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

[rp84]

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.

Yeah, I agree.

I know fans clamor for info, but I would much rather we seal up all the leaks and make less outrageous statements to the media.

We have had some shockers the least few years.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Yeah, I agree.

I know fans clamor for info, but I would much rather we seal up all the leaks and make less outrageous statements to the media.

We have had some shockers the least few years.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Red Bull]

He's gone Harker .
It's time to move on for everyone's sake ...

 

[Blue__Balls]

He's gone Harker .
It's time to move on for everyone's sake ...

Don't think Harks said he was staying - just that maybe his issues have been caused by treatment at the hands of our club, rather than a lack of heart.

I don't know the bloke at all, but there are plenty of possible reasons for his form/effort to be down other than "he's soft".

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Hang on....

1. What does it matter what we on this board thought after 2 games?
Was this announcement in-conjunction with what Malthouse was told and if not, why not?

Mick and the board said they had discussed the rebuild. Mick's only concern ... a couple of weeks later as the performances did not pick up was that publically revealing the rebuild put pressure on the players. I find it convenient as no talk of rebuild would have seen more pressure on Mick and just as much on the players. The club managed our expectations so supporter pressure would drop off and media would follow accordingly. Mick fuelled it again because it is always something else to blame. He says the buck stops with him, but in a James Hird way where he starts pointing the finger everywhere else.

If it was though, then why was Malthouse so angered by it? How does this work? Where's the unity we talk about? There is none, is there?

Isn't this obvious? A rebuild hurt Mick's prospects of a new contract. He was on board if it bought him time and when he thought he was best placed to lead the rebuild. Problem was his team got worse and he couldn't show any signs of changed so the rest of the season wasn't a waste.

No game plan changes visible. Predictable defensive one on ones. s**t we got spanked, Ellard out, Smith in. Smith does nothing, got spanked ... Smith out, Ellard in. Can't drop Jones as I talked him up so much preseason and the decision to get him will look foolish. Meanwhile 3rd year player Nick Graham rots away starring in the twos. Mick was hoping the players would follow him out of the mire ... and they didn't.

The rebuild was a pressure release for Mick and all he had to do was show those green shoots.

2. What do the players think? What does it matter that Henderson & Kreuzer want to stay with the club but are treated like crap.
Who cares...players are just cattle. Who needs culture when we have the public, to please.

Do you not have any expectations of players?

Kreuzer can be left out of this. Most competitive player we have. I'll defend him all day long in terms of building culture. People are speculating about his future and he comes out and gives his all regardless. Every other player should have the instinct to show the knockers. If criticism makes you retreat into your shell, how on earth are you playing in the elite competition and how long should you get to turn that mindset around? Bear in mind, your teammates have to carry you when you are not giving your all.

I would have thought that on field attitude was just as important to a winning culture as not being a ratbag off the field. Mitch Robinson wanted to stay too ... if I'm not mistaken ... practically begged.

3. We cleared 23 players in two years and even though we may have taken on some wrong players, we couldn't just load up with 20+ 18 year olds.
We don't know what was in store for this year but whatever it may have been, do it behind closed doors. Why is the President going on radio sounding like a brash goose and going against the footballing department?

3 offseasons Harks. Ratten did similarly with far better results and less reason to cut players.

We didn't know what was in store, but we didn't expect THAT. It was damaging to the club, the supporters, the players, the sponsors ... everybody. Then we provide direction by announcing the rebuild and that is what becomes the biggest issue this year? Not buying it. People glossing over performance to play politics.

When it was raised that Mick should have assessed the need for a rebuild much faster, his supporters said he did ... that he told the club after the first year we needed a rebuild. Therefore the club were not going against the football department when they said we needed a rebuild, the only issue is doing so publicly which I have addressed earlier.

If the football department were not on the same page as the board and didn't think we needed the rebuild, then what they hell was Mick doing to the team coming into his 3rd season? No rebuild but we were as bad as a team could get. Seems his supporters want to alternate this argument but the pieces do not fit together.

