to view the dynamic between players and coaches? Coaches shout at players all the time, but I would say it's pretty much never acceptable for a manager to shout at an employee. I realise that Heraf proabably breached codes of conduct and the like, but I still think it's quite an interesting overlay if you think about it.
If you are coach who finds it neccesary to shout at your players then I think you have failed badly.
I think that's just fundamentally unrealistic. Motivating football players takes a huge variety of tactics and approaches, even the report itself acknowledges that. I am also opposed to the "shouting and screaming" approach favoured by many "old school" coaches, but that's not to say it isn't part of motivation. Look at the Man CIty Amazon series, Guardiola uses all manner of techniques to motivate his players
With an investigation ongoing, and the knowledge there may be some wrongdoings, how can a board/president sign off confidential golden handshakes to the people who are likely to be in the wrong???
I do find this very odd. He seems to be the one at fault so why was it necessary to get him off the payroll quietly?
I have more respect for the women footballers involved than needing to know the details about how Heraf treated them like shark. The above comment smacks of someone who is suspicious that the silly ladies were crying because a man was manly with them and would like to tell women whether they've been "bullied/abused sufficiently" for his standards.