Opinion Stephen Silvagni

[blue healer]

Try?
Because if he had tried, and was in anyway competent befitting his postion, this would have been handled in a professional manner.

So, if I get this right, it is only Liddle that should have handled this professionally, you don't think that SOS should also have handled this in a professional manner?

In my working life I have worked, both for and above, a number of people that I've had problems with. I've never resigned, was fired or fired someone as a result of this. The only people I have dismissed have proven incapable of working within the overall team environment despite mediation.

You, and many others, seem to believe this whole episode is a result of a clash solely between SOS and Liddle and that the club is a basket case because they've sided with Liddle. I don't buy this rubbish that we can't sack him due to legal reasons. We, and many other clubs, have been paying out coaching contracts for as long as I can remember so what makes Liddle immune from this?

Just surmising here, but the fact that we appear to have moved on SOS alone and left Liddle in place could very well indicate that SOS has a problem with a number of other important players in our club and this is the reason his position has become untenable. I can think of no other reason our club would back a newbie (regardless of his role) over a bona fide club legend.

I wasn't impressed with the reasons given in our release, even though I do think there is potential for a conflict of interest, but I do think that, if my previous paragraph is even close to the truth, I would hate to see this given as a reason in the media release.

Seems to me the club is between a rock and a very hard place here and anything they say will be a lose.

 

[Bostonian]

Not sure I asked you, but to suggest letting SOS go because he has struggled to bring in small forwards, is completely laughable.

The poster said finishing touches, those are vital parts of those missing finishing touches.

His inability to bring in players in that position shows either he doesn't rate them or has no talent in identifying players at that position. That can be percieved as a flaw in his abilities.

Not saying that's why you'd let him go, but it's a knock on his work.

 

[blue healer]

Sydney dont seem to have a conflict of interest with the Blakeys. Just saying.

I'm loathe to say this but I'd be a lot more confident of Blakey's future than I am about either Silvagni, just saying.

 

[AlecDuncan]

So, if I get this right, it is only Liddle that should have handled this professionally, you don't think that SOS should also have handled this in a professional manner?

SOS didn't write that weasel media statement.

The club (and that's probably Liddle, but I won't let the board off the hook) had an opportunity to clear the air and give us the truth - at least their side of it, but bungled it.

 

[blue healer]

So if Liddle is part of the problem, who was respsible for hiring Liddle?

Who had the final say on signing off on the appointment?

Must have been SOS

 

[Stamos]

So, if I get this right, it is only Liddle that should have handled this professionally, you don't think that SOS should also have handled this in a professional manner?

In my working life I have worked, both for and above, a number of people that I've had problems with. I've never resigned, was fired or fired someone as a result of this. The only people I have dismissed have proven incapable of working within the overall team environment despite mediation.

You, and many others, seem to believe this whole episode is a result of a clash solely between SOS and Liddle and that the club is a basket case because they've sided with Liddle. I don't buy this rubbish that we can't sack him due to legal reasons. We, and many other clubs, have been paying out coaching contracts for as long as I can remember so what makes Liddle immune from this?

Just surmising here, but the fact that we appear to have moved on SOS alone and left Liddle in place could very well indicate that SOS has a problem with a number of other important players in our club and this is the reason his position has become untenable. I can think of no other reason our club would back a newbie (regardless of his role) over a bona fide club legend.

I wasn't impressed with the reasons given in our release, even though I do think there is potential for a conflict of interest, but I do think that, if my previous paragraph is even close to the truth, I would hate to see this given as a reason in the media release.

Seems to me the club is between a rock and a very hard place here and anything they say will be a lose.

But we know that it wasn't just SOS.
Liddle was undermining him, he toured Ellis without informing SOS.

So don't spin it that Liddle was trying and it was all SOS' fault.

 

[blue healer]

SOS didn't write that weasel media statement.

The club (and that's probably Liddle, but I won't let the board off the hook) had an opportunity to clear the air and give us the truth - at least their side of it, but bungled it.

What if the truth hurts?

Do you want that?

 

[Jeremias]

The poster said finishing touches, those are vital parts of those missing finishing touches.

His inability to bring in players in that position shows either he doesn't rate them or has no talent in identifying players at that position. That can be percieved as a flaw in his abilities.

Not saying that's why you'd let him go, but it's a knock on his work.

Again, I will wait until the poster clarifies, whether he meant what you think or otherwise.

Small forwards are lacking, but clearly not a reason to let him go.

 

[bluemahogany]

What if the truth hurts?

Do you want that?

At least tell a better lie, the inclusion of the conflict of interest stuff is horse shit.

 

[blue healer]

But we know that it wasn't just SOS.
Liddle was undermining him, he toured Ellis without informing SOS.

So don't spin it that Liddle was trying and it was all SOS' fault.

You seem to put all the blame on this down to Liddle touring Ellis and ignore the fact that there may, just may, be a lot more to this than that single occurrence.

I doubt we'll ever know what really created this and I'm happy to not know whilst you can continue to write your own history if you wish.

Edit: I'm not spinning anything, just surmising.

 

[Blue Pulse]

Don’t stress over the Richmond connection, Liddle will get the best in the business. And we’ve been hearing for years on trade radio that the best in the business is this guy!
View attachment 789487

Cardable

 

[blue healer]

At least tell a better lie, the inclusion of the conflict of interest stuff is horse shit.

Or, better still, just thank him for his contribution, wish him all the best and just move on. Time heals all wounds.

