Rumour *Separated discussion* Board, Mick, Rogers, whiteanting, powerbrokers, competency or lack thereof

[Dochearty]

Don't see why people are hard on Trigg - he's shown a lot more initiative in 8 or so months than Swanny did over 5 years.

Was impressed that Trigg took control over MLG in that press conference, also shows he's not afraid of the Board.

he showed initiative with the recruitment drive, & although some of us may be peeved with discount memberships etc, we did get 5000 in 5 weeks.

he also handled the MM situation very well, the club was in a shite position & damage control was fairly effective.

he's also seems to have a very analytical approach to recruitment - along with SOS. can't see how the use of data to track the weekly performance of players from other clubs we're interested in can be a bad thing. our recruitment over the last 15 years has been shite, so if him & SOS are trying to move on from our archaic recruitment methodology, I'm all for it.

need to remember that Trigg has come into a basket case of a club, so things will take time

Agree! Trigg is a good operator....look how the crows are going with their culture,recruiting and ongoing strategy now! Swanny of to the lions, he is a has been and probably out of passion thank god he is gone! I don't know how long McKay will last he has been there long enough with no improvement, he should go also. Can we get the best person for the job at Carlton? No way, its the same as society. Hire you mates BS, just like commentators Darcy,Ling,Richo they all had their time..move over and let people with commentary experience that have earnt the right for the job! I hate this corrupt totalitarian country, its no wonder people are joining isus!

 

[Sin City]

Rogers was not a list manager though. He was focussed on recruiting. Swann used to be the list manager. McKay was the football department head, not a list manager.

No this isn't true and shouldn't be posted as if it's a fact. For the last two years Rogers was the one dealing with players/managers to get them to Carlton and negotiating the trades as well as being in charge of the draft picks. He may have been under the title of National Recruiting Manager but he was responsible for all these areas. Was indeed white anted by those that are unfortunately using the club as their own plaything.

 

[Jock]

So the decline in performance, form, the ugliness of the game plan, the bewildering match selections, the complete lack of anything to look forward to on field was a down to the club not having its act together and the supporters would have their guidance by us not telling them anything at all. One person was talking though ... Mick. Telling us every week what a great club our opposition was, including the Lions with a little bit of 'we don't have the cattle' thrown in for good measure.

I believe the need to right the ship, the need to sell hope, the need to imply that a circuit breaker was on the cards was far far far far more important than a couple of instances of disagreement drummed up in the media.

Get stuck in the detail of who said what blah blah all you like. The club ( That's all of them ) needed and need to be on the same page and stick fat. If the media can prize open a club and smell blood with divisions it really is as weak as piss and says a lot about a club.

 

[Jock]

Interesting debate in this thread & some very good arguments being put forward & your reference to "behind closed doors" is a valid one.

For me, the wheels fell off when, after our loss to the Eagles, the powerbrokers put the 'r' word out there. That was when the divide between Malthouse & the club became apparent. Why were the media alerted to the club deciding to go down the rebuild road? Why was this not just an internal memo from the board/CEO to Silvagni, McKay & Malthouse? The media knew the 'r' word was anathema to the Carlton faithful & they quickly identified that it wasn't something for which all stakeholders were on the same page.

It soon became apparent, as this all started to unfold, that the board was leaking & it didn't seem to matter that the divide which now existed at the club was being played out in the media (much like the leaking from our board circa 2005/2006) & let me say, the blame for this lies on both sides of the divide.

I would be very surprised if their aren't divisive issues at play at all 18 AFL clubs however some clubs are very good at making sure these issues remain within the club & do not get debated through the blood thirsty media. If our club is to experience long-term success any time soon, the club needs to stop feeding the media everytime all stakeholders aren't on the same page. Successful/professional clubs don't air their dirty washing for all to see.

That's pretty much what I was getting at - Cheers

 

[Jock]

How do you sort it out behind closed doors when one party (MM) is throwing bombs via the media. Malthouse clearly orchestrated the situation to pressure the club into extending his contract or giving him a 16 week paid redundancy payout. The club very clearly set the terms before the season stating that the coaching decision would be made in the 2nx half of the season and reiterated this several times to try and reduce the speculation and pressure onMM and club. It was MM that changed the narrative by whinging about the pressure he and his wife were under and then ramping it up by criticising the club and board through the media. He made his position untenable through his public criticism, not to mention the fact he had lost the players and the fans. The club may have done plenty wrong over the past decade plus but I removing Malthouse was not one of them.

