Happy to move on from here. I said previously that as it panned out it became the worlds worst kept NRL secret and the worlds worst managed coach termination.
A few final things:-
1. I assume that Ando will be required to sign a termination agreement of his employment contract. This will include a confidentiality clause so we won't hear peep from him otherwise he wont get his cash.
2. Unless the Board sues Hadley I will assume that the threat of vilification was true and a stupid amateurish attempt to avoid paying the coach out of the final year of is contract.
3. The board should conduct an internal investigation of who leaked the information to Hadley and Rothfield and if it was anyone other than Ando then they should be terminated immediately.
4. I won't believe anything that Ozzie or Spag says ever again.
Gronk I'm not actaully that far apart from you on these issues. Just a few points though:
As to the failure to keep the review / option seeking in house, I sill don't understand why everyone assumes that this is due to leaks by the majority of 3P board members?
Surely it is blindingly obvious that whoever leaked the information - both back when the initial interview took place, and then over the weekend - did so with an intention to undermine the decision to look elsewhere?
In other words, it seems far more likely that the "minority" board members - those aligned with the old regime - are the most likely cu;prits (if there was in fact a deliberate leak?
For what it's worth, I agree that if 3P members delibverately leaked the information it was unbelievably stupid and reflects very badly on them.
But I think it seems much more likely that any deliberate leak came from interests trying to undermine the effective operation of the new board.
On the vilification issue I also agree that if there was a plan to try to avoid paying Anderson out by concocting a serious and false allegation against him anyone involved must go.
But I don't think the failure to sue Hadley should be seen as any form of proof. I'm no defamation expert, but a corporation cannot sue for defamation (only a different cause of action known as injurious falsehood). Whether a board falls into this category or not I have no idea. But there may be a number of reasons they might elect not to sue, which go beyond the fact that the allegation was true.
And finally, if various leaks were instigated by Anderson I cannot agree that he was entitled to do so. That was putting his own position ahead of the club and causing more division. However, I really doubt that he was the sole source, if any part of them.
One further point:
The information (sketchy and third hand though it is) about the results of the review is quite strange. It has been suggested that there werer serious concerns about player attitude; lack of structure; operational issues. If those things are true, then the decision may be understandable. What seems bizarre though - is that apparently the review did not recommend the sacking. It may be that questions need to be asked about that.
Perhaps full transparency needs to be achieved and the review, and minutes of the extraordinary AGM shoukld be released?
Whaetever the case, the situation seems to be that there are too many factions and self-interest groups within the club preventing it from operating as a unit.
