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

[RudyBlue]

SOS said something that really hit home for me:

Something along the lines of "When you've played for the club for 17 years, put your body on the line and supported the club your whole life, to have an outsider come in and tell the president that you'd sabotage the draft and trade period for your club really hurt the most"

Now you tell me why would he lie about that??

His playing history at the club holds absolutely no relevance to his position in the football department.

Emotionally, we can all understand the link, but there should not be one.

This is why having favourite sons in managerial positions is risky business. Throw in a couple of SOS’ sons on the list and it all becomes very murky.

 

[Sharks On A Plane]

A list manager being described as arrogant and difficult to deal with by others in the same organization

Do you really think he takes a cut and or gets a bonus in salary cap savings? What part was he difficult to deal with, give some specifics, examples for a greater understanding

I'm not sure if you meant to quote me here but my information from one of our most respected retired players of recent years is that SOS was just a complete a-hole around the club, gave nobody the time of day including all of the listed players (sons excluded lol).

 

[thylacine60]

Who didn't like sos and his ways?

Good luck discovering clarity in this turbid backwater.

 

[DangerousD]

Petty? Because he took a new job which would invariable see these sort of questions raised and either he or SEN wanted to get ahead of the storyline.
SOS rightfully explained that the club had list and cap problems when he got there, lots of people (and he names them) put in some really hard yards to get the train back on track, then had the final chapter sullied and ultimately taken away from him. This impacted him and his family. He is dirty and isn't hiding it.
I think he did well to keep his opinion to himself for as long as he did.

Yes petty, unprofessional, selfish and no, not because he took a job where these questions would come up but the manner in which he responded to those questions and by airing his and the clubs dirty laundry through the media.

He was moved on and instead of accepting the clubs decision then, he threw his toys out of the cot, 12 months later when the club has moved on, he comes out and sticks the boot in and airs his dirty laundry in public.

People seem to just gloss over the fact he has a son still playing for us and this puts him back in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons, imagine the field day we would have if an opposition players dad had a job in the media and was snacking his sons club and boss.

SOS cares about SOS and getting one back on someone who he thinks has wronged him, the language used today smelt of entitlement.

People here still criticise Henderson’s mum for calling a radio station and complaining about the club, well this is way worse

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Majority of the club? That seems to be reading into it a lot. Is this one particular side of the rumour mill you are believing?

I can’t really think of many Carlton people who have come out and been upset about it? Do you really think a new CEO could come in against the majority and kick out a club legend?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Want a President and Club that are strong with their convictions..
Not a President that looks to outsiders like a puppet to the CEO and Board..

Also we are turning into North Melbourne with the way we communicate to supports and the media...
A strong club would have responded and nipped it in the bud already...

Alas still waiting

View attachment 991122

The board were strong, they booted out a club legend who they didn’t think was right for the job. The president done his job listening to the board.

 

[Brackets]

Not sure where you're getting this from?

SOS stated "we all agreed that getting Betts back was acceptable and we all agreed on the cost". Then Liddle went off the reservation and increased the deal.

The list management/recruiting team had agreed not SOS on his own, the only person who seems to have acted alone was Liddle.

The issue here is the CEO over riding what the people specifically paid to do a job had already agreed to.

This saga is not about Betts or sons on the list, it's about two people not being on the same page generally and more specifically, the club ultimately siding with the CEO over the guy charged with managing the list and salary cap in a prudent and sustainable manner.

SOS was happy at a cost. Paying more meant either Betts' management requested above that, or Liddle felt extremely generous that day.

I'm choosing to believe the more logical of those situations.

SOS gave us the start and end of that story. It's reasonable to conclude that SOS was willing to walk away from the deal, and Liddle was not. People can draw their own conclusions though.

Regardless, I agree it was not about Betts or Simmo. It was about SOS. He's had his say now, so hopefully we can expect that to be the end of it.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

His playing history at the club holds absolutely no relevance to his position in the football department.

Emotionally, we can all understand the link, but there should not be one.

