Member Online Forum 9th Dec 2019

[cookie monster]

ODN, i heard a very good interview with Brian Cook the CEO of Geelong leading up to the draft.

He was asked exactly this type of question. How the recruitment works. He said they have a sub-committe with monthly meetings during the year and then forthightly meetings in the last few months before trade and draft periods.

He as CEO and Chris Scott were definately on that sub committee and the actual reason this question came up was that he had just come from such a meeting to the interview.

I would think that it would be common practice for CEO, Footy boss, Coach and LM to be in these meetings from most clubs if not all.

It is
And i don't think Mr Silvagni was much a fan of that

 

[Accidental genius]

So why change the situation of allowing sos to do things his way in the first 4 years and now others sticking their noses in it?

Sos did all the hard work, the list looks great and others now want to meddle in it, remove sos and take the credit!

They can piss right off!

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Do you want autocracy, or democracy?

Because the former almost never produces favourable results for it's constituents

I want the guy whose neck is on the line to have decision making power.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Liddles response where he stated that he is one person who must sign a stat dec regarding TPP was a valid point. As CEO he is a director and must sign off on accounts and TPP - with this in mind, he needs to be involved in list management from a TPP perspective to make sure the deals are appropriately provided for and he doesn't make a false declaration.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I want the guy whose neck is on the line to have decision making power.

If the club fails on field, the off field suffers and the CEO and coach gets the knife as much as the list manager. They need to be a team, and effective teams need a balance of personalities.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

If the club fails on field, the off field suffers and the CEO and coach gets the knife as much as the list manager. They need to be a team, and effective teams need a balance of personalities.

There's team work and then there's veto power.

 

[Nori]

He said that the sub-committee were aware, not that they were in agreement. If Liddle and Lloyd were the deciding votes to approach Ellis, you can understand how unfair that is to the GM of List Management & Strategy.

You'd reckon the List Manager would have the right of veto, because after all it's his reputation on the line.

If everything is being decided by a committee I can see why SOS was frustrated. That sounds like excessive oversight to me.

 

[slashin_velvet]

There's team work and then there's veto power.

If SOS had full veto power, we wouldn't have Eddie Betts at the club. He was able to knock back Ellis, so he had influence, but at the end of the day the club now has a more democratic process.

Most us wanted a panel to select the coach, most wanted a panel to select CEO (rather than captain's call Lethlean), but now when it comes to the list, many supporters want one individual to make all the calls because now for some reason the list manager is the most expendable? Tell that to Bolton

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

If SOS had full veto power, we wouldn't have Eddie Betts at the club. He was able to knock back Ellis, so he had influence, but at the end of the day the club now has a more democratic process.

Most us wanted a panel to select the coach, most wanted a panel to select CEO (rather than captain's call Lethlean), but now when it comes to the list, many supporters want one individual to make all the calls because now for some reason the list manager is the most expendable? Tell that to Bolton

The way I see it -- I'm an executive manager (when I'm not on BF). I have a team of people who advise me on particular things, but because I'm the one who is ultimately answerable for my department, and the one who would be called on in court to testify if needed, the final decisions are mine to make. That's my job. Otherwise what's the point of having a manager? Just have a sharing circle and call it a day.

 

[Nori]

Blues fans demand answers on Silvagni dismissal

Carlton CEO Cain Liddle has insisted the Blues were transparent about the circumstances surrounding Stephen Silvagni's dismissal as "appalled" fans demanded answers from top brass in an online club forum on Monday night.

www.theage.com.au

I guess we can put to bed any doubt that "there is no way the new list manger will be able to operate independently of Liddle and Lloyd", given SOS was having to run important selection decisions past a sub-committee.

 

[slashin_velvet]

The way I see it -- I'm an executive manager (when I'm not on BF). I have a team of people who advise me on particular things, but because I'm the one who is ultimately answerable for my department, and the one who would be called on in court to testify if needed, the final decisions are mine to make. That's my job. Otherwise what's the point of having a manager? Just have a sharing circle and call it a day.

So you're agreeing with me?

