From what I have seen, Tom Harley has the right temperament to make decisions and run an organisation of this size.
Tom appears to know what to say in the moment and who to ask for advice: Andrew Ireland (Ludwig if Andrew is unavailable). I would imagine that Brian Cook is also a mentor for Harley.
Not sure how anyone on here can make a comment on Tom Harley as I doubt posters have any knowledge of how he actually performs other than seeing/hearing him in the media where he always seems professional and measured in what he says.
For those disappointed in our trade period, and I'm not one of them, this is not a Harley run show, there's quite a number of people having input and making the decisions.
That Andrew Ireland and the Board appointed Harley as future CEO is endorsement enough for me.
He has answered the question honestly of why we couldn't land Langdon or VDB saying they chose to stay at their current clubs & that we are confident in the our list's natural improvement to come & with the two boys Clarke & Thurlow added, that should allow us to still throw Mills & Jones into the middle.
But if you see him as a poor performer thus far then show me your your list.
I can't see why else we would have anointed Tom Harley as Andrew Ireland's successor if we weren't already convinced about his potential/ability to take the job on. We have a recent history of succession planning but we are also careful about it. We gave Harley 12 months to audition and develop under Ireland's tutelage before the handover. Does anyone really think that we'd have handed the job on to someone who the club (including the outgoing head of football) and the board felt wasn't up to it? We are too significant a club with too much at stake to allow that to happen. While the AFL might continue to nobble who we can take on as players, I suspect that the level of senior corporate backers and influencers we have, given the nature of our supporter base, wouldn't allow poor governance to happen.
Today's a draft of your epitaph
What strange logic exists that when I ask for some evidence to back up a statement, it gets turned around that I have to now produce counter evidence?.
Convince me "he has shown nothing but strength in his role" with at least something other than he hasn't made a massive blunder yet?
There seems to be little to no substance in this thread. Everyone is going off of impressions. I agree he can seem quiet cold when hes being interviewed, but there is literally nothing of substance to judge him on yet, except maybe Shaw leaving and a weaker than usual trade period, two things which can be hardly blamed entirely on him or seen as his fault.
Bookmarks