Carlton in the Media (articles, podcasts etc)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
gbatman said:
I should have been more clear, I meant calling for people to be sacked, such as the coach, when it's clear they aren't the problem, like we have seen at some AFL clubs.
Click to expand...
Ah ok, many here have tried to rationalise their past petulance in a similar way. Ratten was the cause of our poor recruiting :rolleyes:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

MEB_ said:
God damnit, you're telling me when I went and saw Belinda Carlisle at the Shoppingtown Hotel for $40 that lined Mathieson's pockets a little more? :mad:
Click to expand...

That makes me mad ... about you. I'll walk it off ... leave a light on for me.
 
gbatman said:
Regardless of whether you like Bruce Mathieson. Can you all undoubtedly deny that everything the man has said is not correct. The further time goes on the more Mathieson is proven to be right.

He rightfully so rubbished our recruiters, both Hughes and Rogers haven't proven to have done a great deal, especially in comparison to the better AFL clubs.
For me, I completely agree with mathieson and take great comfort in many of the statements regarding the improvement of our administration.

Mathieson had no faith in the previous administration and suggested it was a painful administration at that which I completely agree with. He has faith in what we are doing now and who is in place. Perhaps this guy knows what he's talking about. Tick.

Everything Mathieson and MLG have said is absolutely 100% spot on. Not just that but it's such a different view of things to everything we've experienced in the past. No longer having a desire to go out and get an absolute superstar, willingness to suffer short term pain to achieve our ultimate goal, acceptance we need a multitude of high quality players to succeed. We don't have irrational people out there to sack the coach because we are losing, we actually have rational people with realistic views of where we are and what to expect. It's all music to my ears.

At one stage I felt Mathieson may have been a bit of a nuisance but after looking into what he's been pushing and what his opinions and mode of action appear to be, I'm firmly on his side. Everything he's said is true and right. Everything he's pushed for is for the wellbeing of the club and will see things go forward if those people succeed.

I think we should be glad to have powerful yet rational people in our corner who will force our club to go down the right path. We've had people in charge who have lead the club all over the place, mainly the wrong path in the past and that's got us to where we are now.
Click to expand...

Just because we haven't had success doesn't mean that everybody we have had their in the past have done a poor job. Bruce says and the president says it, but how could you possibly know that. You just got sold a political line 101. Our predecessors suck but we are here to save you. If they throw in the word 'strong' a few times, the vibe is complete.

When Mick signed and they shot video of him walking through the corridors of Princes Park, Bruce appeared out of one corridor to give his blessing to the deal. Now he won't back Mick. Why is his instinct right now? I'll tell you why. He has a Mathieson person in charge, not a Pratt person.

What makes his opinion any more valid? What does he know about recruiting? Why are Carlton still in debt while powerbrokers comment about the club as though their word carries more weight? It's the very notion that he has access to the president, can recommend change and be listened to that grates. Can we do that?

It's not a member's club and members will not feel like it is when rich men have greater input than the members do.

As for being rational ... right does not equal rational when it divides and creates bad PR.
 
The Old Dark Navy's said:
Just because we haven't had success doesn't mean that everybody we have had their in the past have done a poor job. Bruce says and the president says it, but how could you possibly know that. You just got sold a political line 101. Our predecessors suck but we are here to save you. If they throw in the word 'strong' a few times, the vibe is complete.

When Mick signed and they shot video of him walking through the corridors of Princes Park, Bruce appeared out of one corridor to give his blessing to the deal. Now he won't back Mick. Why is his instinct right now? I'll tell you why. He has a Mathieson person in charge, not a Pratt person.

What makes his opinion any more valid? What does he know about recruiting? Why are Carlton still in debt while powerbrokers comment about the club as though their word carries more weight? It's the very notion that he has access to the president, can recommend change and be listened to that grates. Can we do that?

It's not a member's club and members will not feel like it is when rich men have greater input than the members do.

As for being rational ... right does not equal rational when it divides and creates bad PR.
Click to expand...

Preach ODN. That's exactly how I feel too.
 
The Old Dark Navy's said:
Just because we haven't had success doesn't mean that everybody we have had their in the past have done a poor job. Bruce says and the president says it, but how could you possibly know that. You just got sold a political line 101. Our predecessors suck but we are here to save you. If they throw in the word 'strong' a few times, the vibe is complete.

