Member Online Forum 9th Dec 2019

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Someone very much more observant than me pointed out that something has been removed from the wall in the Carlton Boardroom.

Can you elaborate for the slow of mind?

 

[Sector 7G]

The price makes a huge difference.
Clarkson took Dew against the LM's wishes. Low cost (huge reward).

It is obviously far more problematic when they come on/for a big cost.
Although, we didn't even have a list manager when we took McLean and Thomas, so there's also that.

Is there much difference between not having a list manager and not taking any notice of the list manager you do have?

 

[agro]

As I understand the portrait of the late Richard Pratt has been removed.

As I said it was pointed out to me by someone far more observant than I.

 

[TerryWallet]

As I understand the portrait of the late Richard Pratt has been removed.

As I said it was pointed out to me by someone far more observant than I.

Is that all.

I thought you were talking about the portrait of Double Agent Dodoro.

That should never be removed.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

As I understand the portrait of the late Richard Pratt has been removed.

As I said it was pointed out to me by someone far more observant than I.

Jeanne is still on the board. Surely she would have something to say.

 

[Blue since 72]

Which is what most of this debate is about. Did Liddle go behind SOS's back, or did the List Management team discuss an approach to Ellis and agree (unanimously or not) that Liddle making contact and handling the tour would be prudent given he was familiar with Ellis? Because Liddle has put it on the record that it's the latter. And if he is lying, blatantly, in a public member forum with every answer well documented...well, he wouldn't, would he. Given his detractors are painting him as a political snake, it's hard to believe he'd outright lie in a public forum when doing so would undoubtedly find him being exposed in short order.

My take is his reply is quite pointed in that everyone who needed to know knew what was happening. As ODN pointed out that doesn't mean SOS was happy about it or agreed with it and perhaps it was a catalyst for where we are now.

 

[Blue since 72]

I'm not saying it is wrong as an idea overall. I'm saying to implement it to rein in power over someone who was doing a great job, after previously being given his space to do as he wanted, is a very dicey exercise and you have to be a people person.

Let's face it, there was no obvious issues in what SOS was doing that necessitated the change. For some reason, people outside of SOS's team wanted in on the decision making process so made changed to ensure this happened. How can that not seem like a slap in the face?

Member Online Forum 9th Dec 2019

Someone very much more observant than me pointed out that something has been removed from the wall in the Carlton Boardroom. ;) :p Can you elaborate for the slow of mind?

www.bigfooty.com

Others didn't form the game plan for Teague to pass on. They merely offer their input and the head coach decides whether to accept it or reject it. It's certainly not the case that the assistant coaches could want one thing and Teague is outvoted so has to implement it.

It's just too difficult to analyse with any certainty because we just don't know. Was the sub committee a new thing Liddle brought in or has it always been in place, perhaps with different personal. If it was new then you could certainly see why SOS went from happy to unhappy.

Re Teague he has been quite clear that the players will have input and on that basis I assume he will adopt at least some of what they want so it wont just be his "plan". With regard to being "out voted" perhaps we look to the Bolton situation, not outvoted per se but I recall reading that Teague in particular challenged him on the game plan more than once and it would seem the game plan got Bolton sacked. Given the results didn't justify faith in the plan anymore perhaps people started listening to what Teague had to say. Bolton was steadfast in his belief but in the end, in a way he was out voted.

You have to get a result aligned with employer expectations and be able to work well with others while doing it. You have a title and are paid to get the job done but it's not a fiefdom. Be open to different points of view and be able to have robust discussions without getting your nose out of joint and if that's not doable then you make your call.

As I said without knowing exactly how it all went down I find it hard to pick sides. Having said that I was caught up in the romance of SOS and the good work he had done so was initially disappointed to hear he would be leaving.

 

[JustaBattler]

I know nothing of the truth of the Ellis/Betts/any other controversies. IMO they are completely irrelevant to SOS's departure.

SOS had to go. The conflict of interest was manifest. If Carlton are to compete in an increasingly professional sport then basic conflict of interest management must be inherent in the organisation.

It is patently obvious that as father of 2 players and father of a potential 3rd player no meaningful list management decision could be made by SOS that could not be interpreted as being done to favour his boys or, alternatively, done to avoid being seen to favour his boys.

Just put yourself in SOS's position. Imagine if he thought SOJ was just not worth a place on the list. Imagine how difficult telling SOJ that it was his decision that SOJ should piss off.

