List Mgmt. New List Manager

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The point is it’s clear COI is only one reason, the others will never ever come out from the club yet people are sooking it up because they are being “lied to”
Guess what, you are not being lied to, COI was an issue. The rest does nobody any good, and to be frank you or anyone don’t need to know or have an official line from the club about what happened overall.

I haven’t posted in this thread before today for quite sometime thinking the drivel will dry out yet here we are still going on about COI and laying into people in the club like SOS was a deity of some sort and beyond reproach


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

You're not doing your argument any favours by dismissing others as sooking it up. It's rude and dismissive and not conducive to discussion. By all means, state your objections. Don't attack posters personally though.

 

[Arr0w]

This is where development pathways/academy’s have to go hand in hand with recruiting.

And our development had been goddawful.

It’s like they read the draft profiles, read ‘chf’ like it was a Scanlens footy card and wouldn’t play the poor bloke anywhere else.

Bit of that, but also the talent you bring in, plus group improvement

Jones was a struggling forward, now a very decent backman

Levi a forward that couldn't kick, now slots them at league average as well as being a decent ruckman and a born again defender

SPS HB Flanker

A struggling side exposes flaws, a successful one limits those flaws

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Exactly.

SPS was a real win for us in 2019.

High expectation, was starting to get a bit ‘floaty’, couldn’t force his way into the middle, so they put him behind the ball, where he just shone.

That development is priceless for his footy.

 

[Rosscoe]

The point is it’s clear COI is only one reason, the others will never ever come out from the club yet people are sooking it up because they are being “lied to”
Guess what, you are not being lied to, COI was an issue. The rest does nobody any good, and to be frank you or anyone don’t need to know or have an official line from the club about what happened overall.

I haven’t posted in this thread before today for quite sometime thinking the drivel will dry out yet here we are still going on about COI and laying into people in the club like SOS was a deity of some sort and beyond reproach


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Sos is not a deity and neither is anyone else at the club.

Big Decisions like this require responsibility and accountability.

Without answers we have neither.

 

[Arr0w]

The point is it’s clear COI is only one reason, the others will never ever come out from the club yet people are sooking it up because they are being “lied to”
Guess what, you are not being lied to, COI was an issue. The rest does nobody any good, and to be frank you or anyone don’t need to know or have an official line from the club about what happened overall.

I haven’t posted in this thread before today for quite sometime thinking the drivel will dry out yet here we are still going on about COI and laying into people in the club like SOS was a deity of some sort and beyond reproach


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

If you think COI was the main issue for any employee being moved on, you are kidding yourself

I have no allegiance to SOS per se, but I am a supporter of his mindset and list management strategies.

I hope the next person follows suit

 

[DangerousD]

I also reached a conclusion as to what may have happened, albeit clearly contrary to the conclusion you reached, from taking a comment by one of our valued ITK’s at face value; namely, that the club looked at the possibility of intervening and concluded that it wasn’t legally practicable to do so. On that basis, I’ve not considered the decision not to renew SOS in 2020 as a club wide decision, but rather an executive based decision; the extent of which is unclear.

I thought that comment you re referring to, was ridiculous. I don't know his contract situation, so its just my opinion. Football clubs, generally, don't keep coaches or staff, who they think are doing a bad job or destabilising the club, due to contracts.

We just cut Bolts and before him MM, the AFL is filled with examples of letting employees go, whilst under contract.

I don't see how it would be true, on what legal grounds would Liddle challenge a sacking, other than to be paid out his contract? I can't find anything that says, how these guys are paid or length of deal.

Interesting quote to base your opinion off, but im sure you have other pieces that have helped form your opinion.

 

[DangerousD]

If you think COI was the main issue for any employee being moved on, you are kidding yourself

What makes you think otherwise? COI has many interpretations and is the main reason given by the club. Do you have any information that suggests otherwise?

 

[teagueyubeauty]

If you think COI was the main issue for any employee being moved on, you are kidding yourself

I have no allegiance to SOS per se, but I am a supporter of his mindset and list management strategies.

I hope the next person follows suit

I certainly don’t think, and never have from the first minute the story broke, that COI was the overriding reason.

Need to be pretty simple to think it was only about that


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[teagueyubeauty]

You're not doing your argument any favours by dismissing others as sooking it up. It's rude and dismissive and not conducive to discussion. By all means, state your objections. Don't attack posters personally though.