It's pretty simple - you sort it out, keep your s**t in house and there won't be barbs being thrown in the media by anyone at the club in the first place.

 

[marleyblue]

It's pretty simple - you sort it out, keep your s**t in house and there won't be barbs being thrown in the media by anyone at the club in the first place.

Yeah everything is simple when you're sitting behind the keyboard

 

[Jock]

Yeah everything is simple when you're sitting behind the keyboard

Plenty of other clubs can do it well Marley

 

[Cipher]

No this isn't true and shouldn't be posted as if it's a fact. For the last two years Rogers was the one dealing with players/managers to get them to Carlton and negotiating the trades as well as being in charge of the draft picks. He may have been under the title of National Recruiting Manager but he was responsible for all these areas. Was indeed white anted by those that are unfortunately using the club as their own plaything.

I wouldn't agree with that assessment, and unless you have more insight to add, your first and last sentence don't exactly marry up.

 

[Sin City]

I wouldn't agree with that assessment, and unless you have more insight to add, your first and last sentence don't exactly marry up.

It wasn't an opinion.

 

[Cipher]

It wasn't an opinion.

Then whose actions are you talking about and how was Rogers white-anted exactly?

Some people don't come to this board to make stuff up on the run. Sin is certainly one of them.

If a poster makes a damning statement, an explanation holds more value then their credentials.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No this isn't true and shouldn't be posted as if it's a fact. For the last two years Rogers was the one dealing with players/managers to get them to Carlton and negotiating the trades as well as being in charge of the draft picks. He may have been under the title of National Recruiting Manager but he was responsible for all these areas. Was indeed white anted by those that are unfortunately using the club as their own plaything.

Yes and McKay was doing it with him. I heard him on trade radio enough to get that. We didn't have a dedicated list manager though. Swann was doing contract negotiations.

Are you saying Rogers was deciding which players were surplus to needs and offering them up as trade bait? Are you saying he was in charge of list balance? What about player issues, support, sitting in on development issues.

It seems to me that there were a lot of tacked on duties but not a dedicated role.

He may have been white anted. Who was he white anted by? MLG? Mathieson from outside? I've already conceded that Mathieson probably caused Hughes' departure and caused problems for Rogers and MLG put pressure on Rogers by approaching Wright. There is little point if people want to cast doubt on Silvagni's appointment in this little exercise though. He is here, we move forward.

A lot of people on forums know something, know someone. One in the recruiting team now, one previously in the recruiting team. Some that show up for the sausage sizzle and gossip. The occasional third hand information from a friend of a director. My opinion only is that everybody has their own slant. They have a one sided perspective from an aggrieved party or those close to that aggrieved party and likely haven't sought out both sides.

One thing is for certain though. It's a discussion forum. If anybody posts here, anybody has the right to debate, disagree or investigate further.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That's very true of course and an absolute truth may not be found but I came into this discussion not to pine for Malthouse or anyone else for that matter but just for the processes employed to clear personnel. The processes are gutless, unprofessional and have cost us money.

The processes you believe were employed ....

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Yeah.............Belief.

Not sure why anyone would excuse ongoing incompetence.

I'm not excusing anything. I like details, I like knowns, not a fan of generalisations because we can't problem solve them from the outside, not a fan of people knowing things alluding to them and feeling affronted if questioned.

What this does is gain them followers but there is no discussion only acceptance. It cuts enquiring minds out of the equation.

I'm no fan of our board. I've said they have to change a lot. A lot of things aren't right with the club so somebody has to be accountable .... generally. Who and why and what did they or didn't they do to mess things up?

The whole media circus leading up to the Mick sacking I'm not concerned about. The media wants us to dwell on how it looked overall. I want to know time frame by time frame what could have been done differently.

