@ponderiver

Natty

The organization’s greatest asset is its players. That is precisely why it’s important to examine how they have been managed and supported over the years, because player retention and development directly determine performance, fan engagement, and sponsorship value.

With that in mind, several issues should be acknowledged rather than defended away. Dehring will face significant challenges in balancing the books while operating under an outdated and inefficient player management structure. If the club cannot maintain a reliable pipeline of talent, or appropriately support the players who are currently driving results, then financial planning and long-term growth become far more difficult.

At the same time, the board’s approach appears inconsistent with how effective governance typically works. In a properly run organization, the board sets direction by approving a multi-year plan, commonly a five-year strategy, and then holds management accountable to clear objectives. If “normal” governance standards were being met, red flags would have been identified earlier, and decisive action would not have been deferred until funding and operational support reached a critical stage.

The core question is accountability: what indicators signaled trouble, when they surfaced, and why corrective measures weren’t implemented sooner. Delaying these decisions increases costs, reduces options, and ultimately limits the club’s ability to recover on a sustainable timeline.

If I have the time this month, I could write a comprehensive business plan to reposition CWI. This would not be a superficial fix; it would require a full operational and structural overhaul, with changes that would be visible across leadership, planning, and execution. But the Neanderthals' will not allow such.

Sarge.