It’s been how long now? I’m over reading the dribble about it, unfortunately I’ll be reading all about the next guy put in place like SOS never got anything wrong...can absolutely bookmark that


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It’s been how long now? I’m over reading the dribble about it, unfortunately I’ll be reading all about the next guy put in place like SOS never got anything wrong...can absolutely bookmark that


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Perhaps others might be over your take on things as well. You each have the opportunity to ignore content, rather than use your frustration to try to quell discussion.

 

[thylacine60]

I'm indisputably opinion free, aren't I ODN?

 

[Thehurdle]

Perhaps others might be over your take on things as well. You each have the opportunity to ignore content, rather than use your frustration to try to quell discussion.

In a direct conversation with someone very senior at the Club in August the club was saying in the context due to SOS’s boys being at the club, “Stephen is going to have to make a difficult decision at the end of the year“. Before Betts, before Ellis. The way it played out, sounds like the Club made the decision. Something seems to have changed. All I can conclude is COI was a material issue well before year end.

 

[Ricky Mott]

The point is it’s clear COI is only one reason, the others will never ever come out from the club yet people are sooking it up because they are being “lied to”
Guess what, you are not being lied to, COI was an issue. The rest does nobody any good, and to be frank you or anyone don’t need to know or have an official line from the club about what happened overall.

I haven’t posted in this thread before today for quite sometime thinking the drivel will dry out yet here we are still going on about COI and laying into people in the club like SOS was a deity of some sort and beyond reproach


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

It was never a conflict of issue 5 years ago or even one year ago. It was a power play by Liddle so he can control the football department with all his mates in the main football department position. SOS was the only person holding him and his mates to account. The club has a group of yes men now.

 

[HARKER]

It was never a conflict of issue 5 years ago or even one year ago. It was a power play by Liddle so he can control the football department with all his mates in the main football department position. SOS was the only person holding him and his mates to account. The club has a group of yes men now.

This as a whole, simply cannot be true and isn't true.

If it was Liddle and Liddle alone, the push-back would have come from other areas. Head of football etc.
Liddle just did the bidding for others here. This should be somewhat clear that many were not happy with SOS and had genuine reasons not to be.

Not being happy with someone isn't though enough of a reason to make one walk when they're effectively doing their job well., therefore there were other elements in play.

The sealer here is.....and it's important -
Silvagni was effectively shown the door without us having a replacement. Plan A was to get SOS out and we'll worry about the rest later.
That confirms to me that there is more to the story than simply a COI.

 

[Arr0w]

What makes you think otherwise? COI has many interpretations and is the main reason given by the club. Do you have any information that suggests otherwise?

So you think SOS wasn't retained, due to his sons being on our list?

 

[Ricky Mott]

This as a whole, simply cannot be true and isn't true.

If it was Liddle and Liddle alone, the push-back would have come from other areas. Head of football etc.
Liddle just did the bidding for others here. This should be somewhat clear that many were not happy with SOS and had genuine reasons not to be.

Not being happy with someone isn't though enough of a reason to make one walk when they're effectively doing their job well., therefore there were other elements in play.

The sealer here is.....and it's important -
Silvagni was effectively shown the door without us having a replacement. Plan A was to get SOS out and we'll worry about the rest later.
That confirms to me that there is more to the story than simply a COI.

How can it not be a power play when Liddle,Lloyd,Agresta and Villani are best mates. SOS held the boys club to account!!

 

[HARKER]

How can it not be a power play when Liddle,Lloyd,Agresta and Villani are best mates. SOS held the boys club to account!!

Play it out Ricky.

On what grounds did these villains set-out to bring about the demise of SOS? This question is the one that requires an answer.
They didn't just set out to split up what they thought was a boys club (SOS, MLG, Mathieson...being the by-product ) without zero reason.

If Agresta had grievances - What were they and why?
If Lloyd had his grievances - What were they and why?
If Teague had his grievances with SOS - What were they and why?
I doubt it was simply Liddle going rogue here but he had reasons to respond on behalf of others, whether they be good/bad/honest/disingenuous reasons and in the end SOS's mate and ally, MLG couldn't help him. Why?

My conspiracy theory here is - Liddle, Lloyd, Agresta and Teague had genuine concerns about SOS's ways but they weren't alone. They must have had an ally somewhere else, but this ally could not have been MLG.
Moving on SOS may have been the right thing to do, but I still feel there's a bigger picture somewhere hidden from plain sight right now.

 

[ferrisb]

The only thing that has gone on behind closed doors is the corruption of our CEO. When we have our two major heads of our football club sneaking out the back of our stadium to avoid media over this whole fiasco tells you a little about the people in charge.
We have yet to hear from our president or CEO yet. Both hiding behind a press release and a forum for members online!!
Weak weak weak. Both have shown poor leadership and yet to own their decision.