Liddle had to sign off on TPP, so was ultimately answerable for a significant component of list management, so he should have a list manager reporting into him and be involved in the process (at least from a contract negotiation perspective).

As an executive manager, do you report into someone more senior who is also responsible for your decisions? If so, do you never consult with them?

 

[JustaBattler]

A camel is a horse designed by a committee - committees never ever get anything done they are hidey holes for second raters and politicians and gossip mongers.

MrsEddieBetts - you've hit the nail on the head the organisational 'fail' put in place by these nuff nuffs is the open question

who is now accountable and responsible and what are they accountable for ?

In order to justify the SOS exit - these people have to pretty much slander SOS's reputation - which they have been happy to go about doing. Not a team player, arrogant, conflict of interest , cant attend meetings blah blah blah Bullshit blah

Liddle and Lloyd...interlopers and assassins.

BLEH.

 

[Bearded Carpenter]

Maybe the club was structuring up with the succession plan knowing sos was leaving next year.

Maybe sos didn’t want or like being part of it.

Maybe we need to look at sos being a consultant who came in and did a great job but was never going to be with us forever.

Maybe this might help stop Antarctic shelf from melting more.

 

[Coona Blues]

I was actually quite relieved when his manager came out and said that, rather than something along the lines of "after the Coniglio deal fell over, we went back to Carlton to try and fleece them for more money, given the funds set aside for Coniglio were now available, and the healthy state of their TPP. We were astounded that they never got back to us".

Looks like his manager was the only one telling the truth, on behalf of his client. Very hard done by was Ellis.

I am over the perpetual Ellis debate. He is a solid player with a few flaws. When he returned to the Tigers team after a period in the twos, Hardwick stated that they had focussed on what he did poorly and forgot what he did well. He suited their line up, it would seem. However he was clearly regarded as having flaws. As a free agent, costing no trade outlay, he was a relatively expensive yet attractive commodity.

Somewhere along the line either through the reported extortion post Coniglio falling through or simply as we discovered a similar, perhaps less flawed alternative in Newnes became available for that same "price", we left him on the shelf. The Liddle involvement in the process is fairly incidental. He may have overstepped with verbal assurances, we will never know. Liklely SOS was kicking tyres and "happy" to have Liddle involved initially, before final decisions were reached. Clearly any "commitment" from Carlton would have been verbal, from the familiar bloke not in a position to do so.

I am much happier having Newnes in the squad than Ellis at the price. I feel his tenure in the top team will be similar. If our "boys" realise their potential neither player will have a long term spot, but offer solid depth.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

So you're agreeing with me?

Liddle had to sign off on TPP, so was ultimately answerable for a significant component of list management, so he should have a list manager reporting into him and be involved in the process (at least from a contract negotiation perspective).

As an executive manager, do you report into someone more senior who is also responsible for your decisions? If so, do you never consult with them?

If your position is that the sub com veto powers were appropriate then no way am I agreeing with you.

I report to the Managing Director. I consult with her on legals if needed but that’s extremely different to being overruled by a sub committee.

 

[Blue__Balls]

I guess we can put to bed any doubt that "there is no way the new list manger will be able to operate independently of Liddle and Lloyd", given SOS was having to run important selection decisions past a sub-committee.

As does List Manager Extraordinaire, Stephen Wells. And yet you don't hear Geelong fans moaning about how he has to be part of a committee.

No issues with a sub-committee designed to bounce recruiting ideas around and make sure all angles are assessed. Ultimately, it'll come down to who is on the committee and how accommodating they are of differing opinions. CEO makes sense. GM of Football makes sense, GM of List Management makes sense, List Manager makes sense, Senior Coach makes sense, Head of Recruiting makes sense. Pres, Assistant Coaches, Fitness Boss etc. don't need to be involved.

More important than the roles though, is the individuals in them - if everyone at the table respects and values the input of the others, discussions will be productive. Veto should sit with the GM of List Management, but equally, the GM of List Management owes it to the collective to recognise if their own personal views are out of step with the others (ie. what happened with Betts). If that system can be implemented without rankling anyone, it'll reap rewards.

 

[Bearded Carpenter]

Mumma's coming out all guns a blazing, no time for cheesecake.