4. The board didn't give the green light for the way we were going? What were they doing then?
The board had to have been shown the draft plans going into the trade/draft period and went O.K. but then when SOS comes along, it's what?

Do you think they were going to sack Mick Malthouse after 2 seasons with a year to go, when we found competitive spirit late and Judd was buoyant enough to cancel his retirement? Not a chance Mick was not going to go into the final year of his contract. Some competitive instinct and he would have seen out his contract as well.

There's only two ways this could have gone:

a. The board sat right back and didn't take any action when they should have.
b. The board had way too much to say and caused undue friction and fractions within the club.

You couldn't frame this any more simplistically than you have Harks.

The board is results driven ... on field affects off field. They are not football people and do not need to recognise the state of the list, why we are under performing, and understand game plans, selections or whether a coach is coaching well or not. They can only factor in the result and ask questions. All workers have performance assessed based on results. Not getting the results, you have to explain why and how you intend to get those results. If it still doesn't happen, you then have to show that you did what you said you were going to do and because you are the football person, use your expertise to explain why it is not working and how quickly you can turn it around.

Your a) suggests they should not have allowed the baker to bake the bread and your b) suggests they should not have talked to the baker about his role when the bread baking was not going well. They can't be completely hands on or completely hands off and nor should they be.

I will burn the board, don't worry. Nepotism, vehicle for egos, exclusive and look out if the coaching process I embrace wholeheartedly turns out to be a sham.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Don't think Harks said he was staying - just that maybe his issues have been caused by treatment at the hands of our club, rather than a lack of heart.

I don't know the bloke at all, but there are plenty of possible reasons for his form/effort to be down other than "he's soft".

Yeah there is. Sometimes it is not the club though. Some players need a change of scenery. Some players don't get along with other players. Somebody might have ran off with someone's girlfriend. The player might feel injuries are mismanaged. Maybe facilities are not good enough. Personalities everywhere in football clubs and guaranteed they don't all like each other. It doesn't all boil down to 'club won't pay me what I am asking for' or 'club won't refute trade rumours'. It's not as though these guys have always been treated harshly or that they were consistent footballers until now. Nobody on our list that has been there longer than 5 minutes has been consistent.

Jarrad Waite used to frustrate us all with his injuries and consistency for someone of his talent. Maybe Henderson is in the same boat on both counts. Yarran fits the consistency part and has a touch of the visible Fevola like attitude part on occasion as well. We know these guys should be leading us to victory more often than not, rather than being amongst our poorer players every 2nd or 3rd week. Other players are just as inconsistent but they don't hold any trade value so don't get the speculation.

The only thing these guys can do is prove us all wrong. It's their reputation, their career ... stick it up us. We'll jump on as quickly as we jump off if they do that.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Can't go into too much detail now ODN but just on the point of results driven; Where is self-accountability?

If they were results driven they should sack themselves and appoint people that know what they're doing...hell...even get a committee to do so

Yes, a full assessment of the whole of club is desirable Harks. That acknowledgment does nothing to defend the results of the football department however. Once you establish the football department weren't showing the results they are paid to show, whether that be development and rebuilding with at least some competitive instinct or finals contention then they are accountable for their jobs. The board and how they relate to people, how they listen to people, what they are actually doing to improve things ... they need to be accountable for that.

I will add though that they are volunteers. Busy people with busy lives giving freely of themselves. Not paid employees looking for a contract extension. We have to replace those volunteer directors with people willing to put in as much time if not more, with a skill set that benefits the club i.e solutions not just complaints. I haven't seen a lot of people putting their hands up. Maybe because being a board member is a more thankless task than being a paid employee.

 

[Red Bull]

Henderson? Yarran? . Who has gone? .
I'm not talking about Malthouse if that's what you're alluding to.

