Name a quality coach who you believe would listen to Gallop and Our Watch tell him how to run the show, when he's been successful and clearly has the support of his team? Ferguson? Mourinho? Ange?
If you want our elite sporting teams to be run like the Public Service then say goodbye to any prospect of success. Maybe the team hadn't had enough RDOs?

You answer my question first: So you think an employer shouldn't be able to dictate to their employee/manager how they should manage their workplace when other employees are complaining about a "toxic" environment and bullying??

Our watch sound like the type of organisation  that the Adelaide crows used  last season in the afl and it backfired 

So Gallop has told the players and fans to bugger off, we non-football suits run the show, you will never know what was behind this and you can just deal with it. How utterly dismissive! Well, we knew where we stood, this just confirms it.

You make some interesting points in your posts. 
However were the players complaining about a toxic environment or did Our Watch decide their was a toxic environment based?

And back to your other post about a manager bullying. One article seems to suggest Stajcic was not responsible directly for what had happened. If Stajcic was sacked because he failed to act on something a person under his control did, then why wasn't the person who did the something also sacked?

It confirms nothing other that the FFA feels, at the moment, that the details must remain confidential.

Like I said - you want to treat an elite sport like the public service, go for it. 
Can't wait to see the next coach ... now girls, we've all done our 36hrs this week (including travel time) so no more training before next Wednesday's game.

Didn't he say it was to do with bullying and the workplace environment ... in most businesses this would be sufficient for dismissal. Although it doesn't sound like the FFA dealt with it in the best manner (i.e. let it happen over an extended period without approaching Stajcic on the matter), then simply dismissed him instead of offering remedial courses (if it was severe enough accusations or he admitted to it happening, then that may lead to an immediate dismissal).

So you think it is okay for a manager to bully and create a "toxic" workplace environment. Good to know.

In respone to your question, most professional coaches come into a Club / country and are dictated how to play/expectations by the board, CEO etc. etc. (Even in EA Sport's FIFA games in Career Mode for Manager). Most clubs I would imagine set a strong "culture" as a criteria, I can't imagine Barca taking on an ultradefensive coach, or a coach in Mourinho's vein. Similarly, a club like Watford make it clear to their coaches the culture they expect of their players, and the coach is to re-inforce that culture. You'll find in many countries / clubs around the world that they (including the fans) want a coach that reflects their culture / values.

Yeah, That's probably why in re-appointing Stajcic two years ago, Gallop specifically praised his influence on the team culture and player development. So either one of two things have probably happened: 1. Stajcic thought he was being too successful, so he changed his approach to team culture; or 2. The FFA changed decided that the culture they p[raised two years ago was not what Our Watch felt was acceptable.  Funny how most of the Matildas think the culture was acceptable - it's just the suits and the man-haters who don't.

Have you ever noticed that wen team culture is toxic the team morale and performance of the team suffers .... oh, except in this case.

There are other scenarios, one of which is it was actually senior players bullying etc younger members of the team. If most of the Matildas were doing the bullying and Stajcic was letting them do it then they would not want him to go. This might have started less than two years ago.

They did lose to Chile

Because, in reality, there was no toxic culture. Let us be clear on that. That is FFA fake news.

The reality was that the sackng was so tenuous that Gallop admitted it had to be done using a loophole in the contract.

If it was done aboveboard these things would have happened:
- FFA gives prior warning to Stajcic
- FFA requires improvement in the so-called culture, otherwise Stajcic is sacked
- FFA speaks with Matilda players to check if the survey results are accurate.

None of this was done.

Why couldn't Stajcic have been given a warning, and a chance to change?

No. This is a Nazi, Stalin purge, and the masses are fed propaganda, and told to suck it up.

What JohnSmith said. Let it all out if you’re in the right...

Probably to congratulate Davo on his fantastic press conference performance.

I assume they didn't expect the public's response that they have gotten, damage control enabled.

Well stated Johnsmith well stated.

Ok. More news. Meeting was held at 5.30. Was only short. Have been told it was to discuss development with meeting with Matildas today

Ray Gatt Tweet.

As informative as a Gallop press conference.

It's a money grab man, expect the next 'Euro' signing to be in the $10 million, with both Gallop and his new mate to skim a couple million off the top.

Promised as part of the 'deal' to the new manager in waiting.

I wholeheartedly agree with you

Another scenario is that serious harrassment occurred to a particular individual ... this could result in immediate termination of a position, and most would be unaware of the goings on (also could have been why the FFA are not releasing details ... may go higher than the FFA soon). Furthermore, if that individual was not part of the player group then the players and results would not necessarily be impacted either (remember there would be a fair bit of back room staff involved with the Matildas ... if Stajcic was bullying them, then you'd imagine players would be none the wiser).

But then, why did they have to go through the loopholes of a payout, when an immediate termination would surely be applicable under that scenario?
I think that’s my main gripe with this.

Unless, as I stated, is was a more serious issue. They may have approached Stajcic on the matter at their meeting and he admitted to the accusations (if they were serious enough they may have thought they had no recourse but to terminate his contract immediately). Even if it was not a more serious issue, we don't know what was said in the meeting between Stajcic and FFA. Gallop has come out and said the decision wasn't made prior to the meeting. The meeting may have been intended to give him warning, but perhaps something happened in the meeting that forced FFA's hand.

It's all just conjecture, and really as others have said given the on-field performance of the Matildas (they are the FFA's main marketing tool atm too), I think this suggests that they must have thought it was an unacceptable situation.

I had an employee at my work who was given a redundancy after bullying and harassing his staff (and everyone else in the office) for well over 10 years. We weren't told the details, but it appears he was given an option to take the redundancy or be fired. He was given the option because his line manager (and their line manager) had knowingly allowed the behaviour to persist over that time ... they were finally forced to act when his staff called in sick too often and HR chased up why so many were missing work (he was harassing them so much that they couldn't come into work). His line manager had to take action as HR and the directors got involved. To cover all their ineptness in dealing with the situation when it arose (10 years ago) they gave him a redundancy, to go quietly.

We don't know if a similar deal was made with Stajcic, or if FFA failed to act over a period of time because he was getting the results on the field (and Matilda's were a marketing wet dream for FFA).

They really must explain it soon. It's just weird to abruptly sack a successful coach and then refuse to say why. I don't think I've ever seen that happen. "Cultural issues" is far too vague and general. It's pretty shocking how poorly they're handling this. It's a joke. 

I have no qualms in his sacking if it was a clear cut harassment case/incident.  But here's the flaw in the argument.  If it was something serious like that, why try and say it is to do with two surveys (one of which occurred back in July) - just say that an unacceptable issue was brought to their attention.  If that survey in July identified your 'hypothetical' harassment of an individual, why wasn't he counselled and/or sacked back then? Even if there was a hint of harassment the FFA should have been all over it back then. But according to Gallop's own explanation, that July survey was insignificant enough that zero action was taken, and the status quo remained, but then significant enough to be part of the reason for the sacking.
Anyway, Gallop also specifically said it was about a 'toxic environment', not a specific issue. 

It's becoming increasingly difficult for you or the FFA to come up with any plausible story that fits the evidence as presented by Gallop.

Nice story, but did all the staff come out in support of the sacked employee who was harassing them?