List Mgmt. New List Manager

[Doro]

The most relevant fact here is that every club could do with a good membership sales bloke; CFC is no different. The incidental fact here is that membership growth has less to do with the functions of a CEO than it does with the functions of a good membership sales bloke.

I think the primary reason for moving Trigg on after his efforts with the 'reset' were to increase the membership numbers and expand the corporate network/ alternate revenue streams. This was Liddles primary task and one in which he is travelling well. The concern is that with the departure of SOS we might return to the incompetence we saw under Rogers, though I think this fear is a little unfounded on this occasion.

 

[JustaBattler]

That's it. If i'm not thinking like you, I must be naive.....because you're the smart one.

Liddle expressed what he was going to do and how he was going to do it and to date is doing it......but somehow you know better because......?

Please don't talk naive to me when you couldn't see what was happening and why it was happening. You know you don't have to try and be the hero all the time.

typical you response innit?

Liddle types are a dime a dozen - Carlton is now the easiest 'gig' for anyone to come in and CEO/Sell....

 

[DangerousD]

The most relevant fact here is that every club could do with a good membership sales bloke; CFC is no different. The incidental fact here is that membership growth has less to do with the functions of a CEO than it does with the functions of a good membership sales bloke.

what do you attribute our massively improved financial position?

our membership was up roughly 9000 if I’m not mistaken, that doesn’t equate to the numbers we produced this year.

I see many painting the CEO as a glorified membership man, they seem to ignore our fantastic financial position announced recently.

 

[DangerousD]

I think the primary reason for moving Trigg on after his efforts with the 'reset' were to increase the membership numbers and expand the corporate network/ alternate revenue streams. This was Liddles primary task and one in which he is travelling well. The concern is that with the departure of SOS we might return to the incompetence we saw under Rogers, though I think this fear is a little unfounded on this occasion.

Do you or anyone know how we ended up with guys who were so incompetent? Were they friends of friends, did they bluff their way to the job or was it a bad president making a bad decision?

 

[Doro]

Do you or anyone know how we ended up with guys who were so incompetent? Were they friends of friends, did they bluff their way to the job or was it a bad president making a bad decision?

A little bit of everything really. It was a culture of misguided arrogance whereby those running the club and in key posts were assured of their progress but there were no measures in place, no kpi's. Hughes and Rogers clearly worked the social network of the club to win position, with no outcome measures of their performance in place then the finger of blame could be pointed elsewhere if the players they selected failed (development/board) etc.

 

[HARKER]

The most relevant fact here is that every club could do with a good membership sales bloke; CFC is no different. The incidental fact here is that membership growth has less to do with the functions of a CEO than it does with the functions of a good membership sales bloke.

No it doesn't.

It take strategy - a means to an end - not just picking up the phone and making calls.
Our membership has risen under Liddle and by a marked way. It's undeniable that he's been the architect of this membership escalation.

 

[Opine]

I was told SOSs attitude and behaviour towards BB in the time Jack wasn’t getting picked, didn’t make for a good working relationship.

after reading several times on here, that they didn’t get along, I formed the opinion the relationship was strained.

I think you‘ve taken the concept of COI and expanded it well beyond its typical business application.

Without going into things too deeply, in the context which we’re discussing, COI is not a universaly applied standard as such. Rather, I think it’s concerned with impropriety determined according to the specific duties or responsibilities of the official whose conduct is in question. On that basis, how was SOS able to influence the coach or coaching staff, any more so than a boot studder with a bias towards a particular player? Even less perhaps than a former coach, now CEO, with a bias towards one of his previous players?

Even if there was relational tension between coach and LM, outside the meaning and scope COI, how was that relevant to business judgement not to renew SOS, given that the coach was no longer at the club? Furthermore, if COI extends to the level you’re suggesting, then we may as well tell the footy world now that we cannot entertain a third SOS FS because of its potential to strain relationships.

 

[Opine]

I think the more valid concern around COI in this instance was access to LM information and ability to influence LM decisions in a way that could procure a benefit for his kids. Which is why he removed himself from those processes and decisions.

 

[Opine]

No it doesn't.

It take strategy - a means to an end - not just picking up the phone and making calls.
Our membership has risen under Liddle and by a marked way. It's undeniable that he's been the architect of this membership escalation.