For anyone that's followed proceedings , it's pretty clear that you had some connection to the Rogers camp .
The arrival of Silvagni and departure of Rogers has clearly pushed you over the edge .
Since then , we've witnessed a constant harping on the subject , dressed in many different forms , but none the less driven by the same root cause .
The intricacies of it all will never be known by Joe Public , and there's no going back .
Again , and for you more than anyone , it's time to move on .
At the end of the day , we all support the CFC , decisions along the journey disappoint us all from time to time but we have to move on .
I guess if a hurdle is too great to jump , the only alternative is to withdraw one's support .
There just has to be a point where it's time ...

 

[chunkylover53]

Rogers picks are looking better and better each week though....

Such a shame he and SOS couldn't work together.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Can't go into too much detail now ODN but just on the point of results driven; Where is self-accountability?

If they were results driven they should sack themselves and appoint people that know what they're doing...hell...even get a committee to do so

I know you can't Harks but trust me I know people know certain employees. I know people who hang at the club and talk to some directors. I know of posters you are close with either on this site or from other sites. I know there are strong opinions and constant murmurings. We have seen these murmurings since the Unofficial Selection Committee and really, a lot of supporters believe strongly in what they hear and a lot of supporters feel they are more enlightened than others as a result.

What I am saying is you have to have all sides of an argument in order to assess the problem accurately. I've seen enough disgruntled employees to know there is two sides to an argument, as compelling their argument seems. Their immediate co-workers will often back their account because they sit around and talk about it. I've done the same thing myself when put under pressure but truth be told, did I contribute to that pressure by not doing all I could have done? Hell yes. Really hard to be honest with yourself.

SOS was brought in to do a job and back himself in to do that job. If he believes something, he has to voice it. He too will be judged on results once enough time has passed, and if we are in the same position and he can't point to his KPIs, he too will lose his job. That event won't make the events of this year wrong as we have no anecdotal evidence even that anything was working.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Rogers picks are looking better and better each week though....

Such a shame he and SOS couldn't work together.

It is clear that Rogers liked the autonomy of his role. It is also clear the club are going down a massive consultative route where everybody is a paid employee and should be flexible enough to work in wherever they can. Case in point the notion that a senior coach can be a member of staff whose role is to coach the club. If his coaching role is not working out, he can slip into another role as his tenure is as an employee not just a senior coach. It's a little left of centre but I can see the merits of this, even if it won't catch on because you won't get the coaches to apply.

Gives job security. Theoretically has everybody doing their bit to have us pulling in the same direction. Less cutthroat.
I mean, how many roles has Shane O'Sullivan had in the club over the years?

Work in government, change department heads every change of government, different focus on different goals, employed as one thing, end up in this team, out of this team, reporting to 1 person, then reporting to 5. They have change management meetings just to help people get used to it. People just have to be professional enough to role with it.

Rogers was still head recruiter, just had to report to someone different because they were on the same team, theoretically having to pull in the same direction. Sometimes egos are bruised ... so be it.

Rogers would have to admit the results of his recruiting hadn't come through yet so as his employers the club had the right to bring in some accountability. He may have been the victim of Mick's 'slow to blood youth' mantra. If he had have hung around long enough for Cripps to storm on to the scene and Graham and Holman to get a string of games, his stocks would have risen again. Ebbs and flows of organisational structure.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Yeah, I agree.

I know fans clamor for info, but I would much rather we seal up all the leaks and make less outrageous statements to the media.

We have had some shockers the least few years.

The leaks come from everywhere though. Certainly the leaks against SOS are coming from inside the club and being used to tip the bucket on SOS and the board. The only way the board could stop that is to get rid of those leaking that information to outsiders so they can influence other supporters in a public forum. If those leaking that information are already gone, then that in itself justifies their dismissal if you follow that logic.

For mine, I don't care about things getting out. It's human nature to complain about things that adversely affect you and information is key when holding authority to account.

You can't really pot a board for lack of discretion that affects its employees by using a lack of discretion from employees in giving you information to pot the board for its lack of discretion.