Rogers was angry enough to up and leave and no doubt he and his close colleagues were aggrieved. Do they know or do they believe he was white anted? Do they know or do they suspect who did it? Did Rogers get on the offensive when SOS was coming and paint himself into a corner? Would he tell anybody if he did? Do we know there was a secret plan to force Rogers to leave and put SOS in charge of recruiting as well ... or do we suspect?

These things to me smack of taking sides in industrial disputes.

I know Mick fans blamed Laidler for not 'getting on board' with Mick's direction. They also blame the club for not getting on board with Mick's direction. I wonder if there is room to think that Mick and then Rogers didn't get on board with the club's direction?

It all seems to be saying, don't change anything, don't question anything.

Umm ... is that crust a little dark? Let the Baker bake the bread! There are flames coming out of the kitchen! I've done this a long time ... let the Baker bake the bread! Help, I'm on fire! I tried to tell you we needed a new oven and you distracted me by asking me questions ... this is your fault for not letting the Baker bake the bread.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

You're telling other people to relax and calling them compulsively tedious in the same paragraph?

No, I'm calling those of us in the discussion as compulsively tedious. Self deprecation is my forte.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I think I've already covered adequate grounds on where the board have showcased their incompetence.

In summary: Membership, Financial Results, Supporter Connection, General Management, Key Recruitment etc etc.
Not much more to say than to cover the same ground and possibly allude to things I shouldn't be alluding to.

I guess some people blame players for performance and as much as that may well be the case at times, they're there because of recruitment, development, selection and team ethos.
If our current board were an individual, I just wouldn't want to be it's friend, but of course, some would.

I agree with almost all of those things generally Harks. If not directly board responsibilities, they are still responsible for getting in the people who are responsible and responsible for implementing checks and balances to ensure they are doing their jobs. The buck stops here sort of thing. However they are not paid employees of the club and ultimately the CEO should be responsible and then the board responsible if the CEO is not doing his job.

What I don't want is for those things to be lumped in with the departure of people's favourite personnel as just another example of board incompetence. There is usually two sides to a staff departure and it is not very often that a staff member does not contribute to their own departure.

See, I understand that someone has spoken to someone who stills works at the club and it would get them in trouble to reveal exactly what was said and by whom. I get that. You must get that the fact that you can allude to stuff that has you 100% behind your viewpoint, that this allusion does not translate over to those that have either heard something else because they speak to different people or generally to posters who haven't been privy to said conversations and have questions.

You would probably also understand that most information comes from a particular side of a two sided event. Go and ask those on the other side and your information is almost always quite different. I say this having not spoken to the other side but as a truism in my own working life where I constantly deal with two sides of an event. In these instances I gather evidence to form a reasonable belief. Until I do that, anything is possible and no conclusion reachable.

While my default position here is support the club, it doesn't stop me from disagreeing with direction, recognising failings, discussing constructively, and debating what I see as history revising, or from expressing sympathy for those that get the boot. Anything that I disagree with, I allow for the possibility it was done for the right reasons and I allow for unforeseeable circumstances ... things done for the right reasons but maybe the wrong way. I also default to the position that at the heart of all those that volunteer their time at the club, that their intention is good.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I understand a lot of things ODN (and don't understand just as many )

No, they're not paid but there is a lot of.............prestige involved.
It's hard for some that have put in their time through the down times to back away and for someone else to get the plaudits.......Lots of ego involved.

The point is that these people haven't been doing their job but keep pushing to convince us that it's all going to be fine......next time around.
I mean, we had The President get his pants pulled down through what he thought would be, "The Wright Coup" only to have to go back to the office with cap in hand and offer up a three year contract. Yes, with a 6 month built-in clause because we knew what we had on the go already......that's embarrassing and in real terms....not very nice.

I'm just concerned and for good reasons that people won't want to come to us, because we're actually not very nice (meaning: professional, honourable, honest, credible, encouraging etc etc)

The MLG approach to Wright was before he officially took over as President but point taken, it was ordinary messiah s**t again, no different to Elliot trying to sweeten his re-election chances by sacking Brittain and bringing Pagan in. I have no issue with approaching people. After all it is not a job that an already gainfully employed list manager is going to apply for but it was cloak and dagger, offended the Hawks and alienated others at the club who had no idea we were thinking that way. I get that.

