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.
Maybe we should get an independent person to come in and find out all the details in a safe and confidential way and then write a summary that details the key points but still protects the privacy where needed. That summary could then be shared with the wider stakeholders...
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.
So you don't believe the findings of a highly qualified and independent lawyer?
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.
So you don't believe the findings of a highly qualified and independent lawyer?
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.
So you don't believe the findings of a highly qualified and independent lawyer?
Do you believe anything from this report then? Or are the players who put their careers on the line just a bunch of millenia cry babies?
No doubt, the exact details of what happened are known to NZF and they will be satisfied that its true. Frankly, it probably is. If you read my original post I said I wanted to know more about what these things were to satisfy my curiosity. That doesn’t mean
I do believe the report but I do think they could of publicly released a little more detail. What say you are a male coach of females, what have you really learned from this? There are only very broad boundaries vaguely expressed - is the learning that a man shouldn’t coach women? Or is it that a coach shouting at a player is bullying? This report doesn’t give any definite steer on so many of these perceived grey areas in coaching the modern player irrespective of gender. What may happen is that later
NZF might issue guidelines for coaches that make it clear what they deem to be bullying and unsatisfactory behaviour, that would be helpful as long as it is clear. There can be no arguments or wrong interpretations then.
No doubt, the exact details of what happened are known to NZF and they will be satisfied that its true. Frankly, it probably is. If you read my original post I said I wanted to know more about what these things were to satisfy my curiosity. That doesn’t mean
I do believe the report but I do think they could of publicly released a little more detail. What say you are a male coach of females, what have you really learned from this? There are only very broad boundaries vaguely expressed - is the learning that a man shouldn’t coach women? Or is it that a coach shouting at a player is bullying? This report doesn’t give any definite steer on so many of these perceived grey areas in coaching the modern player irrespective of gender. What may happen is that later
NZF might issue guidelines for coaches that make it clear what they deem to be bullying and unsatisfactory behaviour, that would be helpful as long as it is clear. There can be no arguments or wrong interpretations then.
coaching is coaching. you adapt to personalities not gender. you don't need guidelines to coach women - being a dick is being a dick. Thus the take from the report is that their recruitment policy sucked and needs to change
No doubt, the exact details of what happened are known to NZF and they will be satisfied that its true. Frankly, it probably is. If you read my original post I said I wanted to know more about what these things were to satisfy my curiosity. That doesn’t mean
I do believe the report but I do think they could of publicly released a little more detail. What say you are a male coach of females, what have you really learned from this? There are only very broad boundaries vaguely expressed - is the learning that a man shouldn’t coach women? Or is it that a coach shouting at a player is bullying? This report doesn’t give any definite steer on so many of these perceived grey areas in coaching the modern player irrespective of gender. What may happen is that later
NZF might issue guidelines for coaches that make it clear what they deem to be bullying and unsatisfactory behaviour, that would be helpful as long as it is clear. There can be no arguments or wrong interpretations then.
If you are confused perhaps go and read the NZF Code of Conduct, NZF Policy on Harrassment and the Worksafe NZ Bullying Guidelines - the three exact codes Heraf was found to have breached. There is nothing vague or broad about this. You are just hoping for gossip on exact words that were spoken and that is simply voyeuristic and unhelpful.
No doubt, the exact details of what happened are known to NZF and they will be satisfied that its true. Frankly, it probably is. If you read my original post I said I wanted to know more about what these things were to satisfy my curiosity. That doesn’t mean
I do believe the report but I do think they could of publicly released a little more detail. What say you are a male coach of females, what have you really learned from this? There are only very broad boundaries vaguely expressed - is the learning that a man shouldn’t coach women? Or is it that a coach shouting at a player is bullying? This report doesn’t give any definite steer on so many of these perceived grey areas in coaching the modern player irrespective of gender. What may happen is that later
NZF might issue guidelines for coaches that make it clear what they deem to be bullying and unsatisfactory behaviour, that would be helpful as long as it is clear. There can be no arguments or wrong interpretations then.
If you are confused perhaps go and read the NZF Code of Conduct, NZF Policy on Harrassment and the Worksafe NZ Bullying Guidelines - the three exact codes Heraf was found to have breached. There is nothing vague or broad about this. You are just hoping for gossip on exact words that were spoken and that is simply voyeuristic and unhelpful.
Personally I find the overlay of an employer/employee dynamic onto a coaching relationship quite interesting...and I guess some understanding of what went on would help to understand whether this meant a change is needed across the entire organisation (and then by definition, a change generally across the board in the coaching dynamic). Or in fact whether Heraf was just a dickhead and actually nothing needs to change at all...
Wanting the gory details of precisely what was said is a bit Northern League Forum isn't it?
Wanting the gory details of precisely what was said is a bit Northern League Forum isn't it?
