Carlton in the Media (articles, podcasts etc) - Part 3

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
If SOS "influences" Jack to leave:

1. It's not catastrophe. Jack isn't a key player.
2. We would receive something decent in return.
3. Proves Liddle was right - a conflict of interest existed.
It proves nothing. SOS is gone, if your CEO threw you under bus to cover his own arse you'd want to leave the organisation also.
 
I don't know how anybody (bar the CEO) can be upset by the interview.
SOS, who we let go a year ago, has a new job in the media. Of course he was going to be asked these questions, and he answered them frankly.

No sensible person could think that Liddle handled SOS' sacking well.
I'm not talking about whether the decision was right or wrong, purely about the way it was done. At the time, I thought Liddle should have been sacked for it, but he wasn't, and he seems to have been very good at all the other aspects of his job since then (so nobody should be calling for his sacking over something that we know about that happened a year ago).

I think the best way for the club to handle it, is for Liddle to say that the way he handled it was unfortunate, he regrets the way it was done, and has learned from the process. That's all that needs to be said.

The other issue is any involvement that the CEO has in List Management matters, which many members/supporters are concerned about. I personally think that no CEO should have any involvement. Hopefully this has been resolved at the Club.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

If SOS "influences" Jack to leave:

1. It's not catastrophe. Jack isn't a key player.
2. We would receive something decent in return.
3. Proves Liddle was right - a conflict of interest existed.

I think you misread my post. The interview should have zero influence.
Whether Jack stays or goes should have absolutely nothing to do with SOS' interview on the radio today.
 
You think Jack is upset about comments a year ago?
No idea, I'm not Jack. But I would've wanted to leave if that was me and he essentially inferred the only reason I got picked up was because of my last name.
I would've been motivated to go elsewhere and prove the dummy wrong.
 
I don't know how anybody (bar the CEO) can be upset by the interview.
SOS, who we let go a year ago, has a new job in the media. Of course he was going to be asked these questions, and he answered them frankly.

No sensible person could think that Liddle handled SOS' sacking well.
I'm not talking about whether the decision was right or wrong, purely about the way it was done. At the time, I thought Liddle should have been sacked for it, but he wasn't, and he seems to have been very good at all the other aspects of his job since then (so nobody should be calling for his sacking over something that we know about that happened a year ago).

I think the best way for the club to handle it, is for Liddle to say that the way he handled it was unfortunate, he regrets the way it was done, and has learned from the process. That's all that needs to be said.

The other issue is any involvement that the CEO has in List Management matters, which many members/supporters are concerned about. I personally think that no CEO should have any involvement. Hopefully this has been resolved at the Club.

I don't have an issue with a CEO having input on list management, in fact, they should ensure the agreed strategies and processes are adhered too

So, if it's true he did go rogue, I undermines many people
 
Including the CEO.

You cannot deny the club is in a far, far better position today than when it was when Liddle stepped into the role.

No idea, I'm not Jack. But I would've wanted to leave if that was me and he essentially inferred the only reason I got picked up was because of my last name.
I would've been motivated to go elsewhere and prove the dummy wrong.

Cool you're basing everything on your opinion. That's fine. You're allowed to have an opinion.

My 3 points were facts.
 
I don't know how anybody (bar the CEO) can be upset by the interview.
SOS, who we let go a year ago, has a new job in the media. Of course he was going to be asked these questions, and he answered them frankly.

No sensible person could think that Liddle handled SOS' sacking well.
I'm not talking about whether the decision was right or wrong, purely about the way it was done. At the time, I thought Liddle should have been sacked for it, but he wasn't, and he seems to have been very good at all the other aspects of his job since then (so nobody should be calling for his sacking over something that we know about that happened a year ago).

I think the best way for the club to handle it, is for Liddle to say that the way he handled it was unfortunate, he regrets the way it was done, and has learned from the process. That's all that needs to be said.

The other issue is any involvement that the CEO has in List Management matters, which many members/supporters are concerned about. I personally think that no CEO should have any involvement. Hopefully this has been resolved at the Club.



A very sensible post. Agree - I'm sure Liddle could have handled it better but I'm sure SOS wouldn't have been making it any easier.

Liddle has had to make some hard uncomfortable decisions because some hard uncomfortable decisions had to made.

For now, in a way, I'm glad Liddle is an 'outsider' as perhaps that is exactly what Carlton needs - no boys club but good solid business decisions.

The danger of course is players getting upset but see no evidence yet of that (except JSOS perhaps ??)
 
