Dan Hannebery Poll

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Oh dear...here we go. Outrage. Panic. Disaster. Sack everyone!
All from a 10 second news report....seriously.

[SaintPav]

Didn’t agree with the decision to recruit him but obviously support him now he is at the club and hoping he does well. Has to be in the leadership group because that is why he was brought into the club.

I assume he has recovered from his pre Christmas hamstring but it’s hard to tell because of the lack of transparency on injuries at this time of the year.

[guitars4]

Didn’t agree with the decision to recruit him but obviously support him now he is at the club and hoping he does well. Has to be in the leadership group because that is why he was brought into the club.

I assume he has recovered from his pre Christmas hamstring but it’s hard to tell because of the lack of transparency on injuries at this time of the year.

It was always going to be a massive risk . We all know he was a gun in his time but his best years are behind him & to pay him that much on a long contract is extremely irresponsible IMO

[stonecold]

Didn’t agree with the decision to recruit him but obviously support him now he is at the club and hoping he does well. Has to be in the leadership group because that is why he was brought into the club.

I assume he has recovered from his pre Christmas hamstring but it’s hard to tell because of the lack of transparency on injuries at this time of the year.

It was always going to be a massive risk . We all know he was a gun in his time but his best years are behind him & to pay him that much on a long contract is extremely irresponsible IMO

Better than paying Hickledik!!!!!

Hanners recruitment and $$$$$ is not just about the on field stuff, surely people can understand that!!!!!

[Jacks Back]

What do all these players have in common - Hannebery, King, Bytel, Kent?
Give up? All are new players to the Saints and all injured or under an injury cloud.
I'm glad we're shooting for 2020. Our recruiting is s***!

[guitars4]

Didn’t agree with the decision to recruit him but obviously support him now he is at the club and hoping he does well. Has to be in the leadership group because that is why he was brought into the club.

I assume he has recovered from his pre Christmas hamstring but it’s hard to tell because of the lack of transparency on injuries at this time of the year.

It was always going to be a massive risk . We all know he was a gun in his time but his best years are behind him & to pay him that much on a long contract is extremely irresponsible IMO

Better than paying Hickledik!!!!!

Hanners recruitment and $$$$$ is not just about the on field stuff, surely people can understand that!!!!!

I could probably see a benefit if it was a 2 year deal on 500K but 5 years 800K is just plain dumb IMO .

[Scollop]

Didn’t agree with the decision to recruit him but obviously support him now he is at the club and hoping he does well. Has to be in the leadership group because that is why he was brought into the club.

I assume he has recovered from his pre Christmas hamstring but it’s hard to tell because of the lack of transparency on injuries at this time of the year.

It was always going to be a massive risk . We all know he was a gun in his time but his best years are behind him & to pay him that much on a long contract is extremely irresponsible IMO

Better than paying Hickledik!!!!!

Hanners recruitment and $$$$$ is not just about the on field stuff, surely people can understand that!!!!!

If Hanners is a defacto coach or he's been brought in to help with training standards plus on field communication and leadership, does that mean the coaching staff and players in those roles were incompetent?

Why do Saints recruiters and coaches make decisions on a player...repeat a 'player'.... with the off field stuff as their concern?

Until we see Hanners playing at a high level on a consistent basis I reckon we paid overs and we should have brought in an older guy. BJ Goddard would have been perfect while we wait for Steele or one of the younger blokes to take over. BJ would cost half as much and he would have been a better choice for what they were trying to do if they claim we needed more or better player leaders. BJ would would have given the club the on field and off field leadership that Dan is supposedly here for

[stonecold]

Didn’t agree with the decision to recruit him but obviously support him now he is at the club and hoping he does well. Has to be in the leadership group because that is why he was brought into the club.

I assume he has recovered from his pre Christmas hamstring but it’s hard to tell because of the lack of transparency on injuries at this time of the year.

It was always going to be a massive risk . We all know he was a gun in his time but his best years are behind him & to pay him that much on a long contract is extremely irresponsible IMO

Better than paying Hickledik!!!!!

