News Shane Rogers has quit Carlton

[thylacine60]

As a partaker myself in longoing convos here, I have to say it is refreshing to be able to repeatedly dip into this pool of see-sawing wisdom.

 

[TheCoach16]

As a partaker myself in longoing convos here, I have to say it is refreshing to be able to repeatedly dip into this pool of see-sawing wisdom.

Thanks Thy, but you're too kind, it was just my small contribution...

 

[thylacine60]

this place

 

[AceAndy]

Too simplistic to sum it up like that IMHO. He wasn't expected to be playing much at all in the first season as a Blue and did OK considering the lack of fitness. Last year was pretty much a total write-off through injury. You can't say off that data set that he can't play. Judge this year's efforts for a true indication of whether he is past it.

Well IMVHO three years is sufficient time to make such an assessment.

 

[ShanDog]

Well IMVHO three years is sufficient time to make such an assessment.

Three? He played 20 games or so in his first year here and wasn't too bad. Missed effectively the whole second year. This is his third.

 

[AceAndy]

Three? He played 20 games or so in his first year here and wasn't too bad. Missed effectively the whole second year. This is his third.

Suggest you reacquaint yourself with my post where i stated his last year at Collingwood and his two years here suggest he is past his best.

 

[gbatman]

No, I wasn't asking why Hughes wasn't outed quicker. I was responding to the notion that Ratten's list was stuffed and he/they should have reacted quicker. We don't know what was going on behind the scenes and we don't know how much weight Ratten carried as far as the recruiting staff were concerned. Club wise, we know he was demoted in 2012. Maybe Ratten was complaining for some time that the recruiting wasn't working and that was the eventual outcome, maybe he was content, maybe he was complicit?

With no list manager in place, aside from Hughes himself and maybe his assistants (did Rogers try to get through to him?), then a lot of responsibility comes back to the Football Managers in Icke and then McKay.

It's all speculation. You base things off the decisions we made, we appeared to be unaware of problems and/or we were complacent. Most likely we had a football department good enough to build a side and get us a start but one that lacked the insight to recruit players with later picks and an insight to be able to tell which players that show potential will make it and which wont. You don't know that Ratten wanted something done about the recruiting and denied just like you don't know that Malthouse wanted to rebuild earlier but was denied (as been rumored), you can only judge these things from the actions we took.

 

[gbatman]

Of course Thomas is past his best, he's best was extremely good but he's 28 years old. He was an All Australian and a top player in a premiership side. Doesn't mean he won't be able to play very good football for us.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Lateral thinking back at you: Mate, the clubs arrogance has taken us to where we are and we made good through a large part of the 20th century and weren't prepared for the new era, We still thought we knew better by paying players under the table and getting caught with our pants down. Instead of forging ahead like a good operation we thought we were just too clever and that we invincible but now we're playing, 'sorry me'

Maybe we have finally turned the corner but we can look back through the past 15 years to see just how well our 'culture' supported us.
Have a listen to Kernahan's speech or read our strategic planning documents that had us winning 2 Premierships by what was it? 2015?

What you seem to ignore (or choose to ignore) is that our 'culture' has got us here and not for some moment in time where we didn't have enough pennies to rub together. We didn't business very well at all, did we?

Speaking of ignoring things .... One of us talks about a multitude of problems and people that got us into this position and/or made it difficult to get out again. One of us likes to simplify it all down to the board and arrogance by looking at the end result and saying 'we don't do business very well do we?' One enables us to break down our problems and identify them, one is an overarching evil empire mentality that offers no such solutions.

Simply answer this Harks .... regardless of the board, the attitude or anything else .... was the club basically broke at one point and having to cut costs when putting some money into our core business i.e football was required at the time. If no, I'd like to hear your rationale. If yes, why the hell are we having this conversation yet again? Do you feel the need to get the board shots in on every occasion you can draw a correlation in case somebody hasn't heard it before?

Now nothing is being ignored. The club has been arrogant, entitled, beholden to powerbrokers, incompetent on occasion, ill administered as far as holding people accountable for their jobs, lacked transparency, been defensive, been reactive etc etc etc. Never denied, not once .... EVER!!! The club and those running the club have plenty of blame attributed to them. Copy it, paste it, frame it, spam email it to everyone so there is never any doubt that I said this.