Fact is, when performance is lacking, someone is disgruntled and isn't on the same page. Can't cut their tongues out.

I've only ever remember one person at the club taking it on the chin when he was moved on ... Brett Ratten, and I completely recognise his right to feel hard done by if he wants to.

 

[JustaBattler]

Pratt stepped in to 'save the Club'. Mathieson probably with same motivation. The Judd signing was as much about marketing ( and it worked) than winning - and it partially worked.

Where the Club has failed is to bring memberships up to 60+K p.a. put in place a proper long term development of playing list and build strategy and properly assess the true value of playing personnel.

If you look at successful Clubs - by which I mean Clubs genuinely top4 contenders- it is a culmination of a minimum of 5-6 years building on top of solid foundations.

Carlton has I believe finally embraced the idea of building solid foundations - however even putting in place teh right foundations is a time consuming process. You also have to trust the people you put in place to get the foundations right and you have to have the resources to do it.

Carlton doesn't have the resources of Hawthorn/Geelong/Collingwood or even Richmond. On field performance therefore becomes even more important.

All that being said- Carlton has had the time prior to GWS/Suns entry to at least put together a sustainable middle ranked list. The evidence points to extremely poor list management and development letting the Club down in this area.

The evidence also points to divisions at teh Club and lack of cohesive strategy as far as drafting and trading goes - in relation to where the list is at. I believe Ratten was the wrong choice - who outperformed expectations but set the Club back as far as being able to properly manage a list and develop a deeper list - both arguably more important than shorter term on field performance indicators- Ratten was able to almost get to a prelim - and managed to mostly scramble into the bottom part of the 8.

Malthouse was an even worse decision - just as bad at picking favourites to bring in and play favourites - just as ineffective at managing draft and trades apart from Docherty and maybe Everitt - Thomas/Jones/Tutt arguably Boekhurst are dud decisions - setting us back 5-6 decent players. I reckon Malthouse was gone as soon as Thomas year (again) was finished in first five minutes of 2015. Boekhurst/Jones/Tutt - all added up to super dudsville and Malthouse's credibility went down the toilet. of course Malthouse didnt play Graham or any other player HE didnt pick- he was giving HIS picks every opportunity to save HIS bacon.

IF blokes like Henderson/Yarran played to ability Club would be in a far better situation going forward- they arent and don't seem to want to and the Club is stuck also with massive contracts on Murphy/Gibbs/Thomas as ad precedents- they rre pid AA money and they are not AA players. So the benchmark for pay is set to low- as other players look at these and say why am I not on same or similar since they arent that much better than me.

I'm on the side of rebuild slowly and get the pay scales right - or we continue to go nowhere for another ten years.

As for Baord/recruiting/development/coaching/membership - each will take time to assess.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I'm always happy to hear an opinion but that opinion won't sway me from what I see.
You say that this is a results driven industry and I agree......................so why have we the same people at the helm?

Show me one result they can hang their hat on? Employment? Membership? Financial? Unity?
Not much there is there but whilst they're happily swinging the axe, their heads remain intact because their not honest enough to put their own head on the chopping block...........this game is too much fun.

Their heads are on the chopping block. Anybody is free to stand against this board and get voted in by the members. Hardly anybody puts their hand up.

As for the same people at the helm ... probably the two most important are the president and the CEO. One took over his role mid 2014 and the other late 2015. You have to assume that merely being on the board doesn't make you responsible for all that goes wrong. Kernahan had his way and his advisors, MLG has his. We do not know if all directors agreed with every decision that has been made so we have to judge based on specifically what they are responsible for.

However there are some directors with specific skill sets that lie in areas we are deficient in. It is appropriate to question the value those directors are adding. They can't all be there to raise $15k cash each a year and rubber stamp everything. It's just hard to get a handle on who is pulling their weight.

 

[Styxx]

When you have a decade of miserly on field performances and a revolving door of fractured boards you don't get 60,000 members.

