Member Online Forum 9th Dec 2019

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Let’s not twist it ODN


— 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.”

So I now assume you aren’t happy with Betts being back at the club?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Talking about twisting things ...

What has Eddie Betts got to do with it?

I was saying that SOS wasn't necessarily in agreement with Ellis. Liddle saying it was agreed in a sub-committee setting does not mean it was unanimous.

Regardless, I don't believe non-recruiting staff should get a vote, the head coach being the only exception.

Imagine being outvoted on the basis of Liddle and Lloyd votes when they are not involved in the talent identification, scouting or list management side of the club.

It's a huge slap in the face to the recruiting staff and really diminishes their role.

I see some potential positives in Eddie coming back. A chance to right the wrongs of the past, the romance, a year of reasonable output in a needed position perhaps. It seems to have brought in Martin. It may provide a mentoring role in our academy area.

I'm not completely sold on Eddie as a mentor yet, but we're going on the fact he is well respected. Unfortunately, him leaving the club seemed to be the catalyst for Yarran, Garlett and Robinson going off the rails.

I imagine SOS saw both positives and negatives with the decision. Remembering, that the addition of an aging Betts still required the delisting of someone else. SOS had to look beyond just the romance.

If Liddle got his way and Ellis came, which out of contract player would you have delisted?

 

[Blue__Balls]

And yet, that statement says nothing about WHEN it was widely known. What if it became widely known AFTER the tour of the club had already happened? As in, Liddle assumes everyone will be on board, arranges the tour of the club. Then, since this is clearly something that can't be hidden from people at the club, has the discussion with the list management folks and justifies his decision to do it. THEN everyone agrees that Liddle's prior relationship with Ellis will be leveraged in further discussions with Ellis.

The statement is not as "cut and dry as you can get", that would be "I did not tour Ellis through the club without the PRIOR knowledge of people in the list management team". The statement you are quoting is political-speak. It seems to be saying what you'd like it to say, but is by no means definitive.

 

[JustaBattler]

I'd say that the committee that designed the camel got it pretty much right for a beast that was to survive in the environment that it survives in. You don't see a lot of wild horses in outback Oz for a reason.

The Japanese recovery after WW2 was, in the main, driven by the group dynamics of Quality Circles which later morphed into Total Quality Management which, in turn, morphed into ISO 9000 and Six Sigma. All heavily rely on group participation and the tools are all still appropriate today.

As for your fourth paragraph - Where has any of this been said publicly by the club?

I've said before that there is, I think, a lot more to the removal of SOS than a mere conflict of interest and, if there is, I don't think any of us want to see his name sullied by the club airing it's dirty linen. I certainly don't.

And your closing sentence also has no traction IMV.

1. IF a committee is charged with designing a horse and they make a camel- it is a fail ...
2. I think the person who had the most impact on improving quality in Japan was a bloke by the name of Deming ( IRONIC isn't it that Deming the INDIVIDUAL is lauded in Japan for his impact on their manufacturing culture) - anyone who has studies statistics and quality control would come across this - I don't know the relevance of Deming to Carlton - but I do know statistics and quality control pretty well happy enough to discuss any pure or applied maths with you anytime you like..
3. SOS's name has been sullied by implication and innuendo - this is on Liddle and his cronies - disgusting bunch.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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

A panel to select staff is not the same as needing a panel to select players.

What you are suggesting is akin to needing a panel to decide on a game plan. You hired the coach to execute his vision. He lives and dies by that. He has assistant coaches providing input and he takes what he wa ts from that input.

Same with a recruiting manager. He can't be everywhere so others attend games and provide vision and analysis initially, they narrow down their list and then the manager goes and sees for himself.

How would anyone here feel if SOS had a vote on how Liddle should perform his role as CEO? Not qualified right .... ?

 

[JustaBattler]

View attachment 791590

Didn't answer the question do he?
Lots of words to not answer a simple question...typical liar speak....

thank for posting.

 

[slashin_velvet]

A panel to select staff is not the same as needing a panel to select players.

What you are suggesting is akin to needing a panel to decide on a game plan. You hired the coach to execute his vision. He lives and dies by that. He has assistant coaches providing input and he takes what he wa ts from that input.

Same with a recruiting manager. He can't be everywhere so others attend games and provide vision and analysis initially, they narrow down their list and then the manager goes and sees for himself.

How would anyone here feel if SOS had a vote on how Liddle should perform his role as CEO? Not qualified right .... ?

Not sure how a committee to agree list strategy and priorities is any different to "match committee" that picks the team (and has done for as long as I've known football clubs).

Some voices in a committee are louder than others, and in this case it sounds like more often than not, SOS got his way.

EDIT: sorry if you already quoted, but list decisions are staffing decisions. Picking the right ones is pivotal, so making sure that responsibility is shared is a practical way to make sure decisions are challenged and scrutinized. Fortunately for AFL clubs, they have 12 months to work on targets for the next years limited trade period.

 

[TerryWallet]

Alright, I'm going to put it out there. Any ITKs want to come out and say if there were any lies last night?