Hanners recruitment and $$$$$ is not just about the on field stuff, surely people can understand that!!!!!

If Hanners is a defacto coach or he's been brought in to help with training standards plus on field communication and leadership, does that mean the coaching staff and players in those roles were incompetent?

Why do Saints recruiters and coaches make decisions on a player...repeat a 'player'.... with the off field stuff as their concern?

Until we see Hanners playing at a high level on a consistent basis I reckon we paid overs and we should have brought in an older guy. BJ Goddard would have been perfect while we wait for Steele or one of the younger blokes to take over. BJ would cost half as much and he would have been a better choice for what they were trying to do if they claim we needed more or better player leaders. BJ would would have given the club the on field and off field leadership that Dan is supposedly here for

Your opinion, you can have it!!!!!

Brendon has never been a good leader, that's my opinion, I can have it!!!!!

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/han ... 50x27.html

Posted again. Just hammy awareness.

Phew! Richo, Finnis and Lethlean are safe! No need to sack them now!

[samoht]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/han ... 50x27.html

Posted again. Just hammy awareness.

Phew! Richo, Finnis and Lethlean are safe! No need to sack them now!

Discredit where it's due!
How about the real culprits, the ones that doing the actual recruiting, aka "the recruiters"?

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/han ... 50x27.html

Posted again. Just hammy awareness.

Phew! Richo, Finnis and Lethlean are safe! No need to sack them now!

How about the real culprits, the ones that doing the recruiting, aka the recruiters?

Yep. Include them too plus the old grannies aka the Angels that cook the players meals in the kitchen at Moorabbin. Sack everyone because Dan had a bit of hammy awareness!!!

Pretty sure Lethlean teed up recruiting Dan H early on btw.

[samoht]

Pretty sure Lethlean teed up recruiting Dan H early on btw.

So our recruiters are just highly paid ornaments - they serve no real purpose? Why do we have them and what are we paying them for, then? To look pretty?
If this is the case, then we don't have the right recruiters - who command respect.

Would Collingwood's, Hawthorn's, Geelong's, Richmond's recruiters be treated the same way (and be interfered with, ignored and dictated to)? - no, because they have established a good track record and command respect.
Unlike our (scattergun) recruiters, they recruit in a sensible and balanced way and with a plan - and with their respective team's needs in mind.

[stonecold]

Pretty sure Lethlean teed up recruiting Dan H early on btw.

So our recruiters are just highly paid ornaments - they serve no real purpose? Why do we have them and what are we paying them for, then? To look pretty?
If this is the case, then we don't have the right recruiters - who command respect.

Would Collingwood's, Hawthorn's, Geelong's, Richmond's recruiters be treated the same way (and be interfered with, ignored and dictated to)? - no, because they have established a good track record and command respect.
Unlike our (scattergun) recruiters, they recruit in a sensible and balanced way and with a plan - and with their respective team's needs in mind.

Your opinion is noted!!!!!

[samoht]

Your opinion is noted!!!!!

I'm repeating myself for the hard of hearing.

[takeaway]

Pretty sure Lethlean teed up recruiting Dan H early on btw.

So our recruiters are just highly paid ornaments - they serve no real purpose? Why do we have them and what are we paying them for, then? To look pretty?
If this is the case, then we don't have the right recruiters - who command respect.

Would Collingwood's, Hawthorn's, Geelong's, Richmond's recruiters be treated the same way (and be interfered with, ignored and dictated to)? - no, because they have established a good track record and command respect.
Unlike our (scattergun) recruiters, they recruit in a sensible and balanced way and with a plan - and with their respective team's needs in mind.

You certainly have it in for our recruiters. "Interfered with, ignored and dictated to"? Not sure how you conclude that. Recruiters would do their extensive research, recommendations, etc, but a lot of other club staff would often have some involvement, from the CEO down.

How did Buckley get to Collingwood? Boyd to Bulldogs? O'Meara to Hawks? Just the recruiters? I doubt it. Involves the whole club, and no doubt a lot of discussion and disagreements.