I agree. He’s the ultimate membership sales guru.

 

[Opine]

what do you attribute our massively improved financial position?

our membership was up roughly 9000 if I’m not mistaken, that doesn’t equate to the numbers we produced this year.

I see many painting the CEO as a glorified membership man, they seem to ignore our fantastic financial position announced recently.

Dunno, finance isn’t my thing.

 

[footyfan1978]

Hughes and Rogers clearly worked the social network of the club to win position, with no outcome measures of their performance in place then the finger of blame could be pointed elsewhere if the players they selected failed (development/board) etc.

The people appointing them with no clear strategy about list management were just as responsible in my eyes. There was no clear strategy to see in the time overall Just a year to year list adjustment without an overall strategy. Always frustrated me.

It looked like we finally woke up in 2015 to actually having a strategy lead by SOS.
Await to see if we continue what he set up or have learned nothing and lost the IP he was setting up for our club in this super important area.

 

[Coona Blues]

Liddle types are a dime a dozen - Carlton is now the easiest 'gig' for anyone to come in and CEO/Sell....

This is the whole crux of the matter. On field and list building is all but done.

I am sure it would have become strained around the upper management circles mid year.
Bolton playing the kids in the engine room for the sake of it. Fasolo, Garlett, Lang getting games ahead of JSOS, who was at that stage our best "pressure forward" Ed and Gibbo being made in to forwards. Murph on the periphery. Simmo next door to out the door being "managed" in turbulent times. McGovern treated like a messiah when he was treading water (to put it kindly).

SOS had Caro at him like a dog with a bone, and suddenly his department and role are under (public) internal review. Blokes like Liddle and Lloyd if worth their salt as footy administrators should have had the foresight and nous to read the situation. Suggests grabbing at the opportunity to install their own team as the only alternative to lack of footy acumen.

Jack may have been a point of contention SOS had trouble stomaching, but add some other names and decisions to that list. No doubt the Italian Stallion could become a bit abrasive, but I reckon there was plenty of fuel thrown on the fire. Like him or not. the bloke did a great job with the build. He was either intentionally or "inadvertantly" undermined

 

[blue_trinity]

Even if there was relational tension between coach and LM, outside the meaning and scope COI, how was that relevant to business judgement not to renew SOS, given that the coach was no longer at the club? Furthermore, if COI extends to the level you’re suggesting, then we may as well tell the footy world now that we cannot entertain a third SOS FS because of its potential to strain relationships.

Because it wasn’t just the one coach, and it wasn’t just the one issue.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Beyond boring.

No Mas.

 

[Opine]

Because it wasn’t just the one coach, and it wasn’t just the one issue.

So what, who gives 2 stale excrements whether he peed off a coach or 2. Are you suggesting that the next LM needs to be a yes man? I think you are. Bring on the yes men, especially now that the major work is done.

 

[blue_trinity]

So what, who gives 2 stale excrements whether he peed of a coach or 2. Are you suggesting that the next LM needs to be a yes man? I think you are. Bring on the yes men, especially now that the major work is done.

Bring on the men who are team players, bring on the men who do the job the are hired to do, and bring on the men who attend the meetings they are required to attend

 

[Opine]

Bring on the men who are team players, bring on the men who do the job the are hired to do, and bring on the men who attend the meetings they are required to attend

Many would say he’s well and truely delivered on what’s he’s been tasked to do; in spades. You don’t seem to agree ?

 

[blue_trinity]

The task being to re-build our list? I do agree, yes.

 

[DangerousD]

I think the more valid concern around COI in this instance was access to LM information and ability to influence LM decisions in a way that could procure a benefit for his kids. Which is why he removed himself from those processes and decisions.

Interesting, i have said from the start that i think by time the third boy arrived, i thought it would be time to move on, the more kids on the list and at a time when two of them should be playing regular 1s games, i thought there would be too many situations like you alluded to above.

I think you‘ve taken the concept of COI and expanded it well beyond its typical business application.