HOWEVER .... a lot of individuals at the club have failed in the jobs they were qualified to do and we can be critical of that. Supporters too have some blame in this. So many agitators who want their vision of the club implemented who have continually agitated against the club and continue to do so. Plenty of others who threaten do what the powerbrokers did when Elliot was removed and remove their membership dollars as well. We had a financial crisis, and it doesn't matter why we had it, we had it and we could not spend money where it was needed at the time. The powerbrokers were gone, supporters agitated at our perilous state on and off field and we opened the door for the powerbrokers to come back again and save us, instead of doing it ourselves. We probably deserve the situation we find ourselves in quite frankly.

We agitate for success, we agitate over debt, we agitate over every decision, we agitate to get coaches sacked, we agitate when coaches are appointed. The supporters are just as impatient and entitled as the club ever has been. In some ways it has been that agitation that forces the club to make ultimately poor decisions because they can't afford to lose the conditional support they have left. As a supporter base, so many are so fickle they have the club over a barrel.

It has been a massive cluster* all around really, and while many supporters have been loyal and tried to ride it all out, many have lacked vision, restraint and patience. We need to reset our expectations so the club can be honest with us without losing us, and look for incremental improvements rather than ego sating success. If we are all on the same page, the club isn't getting pulled in multiple directions to appease the most vocal.

I believe people should stop looking back at Malthouse, Ratten, Rogers, Hughes, Kernahan, Collins, Smorgan etc. I have no doubt the heart was in the right place with most/all of those guys and they had multiple challenges that proved too difficult. The idea they were all strutting around arrogantly like success was just around the corner doesn't really wash with me. Yeah Kernahan made a backs to the wall rallying cry once that bit him on the arse badly, but these guys were under a lot of pressure and it showed every time they spoke. Sticks was trying to fire up the supporters rather than exhibiting his own arrogance. Did Sticks ever come across as arrogant before or after that? Cut him some slack. Some handled it poorly, some weren't up to it but it wasn't necessarily because of their arrogance. Unsuitability for the job, yeah I'll buy that.

Our arrogance essentially stopped in 2002 when we were humbled. We then spent 6 years destitute and then had to get powerbrokers back in to bring in money and sponsors and new revenue streams. We've played catch up for a long time. Unfortunately for us, our supporter arrogance is far more prevalent than the club arrogance.

Like most, I am hoping that Bolton and Silvagni get plenty of time ... not just before the club get antsy, but before the supporters start agitating to make the club get antsy. All forward movement needs to be taken into account. Stagnation, lack of ideas, going backwards ... ask the questions for sure.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It's all speculation. You base things off the decisions we made, we appeared to be unaware of problems and/or we were complacent. Most likely we had a football department good enough to build a side and get us a start but one that lacked the insight to recruit players with later picks and an insight to be able to tell which players that show potential will make it and which wont. You don't know that Ratten wanted something done about the recruiting and denied just like you don't know that Malthouse wanted to rebuild earlier but was denied (as been rumored), you can only judge these things from the actions we took.

Ratten isn't responsible for hiring or firing recruiters though so there is no action or lack of action that can be attributed to him there. You can look at trades however and know the coach had input as they almost always do.

We can be a lot more confident that Malthouse wasn't of the mind we needed a full rebuild when he came to the club as he chased Cloke and there were no moves to trade for picks. He wanted to take a year to assess the players first because he didn't know how they might play under him. Bolton told the players they all got to start again, but we still cut 11 and traded 4. Next year we courted Thomas. I'm fairly certain that Malthouse wasn't thinking rebuild until at least early 2014 and results were obvious.

 

[DaVillaBlues]

Funny thing is that the heat around that one started about June/July 2012 when Ratten was under a lot of pressure and by the time Mick was appointed, he was chasing Cloke in earnest with reports he wanted to land a big fish. Makes me wonder if this was part of the reason Mick was appointed or more probable his hiring had already been decided that far out.

