I wouldn’t consider this a knee-jerk reaction. I just think there’s a reason why Governments have term limits, and one of the best reasons is that after a while, you need a new mob to come in to challenge existing thinking, and also, in some cases, redress issues with balance.
As with most administrators, I think the Steves have done some things really well, and some things poorly. They pushed the club on a path of 'sustained success’ at all costs, but their successes weren't as successful as they would have liked, nor - as it turns out – as sustained. I think they can walk away from the club thinking they did a good job, and on many levels, they have.
But one way I consider they have performed poorly is in helping people feel connected to the club. In fact, they have actively belittled those who hold the club’s symbols to heart. It’s fine chasing new, shiny supporters when times are good, but when the club is up against it, you really need to embrace those members who are in it for the long haul. I don’t think the years of a rebuild will play to the strengths of the Steves. I think we’ve moved too far towards being a corporate, Eagles-lite club, and that balance needs to be reset. If everything is a rational decision, why would you turn up to watch a team lose? In short, if the club starts playing the ‘loyalty’ card over the coming years, I think I might spew.
Bond and Roly I’m more agnostic about. I wouldn’t get rid of either right now, but the question is when are you too long in a job? Certainly all parts of the football club seem to be in unison, and that’s a good thing, but eventually that can devolve into groupthink. Sometimes you need to chuck a rock in the pond.