Did you actually say that?!
No doubt, the exact details of what happened are known to NZF and they will be satisfied that its true. Frankly, it probably is. If you read my original post I said I wanted to know more about what these things were to satisfy my curiosity. That doesn’t mean
I do believe the report but I do think they could of publicly released a little more detail. What say you are a male coach of females, what have you really learned from this? There are only very broad boundaries vaguely expressed - is the learning that a man shouldn’t coach women? Or is it that a coach shouting at a player is bullying? This report doesn’t give any definite steer on so many of these perceived grey areas in coaching the modern player irrespective of gender. What may happen is that later
NZF might issue guidelines for coaches that make it clear what they deem to be bullying and unsatisfactory behaviour, that would be helpful as long as it is clear. There can be no arguments or wrong interpretations then.
If you are confused perhaps go and read the NZF Code of Conduct, NZF Policy on Harrassment and the Worksafe NZ Bullying Guidelines - the three exact codes Heraf was found to have breached. There is nothing vague or broad about this. You are just hoping for gossip on exact words that were spoken and that is simply voyeuristic and unhelpful.
I mean isn't the idea that the training pitch of an international team is a "workplace" quite a different way of thinking about these issues??
What is beyond debate after this sorry saga, is there is now sadly a split amongst the FFs squad.
Those who wanted Heraf to stay, and those who felt bullied.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/10...
"Muir spoke to all 12 of the players who made complaints, who she said were "brave," but only one of the other 15 players selected by Heraf during his time in charge. That player told her they wanted Heraf to remain as coach."
"Muir spoke to all 12 of the players who made complaints, who she said were "brave," but only one of the other 15 players selected by Heraf during his time in charge. That player told her they wanted Heraf to remain as coach."
That's very strange. Why would you not speak to the entire squad? Unless the others didn't want to be involved - but then, why not?
What is beyond debate after this sorry saga, is there is now sadly a split amongst the FFs squad.
Those who wanted Heraf to stay, and those who felt bullied.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/10...
"Muir spoke to all 12 of the players who made complaints, who she said were "brave," but only one of the other 15 players selected by Heraf during his time in charge. That player told her they wanted Heraf to remain as coach."
one player saying she wanted him to stay is hardly a split - if the other 14 felt strongly about wanting him to stay they would have got in touch with Muir
I seem to remember comments from Ali Riley right up the end praising Heraf. Though may have the player wrong.
Good riddance to the Austrian. You can’t have half your team scared of you, plus he seemed to be failing also in his TD role.
However I think there are problems now amongst the FFs playing group, that will need to be sorted out. Maybe good in the long run, if some players were taking their spots for granted, and some honest discussions are now had.
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?
If you don't pay him out, he can 'retire' off his own back and the review comes out - which would negate anything bad he had to say - or he gets fired at the outcome of the review. Why he was paid is really quite puzzling to me.
If you don't pay him out, he can 'retire' off his own back and the review comes out - which would negate anything bad he had to say - or he gets fired at the outcome of the review. Why he was paid is really quite puzzling to me.
"The other focus of a lot of vitriol, the Andy Martin ‘retirement’ and
any monetary settlement that might have been reached with the board to
facilitate it, was in all probability the only pragmatic way forward.
The last thing the game needs is for this to be dragged out for another
year with a disgruntled ex-CEO taking personal grievances and making
public comments after a prolonged disciplinary process. Almost all
employment settlements contain gagging clauses that apply to both
parties for very good reasons. And I promise you this route is
financially cheaper for most organisations than QCs at dawn."
Can't disagree with Enzo, given his background in employment disputes etc.
Except it's hardly surprising that a union guy is going to support a person getting a payout/settlement.
I'm not sure that the situation being dragged out for another year with Martin making public disgruntled comments is how it would've played out without the settlement. Not sure he'd try that, and even if he did, he'd likely just end up punching himself in the face. Maybe it's the case that Andy Martin was threatening stuff though, who knows.
and that is kinda where I am at right now. Is Martin gagged/silenced because he has stuff on the board which makes them look unfavourable too?
“Take this cash, be the fall guy, go away and never speak again” Purely speculation but could there be an element of that?
Except it's hardly surprising that a union guy is going to support a person getting a payout/settlement.
Ha ha, yes, union guys are well known for supporting CEOs, who are staunch union members :D
The Herald understands that executive council member Jon Ormond advised the rest of the executive committee of his decision to resign late last week.
In a statement, Ormond said it came down to a "conscience vote", given the findings of the review.
Ormond also claimed that the chairman Deryck Shaw's position is now "untenable".
His decision could be a catalyst to spark others on the board to act.
It's a significant move, and the first time in years, possibly decades, that a serving board member has resigned in such a fashion.