If Kemp comes good he is just the sort of player that might replace SOJ in the team. Was that why SOS was happy to swap pick 11, in the hope he would not be selected? Etc, etc.

The decision to cease with SOS was the only decision that could realistically have been made.

You want to parse Liddle's involvement with the recruitment of Ellis or Betts as "the real reason" SOS was "sacked". If it was then Liddle got lucky because terminating SOS as List Manager was the only thing that could have been done.

You define COI in very narrow terms - parroting Liddle speak champ. Still, lets look at numbers in order to humour your perspective:

2 out of 46 players on a list is massive conflict - is it? Ok - lets play ....

1. Liddle was trying to catch SOS's conflict count in recruiting Ellis - a spud he has known for years at Richmond to quote his own words - no conflict there.....
2. DeLuca an ex Fremantle player - what part did Lloyd have in that whole episode - since we have been told SOS didn't want him in the first place and why has been terminated by the list management sub committee for designing camels...is that on SOS too?

There you go - two decisions adding up to the same level of BS conflict you hang your hat on in six months by these two interloping clowns...

It isn't the COI issue that bugs me anyway as I've stated many times - it is the nassty and ill considered manner in which Liddle and co have gone about challenging SOS's integrity.

Either SOS thought that there was a COI that couldn't be managed or he didn't. If he didn't think it could be managed then he should have been allowed to make his own statement and been a willing and happy participant in his own exit. Clearly that hasn't happened - so what did?

If he did think it could be managed - he should still be there, but he isn't - why is that?

 

[thylacine60]

this'll be good.......

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

this'll be good.......

And wordy.

 

[thylacine60]

hope so......

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I have to say, I really enjoy the cut and thrust of the discussion rather than out and out dismissal and personal comments.

I've tempered my original thoughts in some areas as a result, and hardened them in others.

 

[Jeremias]

I have to say, I really enjoy the cut and thrust of the discussion rather than out and out dismissal and personal comments.

I've tempered my original thoughts in some areas as a result, and hardened them in others.

shut up ffs

 

[KohPhi]

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

Spot on. City Hall have had their eye on him for a little while. Give it 2 more seasons and Prendergast will slip seamlessly into his role.

 

[thylacine60]

carlton & seamless in the same sentence...........hmmmmm........

 

[JustaBattler]

Look at that photograph carefully - why do they all dress exactly the same way- cheapo deluxo dark suit, white shirt,open flapping collar - as if they are waiters on a lunch break.....or extras in a Men in Black movie ....

 

[Bee Vee]

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'.

That's a nice story but has any of it been substantiated? Any of it?

FWIW, the only reality I've read is in the forum release from the club. People who were on the committee were asked questions and gave their version of events. Others who were on the committee had the opportunity to dispute any of the facts presented and didn't. Unless someone else on the committee who was present can dispute any of the facts presented, the opposing view is unsubstantiated fiction.

As for assertions that SOS doesn't have an unmanageable conflict of interest, surely it extends to how it impacts others in the organisation. Are others feeling conflict or pressure in their decision making re the Silvagni boys due to the fact they work alongside SOS? Only those within the organisation would know the reality.

 

[Opine]

I know nothing of the truth of the Ellis/Betts/any other controversies. IMO they are completely irrelevant to SOS's departure.

SOS had to go. The conflict of interest was manifest. If Carlton are to compete in an increasingly professional sport then basic conflict of interest management must be inherent in the organisation.

It is patently obvious that as father of 2 players and father of a potential 3rd player no meaningful list management decision could be made by SOS that could not be interpreted as being done to favour his boys or, alternatively, done to avoid being seen to favour his boys.

Just put yourself in SOS's position. Imagine if he thought SOJ was just not worth a place on the list. Imagine how difficult telling SOJ that it was his decision that SOJ should piss off.

If Kemp comes good he is just the sort of player that might replace SOJ in the team. Was that why SOS was happy to swap pick 11, in the hope he would not be selected? Etc, etc.

The decision to cease with SOS was the only decision that could realistically have been made.

You want to parse Liddle's involvement with the recruitment of Ellis or Betts as "the real reason" SOS was "sacked". If it was then Liddle got lucky because terminating SOS as List Manager was the only thing that could have been done.

Your argument goes well beyond that which is currently being advanced by CFC. You seem adverse to the mere existence of a conflicting relationship; period.

