Fair play passes Dutchy on the left hand side

Roar Pro

By Jesse Fink, 3 Jul 2009 Jesse Fink is a Roar Pro

Tagged:: A-League, football, Socceroos

Related coverage

Newcastle Jets coach Gary Van Egmond (centre) celebrates with his players after the Melbourne Victory v Newcastle Jets A League game at the Telstradome in Mellbourne, Sunday, Nov. 26, 2006. Newcastle won the game 1-0. AAP Image/Martin Philbey

To be fair to Con Constantine, the great ogre of Australian club football, he does make a good point about the propriety or lack thereof in Football Federation Australia’s role in poaching Gary van Egmond from the Jets to the AIS and the national under-17s.

“This has hurt me, the club, the players and the fans,” he told Ray Gatt on Tuesday. “The worst thing is that FFA is supposed to be the policeman of the game, but they are not doing their job properly. This wouldn’t happen anywhere else in the world. I am a businessman and I would never dream of conducting my business this way. If the FFA want to fine me, well, it would be like fining Jesus Christ because of the treachery of Judas.”

A good line, and bang on the money.

How can the FFA, an organisation that tosses out fines and suspensions like a bag lady feeding pigeons, effectively “tap up” one of the coaches of a competition it runs without seeking permission from the club’s owner first and without so much as a hint of self-restraint or self-censure?

It is pretty shameless. But who’s policing the police?

Technically you would imagine the AFC or FIFA would be the cop for such matters, but historically both have shown scant interest in getting involved in neighbourhood scuffles, leaving them to be sorted out by the national federations involved.

It serves a president’s political interests of course, to keep as many federations as he can onside. Mohamed, Frank and Sepp are certainly pally enough. How could Con hope to get anyone’s ear among all the backslapping?

No chance. But he was right to speak up and give the FFA a piece of his mind.

They can be a law unto themselves, clearly.

As for Van Egmond himself, one can hardly blame him for wanting out when such a better off was made and after what has been such an annus horribilis at a clearly dysfunctional club, but he did sign a four-year contract of his own volition, Constantine did give him a break when he was “selling Pepsi” and he did have a duty of care to his players, whom he has more or less abandoned just a month out from the start of the season.

He doesn’t come out of this with his reputation enhanced.

It’s quite an irony, too, for Van Egmond to entrusted with such responsibility over our country’s best young players when he has such a chequered record handling young players at the Jets.

As a shrewd blogger named Krones remarked on my Half-Time Orange column for TWG on Monday: “How could he possibly be considered for this position after his comments about the young player [Jesse Pinto] he played for 5min last year and tore off the pitch and his treatment of Kaz [Patafta]? Hardly the sort of thing you would expect from a development coach. Short memory the FFA have.”

I completely agree. I thought Van Egmond’s hooking of Pinto earlier this year after just coming on against Adelaide was one of the worst examples of coaching I’ve ever seen.

We can only hope Dutchy recognises his own mistakes, personal and professional, and can pass on those lessons to his charges so they can be both better people and footballers.

Everyone is entitled to make a mistake. It appears Dutchy’s quota, though, was filled some time ago.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (21) | Page 1 of Comments

Ben Somerford said | July 3rd 2009 @ 3:40am | Report comment

Same thought crossed my mind when I read Con’s comments yesterday. But then I thought again, he usually likes to embelish a story and paint his own picture (boy who cried wolf-style). But your thoughts here Jesse, I guess they reinforce my initial thought. Unbelievable it could happen in this day & age, but as you say, who’s policing the police.

Reply
md said | July 3rd 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment

Con is being disingenuous – like any businessman, he would know that you cannot enforce an employment contract – the most he could do is stop Dutchy leaving for a competitor (which the AIS ain’t). If Con honestly has never poached another company’s employee, then I reckon he is in a minority of 1, amongst successful businessmen in Australia. He would be much better off looking at the reasons Dutchy wanted to leave hte Jets, than blaming the FFA for accepting a job application from Con’s old coach.
Cheers
md

Reply
Brett McKay said | July 3rd 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment

I’m a bit torn on this one Jesse – is the real issue here that the FFA poached a current A-League coach to take chrage of its youth program, or that that A-League coach took a better offer one year into a four year deal?? And would we be having this conversation if Van Egmond was leaving Newcastle to coach another club, A-League or otherwise??