I've been a club politics hater since I started on BF, probably in my first couple of posts in fact and I've long had an issue with powerbrokers so any association with these guys leaves me cold. I don't think MLG was the right choice and I am sure politics played a part in it. He's there though and my personal insight into what he can do is not there, so I opt to judge him on what he does in the role. I'm cautious.

This is the first I have seen this built in 6 month clause. What was the general gist of it?

 

[Broadside]

Casting out "We're going into re-build mode" wasn't a smart starting point after two games.

it made us look amateurish and shambolic, why didn't they recognise this at the end of last season and trade accordingly? To talk of a rebuild after round 2 made this year feel like a year wasted.

No problem with recruiting Jaksch, Whiley and Boek as such, but getting retreads like Liam Jones and Jason Tutt does not a rebuild make.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That's because that's what came out from the club.
Casting out "We're going into re-build mode" wasn't a smart starting point after two games.

Blaming players is easy enough and some may well deserve the vitriol spewed upon them, but the CFC again showed themselves to be ignorant and even rather foolish by allowing.......and even promoting us going full re-build and then alluding that everyone is one the table..........only to have to back-track on their bravado.............oooooops.

Lots of things have gone wrong for the CFC this year but we can be our own worst enemy at times.

I have to disagree that we only had 3-4 players on our keep list earlier in the season because the club announced we were rebuilding. It was because of the way they were performing, how bad we looked, how directionless, how poor our skills were, little light apparent at the end of the tunnel. If we were performing competively with a host of players showing future prospects and the club announced a rebuild, would our retain list be 3-4 players or more?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

So the board ticked off on what we were doing last year and two games into the season they call "RE-BUILD"

Not going to set out to have another shot at the board at length, but lots of things have gone askew because of them.
Malthouse is an easy target but he wasn't wrong when he said in April, that the players are confused.............and it's not just about them feeling confused it's about them feeling as though they're not wanted, nor respected.
I know some will say that this isn't what they set out to do but it wouldn't come about at a professionally run club. It wouldn't be allowed.

Anyway, the point was that you chip away a little bit of confidence here, treat players with a little contempt there and it can come through on the other side.

I firmly believe they tried to take pressure away from the team with that announcement. If we weren't rebuilding, what on earth was Mick doing with the team?

Look at the flipside, we're not rebuilding at least as far as the supporters know but we were performing abysmally with no discernable change in personnel or tactics. I have to say this is what infuriated me the most at the time. Same ugly unwatchable football, same players being selected, in form VFL players being ignored. I mean, give me something to hang my hat on.

We announced the rebuild and most here went 'good ... we said it' and Mick fans started pushing for him to be re-signed because of his rebuild track record. It was even a circuit breaker for those worried about Mick.

What were the public to think back then? Not rebuilding, just s**t and don't care? Who felt safe in their career with that festering? The rebuild talk didn't hurt the players any more than their own performances were.

Nah, it has only become a terrible thing because Mick lost his job and smashed the club about the rebuild talk before he walked out. We smash the club about the terrible board culture and their messiah culture and then we smash the board because we want to believe every word one of those messiahs utters as he loses his job.

As to the depth of the rebuild. I never heard it mentioned. We, the supporters speculated on that. The media speculated on that. The rebuild could simply be hitting the draft, trying to obtain 4 top 20 picks and playing the kids. We are the ones that assumed the whole list was getting turned over.

I also disagree that the board ticked off on what we were doing last year. We finished strongly and Judd was confident. Reckon they were thinking a step back to go forward and did exactly what you wanted them to do ... let the baker bake the bread. Cue new season and it doesn't look like anything had changed and Mick himself had spoken to them about rebuilding ... we were looking for a pressure valve.

I don't agree that a full rebuild was ever necessary and didn't like the mixed messages but in hindsight we attributed many of our expectations to what they said when we filled in the gaps ourselves.

 

[Broadside]

We announced the rebuild and most here went 'good ... we said it'

I think plenty said, good we said it, but added why the hell didn't we say it at end of season 2014 instead of 2 rounds into 2015

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Let's just say that SOS created a lot of waves where no waves needed to be created whether by one of many sneaky leakers we have at the club or by design
We didn't do ourselves any service for the internal turmoil we had going, well before the first game of the year.