Regardless of the ill-advised decision to hire Mick, I do believe Ratts lost the players in 2012, and reading between the lines, I also suspect part of his sacking had to do with our relatively poor recruiting/player development from around 2008 -.11. (that's just mainly on what Mathieson has said publicly over the past few years)

There's no denying that Mick coached us mainly for the money he was offered, and it all falls on the previous board/admin.

But I also am not sure if Ratten could have taken us any further as coach either, its impossible to accurately predict what would have happened had we kept Ratts, and not hired Mick...

 

[TheCoach16]

Of course Thomas is past his best, he's best was extremely good but he's 28 years old. He was an All Australian and a top player in a premiership side. Doesn't mean he won't be able to play very good football for us.

There are a lot of players on our list that will "be able to play very good football for us". There always have been. When you chase a player as hard as we chased Daisy and give him such a significant contract, I think you expect a little more than that. This was a dumb deal with no basis or reason other than for Mick to take care of his long time friend.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Regardless of the ill-advised decision to hire Mick, I do believe Ratts lost the players in 2012, and reading between the lines, I also suspect part of his sacking had to do with our relatively poor recruiting/player development from around 2008 -.11. (that's just mainly on what Mathieson has said publicly over the past few years)

I don't think Ratten lost the players so much as he couldn't stamp out the mental lapses in their games. It was the inconsistency that was used as the reason for his sacking. He also wouldn't have been blamed for our recruiting. I think the inconsistency and the possible availability of higher profile coaches was his undoing. Roos first, Malthouse second.

There's no denying that Mick coached us mainly for the money he was offered, and it all falls on the previous board/admin.

If that was the case, it falls on both of them. If Mick sold us a story under false pretences, I fail to see how he can escape blame yet again. Honestly, do you think he is made of Teflon?

But I also am not sure if Ratten could have taken us any further as coach either, its impossible to accurately predict what would have happened had we kept Ratts, and not hired Mick...

Sliding doors. Certainly think that one bad season after 3 years of finals earns you the benefit of the doubt though ... especially when you are still under contract.

 

[TheCoach16]

Regardless of the ill-advised decision to hire Mick, I do believe Ratts lost the players in 2012, and reading between the lines, I also suspect part of his sacking had to do with our relatively poor recruiting/player development from around 2008 -.11. (that's just mainly on what Mathieson has said publicly over the past few years)

There's no denying that Mick coached us mainly for the money he was offered, and it all falls on the previous board/admin.

But I also am not sure if Ratten could have taken us any further as coach either, its impossible to accurately predict what would have happened had we kept Ratts, and not hired Mick...

Can I just say one thing here DVB? I'm indifferent about Malthouse's time at Carlton. I haven't formed a real opinion on it yet (other than the Thomas situation) but good, bad or otherwise, I don't think his motivation to coach us was money. Yes the money was good, but he wanted to prove a point, he wanted more success, he wanted to show the football world he wasn't done. Like I said, I'm neither a fan nor a hater, and obviously I don't know the man personally, but he just strikes me as a person who needs/thrives on success. I don't think he coached for the money.

 

[gbatman]

Ratten isn't responsible for hiring or firing recruiters though so there is no action or lack of action that can be attributed to him there. You can look at trades however and know the coach had input as they almost always do.

We can be a lot more confident that Malthouse wasn't of the mind we needed a full rebuild when he came to the club as he chased Cloke and there were no moves to trade for picks. He wanted to take a year to assess the players first because he didn't know how they might play under him. Bolton told the players they all got to start again, but we still cut 11 and traded 4. Next year we courted Thomas. I'm fairly certain that Malthouse wasn't thinking rebuild until at least early 2014 and results were obvious.

No but he was responsible for feedback, if there is an important member of staff of the football department not doing a great job like the recruiter, the coach surely must be aware of it, unless they are oblivious. Why would the head of the football department ignore the coach? Not that we were known for good practice but that's really poor. I've had a theory that Ratten wasn't an elite judge of football talent for a while. Promises of top 4 finishes, continually signing and playing sub par players, allegations of pushing to recruit Lucas over Talia. It all points to the fact he rated a heap of young players we had 4-6 years ago who never made it. Getting Malthouse in points to the fact that our board and footy department did as well. A whole club living in delusion.

