For a start it would be good if they’d make up their mind. Was he dismissed ‘without cause’ and simply paid out, or was he dismissed because he did something terribly wrong?
Was it because of his behaviour as stated by Reid, or was it because of the behaviour of others who are still employed.
Nikou still has not defined what a toxic environment is - how can that definition be protected by confidentiality or legal constraints.
This is a total arse cover for a knee jerk decision.
By the way, where’s the new coach that we were supposed to have in place in two weeks??
How’s the culture at the Matilda’s a month on?
Resign now.

So, Lurker, in summary, your stance is that you trust the FFA Board because they are well qualified and experienced people.

As you scan history of greed, deceit and deception, have any of those evils been carried out by people who were well qualified and experieced?

If there are qualified and experienced people in this world who act deceitfully, how can you tell who those people are? Do you ask the question, or do you carry on life trusting everythign that you're fed.

As a freebie, a clue to something smelling bad is contradictory statements from the same mouthpiece.

By the way: the coward Nikou continues to hide behind ‘confidentiality’ but was quite happy to make public something Stajcic supposedly said in a private meeting with Gallop and an FFA lawyer.
Double standard much?

Isn't the term now being used dysfunctional and cancerous?

That implies a toxic environment. Most of us  would like to know but Nikou has explained why he can't say.

Surely any new coach would want to know what he is expected to fix. That may be an obstacle.

Who do you want to resign.

Nikou? The Board, Gallop? Helen Reid?

Obviously Congress is divided on this as they don't have the numbers, at the moment, to push for further action.

So nikou is not even able to say what a toxic environment is? This is a joke.
Why not just say “we sacked him for being a dweeb but I can’t tell you what a dweeb is for confidentiality reasons.
Surely the Matilda’s have a right to know what a toxic environment is? How will they know if it’s still there or if it’s been fixed?
Total BS.

You missed out, based on their past, trustworthy.

Six Board members voted unanimously on the matter. You are suggesting all six colluded?

In my view, Nikou's integrity is beyond reproach.

If there was one person, at a stretch two, involved then your suggestion is possible. But all six? Come on get real.

As I have said before, no one other than the board and Gallop know the details.

Just my opinion.

... and Lucy.

The latest episode of the FFA Reality show has been fantastic.
The episode written by Tracey Holmes has left us on a cliff hanger.

I just cannot for the life of me understand why this isn't a Soap Opera Program on Channel 7 or 9.

We can call it My Football Rules MFR, hosted by Manu.

It would out rate any thing Football related ever, with National viewership well over 750K generating Millions for the game.

Looking forward to tomorrows episode, absolutely riveting stuff.

Suggestions have been made as to what it is. If that is the case then nothing much can be said for fear of litigation. Perhaps agreements have been reached between the FFA and the persons interviewed after the surveys to illicit more information.

I get you are passionate about this.

I feel for Stanjcic but don't have enough information to know whether his dismissal was justified or not.

Slater is now suggesting Stanjcic should be reinstated (he does mention that Stanjcic may not be interested though). What additional  information does he have to come to this conclusion?

Perhaps nothing more than is publicly available?

The Daily Telegraph is reporting that the FFA Board has written to Congress providing an explanation and the following is rather interesting: 

"Nikou said FFA had “identified potential issues … of concern” within the Matildas team environment back at last July’s Tournament of Nations, and head of national performance Luke Casserly had formally raised these with Stajcic in late August.

That, he said, led to Professional Footballers Australia’s planned 2019 national teams-wide wellbeing audit being “fast-tracked” for the Matildas to 2018, a process in which Stajcic was involved.

He said the alleged issues were also raised at a meeting on August 1 of the former FFA women’s committee, which was then chaired by Nikou and also featured chief executive David Gallop, head of women’s football Emma Highwood, current directors Heather Reid and Kelly Bayer Rosmarin, former director Danny Moulis, company secretary Jo Setright, former Matilda Sarah Walsh and Mia Garlick."

As for Congress, I think the State Federations, A League Clubs and Women's Council have all expressed concern over this. Apparently only 5% is needed to start an EGM? I just think the Congress members are giving the FFA Board a chance to provide an explanation first without doing it formally. 