Reply
GeneralAshnak said | July 3rd 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment

The only point of concern to me is that the AIS has employed Dutchy, I quite understand why he would want to get away from NJs as fast as he could – he has had 1 great year and one crap year, not good for the resume. At least we aren’t seeing Kossie moving to NJ, or even worse GA!

Reply
Pippinu said | July 3rd 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment

Interesting – this particular angle had never occurred to me – that the FFA had actually been involved in pinching an A-League coach.

I initially looked at it as GVE taking a cushy job in the public service, I just saw the AIS as a government body.

This does raise an interesting question – what is the FFA’s role in such an appointment?

And if they are at the heart of it – then surely Con is making a fair enough point – that the governing body is pinching a coach from one of its own clubs without even a how do you do, please and thank you.

At a minimum – it’s a bit rude!!

At worst – well, it borders on questionable conduct, conflict of interest, and maybe even foul play directed at one club (the governing body should be viewed as free of its decisions favouring or disadvantaging particular clubs).

Reply
whiskeymac said | July 3rd 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment

Clubs crying foul when someone is poached? be it a player or a manager surely this is the reality of the game – even on the HAL scale. Did Con show any remorse when he fired Nick Theo (Sidekick Remo quoted as saying the buck stops with the manager etc despite the injuries and only one goalkeeper in the squad) or Richard Money (who had guided them to the finals in the first season)? I aint a bbibleman but seeing con likes to quote biblical matters isnt there something about only those being without sin throwing the first stone?
Fact of the matter is managers have a very uncertain job – owners and admin bodies sack them over results, or because there’s someone else or because of senior players complaining etc. I dont like GVE’s efforts with Patafta or some of his other kids, and like your HTO blogger Krone have questioned his appointment on this, but he hasa right to leave and secure a better position, just as con would have defended his right to sack him on a whim.

Reply
whiskeymac said | July 3rd 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment

the other point – as Pip mused on above – is that it’s a contract matter. it’s what the courts are for. Con would know this, if he is entitled to compensation he will get it. if he isn’t then maybe he should just consider he got treated as he has treated others.

Reply
Phutbol said | July 3rd 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment

Its a free world baby!

If GVE wants to apply for what he perceives to be a better position, why should FFA have to ask permission from Con to employ him?

I think the issue is did FFA ‘tap him up’? ie did they actively pursue him? if that is the case then thats a whole different situation involving ethical and conscionable issues, but assuming that did not happen… assuming GVE made the decision freely and without influence from the FFA to pursue the postion…… Case closed.

Reply
StiflersMom said | July 3rd 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment

You’re right..The only thing Gary did right when Con took him away from his Pepsi job was grab every opportunity with both hands, during that time he made some awful errors of judgement, he’s ability to buy quality players is somewhat lacking but he did turn the club around and put them on a winning path only to have the business skills and dealings of Con sabotage him at every turn, I think he couldn’t wait to get out of there.

Reply
whiskeymac said | July 3rd 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment

Isn’t tapping up also called headhunting in other industries/ professions? Or because it’s a sport these concepts (in million dollar enterprises which draw profits, have customers and marketing rights) are not applicable simply by virtue of it being a sport where amateurish principles like loyalty are supposed to overcome market force reality?
didnt the FFA advertise the job, GVE apply for it?

For the record i dont particularly “like it” – supporting Arsenal there has been Ca$hley Cole etc – but it’s reality and i can appreciate that as no one gives people a job for life – a scenario which always suits the clubs – so it’s up to the players and managers to secure their own future. and GVE is probably right in thinking Con’s crazy club has no stable future.

Reply