Malthouse was hired to win and build a winning side. Wasn't able to get all the players he wanted to add to the squad. Wasn't able to change the culture and get around those issues without losing key players. Found out the list wasn't nearly as good as he was told. Had we got the players he wanted and retained players and had good youth coming through we would have probably been able to play finals but that wouldn't have been a good path to go down. Rumors Malthouse went to the board and wanted to rebuild and was denied. Might be true, might be false but if true this is an indictment on the board.

Unless a club has a really strong direction it's going in, I think it's fair enough for a new coach to not make substantial changes until a season in charge. It's not an exact science, there is a lot the coach needs to examine. Now in our case it's the list manager and the coach.

 

[gbatman]

There are a lot of players on our list that will "be able to play very good football for us". There always have been. When you chase a player as hard as we chased Daisy and give him such a significant contract, I think you expect a little more than that. This was a dumb deal with no basis or reason other than for Mick to take care of his long time friend.

It's cost us nothing it's not really relevant, the guy still has plenty to offer on and off the field. We were confident he would be recoverable from the injury which restricted him which he appears to have been though he's had more bad luck.

Thomas was available to us without cost, a player who offers quality on the field and leadership, it would have been dumb to ignore this.

Much happier to have a player at the club who wants to be there and is going to have a crack than one that would sooner leave us.

His contract is not restricting us from successfully going about our business.

We're gonna need those older players who might not be at their best but still capable of playing good footy. We haven't got the depth and experience to just throw them all out and chace youth, beside that tactic never actually working.

 

[Blueballs38]

Having read the last few pages I have something to add and believe most of us will agree.

We have sucked the big one for too long!

So many reasons for it that its not even funny. But in all honesty if I was to put my finger on it it would be that everyone at the club not moving in the same direction. YOU CANNOT HAVE THIS TYPE OF ORGINISATION IN THE MODERN GAME.

I think we gave too much power to the players also. They were pampered and turned into princesses.

All the divisions, the different factions meant we were blind to seeing the real issues, the hopeless recruiting, the hopeless development of the players, the lack of forging the players into a group willing to die for the jumper.

I thank god everyday that this has now apparently changed.

I used to love Yarran and Henderson .... now I am soooo glad they are gone. Pure selfish, poison that needed to be cut out and replaced.

Silvani ... he is a god, a blue god and will right this ship because he has no hidden agenda, no love for any player except his son, all he wants is CFC to be strong again and he loves this club with his dying breath.

Look what has been achieved in such a short time.

And we can see all fans are satisfied with the changes because of the membership results.

Lets not dwell on the past, lets just learn from it and if the powerbrokers start causing trouble let us unite and make a voice to tell them where we want the club's direction to be ... THIS DIRECTION!

Also Bolts will go down and the new generation Parkin .... mark my words!

 

[thylacine60]

Bit ordinary Rogers quitting on Family Day.

 

[TheCoach16]

It's cost us nothing it's not really relevant, the guy still has plenty to offer on and off the field. We were confident he would be recoverable from the injury which restricted him which he appears to have been though he's had more bad luck.

Thomas was available to us without cost, a player who offers quality on the field and leadership, it would have been dumb to ignore this.

Much happier to have a player at the club who wants to be there and is going to have a crack than one that would sooner leave us.

His contract is not restricting us from successfully going about our business.

We're gonna need those older players who might not be at their best but still capable of playing good footy. We haven't got the depth and experience to just throw them all out and chace youth, beside that tactic never actually working.

Ok, I'm even starting to tire of myself repeating the same stuff. I'm not a Thomas hater, I'm sure he's all the things you've mentioned, and maybe he will be invaluable to the club this year.
My gripe is the original decision to treat him like he was Chris Judd.
For the last time (maybe), when we signed him, not now, not since, at the time we actually signed him, he was well past his best, no other club was interested in him, all his footy weapons were gone, his own club was not interested, plus an injury cloud. We knew ALL THIS, and yet could not wait to offer him a giant contract. Why????? Seriously, can someone tell me why???? Don't waste your energy, I'll never see it any other way. This was a horrendous decision, who ever is responsible, whoever signed off on it, whoever thought it made any sense at all, did not have Carlton's best interests in mind.