When Mick signed and they shot video of him walking through the corridors of Princes Park, Bruce appeared out of one corridor to give his blessing to the deal. Now he won't back Mick. Why is his instinct right now? I'll tell you why. He has a Mathieson person in charge, not a Pratt person.

What makes his opinion any more valid? What does he know about recruiting? Why are Carlton still in debt while powerbrokers comment about the club as though their word carries more weight? It's the very notion that he has access to the president, can recommend change and be listened to that grates. Can we do that?

It's not a member's club and members will not feel like it is when rich men have greater input than the members do.

As for being rational ... right does not equal rational when it divides and creates bad PR.
Click to expand...

Being right from a distance or doing something about getting it right, first hand...............are poles apart.

As if Mathiesons view comes about from being closely associated to the Carlton Football Club.... :) ......it comes from back stabbers and agenda creeps.
 
The Old Dark Navy's said:
Just because we haven't had success doesn't mean that everybody we have had their in the past have done a poor job. Bruce says and the president says it, but how could you possibly know that. You just got sold a political line 101. Our predecessors suck but we are here to save you. If they throw in the word 'strong' a few times, the vibe is complete.

When Mick signed and they shot video of him walking through the corridors of Princes Park, Bruce appeared out of one corridor to give his blessing to the deal. Now he won't back Mick. Why is his instinct right now? I'll tell you why. He has a Mathieson person in charge, not a Pratt person.

What makes his opinion any more valid? What does he know about recruiting? Why are Carlton still in debt while powerbrokers comment about the club as though their word carries more weight? It's the very notion that he has access to the president, can recommend change and be listened to that grates. Can we do that?

It's not a member's club and members will not feel like it is when rich men have greater input than the members do.

As for being rational ... right does not equal rational when it divides and creates bad PR.
Click to expand...


As much as people like to talk of a new board and a new direction for the club it seems to me the only thing that's really happened is a slight shift in who may hold numbers on the board, nothing much else has really changed. Mathieson has the numbers atm and his man is in the top job, that's all that's happened.
 
The Old Dark Navy's said:
Just because we haven't had success doesn't mean that everybody we have had their in the past have done a poor job. Bruce says and the president says it, but how could you possibly know that. You just got sold a political line 101. Our predecessors suck but we are here to save you. If they throw in the word 'strong' a few times, the vibe is complete.

When Mick signed and they shot video of him walking through the corridors of Princes Park, Bruce appeared out of one corridor to give his blessing to the deal. Now he won't back Mick. Why is his instinct right now? I'll tell you why. He has a Mathieson person in charge, not a Pratt person.

What makes his opinion any more valid? What does he know about recruiting? Why are Carlton still in debt while powerbrokers comment about the club as though their word carries more weight? It's the very notion that he has access to the president, can recommend change and be listened to that grates. Can we do that?

It's not a member's club and members will not feel like it is when rich men have greater input than the members do.

As for being rational ... right does not equal rational when it divides and creates bad PR.
Click to expand...

We have been badly run for 20 years. A short period of direction under Dick Pratt, but mostly reactive and uninspired across the entire club. We needed to change, because the way we were doing things brought us to where we are now. Every club has powerbrokers, the successful ones have them heading in the same direction as the club and its supporters/members. I'm a member and I'm glad that there is change afoot.

gab213 said:
As much as people like to talk of a new board and a new direction for the club it seems to me the only thing that's really happened is a slight shift in who may hold numbers on the board, nothing much else has really changed. Mathieson has the numbers atm and his man is in the top job, that's all that's happened.
Click to expand...

New prez, CEO, CFO and list manager. I doubt they'll be operating the same way that we have been.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Doro said:
We have been badly run for 20 years. A short period of direction under Dick Pratt, but mostly reactive and uninspired across the entire club. We needed to change, because the way we were doing things brought us to where we are now. Every club has powerbrokers, the successful ones have them heading in the same direction as the club and its supporters/members. I'm a member and I'm glad that there is change afoot.



New prez, CEO, CFO and list manager. I doubt they'll be operating the same way that we have been.
Click to expand...


I still maintain very little has changed at board level, a new president in name sure, but not independent of the power brokers who have controlled the board for years. A new list manager who got the job because he's a club legend and a close friend of the new president. Tell me where things have actually changed at board level?
 
gab213 said:
I still maintain very little has changed at board level, a new president in name sure, but not independent of the power brokers who have controlled the board for years. A new list manager who got the job because he's a club legend and a close friend of the new president. Tell me where things have actually changed at board level?
Click to expand...