[samoht]

How did Buckley get to Collingwood? Boyd to Bulldogs? O'Meara to Hawks? Just the recruiters? I doubt it. Involves the whole club, and no doubt a lot of discussion and disagreements.

Of course there's discussions that involve the whole club.
But the buck normally stops with the recruiters - if the recruiters don't think the player is the right fit (after their extensive research), they should have the final say.
The coach, administrators, etc.. can weigh in, suggest players, etc... - but that's about it - they should and would normally defer to the recruiters - for the final decision.
What is the point of having them, otherwise?
This might not be so in our case - our recruiters might not command this level of respect?

[saintspremiers]

We got who wanted to come to us.

Hanners Dad and Lethers are mates, so we got our Dan.

No one else of note wanted to come to us.

Not the recruiters fault.

Beggers can’t be choosers

[samoht]

We got who wanted to come to us.

Hanners Dad and Lethers are mates, so we got our Dan.

No one else of note wanted to come to us.

Not the recruiters fault.

Beggers can’t be choosers

Which begs the question, how did we get to be this way post 2009 and 2010 - whereas Geelong, the Hawks, Collingwood etc... have managed to sustain their success, and keep bouncing back?
Look no further than our recruiting relative to these teams and the other teams that are getting their recruiting right - or doing it a lot better (that's how I see it).

[stonecold]

Pretty sure Lethlean teed up recruiting Dan H early on btw.

So our recruiters are just highly paid ornaments - they serve no real purpose? Why do we have them and what are we paying them for, then? To look pretty?
If this is the case, then we don't have the right recruiters - who command respect.

Would Collingwood's, Hawthorn's, Geelong's, Richmond's recruiters be treated the same way (and be interfered with, ignored and dictated to)? - no, because they have established a good track record and command respect.
Unlike our (scattergun) recruiters, they recruit in a sensible and balanced way and with a plan - and with their respective team's needs in mind.

You certainly have it in for our recruiters. "Interfered with, ignored and dictated to"? Not sure how you conclude that. Recruiters would do their extensive research, recommendations, etc, but a lot of other club staff would often have some involvement, from the CEO down.

How did Buckley get to Collingwood? Boyd to Bulldogs? O'Meara to Hawks? Just the recruiters? I doubt it. Involves the whole club, and no doubt a lot of discussion and disagreements.

Buckley to the Filth has never been a win for him, had he stayed at Brisbane, he would be a three time premiership player!!!!!

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Pretty sure Lethlean teed up recruiting Dan H early on btw.

So our recruiters are just highly paid ornaments - they serve no real purpose? Why do we have them and what are we paying them for, then? To look pretty?
If this is the case, then we don't have the right recruiters - who command respect.

Would Collingwood's, Hawthorn's, Geelong's, Richmond's recruiters be treated the same way (and be interfered with, ignored and dictated to)? - no, because they have established a good track record and command respect.
Unlike our (scattergun) recruiters, they recruit in a sensible and balanced way and with a plan - and with their respective team's needs in mind.

You certainly have it in for our recruiters. "Interfered with, ignored and dictated to"? Not sure how you conclude that. Recruiters would do their extensive research, recommendations, etc, but a lot of other club staff would often have some involvement, from the CEO down.

How did Buckley get to Collingwood? Boyd to Bulldogs? O'Meara to Hawks? Just the recruiters? I doubt it. Involves the whole club, and no doubt a lot of discussion and disagreements.

Agreed. Good post.

[samoht]

see next post ...

[samoht]

Lethlean (maybe even in tandem with Richo, who knows?) may have pushed for Hannebery, and there would have been lots of discussions, but I'm sure (or hope, at least) the recruiters would have made the final decision on whether or not Hannebery would be a good fit - and the buck would stop with them.
This is all I'm saying - because I've read numerous posts which have blamed the coach for nigh-on everything, including the recruiting, and I would like to believe that the final decision is being made by our recruiters, that it's deferred to them - and that this is the way we operate.