This is why having favourite sons in managerial positions is risky business. Throw in a couple of SOS’ sons on the list and it all becomes very murky.

His past with the club absolutely has relevance... bit hard to believe he'd have intentions to sabotage the draft and trade period with all he's put in for the club isn't it??

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I can’t really think of many Carlton people who have come out and been upset about it? Do you really think a new CEO could come in against the majority and kick out a club legend?

You expected current staff to come out and criticise their boss?

 

[Lace_Out]

As if anybody here gets told one thing about why they were being dismissed but another reason was given publicly, wouldn't want to clear the air, especially when his integrity was insulted.

If he was telling a mountain of lies, that's another story. People here have an aversion to truth when it goes against the side they have taken.

There's always a certain amount of information available as there usually are people around witnessing things unfolding.

And we can all agree on one thing, people love to talk.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Dropagrogan]

No they wouldn't , they have a better understanding of what went on and are glad that he was let go!!

Get over it, he showed his true colors today, and it was pathetic self indulgence!!

 

[Gavstar]

100% correct.

Yep when the legal advice comes back saying you’re in big trouble if you try and dismiss the CEO, then it’s easy choice to make SOS had to go.

 

[Lace_Out]

A list manager being described as arrogant and difficult to deal with by others in the same organization

Do you really think he takes a cut and or gets a bonus in salary cap savings? What part was he difficult to deal with, give some specifics, examples for a greater understanding

Not arrogant as a list manager, as a person. It's well known he's not well liked by former players.

I had a chat with a former player (Barassi era) about the Blues about 2 weeks ago and he said the same thing, on his own accord.

He threw the club under the bus to say himself 20 odd years ago and now he's thrown his mate MLG under the bus. Top bloke!

*Unless he knows MLG is on his way out very shortly...even still, he's hurting his club again.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Arr0w]

I'm not sure if you meant to quote me here but my information from one of our most respected retired players of recent years is that SOS was just a complete a-hole around the club, gave nobody the time of day including all of the listed players (sons excluded lol).

Again, give me a specific of how his dealimgs with players and their contracts was to the detriment of the club as a whole.

Add to this, we now have considerable money to target players, along with a core group that this year was on the edge of making finals

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No they wouldn't , they have a better understanding of what went on and are glad that he was let go!!

Get over it, he showed his true colors today, and it was pathetic self indulgence!!

Okay. Show me all the links to articles where most of the staff at Carlton were glad he was let go. I'll wait.

 

[Arr0w]

Not arrogant as a list manager, as a person. It's well known he's not well liked by former players.

I had a chat with a former player (Barassi era) about the Blues about 2 weeks ago and he said the same thing, on his own accord.

He threw the club under the bus to say himself 20 odd years ago and now he's thrown his mate MLG under the bus. Top bloke!

*Unless he knows MLG is on his way out very shortly...even still, he's hurting his club again.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Again this is all emotive

People's perception of arrogance could actually be confidence in their conviction

Give me an incident, a situation so we can dissect it

 

[thylacine60]

Okay. Show me all the links to articles where most of the staff at Carlton were glad he was let go. I'll wait.

smoke em if ya got em........

 

[TENACIOUS]

The board were strong, they booted out a club legend who they didn’t think was right for the job. The president done his job listening to the board.

I get and accept you and others are anti SOS which is ok...
Personally I thought the interview was great and gave me an insight into what happened through SOS's eyes, rightly or wrongly..
But my opinion for discussion isn't about SOS being sacked, it has happened, I support the decision, have moved on and support Austin and his team fully...

It's the way LoGiudice and the club handled the situation back then and the way there is no difference today...

The way the club treat it's supporters and the media is from the 70's, from player access to paying members, updates they give on injuries to the supporters and to the no comment today...

All we needed was a press release to say
"We thank SOS for all he has done for the club as player and list manager. We wish him all the best for his new endeavour on trade radio"

It shows we support SOS and shows we are fully behind Little, silence just adds to the conjecture and lets the
media and opposition supporters have a field day, also makes what SOS said look like it was true...