Not sure if the letter from the FFA Board is sufficient but Ros Moriarty, Chair of the Women's Council, did state the following (this may be before she reviewed the FFA Board letter): "An independent review? A month after Matildas coach Alen Stajcic's sudden contract termination, the FFA Women's Football Council's questions remain unanswered around governance, due diligence and due process." 

Yes, 5%  to call a general meeting, providing there is a proper purpose. Section 249D of the Corporations Act 2001.

Richard Hinds sums it up best for me if you had to take all the emotion out of it:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-15/ffa-floundering-after-alen-stajcic-matildas-sacking/10812536

Quite simply: if the reasons for Stajcic's sacking were so compelling he had to be axed just months before a World Cup, why didn't those around and above the coach know and act sooner?

Alternatively: if there is no compelling justification, how did player and staff surveys and interviews intended to gain constructive feedback (at least as far as the players believed) to improve the team environment suddenly provide a case for dismissal?

For weeks now this credibility gap has invited conspiracy theories and innuendo, which the FFA has only intensified with unilluminating corporate cliches.

The players, it was initially supposed were so deeply traumatised by Stajcic's methods the FFA had no choice but to remove him, have not come forward.

Quite the contrary, those players who have spoken lament Stajcic's sacking, claim that they would have answered the survey questions differently if they knew his job was on the line and — in some cases — secretly confide that the World Cup can't be won without their long-time mentor.

Gatty reporting that the State Feds are split as to whether the Boards letter is satisfactory (looks like the same lines) and will mull over the letter over the next 3 days. If not, they may push for an EGM and then an independent inquiry. 

So they have leaked 'suggestions' of what the problem is, and then after the innuendo and slurs are leaked, and even worse, publicly stated by a Board member, "if you knew .... etc" - they run back and hide behind the confidentiality/legal wall.  Oh, unless they want to disclose a statement that further casts aspersions on Stajcic.
The thing is, I just don't understand why you continue to defend this unacceptable behaviour and even commend the 'quality' of the Board.
I tend to agree with an earlier poster that either:
1. What they have is bad, but could never be attributed to anything Stajcic has or hasn't done
2. What they have is bad, the FFA have known for months, but no one ever mentioned it to Stajcic
3. What they have is possibly bad, but it's an accusation in an anonymous survey, they can't provide any supporting evidence, and Stajcic's lawyers would have a field day
4. What they have is questionable/trivial/indefensible, and would make them a laughing stock

The reason I feel strongly is because there is more than the Matildas and Stajcic at stake - if our game is being administrated through online surveys, by people who are so disconnected from supporters that they thought this would go away after Gallop's two press conferences, and if something as good as the Matildas can be trashed in days, I have grave fears for where the game is headed.  If a coach who is respected and even loved by most of his team can be sacked because of something he can't be told about, and at least part of the reason is an online survey, what decent coaches would want to come here? Will the next coach feel free to upset even one player? Or one parent?
Right now, the A League, the NT, crowds, the public perception, the media coverage and ratings are all heading in a downward direction - and yet we have heard nothing from Gallop or the Board about how any of this will be turned around.  Instead they have ensured that the one shining light has been dimmed.

So you think it ok, for him to make public a private conversation between Stajcic and Gallop?  So when Nikou claims the Matlidas are aware and accepting of the reasons for the dismissal, but Sam Kerr and Claire Polkinghorne state that they are still in the dark, you belive Nikou?
Interesting. 
What do you think of Reid's integrity?
What do you think of Stajcic's integrity? 

Football culture problems in Australia are much deeper and broader than the Matildas

FFA may be 'comfortable' legally when it comes to Alen Stajcic, but the new-ish Board still needs to address the cultural issues in the game

