I think the main takeaway from the article is not that the board were so hot for McKellar that they should jump at the mere sniff of him being available. But that the board were so certain the players would lose their shit if they tried, and it factored into their thinking.
One can only imagine how openly they must talk shit about him in the Reds environment.
Nothing in that article states the response came from the board and it would be an unusual situation for the board to have met to discuss and formulate a response to an exploratory question from a journalist. Much more likely the response came from the individual who was asked (it's not stated who) but the implication is either Cordingley or Hanham.
At this stage it's a leap from Smith to consider it player power and there's no indication the players were actually asked or had expressed a view. I don't doubt there may have been reluctance in the group to work with McKellar - Thorn is well liked on all accounts and a sudden off season changeover rarely sits well with players, but that doesn't me they did or would have blocked a move.
As much as anything else Cordingley has been one of Thorn's biggest supporters and may see his future as being bound to Thorn's. Given that he's just as likely to shoot down any call for a snap change from outside, and it's not unbelievable to think hesitancy in the playing group is one of the reasons he'd give.
To be clear I'm not stating that it was Cordingley that Smith texted with or that if it was that was his reason for the response, just offering an alternative to Smith's conclusion. From my perspective he has made a bit of a leap to assume some major player power issue off the back of one text from an unspecified individual with some sort of vested interest in the decision.