IMO, we've only got 3 actual ITK's and i've got a feeling 2 of them won't have much info from now on. I look forward to more occasional good mail from TRP, but besides that i'd be happy for the "Info" train to slow down here.

I'm a patient being and don't need to know tomorrows news today. Especially when tomorrow often brings a different day.

 

[blue healer]

Talking about twisting things ...

What has Eddie Betts got to do with it?

I was saying that SOS wasn't necessarily in agreement with Ellis. Liddle saying it was agreed in a sub-committee setting does not mean it was unanimous.

Regardless, I don't believe non-recruiting staff should get a vote, the head coach being the only exception.

Imagine being outvoted on the basis of Liddle and Lloyd votes when they are not involved in the talent identification, scouting or list management side of the club.

It's a huge slap in the face to the recruiting staff and really diminishes their role.

I see some potential positives in Eddie coming back. A chance to right the wrongs of the past, the romance, a year of reasonable output in a needed position perhaps. It seems to have brought in Martin. It may provide a mentoring role in our academy area.

I'm not completely sold on Eddie as a mentor yet, but we're going on the fact he is well respected. Unfortunately, him leaving the club seemed to be the catalyst for Yarran, Garlett and Robinson going off the rails.

I imagine SOS saw both positives and negatives with the decision. Remembering, that the addition of an aging Betts still required the delisting of someone else. SOS had to look beyond just the romance.

If Liddle got his way and Ellis came, which out of contract player would you have delisted?

Probably the same one as would have been delisted if we got Coniglio.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Probably the same one as would have been delisted if we got Coniglio.

I know we're not comparing Cognilio and Ellis though, so the equation would be a little different.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I'm a patient being and don't need to know tomorrows news today. Especially when tomorrow often brings a different day.

This is something I can get behind. The ITKs get ripped apart on here. What they know will be known eventually, unless it doesn't happen, in which case there is no point in us knowing.

 

[Stamos]

This is something I can get behind. The ITKs get ripped apart on here. What they know will be known eventually, unless it doesn't happen, in which case there is no point in us knowing.

I disagree strongly with this.
The board was much better for EP's participation, as an example.

 

[HARKER]

We're blaming Lloyd and Liddle here.
What about Agresta? Why not Teague? This was a party of four that had severe grievances with SOS.

SOS is SOS. We all know what that may look like, but I keep getting back to - How was he allowed to wield so much power and influence at the club?
Rhetorical question because the answer should be pretty clear. He had mates in high places.

Q. Does anyone remember how and why the Agresta appointment came about?
I thought it was somewhat odd at the time doubling up on LM's after not having had any, only four years earlier.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Not sure how a committee to agree list strategy and priorities is any different to "match committee" that picks the team (and has done for as long as I've known football clubs).

Some voices in a committee are louder than others, and in this case it sounds like more often than not, SOS got his way.

EDIT: sorry if you already quoted, but list decisions are staffing decisions. Picking the right ones is pivotal, so making sure that responsibility is shared is a practical way to make sure decisions are challenged and scrutinized. Fortunately for AFL clubs, they have 12 months to work on targets for the next years limited trade period.

I agree that strategy is more inclusive. A coach should always be able to ask for more mature players, more mids, more outside speed .... types, not necessarily a specific player. Also, whether he wanta to retain specific players.

A CEO should be across how much we can afford to offer a player and how much we need to cut to free up space.

There are reasons for regular discussions. I just don't think each person's input carries the same weight.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I disagree strongly with this.
The board was much better for EP's participation, as an example.

I'm not suggesting it wasn't. I'm saying it was a thankless task, they often cop crap for it, and we as a collective are not worthy sometimes.

If the info dried up, it would teach a few lessons.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I agree that strategy is more inclusive. A coach should always be able to ask for more mature players, more mids, more outside speed .... types, not necessarily a specific player. Also, whether he wanta to retain specific players.

A CEO should be across how much we can afford to offer a player and how much we need to cut to free up space.

There are reasons for regular discussions. I just don't think each person's input carries the same weight.

I've never challenged your final point. I think the coach has a bit more say in match committee, and I would propose that the fact we didn't get Ellis tells you SOS had a pretty firm voice and was only overruled by a significant majority (e.g. Betts).

I still find it funny people are latching onto the Liddle-Ellis connection now as a conflict while blindfolding themselves to the Teague-Eddie decision which was an identical relationship given Teague used to coach Eddie.

 

[Stamos]

I still find it funny people are latching onto the Liddle-Ellis connection now as a conflict while blindfolding themselves to the Teague-Eddie decision which was an identical relationship given Teague used to coach Eddie.

You're not seriously suggesting that a coach-player relationship is identical to a CEO-player one?

 

[TerryWallet]

I disagree strongly with this.
The board was much better for EP's participation, as an example.

I agree about EP. The reason being that his info was sparse and it was actual.

It's got to the stage now where ITK's were posting by request and begs. And half of it was "in the wind" but taken as "actual".