 

[bluemahogany]

Or, better still, just thank him for his contribution, wish him all the best and just move on. Time heals all wounds.

that would have been better also, but what they released is just filled with holes and inconsistencies. They took the supporters for fools or Liddle just wanted to stick the boots in.

 

[AlecDuncan]

What if the truth hurts?

Do you want that?

How's the alternative working out?

 

[Stamos]

You seem to put all the blame on this down to Liddle touring Ellis and ignore the fact that there may, just may, be a lot more to this than that single occurrence.

I doubt we'll ever know what really created this and I'm happy to not know whilst you can continue to write your own history if you wish.

Edit: I'm not spinning anything, just surmising.

No, it's not a single thing, but that's a pretty obvious, public example.

The fact is, we are currently in a really shitty situation because of how this has been handled, and Liddle has at least a significant proportion of the responsibility of this poor handling.

 

[Stamos]

Or, better still, just thank him for his contribution, wish him all the best and just move on. Time heals all wounds.

Not when they're septic.

Liddle needs to go too, for the healing to begin.

 

[bigbertha5]

The leakiness of our Board is disappointing

 

[Gethelred]

Those that remain get to write history. The narrative has already been set along with the accompanying innuendo and implications. The pen is always mightier than the sword. Here is the nice package for everyone to digest and then construct their own accompanying narratives:

1. SOS was conflicted because of his two sons being on the list ( obvious questions of their worth attached);
and
2. Other people at Carlton were unable to function properly because of this massive conflict of interest - this made for and would continue to make for an unworkable organisational process. (Rurmours of his clashes with Bolton get referenced and hint of disagreements with Teague surface)
3. SOS was in fact 'in the way of sensible decisions' he stymied the acquisition of a 2 times Premiership hero in Ellis from Richmond, his negotiation skills failed in getting Papley and worst of all he was against bringing in Eddie Betts - he was 'lucky' to get martin over the line but what a messy way to bring in a player - through PSD
4. The President tried hard to make things right, Liddle tried hard to find a role for SOS out of List management -however SOS's well known arrogant and egotistical self refused any peaceful overtures and rejected any other role at Carlton
5. The President ( a close friend of SOS) did the right thing and left the independent CEO Mr Liddle to communicate the rest. The President has been busy dealing with rogue elements on the Board in Mathieson and this will be seen to shortly but not for discussion now.
6. No one is bigger than the Club and SOS's obvious and potentially ( nay inevitable ) conflicts of interest can not be part of Carlton's future.
6. Finally Liddle thanks SOS for helping Liddle put together the beginnings of a strong list.

To those who are unhappy we say we tried our best but you know what SOS is like - the bloke was a great player for Carlton and tried his best at List Management but times change and people have to change with them - we need to do better with rookie selections and late picks, we need to stop investing in poor players who get turfed out in a year - this is poor people management and we need to do better at this because we love our players. Most importantly we need to ensure that players earn their way onto the list - nepotism has no place at Carlton.

To all those wonderful members and supporters 'We are bound by Blue' - we are unified and we are confident good times are ahead under the leadership of Mr Liddle and his supporting team.

It has taken 2 days for people to switch from befuddlement and anger to moving on. Human nature is what it is.

Anyone who stays angry for too long will be typecast as a bad supporter - the Club is bigger than the individual.

In stuff like this 'positional power' is everything.

What a masterclass in narrative making and corporate spin!

I always knew I liked you, JAB. This is all the better because you don't actually believe any of it!

 

[Opine]

Or, better still, just thank him for his contribution, wish him all the best and just move on. Time heals all wounds.

It’s is a nonsensical situation. It‘ll continue to fester. There’s a principle based issue that remains unresolved. Cannot be business as usual moving forward.

 

[Opine]

The leakiness of our Board is disappointing

They’ve been around for some time now, several years IIRC.

 

[Gethelred]

If SOS wasn't SOS we wouldn't care less. He did a good job drafting and trading for picks and we should thank him for establishing the list. But he has struggled to add the finishing touches and has a conflict of interest with 2 sons on the list, one of which (Ben) had a rival club contact his manager. He WAS the best man for the job that he took on which was rebuild a list from scratch but now we have moved past him

I don't think that's true at all.

The hardcore rebuild was warranted, and a list manager without his name would've struggled to endure the pressures of the build while it happened, but if said unnamed manager were to have made the same decisions along the way before this point their record of successes and creativity would set them apart as a bonafide genius of his craft.

Having said that, his name certainly has had a role in how all this has played out.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

SOS didn't write that weasel media statement.

The club (and that's probably Liddle, but I won't let the board off the hook) had an opportunity to clear the air and give us the truth - at least their side of it, but bungled it.

What would like the statement to have said ??

 

[Sector 7G]

Sydney dont seem to have a conflict of interest with the Blakeys. Just saying.

Blakey's dad is an assistant coach, not the senior coach or the list manager. Ultimately not in charge of anything.

 

[Gointocarlton]

Okay.

List them. List the mistakes Liddle has made which has made his positon untenable. You've got Ellis, no doubt, but I'd be interested in hearing what else there is.

If you are referring to SOS, he stated categorically on Footy Classified that he didnt report to the board, he reported the football manager, then Andy Mckay.

 

[Gethelred]

This is a nonsensical situation. It‘ll continue to fester. There’s a principle based issue that remains unresolved. It cannot be business as usual moving forward.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre,
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold,
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world

Always liked Yeats.