Mega Thread General MFC Discussion IV – Guerra sacked, Brian Cook interim, TBA interim for the interim, Dan Taylor next CEO. Who will upholster the chairs?

[Johnny Karate]

Few of the media ITKs have made it clear it seems a good move we got rid of him.

In fairness, a lot of these media ITKs thought that sacking Goodwin was a mistake.

 

[Lord Nev]

In fairness, a lot of these media ITKs thought that sacking Goodwin was a mistake.

Did they? Don't remember much of that tbh, but even if so that would be opinion kinda stuff as opposed to this kinda 'we know stuff but we can only say a bit' reporting that some of these senior journos are rolling with about Guerra.

 

[Crusty Demon]

Did they? Don't remember much of that tbh, but even if so that would be opinion kinda stuff as opposed to this kinda 'we know stuff but we can only say a bit' reporting that some of these senior journos are rolling with about Guerra.

Caro in particular has been quite adamant we've made the right call.

 

[Demon Attack]

These dickheads better get the home ground done because no amount of PR leaking will save them if they fail.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Why do we keep hiring dole bludgers? People just don't want to work anymore.

 

[TheBoss]

Serious question: Why are we even bothering with a CEO? With the Board micromanaging every day-to-day operations and commercial decisions, the role is basically a glorified executive assistant. Strategy and footy department decisions are clearly coming straight from Smith and Porz’s desks. They seemingly refuse to let go of the reins.

If the Board wants to run the club’s daily operations, fine, but do it for free like you're supposed to. Moving Dan Taylor from a voluntary Board seat into a high-paid CEO slot just to oversee an organisation he isn't allowed to lead is a joke. It’s a redundant expense and a waste of members' money for a job the Board is already doing for free.

Will Dan Taylor get blindsided and dumped in seven months because a of a "mismatch" with Smith's interventionist style and refusal to grant any real autonomy?

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Scythe deleted my posts about Bovine University and the food chain.

Must be a vegan or something

 

[TheBoss]

Scythe deleted my posts about Bovine University and the food chain.

Must be a vegan or something

Scythe, probably:

 

[Proper Gander]

Serious question: Why are we even bothering with a CEO? With the Board micromanaging every day-to-day operations and commercial decisions, the role is basically a glorified executive assistant. Strategy and footy department decisions are clearly coming straight from Smith and Porz’s desks. They seemingly refuse to let go of the reins.

If the Board wants to run the club’s daily operations, fine, but do it for free like you're supposed to. Moving Dan Taylor from a voluntary Board seat into a high-paid CEO slot just to oversee an organisation he isn't allowed to lead is a joke. It’s a redundant expense and a waste of members' money for a job the Board is already doing for free.

Will Dan Taylor get blindsided and dumped in seven months because a of a "mismatch" with Smith's interventionist style and refusal to grant any real autonomy?

That’s what CEOs do though. Administer the wishes of company directors. They shouldn’t be autonomous.

 

[Scythe]

Scythe deleted my posts about Bovine University and the food chain.

Must be a vegan or something

I am not the only mod

But also, don't be a campaigner

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

That’s what CEOs do though. Administer the wishes of company directors. They shouldn’t be autonomous.

Im still confused as what the boards wishes were though? The Caulfield pipe dream? So any CEO who does his own research into the matter and doesnt think it will happen needs to be removed. Seems to qualify for our position you only need to be a nodding moron.

 

[Lord Nev]

Im still confused as what the boards wishes were though? The Caulfield pipe dream? So any CEO who does his own research into the matter and doesnt think it will happen needs to be removed. Seems to qualify for our position you only need to be a nodding moron.

Pardon the interruption to your anti-board blog, but it sounds like it went:

Board: Hey Paul, Waverley is a backup option for us IF Caulfield doesn't happen, we are not pursuing it, we need to show that we are all in on Caulfield or it won't happen.

Guerra: Message received. I'll call the AFL now and tell then we want Waverley and see if they can start making everything red and blue. Also, I'll make sure Tom Morris knows.

Not really doing your career any favours operating like that. I do love you classifying it as "research" though.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

I do love you classifying it as "research" though.

Thanks , I thought you would Nev.

 

[TheBoss]

That’s what CEOs do though. Administer the wishes of company directors. They shouldn’t be autonomous.

The idea that a CEO exists just to "administer wishes" like a glorified errand boy is a total misunderstanding of how a professional club works. There’s a massive line between governance and management.

The boards role is to set the long term vision and hold the executive accountable. They operate at 30,000 feet.

The CEOs role is to execute that vision by managing staff and resources. They operate on the ground.

If the board is making the calls, what are we paying Taylor for? You don't hire a CEO for their administration skills. You hire them for their judgment. If you strip that autonomy, you haven't hired a leader, you’ve hired an expensive bottleneck.

We’ve moved Taylor from a voluntary seat to a high salary to do a job the Board refuses to let go of. Case in point, the board is happy to continue running the show while the interim CEO spends half his tenure on annual leave overseas. We're not going to miss a beat with the CEO chair empty.

You don't pay in exess of $500k for a Yes Man. If the Board wants to micromanage the daily ops, they should scrap the CEO role entirely and stop burning members' money.

If things go well, Smith will take all the credit. If things go south, there will be a "mismatch" and Smith will dump the CEO to save his own skin.