15 February 2019 |  Bonita Mersiades

The word out of FFA HQ is that they are “very comfortable” with their legal position on the Alen Stajcic sacking.Heather Reid said as much in her private messages to members of the football community when FFA made their announcement, and it has continued to be the case ever since.
The FFA's comfort levels are even more so since the FFA Board demanded management come up with the goods to back their recommendation. Helped by the head of steam the issue has gathered, FFA management are rather gleefully believed to have compiled what one FFA source described as a “big fat file” on Stajcic since Monday night's Board meeting. After all - this was about FFA's management saving their own jobs so the motivation was there to move fast.
Of course, the ‘legal’ position is what lawyer and FFA Chairman Chris Nikou carefully laid out in his letter to state federations yesterday. It also came up with even more words to describe the environment that Stajcic allegedly presided over.According to the FFA Chairman, Stajcic said in the meeting to discuss the findings of the Our Watch summary report of the Matildas  to the FFA CEO David Gallop and a company lawyer – presumably Head of Legal, Tim Holden – on Friday 18 January that the Matildas environment was “dysfunctional” and“cancerous” and “was always going to be that way”. On the basis of these alleged words, based on Gallop and his staff member Holden's recollection of the 20-minute meeting, Stajcic was sacked. As well as not getting the full gist of the conversation, we're also not getting is the context in which those words were said.

Here are two options.

Option A:  the FFA version

• Stajcic said those words because he didn’t want to admit there was an issue to deal with, or he had no inclination or clue on how to deal with it. 

Option B:  an alternative version

• Stajcic said those words because the “dysfunctional” cultural issues within the Matildas is longstanding, systemic and not in the remit of the head coach to do something about, whether that head coach be female or male. 

For example:

• Who allowed player power to take hold to get rid of Hesterine de Reus in the first place? While Moya Dodd is alleged to still be seething over this – as de Reus was her personal choice as Matildas coach – and she makes no secret of the fact that she is not a fan of Stajcic, should the players have been permitted to get their way? Answer: FFA.
• When most of the players went on strike over pay and conditions and refused to travel to the USA, who were they negotiating with over those pay and conditions? Answer: FFA
• When FFA agreed to pay Sam Kerr a $300,000 marquee fee for the W-League, did they think how that might impact team camaraderie and morale amongst other Matildas? The minimum salary in the W-League in 2018-19 is $12,287 and the salary cap for W-League teams is $400,000. Answer: FFA.
• Last year, Stajcic made the point publicly that he thought some of the players were fatigued and needed a break, which is why he rested several of the bigger name players from the England and France tour. Samantha Kerr said exactly the same thing to AAP yesterday. Did this come into FFA's consideration of the 'cultural' issues or the responses to the surveys? Answer: probably not.

We can only repeat what we have said before. We do not know what is true and what is not. We do not know the full story. What we do know is that the ‘he said, he said’ version of events is not particularly edifying or helpful to anyone.

There’s also another issue. And that’s about culture. Let’s say Alen Stajcic made disparaging comments about some of the women working in football and used poor and derogatory language to talk about them.Is that wrong? Yes. Is it insensitive? Yes. Is it inappropriate? Yes. Is it a sackable offence? Decide for yourself. Let’s also say that the alternative contextual version mentioned above even a smidgen of truth to it. 

Will the new-ish FFA Board take the opportunity to actually address the systemic elephants in the room, or will they merely bunker down and circle the wagons in order to protect themselves legally?

According to Nikou, this entire saga began in July/August when an FFA employee – presumably either the abnormally recently silent Emma Highwood or Casserly – “identified potential issues” with the Matildas. This coincided with the PFA wanting to conduct a Wellbeing Audit which the PFA “fast-tracked” at FFA’s request. This survey, according to Nikou, was completed by the “majority of players” at an “assembly” which totalled 32. Yet, according to FFA, only 20 players were in camp in November 2018 so it would be interesting to know who else attended the “assembly” to make up the “majority” who were there to take it to 32.

Nikou then goes on to say the concerns were tabled at a meeting of the FFA Women’s Committee on 1 August last year.

• Chris Nikou (Chairman)
• Kelly Bayer Rosmarin
• Danny Moulis (former Board member)
• David Gallop
• Emma Highwood
• Jo Setright
• Sarah Walsh
• Mia Garlick (from Facebook, friend of Dodd, and a member of previous iterations of FFA Women’s Committees since 2008), and
• Heather Reid.

Nikou tells us that it was this committee which recommended that “a suitable organisation” be engaged to conduct a culture/gender equality survey. We've also learned that it was after this particular meeting that a Board member - either Nikou, Rosmarin or Moulis as Reid wasn't then a Board member - allegedly informed Stajcic that “They're out to get you.”