What i refer to as a COI might be different to the business application, as its a simple catch all for lots of issues that could potentially arise
A lot of your questions you raised in your above post, i simply don't know, i would only be giving my opinion. I stated that Silvagni attitude and behaviour when Jack wasn't getting picked was poor, this is all i was told about that situation, the opinion i have taken from that is, i think he has gone to Bolton and had stern words to him. SOS is a big part of the club, a big name, a revered figure, with a big role, having him criticising the coach because he isn't picking his son, is a huge overstep of his job description, totally unprofessional and it undermines the coach. SOS supposedly reported directly to the President, how would a coach feel about his position, knowing the LM who is a club legend and is mates with the President and reports directly to him, doesn't like your methods.

Bolts left mid season, that doesn't mean that the other coaches including Teague didn't see what went on and thought, hold on a second, am i going to fall out with this bloke as soon as i don't play his kid, if he thinks i should, how will he react, if i say trade him, delist him. Its been my view, all along, that many people would have had to of had an issue with SOS for him to be moved on. I can see no scenario where only 1 or 2 think he is a bad example, bad fit, has a bad attitude, or anything negative they might have discovered and have him moved on.

Furthermore, if COI extends to the level you’re suggesting, then we may as well tell the footy world now that we cannot entertain a third SOS FS because of its potential to strain relationships.

What makes you say this? SOS is gone and his kids now can have a career free from BS that has surrounded their pick ups.

 

[Opine]

The task being to re-build our list? I do agree, yes.

Great. Now the FD can concentrate on setting up its meetings with max turnout; because they're really really important.

 

[DangerousD]

Dunno, finance isn’t my thing.

Just one or two posts above you are being condescending towards the CEO that he's just a membership guru and others do this too. This year, we had roughly 9000 more members than the year before, its really good and a membership guru has played a big part. Im not big into finance but im pretty confident that a 9000 people increase in membership numbers doesn't account for the massive jump in revenue we have had.

Yes membership has grown, but revenue has grown and debt has shrunk, off field appointments have been impressive and a big money PP upgrade is coming, the CEO deserves credit for a lot of this, not just memberships.

 

[Opine]

Interesting, i have said from the start that i think by time the third boy arrived, i thought it would be time to move on, the more kids on the list and at a time when two of them should be playing regular 1s games, i thought there would be too many situations like you alluded to above.



What i refer to as a COI might be different to the business application, as its a simple catch all for lots of issues that could potentially arise
A lot of your questions you raised in your above post, i simply don't know, i would only be giving my opinion. I stated that Silvagni attitude and behaviour when Jack wasn't getting picked was poor, this is all i was told about that situation, the opinion i have taken from that is, i think he has gone to Bolton and had stern words to him. SOS is a big part of the club, a big name, a revered figure, with a big role, having him criticising the coach because he isn't picking his son, is a huge overstep of his job description, totally unprofessional and it undermines the coach. SOS supposedly reported directly to the President, how would a coach feel about his position, knowing the LM who is a club legend and is mates with the President and reports directly to him, doesn't like your methods.

Bolts left mid season, that doesn't mean that the other coaches including Teague didn't see what went on and thought, hold on a second, am i going to fall out with this bloke as soon as i don't play his kid, if he thinks i should, how will he react, if i say trade him, delist him. Its been my view, all along, that many people would have had to of had an issue with SOS for him to be moved on. I can see no scenario where only 1 or 2 think he is a bad example, bad fit, has a bad attitude, or anything negative they might have discovered and have him moved on.



What makes you say this? SOS is gone and his kids now can have a career free from BS that has surrounded their pick ups.

All that matters now is that the new LM is expected, through his involvement, to result in optimal FD/LM performance; and to be a regular attendee at all meetings. I'm excited.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Duran just gave up.

This.......

What is the point???

 

[windows1]

Simon and Garfunkel said it better .... "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest"

Close

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

 

[Opine]

Just one or two posts above you are being condescending towards the CEO that he's just a membership guru and others do this too. This year, we had roughly 9000 more members than the year before, its really good and a membership guru has played a big part. Im not big into finance but im pretty confident that a 9000 people increase in membership numbers doesn't account for the massive jump in revenue we have had.

Yes membership has grown, but revenue has grown and debt has shrunk, off field appointments have been impressive and a big money PP upgrade is coming, the CEO deserves credit for a lot of this, not just memberships.

He's a membership sales whiz; the auto renewals idea was brilliant. A true sales star. Sell Sell.