 

[Bluelegs]

Im still confused as what the boards wishes were though? The Caulfield pipe dream? So any CEO who does his own research into the matter and doesnt think it will happen needs to be removed. Seems to qualify for our position you only need to be a nodding moron.

The reports have been that he was not involved in Caufield talks at all and if he personally thought Waverley was a better option then he probably needed to get approval to the board before actively pursuing it.

Given what we know now there was clearly a pattern of him coming up with ideas and pursuing them without approval while going to the media to spruik them.

That's been reported for both Waverley the second NT game. I presume it was also the case for 'marquee' mental health game that he did an interview about.

He seemed to have a pretty 'move fast and break things' approach which clearly the board didn't love.

 

[Bluelegs]

The idea that a CEO exists just to "administer wishes" like a glorified errand boy is a total misunderstanding of how a professional club works. There’s a massive line between governance and management.

The boards role is to set the long term vision and hold the executive accountable. They operate at 30,000 feet.

The CEOs role is to execute that vision by managing staff and resources. They operate on the ground.

If the board is making the calls, what are we paying Taylor for? You don't hire a CEO for their administration skills. You hire them for their judgment. If you strip that autonomy, you haven't hired a leader, you’ve hired an expensive bottleneck.

We’ve moved Taylor from a voluntary seat to a high salary to do a job the Board refuses to let go of. Case in point, the board is happy to continue running the show while the interim CEO spends half his tenure on annual leave overseas. We're not going to miss a beat with the CEO chair empty.

You don't pay in exess of $500k for a Yes Man. If the Board wants to micromanage the daily ops, they should scrap the CEO role entirely and stop burning members' money.

If things go well, Smith will take all the credit. If things go south, there will be a "mismatch" and Smith will dump the CEO to save his own skin.

I would say that the training base is absolutely within the realm of the long term vision of the club.

 

[Lord Nev]

Pretty big difference between being a "Yes Man" and going completely against the wishes and strategy of the board.

 

[stEdy]

For someone named TheBoss you'd think you'd know how a CEO functions

 

[TheBoss]

Pretty big difference between being a "Yes Man" and going completely against the wishes and strategy of the board.

You missed the point.

 

[TheBoss]

The reports have been that he was not involved in Caufield talks at all and if he personally thought Waverley was a better option then he probably needed to get approval to the board before actively pursuing it.

Given what we know now there was clearly a pattern of him coming up with ideas and pursuing them without approval while going to the media to spruik them.

That's been reported for both Waverley the second NT game. I presume it was also the case for 'marquee' mental health game that he did an interview about.

He seemed to have a pretty 'move fast and break things' approach which clearly the board didn't love.

1) Board wants club under one roof
2) club is about $70m short to fund their dream base
3) CRRT tells board "money talks, bullshit walks"
4) Executive identifies opportunity which achieves the boards vision in 1) above and which the club can afford
5) ???
6) There is a "mismatch" between board and exec

Regardless, Waverley is a good temporary/short term option. Caulfield could get signed up this afternoon and we'd still be years from moving in.

 

[Lord Nev]

1) Board wants club under one roof
2) club is about $70m short to fund their dream base
3) CRRT tells board "money talks, bullshit walks"
4) Executive identifies opportunity which achieves the boards vision in 1) above and which the club can afford
5) ???
6) There is a "mismatch" between board and exec

Regardless, Waverley is a good temporary/short term option. Caulfield could get signed up this afternoon and we'd still be years from moving in.

You missed the point.

 

[Bluelegs]

1) Board wants club under one roof
2) club is about $70m short to fund their dream base
3) CRRT tells board "money talks, bullshit walks"
4) Executive identifies opportunity which achieves the boards vision in 1) above and which the club can afford
5) ???
6) There is a "mismatch" between board and exec

Regardless, Waverley is a good temporary/short term option. Caulfield could get signed up this afternoon and we'd still be years from moving in.

Whether you believe pursuing Waverley is the right call is neither here nor there. It's still a major decision that all parties to be aligned on and they clearly weren't.

Same goes for selling home games.

 

[TheBoss]

Whether you believe pursuing Waverley is the right call is neither here nor there. It's still a major decision that all parties to be aligned on and they clearly weren't.

Same goes for selling home games.

Sure, I agree with that.

But wasn't Guerra's public messaging in the vein of "sure, why not. We will consider it". I can't recall him making a firm commitment to anything publicly.

It's just the salesman attitude of never saying no.

 

[Lord Nev]

Sure, I agree with that.

But wasn't Guerra's public messaging in the vein of "sure, why not. We will consider it". I can't recall him making a firm commitment to anything publicly.

It's just the salesman attitude of never saying no.

Ordering the red and blue seats for Waverley seems a fairly firm indication of intention...

 

[Bluelegs]

Sure, I agree with that.

But wasn't Guerra's public messaging in the vein of "sure, why not. We will consider it". I can't recall him making a firm commitment to anything publicly.

It's just the salesman attitude of never saying no.

If you believe the reports then he was doing a lot more behind the scenes.

Someone also told Tom Morris that we were planning on moving there. Then when nothing came of it there were reports that the AFL was frustrated with us for dragging our feet and started negotiating with Richmond instead.