Rumors circled on Tuesday night that the 17-year reign of Western Bulldogs president David Smorgon had come to an end.
The official announcement was expect for the following day, with former president and lawyer Peter Gordon taking over as president.
The rumours of change at board level for the Bulldogs had been flying around for sometime. Names popping up for Smorgon’s successor included current board member Susan Alberti, who will now be vice-president, and former player Rick Kennedy.
Another former player, Paul Dimattina, was also rumoured to be ready to mount a challenge to take over.
Bulldogs fans have been keen for a change at the top for sometime, and Smorgon himself had been open that his time was up, with 2013 originally being planned as his last year. However, he was swayed by an apparently impressive blueprint to resign a year early.
But for real change at the top, fresh blood was surely needed for the club. Gordon, who was president from 1989-96, is a step back to the old days.
Gordon has had success in the role before, being in charge when the club fought off a merger with Fitzroy. Gordon may have a easier time in the job this time around with the club seemingly in better shape off the field. But on-field, the team is struggling.
Last year Rodney Eade was sacked as coach with the club claiming they needed a “refresh” and change in certain areas begun. Brendan McCartney was appointed senior coach for rebuilding, Jason McCartney came on board as list manager and recently Graham Lowe was hired as high performance manager.
There can be little doubt the Bulldogs have kept to their word of refreshing the club but going back to a former president is surely a step back?
With so many areas of the club moving forward with new people and fresh ideas, surely the same thing is needed at the very top.
The problem for the club is that there doesn’t seem to be many people from outside willing to mount any serious challenge.
If Dimattina is interested in the position his time is now. Fresh blood is needed if the Bulldogs are going to have any chance of turning it around.
GaryA
Guest
Back room politics. Maybe Gillard got her lessons in the art from her old boss Gordon. She is an expert in using smoke and mirrors to destroy her opposition. It will be interesting to see how Gordon weathers the storm if his old firm Slater and Gordon implodes under the pressure to come. Change of Govt will see a Royal Commission into the whole AWU/Gillard/Slater and Gordon mess.
Jacques
Guest
Come on James, recycling old faithfulls is another move to the comfort zone, a zone where the hapless dogs are happiest in. A non achievers zone where expectations are zero and actions below that. Gordon, a proven performer in what? A proven performer in mediocrity, Footscary should bite the bullet, clean out all the old dross and go for fresh intellect that sets the club off in a new direction. None of the board members and ex players like Dimmatina have ever been involved in successful teams or eras, so they have no idea how to run a SUCCESSFUL club. You are doomed to repeat past failures. Its amazing to me that you put up a scenario that you have been to before and expect a different outcome! You're delussional.
Trev
Roar Rookie
My whole argument was based on where the club is going. If your going to make a change and take a club in a new direction then why go backwards. I could be proved wrong as Gordon is now much more experienced then he was in his first tenure but I think we needed a completely different and new approach. But as I also said the problem was no one from outside the current board was really putting their hand up for the job.
JamesP
Guest
So what is more important - "fresh blood"...or the right blood. What do we know of Paul Dimmatina? - he owns a restaurant. Good on him - that probably qualifies him to run a Amateur club's chook raffle. You know what you are getting with Peter Gordon - he is a proven performer, and if there really is a better candidate, I think we are all yet to see him/her.
Cameron
Guest
Gordon has stated today that he wants the club to be a "thought leader". The author states that this appointment is "a step back", but in what way? It's not a step back just because the man has been president before, is it? After all he did lead the club from near extinction from 1989. Author really needs to deliniate just what he means by this being "a step back".