Baan’s last rites for the FFA
After being underwhelmed by The Graham Arnold Olyroo’s Finishing School, that was the Beijing Games, I opined that the FFA served the bad china in the wash-up. And now it appears that Baan has poured the tea.
Let’s hope that it is strong enough. And hot enough.
Congratulations must go to the FFA for appointing a Technical Director. It took some time, but the FFA actually did it.
Rob Baan has done his job, a small cameo role with long-term ramifications. Like most foreign imports, he stayed, kicked a few goals, and now is set to leave.
The poor retention is a shame, especially from a well credentialed and decently performing (albeit temporary) member of Football Federation Australia.
One of the last actions of his tenure was to compile an analysis of the Olympic Campaign. Heaven knows whether there was always going to be a report. But we got one.
So whilst Graham Arnold kept a low profile for the remainder of the Olympics, Baan was sweating over a smoggy keyboard, earning his guilders.
However, what was released to the public was never going to be the official report in it’s entirety. That much were be told.
One footballing website labelled it “College Street Confidential”, in reference to a sort of cops and robbers gangster-styled movie.
Being a board paper, it was privy only to Board Members, much to the disappointment of the PFA even.
The mood was that what we, Australian football fans, sharing stakeholders of this country’s footballing future, were not going to see the FFA being open and inclusive – or at least upholding the perception of translucent due process.
So if you missed it, the report is now in.
And the “media release” that was forthcoming for this report went something like this: well. it is very hard to find, so how about this, thanks to Matthew Hall.
It did get some media attention, usually from pundits that were looking for it. But don’t expect to find it on the FFA website.
It snuck into the media world with a tiptoe. It was duly avoided by anxious media sectors, which probably believed the “hush-up” was for the good of the game.
Find it if you can. It’s brief, and there is some mention of the Djite-Burns omission, too.
The main message was Australia simply “wasn’t good enough”. So who, or what, exactly was not good enough? And why? And what is now being be done about it?
In any case, I hope the real Baan Report had more to it.
And I hope the Board learn from the criticism.