TISM.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

So why change the situation of allowing sos to do things his way in the first 4 years and now others sticking their noses in it?

Sos did all the hard work, the list looks great and others now want to meddle in it, remove sos and take the credit!

They can piss right off!

Clearly that was needed at the time, go through a long, laborious, never even attempted before process that was going to be painful for everyone involved and change the mindset of the membership and supporter base alike.
It was going to involve unpopular changes in playing personnel and bring in kids, and lots of them, and the pain that creates which is what happened. We were deadset putrid onfield for large periods of time.

We are, and should be, moving into the next stage of the rebuild which should involve valued opinions of everyone involved and robust discussions that some may not like but are valued because they are working as a team.

Got to give kudos to Bolts, president, board and football department for creating a narrative that identified what’s going to happen and stick to a message. They were completely above board and haven’t strayed from that message. The club as a whole has grown up throughout this period including the supporter base as a whole, I feel confident we will never let ourselves get to the bottom of hell again as the mindset has changed that we don’t ever rebuild.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Blue__Balls]

If your position is that the sub com veto powers were appropriate then no way am I agreeing with you.

I report to the Managing Director. I consult with her on legals if needed but that’s extremely different to being overruled by a sub committee.

I think the key here though is whether the Executive Director (or GM of List Management) is able to step back and see when their own personal bias is clouding their judgement. Case in point - Betts. Was SOS able to see that his preconceived ideas about filling a small forward post were being fairly challenged by a push to secure Betts, and was he ultimately willing to accept the advice of the CEO, GM of Football and Senior Coach and make the trade? Or did he dig his heels in, make everyone's life difficult, and ultimately force someone even higher up to step in and say "Play nice"? I don't know the answer, but based on what's happened I have suspicions.

 

[ferrisb]

I want the guy whose neck is on the line to have decision making power.

Just remember there's no 'i' in List Manager...







Well... metaphorically, at least....

 

[RedFury]

I want the guy whose neck is on the line to have decision making power.

That's the problem with sub-committees. You would still need something like a RACI matrix to make sure the individuals making the decions are ALL accountable. Now that may have happened at Carlton - who knows - but ultimately accountability needs to lie with individuals otherwise people will just expect others to pickup the slack.

 

[Ricky Mott]

Not at all. If that is the system that exists, (assuming they were the deciding votes which is uninformed speculation), so be it. I fail to understand how it can be healthy to have one person making all the decisions on list composition and strategy. Especially a person who has sons on the list!
I'd suggest most clubs would have a similar list management committee structure.

The suggestion Ellis was approached and shown around the club behind SOS" back has been exposed as unfounded nonsense.

That’s is fact. Cain Liddle toured Ellis through CFC without the GM of List Management knowing. It’s fact!

 

[Blue__Balls]

That’s is fact. Cain Liddle toured Ellis through CFC without the GM of List Management knowing. It’s fact!

According to who?

Because as per the response during the member forum, the list management sub-committee, of which SOS was a member, agreed that it would make sense for Liddle to leverage his existing relationship with Ellis and bring him across for a tour and a chat.

Unless you have something definitive that didn't come from Facebook, Twitter or the HUN, I'm not sure you've got a leg to stand on.

 

[Stamos]

Because as per the response during the member forum,

I'm not saying anything did or didn't happen, but surely you don't take all those responses to be truthful and transparent?

 

[Blue__Balls]

I'm not saying anything did or didn't happen, but surely you don't take all those responses to be truthful and transparent?

Here's the response:

"Liddle said his meeting with then-free agent Brandon Ellis, who he knew from his days at the Calder Cannons and Richmond, was widely known by Silvagni and the list management team, adding: “ … it was agreed that we would leverage that relationship in our discussions with Brandon.”

That is as cut and dry as you can get. If it's not true, you don't think SOS would have gone apeshit at that statement by now? These people leave themselves outs where required, they don't talk in absolutes unless they know what they're saying is 100% true.

Now, maybe the "agreement" was by committee, and SOS was one who argued against Liddle meeting with Ellis. But that's not even near the ballpark of Liddle touring Ellis behind SOS's back.