Nothing seemed to happen at all under the old board. A new fitness guru every few years, a coach sacked. Not much really. I have no idea how the new employees will go, just that the old ways didn't work. I'd like to see one or two new faces on the board, but at least we have some movement in key personnel.
 
Doro said:
Nothing seemed to happen at all under the old board. A new fitness guru every few years, a coach sacked. Not much really. I have no idea how the new employees will go, just that the old ways didn't work. I'd like to see one or two new faces on the board, but at least we have some movement in key personnel.
Click to expand...

I agree that there seems to have been what at this stage appears to be some good change in personnel but they are still operating under the direction of the same old board which is my concern.

If changes don't occur at that level then no matter who you appoint to other positions not too much will change.

The first thing i'd like to see is a reduction in the number of board members . It seems to me the only reason this hasn't happened is that the people on the board are concerned with their own interests rather than those of the club.
 
gab213 said:
I agree that there seems to have been what at this stage appears to be some good change in personnel but they are still operating under the direction of the same old board which is my concern.

If changes don't occur at that level then no matter who you appoint to other positions not too much will change.

The first thing i'd like to see is a reduction in the number of board members . It seems to me the only reason this hasn't happened is that the people on the board are concerned with their own interests rather than those of the club.
Click to expand...

I have question marks over some members of the board and I'd like insight into how much they know football, which is kind of important. I'm not convinced we need a board challenge, rather a couple of fresh candidates who will add to it.
 


@MrSamPang joins @tony_debolfo & @tonemoc for a lighter look at the week that was:
listen to this on Audioboo
… via @audioBoom #NAVYBLUES
Click to expand...
 
The Old Dark Navy's said:
Just because we haven't had success doesn't mean that everybody we have had their in the past have done a poor job. Bruce says and the president says it, but how could you possibly know that. You just got sold a political line 101. Our predecessors suck but we are here to save you. If they throw in the word 'strong' a few times, the vibe is complete.

When Mick signed and they shot video of him walking through the corridors of Princes Park, Bruce appeared out of one corridor to give his blessing to the deal. Now he won't back Mick. Why is his instinct right now? I'll tell you why. He has a Mathieson person in charge, not a Pratt person.

What makes his opinion any more valid? What does he know about recruiting? Why are Carlton still in debt while powerbrokers comment about the club as though their word carries more weight? It's the very notion that he has access to the president, can recommend change and be listened to that grates. Can we do that?

It's not a member's club and members will not feel like it is when rich men have greater input than the members do.

As for being rational ... right does not equal rational when it divides and creates bad PR.
Click to expand...

I couldn't be sure that everyone was doing a poor job, I think we made some good inroads on our predicament in regards to our list, debt, income and viability of the club under the previous administration. I think that our off field staff did a fair job and our onfield staff did a moderate job, good enough to get us off the bottom and scraping into finals but not good enough to keep things building upwards, particularly once our ladder position rose and it got a little more difficult. I don't know all the ins and outs of how we've operated at an administration level, you'd need to be an insider to know that, here on the outside we're just looking at results which in some way s look ok but there are aspects such as membership that are poor. I like the changes the club has made in recent years with our connection with fans and inclub media, it's an improvement but I think it will take success to build our membership. Even though teams like Richmond and Essendon, who like us have also lacked success are smashing us with membership.

I didn't get sold anything. What impresses me is the plan at Carlton along with the attitude. We seem to have a realistic plan and expectations. Not the vibe or the buzz words but the actual outlay of their plan to build success rather than perhaps try and buy it.

I don't see where Mathieson isn't backing Malthouse. Malthouse is still contracted, his future isn't an issue until his contract runs out. I just don't see what all the fuss is about, when it's up we'll either re-sign him or we will sign someone else, it hasn't come to that. I haven't heard Mathieson call for a change of coach, you may have but I have not. I am not getting sucked into the media circus surrounding Malthouse's future which we could all see coming. Mathieson came through in that article suggesting that he's finally happy with how things are at Carlton, if anything perhaps he's happy with Malthouse, he seems happy with our other changes.

I think anyone who knows the president has access to the president and can recommend anything they want, it's the president's decision which is final.