 

[TheCoach16]

Bit ordinary Rogers quitting on Family Day.

Who is Rog...... Oh never mind.

 

[Aphrodite]

Who is Rog...... Oh never mind.

 

[mediumsizered]

Suggest you reacquaint yourself with my post where i stated his last year at Collingwood and his two years here suggest he is past his best.

Unfortunately, in Thomas' last year at Collingwood, he was played when he shouldn't have been, making the ankle a shitload worse than it should have been.

Collingwood's treatment of Thomas in 2013 is very similar to how the Eagles ran Judd into the ground in his final season at the club. Both clubs were aware the player was leaving & both clubs were desperate to prop up seasons that had not delivered the desired outcomes. The fact that both players had very serious injuries, but were not sent for the required surgery early enough, says a lot about their views on player welfare & on both occasions saw these players have minimal preparation prior to the following home & away season. To the credit of both Thomas & Judd, they played much more football in their first season at Carlton than the majority expected them to.

 

[mediumsizered]

Ok, I'm even starting to tire of myself repeating the same stuff. I'm not a Thomas hater, I'm sure he's all the things you've mentioned, and maybe he will be invaluable to the club this year.
My gripe is the original decision to treat him like he was Chris Judd.
For the last time (maybe), when we signed him, not now, not since, at the time we actually signed him, he was well past his best, no other club was interested in him, all his footy weapons were gone, his own club was not interested, plus an injury cloud. We knew ALL THIS, and yet could not wait to offer him a giant contract. Why????? Seriously, can someone tell me why???? Don't waste your energy, I'll never see it any other way. This was a horrendous decision, who ever is responsible, whoever signed off on it, whoever thought it made any sense at all, did not have Carlton's best interests in mind.

Because that is how the club had done business for almost 50 years, dating back to the Barassi signing. A lot of times, particularly in the pre-draft/salary cap era, it paid off, nowadays it doesn't work (see Tippett & Franklin to the Swans, Goddard to the cheats, Clark to Melbourne etc etc).

There are promising signs that the club has finally joined most of the other AFL clubs in the 21st Century. This will hopefully mean no more Warnocks, McLeans, Thomases. Time will tell.

 

[therubbernub]

I'm not "attacking" anything, I'm expressing my disgust at the decision.

There isn't one person in the footy world that wouldn't have taken Weitering at pick 1.
But there was NO ONE in the footy world that wanted to sign Daisy for 700k a year. Except us.

That's the difference between best intentions and just a s**t decision.

I think the point I was trying to make is that hindsight is a great benefit. From my memory it wasnt 700k either

 

[therubbernub]

I don't really get where the board should come into this.

For a long time we are told that the board should not interfere in the football side of things and when they do they are roundly criticised for it. Yet, here we are saying the board are ultimately responsible for trades and if the guy hired to manage the list mucks it up, it's the board's fault for hiring him.

I appreciate 'the buck stops here' and due diligence and stuff like that, but you can only hire people with a good reputation for doing what you hired them for. The board don't have superior knowledge to identify junior talent or assess the structural needs of the side. If they did, we should save some money and not hire a List Manager or recruiting staff.

Sometimes you have to go well it was a sound business decision at the time but he simply didn't work out based on the information we now have before us, that we didn't have when we hired him. I love SOS but if he doesn't recruit for structure it is his fault. If he doesn't build our depth it is his fault. If we get stuck with stupid contracts, it is his fault. If a player he recruits doesn't come on, we start looking between him and the development coaches.

If the situation goes on too long and it is obvious it isn't working, then the board need to put their hand up. I'm mindful of what too long means in the context of our rebuild though. We need time.

Well i think thats my point, the board shouldnt come into those decisions , but imo they do interfere with the trade targets as it is somehow a reflection of them if they can get the big fish. I think they leave the drafting to others though.