I couldn't give a **** what MLG, SOS, Trigg or any other suit for that matter thinks about player A or player B.
Just do the job you need to do and allow the football department to deal with what they have to do, without putting undue pressures upon them.

SOS was paid to come in and do a job. If he has to crack a few eggs to do it, then so be it. You again allude to things as fact and I know you talk to a few posters who know somebody who knows something. I say again ... one side of the story from a disgruntled employee does not a fact make. It's a perspective. People need to stop weeping for the dearly departed and get back behind the club.

When Ratten went, I think you were of the opinion he was difficult to deal with and we had to back the club. Now your feedback is geared towards those that were wronged and bagging the club at every opportunity. Do you think you are constructively helping the club improve by providing one side of an industrial dispute?

Yes, powerbrokers are a problem. They should keep their opinions to themselves. This does not necessarily mean they are always wrong in the opinions they express.

As for football departments who don't want pressure. Clearly express your vision, report back as to how that vision is progressing and honestly ... hit a few ******* KPIs once in a while. You are paid to do a job, not continually reset the parameters each time things don't go as expected. Into a 3rd season and regressed so badly, there were virtually no positives ... yeah, there's pressure. Of course there is.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I think plenty said, good we said it, but added why the hell didn't we say it at end of season 2014 instead of 2 rounds into 2015

Because that is not the vision being sold to the non-football board by the precious football department. Nothing about our recruiting said big rebuild. Judd was excited, Mick was excited. This is not where the football people expected us to be.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Why aren't Yarran & Henderson interested?

Yarran was very interested last year and Henderson was deservedly put into the leadership group this year, but now they don't care? Why?

What has brought a situation where they don't care for us but they'll care for another club?
That's the question that warrants an answer.............................and we can't even blame Malthouse any more. So who's to blame?

We've had that problem with lack of buy in from 10% of the team for years. We carried that lack of buy in because they would produce once every 3 games or so. Even when we were making finals we had some not buying in fully. They don't want it enough. Just a job playing football. Mind you, back then Ratten was blamed for our inconsistent performances as well.

The tail often wags the dog ... not sure why we shouldn't blame individual players if they are fit. The rest of the team raised their game when the game plan was freed up, or they were dropped. No excuse for not hitting every contest with conviction.

Let me say this ... no talk of possible trades, SOS looking for picks, whether to match contract offers or not ... would matter a jot if the players had pushed themselves and maintained the consistency expected of an AFL footballer. I don't want to lose quality players but I do expect them to earn their salary.

 

[ShanDog]

Why aren't Yarran & Henderson interested?

Yarran was very interested last year and Henderson was deservedly put into the leadership group this year, but now they don't care? Why?

What has brought a situation where they don't care for us but they'll care for another club?
That's the question that warrants an answer.............................and we can't even blame Malthouse any more. So who's to blame?

Excellent questions harks and I've been wondering the same.

Thought maybe Hendo has been carrying injuries that make him look laconic but its been a long time. He even seems to have his speed back but can't do much.

Yarran just doesn't seem happy. Maybe I'm not thinking back right, but I never saw him as undisciplined, yet look at this year. He's been horrible in that regard.

If the club don't think they can get these guys past whatever issues they are having, they should be traded while still worth something.

 

[rp84]

Agree.

Out of curiosity, what would you say the right price for Casboult is?

I don't think there is an easy answer. His potential is as one of the best KPFs in the league. The reality is, he still struggles to find the footy enough to be labelled anywhere near that. I think his kicking has well and truly improved, and every year he has improved as a player. I would think we would only get a 3rd rounder at best, but would want a second. Saying that, he is currently a 30-35goal full time forward. Not exactly a world beater yet. If he can get that up to 45-50, and increase his disp count 3-4 and marks 1-2, well he becomes pretty valuable.

His probably value at the trade table wouldn't match potential. Since he is so cheap to keep around, I think it is just easier to keep him. I think he will take a good defender every week, and crash packs for the next 5 years, all for the low low price of about 150-200k.