It’s footy club, people are involved, there is a possibility of conflict to some degree. The solution is not to avoid conflicting relationships outright, as if they are somehow poisonous to AFL integrity; specifically father/son/daughter relationships which the AFL recognises and appears to embrace. But rather to find ways around possible complications. Not even CFC is arguing that such relationships are poison by default: Rather they are arguing that the measures put in place have negatively impacted optimal performance of the footy department .

The optimal performance argument is typically a difficult argument to rebut because it’s so subjective: that is unless the object of supposed substandard performance is clearly performing well above expected norm, as is the case with SOS. It’s a stupid argument to mount, because, given how well he has actually performed, you’re very likely setting up the next LM regime for some serious criticism if it doesn’t hit the typical standard of SOS let alone exceed it. Its a bit dumb IMO.



.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That's a nice story but has any of it been substantiated? Any of it?

FWIW, the only reality I've read is in the forum release from the club. People who were on the committee were asked questions and gave their version of events. Others who were on the committee had the opportunity to dispute any of the facts presented and didn't. Unless someone else on the committee who was present can dispute any of the facts presented, the opposing view is unsubstantiated fiction.

As for assertions that SOS doesn't have an unmanageable conflict of interest, surely it extends to how it impacts others in the organisation. Are others feeling conflict or pressure in their decision making re the Silvagni boys due to the fact they work alongside SOS? Only those within the organisation would know the reality.

Which part do you think is unsubstantiated?

That SOS was given free reign to build the list when he came to the club?

That this changed when a sub-committee was formed?

That the CEO, the boss of all of these staff members, had a say on this sub-committee?

You really think any else is going to go against Liddle's point of view?

 

[BlueAbroad]

Reacting to the 2019 Members Forum

youtube.com/watch?v=VuZ3PU71YFA

An innovative exercise by the club to create a direct line of communication between fan and administration

Here are my thoughts

Join us LIVE at 8 PM on Instagram for a further chat

 

[JustaBattler]

Of course one can only react to information presented - if any new information is provided to shed light on the situation I reserve my right to change my mind. Maybe something like the new rumour - with more legs and less 'trust me' would tick that box...

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Of course one can only react to information presented - if any new information is provided to shed light on the situation I reserve my right to change my mind. Maybe something like the new rumour - with more legs and less 'trust me' would tick that box...

Being open to changing your mind is a good thing. Should be more of it.

I like the sub-committee idea as a whole. Just don't like the idea of fixing something that wasn't broken and losing intellectual property needlessly. These are not easy positions to replace.

 

[JustaBattler]

Being open to changing your mind is a good thing. Should be more of it.

I like the sub-committee idea as a whole. Just don't like the idea of fixing something that wasn't broken and losing intellectual property needlessly. These are not easy positions to replace.

Yep.

Anyway the rumour suggests that SOS has been a very naughty boy - in the way of progress. Shame if true. Shame if this is all just part of a one sided pusch - I can understand people tiring of the too and fro on the issue though - I don't like having to sit on one end of a see saw - feeling like having to push against another side side of a see saw - each staring at supporters wearing the same colours.

 

[Accidental genius]

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.

Teague is the head coach and knows Eddie well. Teague also knows we are in desperate need of a small forward. Eddie fits the bill almost perfectly and only his age is the potential issue. But still he will most likely be good for at least 1 year which gives us time to replace him if he lost significant form.

What is the driver for liddle in chasing Ellis? We are not in desperate need for a player of his ability and the position he plays in even though he has grand final experience. It’s a position we can easily fill internally and those candidates will be on par to what Ellis can offer.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Teague is the head coach and knows Eddie well. Teague also knows we are in desperate need of a small forward. Eddie fits the bill almost perfectly and only his age is the potential issue. But still he will most likely be good for at least 1 year which gives us time to replace him if he lost significant form.

What is the driver for liddle in chasing Ellis? We are not in desperate need for a player of his ability and the position he plays in even though he has grand final experience. It’s a position we can easily fill internally and those candidates will be on par to what Ellis can offer.

Id say we went after wings as a position of need. Our options were Newnes and Ellis as primary, and Martin (who was already on the radar) could also play that role. Midseason we thought either could work - and in the end found Newnes would be a lot cheaper, and a lot less risk given contract term - so he made more practical sense for our squad.

I don't believe Liddle acted as a rogue and overruled the committee - if he did, Ellis would be on our list. A relationship is not a conflict. I'm sure Teague was in Eddie's ear, SOS was in Coniglios ear, Agresta was in Papley's ear, and Liddle was in Ellis' ear. This ain't rocket surgery