The Herald understands that some other board members are now considering their positions.
Some are believed to still support Shaw, but others believe that the long-time chairman should step down in light of the review.
The Herald understands that executive council member Jon Ormond advised the rest of the executive committee of his decision to resign late last week.
In a statement, Ormond said it came down to a "conscience vote", given the findings of the review.
Ormond also claimed that the chairman Deryck Shaw's position is now "untenable".
His decision could be a catalyst to spark others on the board to act.
It's a significant move, and the first time in years, possibly decades, that a serving board member has resigned in such a fashion.
The Herald understands that some other board members are now considering their positions.
Some are believed to still support Shaw, but others believe that the long-time chairman should step down in light of the review.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?...
Isn't he one of the ones that the came on in the 'coup' in May this year? If so, it's ridiculous that he is the only one so far with the moral courage to stand down, given that he had no role in the clusterfudge of the last 5 or so years.
The Herald understands that executive council member Jon Ormond advised the rest of the executive committee of his decision to resign late last week.
In a statement, Ormond said it came down to a "conscience vote", given the findings of the review.
Ormond also claimed that the chairman Deryck Shaw's position is now "untenable".
His decision could be a catalyst to spark others on the board to act.
It's a significant move, and the first time in years, possibly decades, that a serving board member has resigned in such a fashion.
The Herald understands that some other board members are now considering their positions.
Some are believed to still support Shaw, but others believe that the long-time chairman should step down in light of the review.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?...
Isn't he one of the ones that the came on in the 'coup' in May this year? If so, it's ridiculous that he is the only one so far with the moral courage to stand down, given that he had no role in the clusterfudge of the last 5 or so years.
yes he was one that came in in may - if I was cynical, I'd say he looked at the whole thing went this is a mess I'm getting out while I can
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?
Many people don't realize how difficult it actually is to "let go" of someone in this country - even when they're at fault.
Or rather, it's not that difficult if you follow due process - which sounds very easy to do on paper, but isn't always practical in reality.
The Employment Relations Authority will often find employers at fault even when an employee has been found guilty of gross misconduct, if the process has not been followed religiously.
This is all well and good of course as it safeguards employees against abuse by their employer - but it does make it difficult to "get rid" of the bad apples.
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?
Many people don't realize how difficult it actually is to "let go" of someone in this country - even when they're at fault.
Or rather, it's not that difficult if you follow due process - which sounds very easy to do on paper, but isn't always practical in reality.
The Employment Relations Authority will often find employers at fault even when an employee has been found guilty of gross misconduct, if the process has not been followed religiously.
This is all well and good of course as it safeguards employees against abuse by their employer - but it does make it difficult to "get rid" of the bad apples.
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?
Many people don't realize how difficult it actually is to "let go" of someone in this country - even when they're at fault.
Or rather, it's not that difficult if you follow due process - which sounds very easy to do on paper, but isn't always practical in reality.
The Employment Relations Authority will often find employers at fault even when an employee has been found guilty of gross misconduct, if the process has not been followed religiously.
This is all well and good of course as it safeguards employees against abuse by their employer - but it does make it difficult to "get rid" of the bad apples.
I think the original statement refers to Andy Martin not any of the board.
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?
Many people don't realize how difficult it actually is to "let go" of someone in this country - even when they're at fault.
Or rather, it's not that difficult if you follow due process - which sounds very easy to do on paper, but isn't always practical in reality.
The Employment Relations Authority will often find employers at fault even when an employee has been found guilty of gross misconduct, if the process has not been followed religiously.
This is all well and good of course as it safeguards employees against abuse by their employer - but it does make it difficult to "get rid" of the bad apples.
I think the original statement refers to Andy Martin not any of the board.
The Herald understands that executive council member Jon Ormond advised the rest of the executive committee of his decision to resign late last week.
In a statement, Ormond said it came down to a "conscience vote", given the findings of the review.
Ormond also claimed that the chairman Deryck Shaw's position is now "untenable".
His decision could be a catalyst to spark others on the board to act.
It's a significant move, and the first time in years, possibly decades, that a serving board member has resigned in such a fashion.
The Herald understands that some other board members are now considering their positions.
Some are believed to still support Shaw, but others believe that the long-time chairman should step down in light of the review.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?...
Isn't he one of the ones that the came on in the 'coup' in May this year? If so, it's ridiculous that he is the only one so far with the moral courage to stand down, given that he had no role in the clusterfudge of the last 5 or so years.
yes he was one that came in in may - if I was cynical, I'd say he looked at the whole thing went this is a mess I'm getting out while I can
Or even more cynically, if I get out now I can get back on in a few years.
The Herald understands that executive council member Jon Ormond advised the rest of the executive committee of his decision to resign late last week.
In a statement, Ormond said it came down to a "conscience vote", given the findings of the review.