 

[thylacine60]

Sorry, it was a s**t stand and was not working as they hoped even before the salary cap dramas. Had not increased capacity of ground at all and was just costing more for punters that used to go and stopped going and the club hurting it's own self financially. Once the residents were not going to allow the ground become 45,000 capacity it should have not have been built.

it was a monument to one man's hubrus - everything about it was wrong - aesthetically it looked like picasso got pissed and opened his meccano present early

 

[blue healer]

1. IF a committee is charged with designing a horse and they make a camel- it is a fail ...
2. I think the person who had the most impact on improving quality in Japan was a bloke by the name of Deming ( IRONIC isn't it that Deming the INDIVIDUAL is lauded in Japan for his impact on their manufacturing culture) - anyone who has studies statistics and quality control would come across this - I don't know the relevance of Deming to Carlton - but I do know statistics and quality control pretty well happy enough to discuss any pure or applied maths with you anytime you like..
3. SOS's name has been sullied by implication and innuendo - this is on Liddle and his cronies - disgusting bunch.

1. Not worth replying to.

2. I am well aware of Demming and his impact on post war Japan, have actually attended one of his seminars back in the day and another by Bill Conway. Regret I never saw Ishikawa. And BTW TQM is much more aimed at reducing the need for quality control by building quality practices into the system and is heavily reliant on, wait for it, working groups (perhaps we could call them committees).

You are right, Demming and TQM has little relevance to Carlton, but nowhere does it espouse an autocratic management style.

Not going to get into a discussion here, my memory fades a bit in my dotage but the essence of my original post was to dispute your implication that committees achieve nothing.

3. I don't see the same "implication and innuendo" coming from the club as you.

 

[slashin_velvet]

You're not seriously suggesting that a coach-player relationship is identical to a CEO-player one?

I'm saying that leveraging off a prior coaching relationship is not a conflict of interest in either situation.

Liddle was never Ellis' CEO so leveraging his time as coach at Calder is a reasonable explanation for his involvement in the potential recruitment. If Teague was first to pick up the phone to Eddie (or McGovern), I would similarly have no issues. It makes complete sense for people to get in touch with people they enjoyed working with and happens in professional life all the time without being a conflict.

 

[blue healer]

I know we're not comparing Cognilio and Ellis though, so the equation would be a little different.

Still a list place.

 

[thylacine60]

I agree about EP. The reason being that his info was sparse and it was actual.

It's got to the stage now where ITK's were posting by request and begs. And half of it was "in the wind" but taken as "actual".

indicative of the impatience shown by many here - most of us are happy to wait for the itk info - I sometimes need reassurance regarding romance in my future but other than that, waiting for the itk stuff is a lot like fishing, waiting is what it's all about and sometimes we come home empty handed but other times....

 

[thylacine60]

Have you seen the 13th Floor??? A simulation created a simulation.....

no but I've seen being john malkovich.........

 

[Gavstar]

Fundamentally SOS was recruited by MLG with free reign over recruiting decisions to build a list capable of challenging for a premiership.

Its my guess that over time Liddle, Lloyd and Bolton wanted to remove this unfettered power, thus set in place more consultative decision making process.

This has come to head with those wanting oversight actually wanting decision making power against SOS better judgement eg Deluca, Betts, Ellis and Papley

SOS preferred to walk rather than compromise or take a new position with no doubt less power. Given the basis on which he was recruited thats fair enough.

Eddie is a nice story (I love it) but is more about feel good than winning a premiership.

The problem is the bullshit story they have come up with blaming the recruitment of his sons and the suddenly unmanageable conflict of interest which appeared from nowhere despite being at its most acute with the father/son selections. Their continued presence on the list is determined now by on field performance not father/son selection.

The non-answering of simple questions shows that Liddle is hiding behind the PR facade they have built. Make no mistake Carlton is but a stepping stone for Liddle.

Interestingly I think things are going to get more challenging as if players start to perform the list cost structure is put under severe pressure.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

We're blaming Lloyd and Liddle here.
What about Agresta? Why not Teague? This was a party of four that had severe grievances with SOS.

SOS is SOS. We all know what that may look like, but I keep getting back to - How was he allowed to wield so much power and influence at the club?
Rhetorical question because the answer should be pretty clear. He had mates in high places.

Q. Does anyone remember how and why the Agresta appointment came about?
I thought it was somewhat odd at the time doubling up on LM's after not having had any, only four years earlier.

SOS was allowed to do his thing because he had a proven track record and we were in a mess.

We allowed him autonomy and praised his work. He earned our patience, as did Bolton and Trigg at the time.

When a new CEO and Football Manager came in, they had their own ideas on a consultative approach. They tried to implement it in an area that wasn't failing.

It would have felt like a slap in the face to any of us. You're doing a great job but we're going to take away your licence to do your job the way you have been successfully doing it.

I understand the consultative approach, but there seemed to be no testing of the waters. Agresta in, change of titles. SOS seemingly the boss but his title was superfluous.

It feels like a failure in dealing with people. You try to implement your best practice and you end up saying to the worker, 'we don't trust you anymore'.