I was very sad to see SOS go.

But I have no idea what happened behind the scenes. As is the case for 99% of us here.

I think too many posters are using one of these...

 

[JustaBattler]

How can it not be a power play when Liddle,Lloyd,Agresta and Villani are best mates. SOS held the boys club to account!!

What does "holding them to account" mean though?

I think the whole breakdown boils down to the noobies V the bloke who put a list together that delivered 4 out of 41 game wins got their way for good reason(s) 6 months ago...

Bolton was exited and SOS was next in line - that is why Liddle went public and hard about a full footy department review at the same time as Bolton was exited - the no 'training wheels' comment by Judd reflected the Board's views on Bolton and the apparent lack of on field progress AND the likely type of coach replacement ( targets) they were considering.

Also puts into perspective Teague's own words about whether he wanted to be coach next year or not - I don't think he was a lay down first choice of the Board at all.

What happened though was that the playing group lifted their own on field performance - maybe the go out there and try and score more and think less was all it took. The winning and the clearly better performances took the heat off the Bolton exit issue and made supporters feel good - evidenced by crowd numbers if nothing else.

But the power shift had already occurred - SOS was now part of a List management committee and subject to a year end review. Agresta was there ready to take over on the so called 'agreed transition'. Lloyd (whatever he does) would want his own views and status reinforced. Liddle would want to cut any direct report to the Board from an underling (SOS) - standard CEO practise.

Simple as that.

Demonising SOS or deifying him isn't useful - these are just words used to criticise different views on the likely future performance of what management team remains.

It could very well be that there is now enough positive momentum to advance the CLub's on field performances sufficiently to further increase memberships and sponsorships and provide the financial wherewithal to continue the corporatising of Carlton - delivering a financially powerful 'real' Top4 Club.

It could very well be that sustainable success demands a more corporate and less 'hero' operating structure.

Pushed for a view I would say that the corporate model as long as it is sustainably funded is a better model than ( for arguments sake) the Messiah model.

However - a big opportunity was lost in not managing for a proper transition. The romance of a favoured son leaving on good terms after finishing his work would have been a preferable outcome.

As things stand now - the failure to ensure that a good marketing story and a more unified continuity paying due respect to the rebuild is a significant failure of management. There is also enough evidence to suggest that those now in control - dont have the runs on the board as far as list management goes (really) - but whoever does put their hand up for the job - will certainly be the type that 'fits' the new model.

On field wins are everything.

 

[SurreyBlue]

Liddle and Lloyd have created a mess that will either bury them or elevate them. I know were my money is placed.

 

[Benaly28]

Headed for record membership,made a major profit this year,have a list ready for success,not sure what more we can do other to have on field success now.Not everyone gets along with everyone in the workplace.Sos aside it’s not looking that bad as some have suggested.

 

[Ricky Mott]

Headed for record membership,made a major profit this year,have a list ready for success,not sure what more we can do other to have on field success now.Not everyone gets along with everyone in the workplace.Sos aside it’s not looking that bad as some have suggested.

not sure there would have been a record profit or membership with the list that sos was hand four years ago.

it’s an easy time to come in and increase membership and increase profit with the state of the list.

 

[ESKIE]

he's gone, he’s gone
Oh, why
Oh, why
I better learn how to face it

 

[thylacine60]

It's a bit like some are going through the 5 stages of grief following SOS' departure.

spot on - unfortunately there's a 6th..........

1. denial - no ****ing way
2. anger - I'll get you for this Liddle/SOS
3. bargaining - just let SOS finish the job he started, please!
4. depression - oh my, I'm so depressed
5. acceptance - oh well, stewing over things won't help anyone
6. nah, **** that, I'm bridging the seasons with this situation

 

[Opine]

I thought that comment you re referring to, was ridiculous. I don't know his contract situation, so its just my opinion. Football clubs, generally, don't keep coaches or staff, who they think are doing a bad job or destabilising the club, due to contracts.

We just cut Bolts and before him MM, the AFL is filled with examples of letting employees go, whilst under contract.

I don't see how it would be true, on what legal grounds would Liddle challenge a sacking, other than to be paid out his contract? I can't find anything that says, how these guys are paid or length of deal.

Interesting quote to base your opinion off, but im sure you have other pieces that have helped form your opinion.

I’m satisfied as to the reasonable plausibility of the scenario communicated by B70.