You cannot deny the club is in a far, far better position today than when it was when Liddle stepped into the role.
Correct we are. The list is in a better position because of SOS, and our off field financials are better because of Cain.
SOS shouldn't tell Cain how to run the club and Cain shouldn't go over the head of his list department and offer contracts/money to potential suitors, it's a ******* disgrace.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It’s all fairly well known to us isn’t it, what SOS has said publicly?

Cain and Steven couldn’t work together after Cain started dipping his toe into recruitment

Sos probably had too much say in footy department and Cain made changes to reduce his authority (Lloyd). Sos wouldn’t have taken it well

Fill in the rest as we all have over the last 12 months

Edit : Feel for JSOS
 
This interview reminded me of when The Footy Show handed Fev a mic at the Brownlow, and let him hang himself for their their own ratings.

Gary and Tim played on his emotions there, and were scrambling to give him more rope to hang himself as well as the club.

Not SOSs finest hour there.I hope the club acknowledge it only to say they won't be making comment.
 
That's governance though, rather than involvement, right?
Or am I misreading your point?

To have governance you need to be involved

As an example, if the agreed list management strategy did not include targeting a KPF and then that changed, as a CEO, you would seek clarification from the team why that strategy had changed.
 
The 'good' part for Carlton is that the guy slinging the mud - SOS - is gone and for the most part it seems the current Carlton team are all on the page and a happy team (Liddle, Lloyd, Austin, Agresta).
Well said Andy. I've been a big SOS fan and he is right that the club was amateurish with his exit. But these comments from SOS this morning are childish and smack of sour grapes. I was very skeptical about Liddle at the beginning. But he is growing on me. He seems to have built a good team and the club is heading in the right direction. All power to them!
 
Extremely poor timing by SOS to say the least, and does not put him or the Club in a good light..

He is one of my all time favourite players, but I just cannot defend the Son of Serge here, or rationalize his comments so close to a crucial trade and draft period for us..

I feel bitterly disappointed and sad at how this has all played out.
 
None of those situations had anything to do with rumours.
This was SOS bringing up situations that had not surfaced other than 2, which we all know was handled poorly. No one argued that it was done well.

Re point 4 - Ask Agresta, Lloyd an Teague what they thought of SOS and his.....ways.



Now, you're just being practical. :)

This is the key point for me...I don't think any of us know exactly what went down but I can foresee this scenario:

SOS incredibly strong/rigid on his views and doesn't hold back on expressing them. The likes of Agresta/Teague/Lloyd all a bit more diplomatic and may have been in agreement on several key issues, only for SOS to be resistant and not willing to compromise.

Agresta/Teague/Lloyd get frustrated at SOS and have a word with Liddle. Liddle is forced to step in and have words with SOS since a group of other key employees in key positions have raised concerns and he is the only one with enough authority to overrule SOS. Liddle becomes the 'bad guy' and from SOS' POV he's been unfairly overruled and ousted.

I love SOS and think he did an amazing job overall turning us around since 2015 but as B70 suggested both SOS & Liddle probably a little at fault.
 
I don't know how anybody (bar the CEO) can be upset by the interview.
SOS, who we let go a year ago, has a new job in the media. Of course he was going to be asked these questions, and he answered them frankly.

No sensible person could think that Liddle handled SOS' sacking well.
I'm not talking about whether the decision was right or wrong, purely about the way it was done. At the time, I thought Liddle should have been sacked for it, but he wasn't, and he seems to have been very good at all the other aspects of his job since then (so nobody should be calling for his sacking over something that we know about that happened a year ago).

I think the best way for the club to handle it, is for Liddle to say that the way he handled it was unfortunate, he regrets the way it was done, and has learned from the process. That's all that needs to be said.

The other issue is any involvement that the CEO has in List Management matters, which many members/supporters are concerned about. I personally think that no CEO should have any involvement. Hopefully this has been resolved at the Club.
Most sensible post here
 
SoS interview confirms the view of Liddle as a power junkie, who has put his career progression and disdain of disenting voices ahead of the club. It was political manipulation of the highest order to couch SoS dismissal in a conflict of interest around his sons. The interview also reflects on MLG as a weak leader. The president makes the final call on this stuff not the CEO. Please take Liddle's 2 minute propoganda video pieces with a grain of salt
 
Extremely poor timing by SOS to say the least, and does not put him or the Club in a good light..

He is one of my all time favourite players, but I just cannot defend the Son of Serge here, or rationalize his comments so close to a crucial trade and draft period for us..

I feel bitterly disappointed and sad at how this has all played out.

Bit extreme

SOS is no longer at the club, any potential incoming players are dealing with a new list management head in Austin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top