I am glad that the big decisions are being made by those on the inside and not the members. Imagine if the members picked the coach, we'd have a new one every few years for an eternity. In a crisis such as when the members voted out the Elliott administration yes, this is something for the members to take charge of, otherwise it's best left to the experts and our members as whole are more likely to be angry fans rather than experts. You only have to read facebook comments and here what the yahoos at the footy are yelling out to get a grasp on that.

What does Mathieson know about recruiting? Who knows, probably no more than you or me. What he would have a grasp on like most successful people, which he is, is results. Perhaps this is where the criticism of Mathieson towards our previous administration is aimed. We should have identified that Hughes and Rogers and Ratten weren't doing well with our list long before we did. We really only twigged once we started going downhill (too late) and even then we were too slow to move Hughes on. This is where our board and footy department people failed, they failed to identify our failure in list management/drafting. People on BigFooty were criticising Hughes 5 or 6 years ago, I know I was, the criticism grew over the years, perhaps that's when the change should have happened and that comes back to the board of the time.

I think it can be seen as bad PR simply because people, and there are many on here, simply don't like Mathieson as a personal level. Personally, when you can see things being run poorly at the club you love and watch it go down the toilet and you have a voice, why not make a bit of noise, I know I would, I know many on here would. I bet if the same words were coming out of a more popular Carlton person, lets say an ex player or someone like that who everyone loves, then I bet people would have a lot less of a problem with it but because it's coming from a billionaire pokies king with a connection to the pres who's not overly liked it's bad PR and we don't like it.

Everything that has happened at Carlton, all the change etc, has been the right thing to do, we can't keep going in the direction we have, all this has had to happen. Whether the people put into place are good enough, that's a question that hasn't had enough time to be answered yet. I think Mick is, he's proven himself before. His assistants, perhaps not so much. McKay, Silvagni, our recruiting team? We'll know in three years time. Same with the president and CEO.

Change doesn't always mean a fix. Change sometimes is absolutely necessary like in our case. Change brings hope of a better future and that's what we have. This, as far as I can see is what Mathieson wanted.
 
Did i read correctly that Bruce used Richmond as an example of a successful rebuild?

They took their time getting back into finals contention and since then have been immediately knocked out twice. One was a defeat by the ninth placed team that 18 months later needs a complete rebuild and the other was a smashing by a genuine finals side. This year so far they lost to the doggies and beat woeful us by a whopping 28 pts.

If you are gonna look at other clubs for examples of rebuilds, for *s sake set the bar higher than richmond.
 
RedFury said:
Did i read correctly that Bruce used Richmond as an example of a successful rebuild?

They took their time getting back into finals contention and since then have been immediately knocked out twice. One was a defeat by the ninth placed team that 18 months later needs a complete rebuild and the other was a smashing by a genuine finals side. This year so far they lost to the doggies and beat woeful us by a whopping 28 pts.

If you are gonna look at other clubs for examples of rebuilds, for ****s sake set the bar higher than richmond.
Click to expand...
Richmond publicly stated that they want to play possession footy 'like Hawthorn'. Hawthorn who specifically targeted good ball users to bring to the club. Richmond then started off down the same path with Houli before going and recruiting blokes like Grigg & Hampson :drunk:
Hopefully we rebuild with a bit more focus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Aphrodite
VFL Carlton Reserves in the Media (articles etc)
Replies
20
Views
1K
Chamber JJJ
C
Aphrodite
Training 2024 Training - reports, pics etc
76 77 78 79 80
Replies
2K
Views
180K
Crippa#9
Crippa#9
Aphrodite
Universal Love Carlton Celebrates 160th Anniversary
Replies
4
Views
194
Sqotty from office works
Sqotty from office works
Chief
Win Prizes Carlton Tipping Comp 2024 - Join Now - 🔥 - Reply IN when you join
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Dadda Dave
Dadda Dave
skadoosh
News Carlton's 2024 Leadership Group
Replies
15
Views
697
My Hat
My Hat
ferrisb
  • Poll
Competitions 2024 Carlton goal-kicking comp
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
139
Views
4K
Revenant1965
Revenant1965
C
  • Locked
Preview Round 0 - Carlton vs Brisbane Friday March 8 - 7.40PM AEDT @ The Gabba - Team Stickied
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
772
Views
33K
Bamboo Harvester
Bamboo Harvester

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top