In October, Our Watch – which is chaired by former Senator Natasha Stott Depoja who is also a member of the ill-fated committee bidding for the 2023 Women’s World Cup (yes - shock - we won't win it) - was engaged to conduct a second survey of all staff including the Matildas.While this was going on, the PFA Wellbeing Audit report was received which “warranted further investigation” and part of the plan to address the issues identified included the two-day workshop last month. While Stajcic said it was he who initiated the team leadership and culture workshop in Sydney on 21-22 January, Nikou's letter alludes to the workshop being a joint venture of the FFA and PFA - as if Stajcic wasn't involved at all - yet the PFA has said that the workshop was “designed” by those involved in the PFA Wellbeing Audit which, according to them included Stajcic, while the FFA Head of National Performance says it was his idea. Confused?

Frankly, we're not sure why it matters so much whose idea it was, but there are at least four different versions of this one little fact - which is probably indicative of this entire sorry mess. 

However, never ones to pre-empt an outcome, someone in FFA thought it was a good idea to send the summary details of the PFA Audit to Our Watch.Strangely enough, although we have been previously told that the Our Watch survey was “confidential”, Our Watch was able to separate out the Matildas component of their survey to provide another report to FFA. And this led to the 18 January meeting. That’s all very interesting but here are the points the Board needs to understand. 

1.          A sporting team is not an ordinary workplace. If they think that everyone on a team ‘gets on’ with each other, they’re living in La La Land. I worked closely with the entire Brisbane Strikers NSL squad for two years and I know this. I was the (female) team manager of the men’s national team (Socceroos) and I know this. I was head of corporate and public affairs at FFA and dealt on the periphery with both the national teams and I know this. And guess what?! Not all the players like their coach! Shock! Horror! Not all the players like one another. Some would even visit us at FFA headquarters and complain about their coach or their team members. As much as some may like to think that the national teams sit in circles holding hands singing kumbaya when they’re not training or playing – they don’t. They are relatively young people full of high energy, and sometimes fragile, egos who are wanting to carve out their niche in football and in life. 

2.          There is an elephant in the room when it comes to women’s football. While some dismiss those who have raised this as referring to ‘lesbian mafia’ and being 'homophobic', it is nothing to do with Italian crime syndicates or sexual preference. It is everything to do with the appropriate and acceptable behaviour within the team environment. For example: should a couple share a room when they’re in camp to compete in a major international tournament? What do you do when a couple breaks-up mid camp and then the camp is divided between the parties? And what do you do when a 15-year-old is exposed to such behaviour and their parents are worried about it? Most of us wouldn't know the answers to those questions but they are some of the issues I heard discussed regarding the Matildas when I was at FFA a long time ago.

3.          Football has a culture problem. There is nothing more to say about this. If you don't get it now, you never will. Culture starts at the top. I have been writing and talking about it for years but if you need a refresher, please do read my book.

4.          FFA has a culture problem too. If we want to talk about things being 'dysfunctional' in a workplace and have 'always been that way', let's shine a light on FFA. It's become worse over the years. For example, about four years ago a Survey Monkey survey (no, I'm not making it up) of all FFA staff was undertaken which showed that almost 70% of staff were dissatisfied with their work environment. The reasons given? No communication, no transparency, no consultation with experts (particularly when it came to football matters). Does that sound plausible? You decide. The follow-up? Zilch.

5.         A football organisation needs a football heart, brain and soul. Craig Foster might be seen by some as proselytising but he is not wrong when he says there needs to be more football 'nous' within FFA at senior levels. When the National Technical Director reports to the Head of Community and Women's Football, it's a joke. Not just in terms of the perception in Australia, but in the football world. Han Berger said as much here. This is nothing to do with the current occupant of that position being a woman, as someone would have you believe (Highwood), but it is everything about under-valuing the importance of a technical director in a national football association. When that same position is responsible for a recommendation that does away with the high performance program without even talking with those responsible for high performance and development, it is as a minimum disrespectful.