Ormond also claimed that the chairman Deryck Shaw's position is now "untenable".
His decision could be a catalyst to spark others on the board to act.
It's a significant move, and the first time in years, possibly decades, that a serving board member has resigned in such a fashion.
The Herald understands that some other board members are now considering their positions.
Some are believed to still support Shaw, but others believe that the long-time chairman should step down in light of the review.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?...
Isn't he one of the ones that the came on in the 'coup' in May this year? If so, it's ridiculous that he is the only one so far with the moral courage to stand down, given that he had no role in the clusterfudge of the last 5 or so years.
yes he was one that came in in may - if I was cynical, I'd say he looked at the whole thing went this is a mess I'm getting out while I can
Or even more cynically, if I get out now I can get back on in a few years.
Or perhaps he is a man of high integrity who came onto the Board and witnessed what geat lengths the Old Boys Network would go to, to cover their backsides. The only way to get rid of these idiots is to vote them off.
Re-reading it you're 100% right. I do think there should be a mass clear out of the board though,they're the ones who steered the ship onto this reef, I don't trust them to navigate their way out in the slightest.
I blame The Board. Look at the Olympic cheating. We were caught red handed but instead of admitting it, The Board appealed at great cost, flying barristers to the Islands on a futile mission. It was a classic exercise of the Board looking to cover their backsides.
There were also plenty of signals where The Board should have got involved especiallly with Martin. Instead they moved a vote of confidence in Martin
I blame The Board. Look at the Olympic cheating. We were caught red handed but instead of admitting it, The Board appealed at great cost, flying barristers to the Islands on a futile mission. It was a classic exercise of the Board looking to cover their backsides.
There were also plenty of signals where The Board should have got involved especiallly with Martin. Instead they moved a vote of confidence in Martin
The issues at NZF are from before Martin (and of course before Heraf) but they have been things that didn't garner media interest so flew under the radar.
The fact that NZF have seen their standards drop year on year has meant people have been conditioned slowly to their lack of interest in assisting the grassroots game.
Heard a quote which helps me illustrate this point:
If you put a frog in boiling water he hops out, but if you put a frog in cold water and then slowly heat it until it boils he dosn't hop out.
The issues at NZF are from before Martin (and of course before Heraf) but they have been things that didn't garner media interest so flew under the radar.
The fact that NZF have seen their standards drop year on year has meant people have been conditioned slowly to their lack of interest in assisting the grassroots game.
Heard a quote which helps me illustrate this point:
If you put a frog in boiling water he hops out, but if you put a frog in cold water and then slowly heat it until it boils he dosn't hop out.
Or to quote the great man.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea. Thank you very much."
I blame The Board. Look at the Olympic cheating. We were caught red handed but instead of admitting it, The Board appealed at great cost, flying barristers to the Islands on a futile mission. It was a classic exercise of the Board looking to cover their backsides.
There were also plenty of signals where The Board should have got involved especiallly with Martin. Instead they moved a vote of confidence in Martin
The U23's fiasco was a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for the NZF board. They had very little time to make a decision, and would have been equally criticised by some if they hadn't appealed. There was no real precinct, on what to do.
For not acting on Martin earlier, there is no excuse.
I blame The Board. Look at the Olympic cheating. We were caught red handed but instead of admitting it, The Board appealed at great cost, flying barristers to the Islands on a futile mission. It was a classic exercise of the Board looking to cover their backsides.
There were also plenty of signals where The Board should have got involved especiallly with Martin. Instead they moved a vote of confidence in Martin
The U23's fiasco was a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for the NZF board. They had very little time to make a decision, and would have been equally criticised by some if they hadn't appealed. There was no real precinct, on what to do.
Not really. They were very clearly caught red-handed (though I suspect it was ignorance rather than actual cheating), and anyone with half a brain could see that any sort of appeal would be futile. But no, they knew better, and bought themselves more embarrassment at top-notch lawyer commercial rates.
Of course it was ignorance. Or laziness by NZF staff members not to double check Wynne’s eligibility. The board then needed to make a quick decision whether to appeal or not. They got advice (bad as it turns out) that an appeal maybe successful, and trused that advice.
It’s not for the board to be an expert on every topic, you get feedback from your staff - that’s their job. And if it’s bad advice they should be called to answer.
Of course it was ignorance. Or laziness by NZF staff members not to double check Wynne’s eligibility. The board then needed to make a quick decision whether to appeal or not. They got advice (bad as it turns out) that an appeal maybe successful, and trused that advice.
It’s not for the board to be an expert on every topic, you get feedback from your staff - that’s their job. And if it’s bad advice they should be called to answer.
The Chairman of Fletchers claimed that he was not fully informed but resigned. These clowns will need to be dragged kicking and screaming out of NZF.