If Carlton was on the stock market they would look to risky a buy. That had to change and maybe Trigg as CEO and hopefully Silvagni as on field list management will push that forward.

The board needs an entire overhaul in size, personal and objective. This is a club for the whole not a hobby farm for the financial elite.

 

[Windhover]

When you have a decade of miserly on field performances and a revolving door of fractured boards you don't get 60,000 members.

True.

If Carlton was on the stock market they would look to risky a buy. That had to change and maybe Trigg as CEO and hopefully Silvagni as on field list management will push that forward.

False. Old established firm with immense good will and brand recognition. Previous CEO went for glory with a has-been coach and performances have grossly underperformed for 3 years. New CEO has greater experience and a steady head. MM sacking went well. It is apparent all proper processes are in place to deliver us, not a messiah, but an AFL quality coach.

Similarly with SOS as list manager we can hope to avoid the recruiting nightmare that was 2014 and all signs are that those involved are not under any pressure to produce a flag tomorrow.

Carlton are therefore a value buy right now for the astute investor willing to wait and watch earnings grow.

The board needs an entire overhaul in size, personal and objective. This is a club for the whole not a hobby farm for the financial elite.

When/if you can explain with particulars what the size, personnel, and objectives you are referring to that need "an entire overhaul" it wouldn't sound like a vacuous rant.

 

[Styxx]

When/if you can explain with particulars what the size, personnel, and objectives you are referring to that need "an entire overhaul" it wouldn't sound like a vacuous rant.

In the most simplistic terms, board needs to be cut down to 6 people, no more and no less. It also needs to have all 6 people commit to the same plans for on and off field. No Pratt v Matheison innuendo true or false. One board, a detailed plan which accomodates for short, medium and long term plans that builds the club.

So the opposite of how they present themselves now.

 

[P_Crippy]

I don't even blame them because others have created the environment they're now amidst.

Please expand on this Harker, i need to understand how others/board are responsible for the players' performances, the fact they can't hit targets, and the ineffective game plans.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Declaring rebuild publicly affected players confidence.

Coach undermined.

Although they did have a decent month or so competiveness wise so not sure how the players lost confidence again because of that rebuild talk.

 

[El Topo]

The parasites at the head of our once great club have got by for the last 15 years selling hope and shrouding themselves in the 'Carlton swagger' while the club itself dies a death by a thousand cuts.

We can go two ways from here: wallow in apathy and become irrelevant for the next 50 years ala Melbourne, or mercilessly purge the toxic elements from the club and replace them with the right people ala Hawthorn and Collingwood.

If tonight is what it takes for the right changes to be made, so be it.

 

[Styxx]

Find a way to call for a spill and let's do it. Need them gone now.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Who is at the club that was there 15 years ago? A bootstudder? I know ... bloody Shane O'Sullivan!

 

[JustaBattler]

Boards dont play games - player do...

Boards dont pick players or develop players- Coaches and Recruiters do..

Get real folks - if you want to bag A Board - bag those responsible for choosing Coaches and Recruiters...

last time I looked Kernahan and Swan are no longer making decisions and Swan is gone and his best mate Mick as well..

 

[Styxx]

Boards dont play games - player do...

Boards dont pick players or develop players- Coaches and Recruiters do..

Get real folks - if you want to bag A Board - bag those responsible for choosing Coaches and Recruiters...

last time I looked Kernahan and Swan are no longer making decisions and Swan is gone and his best mate Mick as well..

Rest of the board is exactly the same.

 

[El Topo]

Boards dont play games - player do...

Boards dont pick players or develop players- Coaches and Recruiters do..

Get real folks - if you want to bag A Board - bag those responsible for choosing Coaches and Recruiters...

last time I looked Kernahan and Swan are no longer making decisions and Swan is gone and his best mate Mick as well..

But what about the people behind Sticks and Swan? The faces and names are different but the power structure remains the same.

I think I get what you're saying, and I agree that MLG and Trigg have said all the right things, but based on recent history we have a right to be extremely sceptical.