 

[Gavstar]

Not arrogant as a list manager, as a person. It's well known he's not well liked by former players.

I had a chat with a former player (Barassi era) about the Blues about 2 weeks ago and he said the same thing, on his own accord.

He threw the club under the bus to say himself 20 odd years ago and now he's thrown his mate MLG under the bus. Top bloke!

*Unless he knows MLG is on his way out very shortly...even still, he's hurting his club again.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

He didn’t run a protection racket for a corrupt club culture and president? I’m proud of the actions of SoS and Braddles, they knew there would be a cost to doing the right thing and did it anyway. One of the reasons why I trust what he is saying today. The only other way is the way of the mafia.

No one anticipated the animosity and punishment of the AFL, look at the way the protection racket the AFL tried to run with a club caught deliberately injecting players with untested performance enhancing drugs a far more disgusting form of cheating.

Nothing SoS said was negative about MLG.

 

[Blue since 72]

SOS was happy at a cost. Paying more meant either Betts' management requested above that, or Liddle felt extremely generous that day.

I'm choosing to believe the more logical of those situations.

SOS gave us the start and end of that story. It's reasonable to conclude that SOS was willing to walk away from the deal, and Liddle was not. People can draw their own conclusions though.

Regardless, I agree it was not about Betts or Simmo. It was about SOS. He's had his say now, so hopefully we can expect that to be the end of it.

It might not have been about Liddle feeling generous but more about what getting Eddie back would do for business.

The bolded bit is the most interesting part. Liddle would have had eyes on a potential membership bonanza While SOS would have been looking at the playing side of things and wanting to pay accordingly.

Competing priorities for sure.

 

[Sharks On A Plane]

Again, give me a specific of how his dealimgs with players and their contracts was to the detriment of the club as a whole.

Add to this, we now have considerable money to target players, along with a core group that this year was on the edge of making finals

I'm not saying that was necessarily the case, just that he's reportedly a prick of a person so it comes as no surprise that things might have gone pear-shaped with another 'ego' entering the chat.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Not arrogant as a list manager, as a person. It's well known he's not well liked by former players.

I had a chat with a former player (Barassi era) about the Blues about 2 weeks ago and he said the same thing, on his own accord.

He threw the club under the bus to say himself 20 odd years ago and now he's thrown his mate MLG under the bus. Top bloke!

*Unless he knows MLG is on his way out very shortly...even still, he's hurting his club again.

Would a Barassi era player know much about SOS as a person? I mean, unless they were employed by the club when SOS was a player or an employee, he'd only catch up with him when he attended reunions and SOS went along with Serge.

How did he throw MLG under the bus exactly? MLG tells him that Liddle thinks SOS will sabotage the draft and trade period. Was it supposed to be a secret?

 

[Gavstar]

It might not have been about Liddle feeling generous but more about what getting Eddie back would do for business.

The bolded bit is the most interesting part. Liddle would have had eyes on a potential membership bonanza While SOS would have been looking at the playing side of things and wanting to pay accordingly.

Competing priorities for sure.

Agree totally

We’ll never know if Eddie would have played for us for the lower amount because the negotiating strategy was undermined

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It might not have been about Liddle feeling generous but more about what getting Eddie back would do for business.

The bolded bit is the most interesting part. Liddle would have had eyes on a potential membership bonanza While SOS would have been looking at the playing side of things and wanting to pay accordingly.

Competing priorities for sure.

That's exactly what SOS stated. They had a pay structure in place, and SOS had used that well to right our salary cap issues when he came to the club. SOS has to work with the money he has to get player signed and re-signed. For a CEO to break that structure to make the area he is in charge of look better, without consultation, is a huge issue.

 

[Dropagrogan]

That is the thing!! They did not air there dirty laundry in the media, sorry he has shafted too many people out of self indulgence but they have more scruples than sos. Sorry but that is a fact, ask Fraser brown who threw him under the bus re the brown paper bags!! Banned him from all afl games ect because he has more integrity than your mate and refused to dob anyone in!! THAT IS FACT!! Not Bigfooty fiction!