When asked by a former senior member of the national coaching staff whether the money saved by cutting the AIS program would go to national youth development and teams (male or female) and it doesn't; when we hear about training camps cancelled two days before they were due to happen because of lack of funds; when the Pararoos are forced to resort to public fundraising because FFA can’t afford $400,000 to support their participation in the 2019 World Cup; and when we hear of salaries north of $700,000 for senior executives at FFA, it goes to the heart of FFA's cultural problem.

People with a football heart, brain and soul - and it doesn't have to be all former footballers - would not make those decisions, regardless of the budgetary pressures on the organisation, and they wouldn't drain the game of such high salaries. The point is well documented in academic and business literature around the world, as well as by ASIC, that the culture of any organisation or any enterprise starts and ends at the top.
As a unit, the FFA Board has been in charge for 89 days. But the senior management team is entrenched.
Gallop has been there for more than six years. Jo Setright has been there for 12 years.
Falvo and Highwood have been there for 11 years each. Holden has been there for 10 years.
Casserly has been there for six years.
Luke Bould (chief commercial officer) has been there for five years;
Greg O'Rourke is a relative newcomer who has been there for three years.Stajcic was appointed in September 2014 when Australia was ranked 10th in the world; that's not yet four-and-a-half years and we're ranked sixth. And he's the one to take the fall for the Matildas being “dysfunctional”.

What we’re seeing now is not entirely of the FFA Board's making (although one has contributed further to their current troubles). But on their own timeline of 100 days, they've got 11 days to get it right.

Just do it.

What a shocker.

So, surely someone at the FFA was immediately sacked!? No? Strange?

In defense of Survey Monkey, it is a 1.5b company and they are used by a number of organizations to run surveys. I'd assume there are different levels of controls and protections depending on the nature of the information being gather - the FFA may have gone for the cheap option. 

Wait what?

FIFA aren't due to announce the successful bid until the FIFA Congress on the 5th of June, and there aren't even ofically any other names in the hat yet although Colombia and South Africa apparently will bid.

The Stajcic fiasco probably hasn't helped, though.

True, but it's been proven that the survey in question was compromised.

The need to repeatedly run 'anonymous' surveys is itself an indicator of a dysfunctional organisation.  
What it says is that for at least the past four years, the FFA has continued to be an organisation where staff only feel comfortable sharing their concerns anonymously.  Sounds to me like they have a 'toxic environment', eh Chris?

BTW - it seems that the media coverage of this is only increasing ... it's not going away FFA.

Wonder how the coach selection is going.  I mean with Casserly - apparently under review for his incompetence in the Stajcic affair, and the cricket player, we can all be extremely confident of a fantastic outcome. Good to see that they at least have a sense of humour if they are interviewing Ross Aloisi for the role. At least with Ross, you get to see evidence of the toxic environment every week - in the respect he shows for referees, opponents and fans.

I can just imagine Bonita’s interpretation of what could have happened to be fair and reasonable lol.

I mean why wouldn’t a disgruntled ex employee and full time FFA adversary approach it any different (not)?

You must be cradling in a corner looking for a spin. 2 weeks out no coach.

And right on cue, we have paulc making baseless attacks on a respected football journalist, whilst continuing to defend his masters.
As always - it's all 'innuendo' (now where have we seen that before??) and not a single piece of evidence to discount anything Bonita says.
But I suppose you are prevented from offering evidence due to confidentiality and legal constraints, eh?

I'm just defending Survey Monkey as being a legitimate survey tool - which it is. The way the FFA has used it is and can be a problem.

As for picking the next coach, that's got to be messed up. Don't know how the FFA can do it properly in this firestorm.

You belong in a mother’s club clockwork.

You belong in a resort.

They keep telling him it's a resort .... it's just that the staff wear white coats.

If you are fair dinkum about understanding your organisation's culture - you actually set up these surveys with logins, such that you don't know who the individuals are but you know what part of the organisation they work in, because you actually want to know if any issues are organisation wide or specific to a team or group.  You also know how many people are in each part of the organisation so you don't get 20 surveys from a team of 5. 
It is totally ridiculous that you survey all parts of an organisation totally anonymously and then try to identify a particular causal factor or person responsible.  To survey voluntarily and anonymously - players, staff, past players and other hangers on, and then somehow claim to have determined that the problem lies with the coach is totally bizarre.