What has happenned?

[Bluebear]

lol thrawn i would love to see you come out each week and play with this spirit and passion playing in a list that has been compared to fitzroys. or are u one of those that thought in the previous years we had enough talent to play finals? try and understand that after a while beating after beating takes its toll physically and mentally. it is a sick feeling to walk on to the football field and no that u are just so hopelessly outmatched and that your only hope is that the oppostion has an off day or u will lose by 100 points.
this is the reality that has been confronting our players. what is happening is completely normally in a side devoid of expereince. as they get older the condifence will come and their performance will improve. all of a sudden the veterans will be seen as hard working and that they do give a stuff. i'm tired of being nice to posters that sprout rubbish. if u think i am being condescending then to bad. i think it is you that need to get a clue if you serously believe that players don't give a stuff or are lazy lol. i have no respect for that opinion.

Sure, but when you actually get out to good 4 goal leads, surely that must provide some confidence. Why then at these points do we get lazy and let teams over run us, rather than rally and try even harder?

When was the last time you saw a Carlton midfielder come off during a rotation absolutely spent?

 

[audas]

Continual ad hominem attacks don't make what you are saying true. I agree that the corporate mentality was THE culture of football in the 80s, and that we were the best at it. At the time, football had no draft or salary cap - the biggest, baddest fish took all, just like in the corporate world. It was equality on the field, but not on the field, and we took full advantage. The problem was, that became entrenched as our culture. When the game went national, the playing field was levelled out, other clubs adapted. We didn't. You talk about Carlton being the most successful team in history - that simply isn't true. Sure, we won 16 premierships, but those were in a different era, a different time. In the modern era of football, we've won 2, and those were largely the legacy of our prior success. We've also won 3 wooden spoons, and finished in the bottom 2 in 5 of the last 6 seasons. Something clearly is wrong, and it didn't start in 2002.

When you talk about socialism in football - its not such a bad concept to grasp. sport in general is predicated on the idea that everyone starts equal, and plays on their merits. Its a team sport, and that means you need to balance the team. You can't have a corporate pay structure, with the best getting grossly overpaid, because of the salary cpa, and the need to find 22 good players each week. Anyway, its a metaphor, not a perfect analogy, but I think its one that works pretty well to explain why we suck, and continue to suck.

I used recent examples before, but I could go back further. We ignored the draft right from the start. In the late 80s, we cleaned up by picking the best pieces from all around the country - Kernahan, Bradley, Dorotich, etc. That set us us for the next decade, really helped to hide our poor drafting over that entire period. The premiership team in 1987 was put together prior to the draft period. Our 1995 premiership team featured only 4 players intially drafted by the club: McKay, Sexton, Whitehead, Camporeale. The rest either were in place prior to 1987, came through the reserves system (ie Koutoufides, Ratten, Brown), or in particular, were 'headhunted' from other clubs (Spalding, Hogg, Pearce, Clape, Madden, Manton, Rice, Spalding, Williams). Of course, most teams also ignored the draft initially, but the period from 1996-2002 is what killed us. Our poor drafting in that period is pretty well documented, so I don't think I need to run through our list of woes again now...

But back to that 'corporate culture', and the 4 woes I identified. The point I was making with that culture is that is was something that WAS successful for a time. Those factors are clearly identifiable right through the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. In both periods, whenever we were struggling, we chased 'great men'; Barassi, Kernahan and Williams being the prime examples. We didn't cheat to get the interstate players we did in the late 80s, but we certainly played the system to the absolute limit. And in those days, giving jobs to your mates worked pretty well, because all clubs did it; and we had more money and the best players to start with, so it usually worked out ok.

The point I was making with coaching changes and the 'jobs for the boys' mentality was the lack of due process. Brittain was annointed Parkin's successor, and the job handed over to him. He may be a scapegoat now, but he was certainly involved in the processes that led to his dismissal. Pagan was brought in by Elliot, just another great man. His style was completely wrong for us initially; did we run due dilligence in our coaching search and just stuff up the selection, or did we just throw money at the problem to make it go away? As for Ratten, he came in with very little applicable coaching experience, performed terribly late last year as a caretaker (including some horrific coaching errors in the last few rounds), yet was still appointed.

Back on the salary cap scandals, you are completely mistaken if you believe that was entirely between the president and the players involved. Clubs don't, or shouldn't operate like that. Someone has to sign the cheques, sign off on the accounts. Players have managers and agents who learn about these things. Players talk to their team-mates. Sure, Elliot was a dictator, but we let him get that way. Then, as soon as the shit hit the fan, we pretended it was all him. But we let his cronies hang around, never really cleaned shop, and now there's a push to get him back involved.

As for where we are now - my argument remains the same. Ever since we hit the bottom in '02, we've been looking to play the system, to find the quick fix. First it was Pagan and a whole stack of recycled players. Then it was deliberately losing games to add extra draft picks. Then it was manipulating the Judd situation. Now its stretching the rules to pay amateur Irish players. Instead of doing the hard yards, rebuilding the club and preparing for the future, we're still doing it the old way. But how long do we sit back and watch it happen for?

Anyway, I'd prefer it if you came back with some reasonable argument, instead of just ad hominem bullshit.

Quite clearly your posts are derived from a very slender understanding of what the corporate culture is - at best - a totally distorted picture based on shibboleths, stereo-types and left wing cliches - ad hominem for a VERY good reason - you are not presented coherent arguments - rather personal anxieties translated without substantiation into generalised attacks against "Corporate Culture". you arguments at time border on reasonable - and then meander off into anti capitalist / corporate diatribes.

Stick to your underlying arguments because your corporate culture analogy is completely ridiculous - it is so obvious that you are presenting this argument framed within a personal agenda of anti-corporate hatred. Your arguments are consistently hypocritical and self denying.

If you want to say that Pagan was appointed without due process then say it - but trying show that this is a Corporate manifestation is patently ridiculous - due process is followed in corporations - it breaks down when individuals behave poorly.

Even in your response you have indicated that players should be paid an equal salary - how absurd ! Seriously - some of points were verging on accetable if nothing other than rehashes of the history of football - your anti corporate diatribes are just that - anti corporate outbursts with no real meaning beyond emotional angst and logical illiteracy.

As it happens the best thing that has happened to the carlton football club is the intervention of one of Australia's biggest corporate kings - find me a person on this board who things Dick Pratts involvement with the club is bad thing.

you rave on about colingwood - I point out their corporate culture - and no response.

You call for firing and cuts of the most vindictive kind - a heartless corporate act if ever I have seen one - no response.

you call football clubs who maintain relationships with past players a corporate approach ?

Get over your anti- corporate agenda mate - it may be the root of all evil in your liberal head but beyond that is completely inconsistent.

cheers.

 

[nutcase888]

posted by Bluebear
Sure, but when you actually get out to good 4 goal leads, surely that must provide some confidence. Why then at these points do we get lazy and let teams over run us, rather than rally and try even harder?

When was the last time you saw a Carlton midfielder come off during a rotation absolutely spent?

i don't think we get lazy. there are two teams out there. maybe st kilda thought shit...we better lift, when they fell 4 goals behind. when our lads felt there surge in intensity they begain to panic. at least thats one of my theories. i am prepared to accept that they are mentally fragile but this is diffrent to not caring or lacking pride and passion in the jumper. i cannot accept some of Thrawns statements that certain players are lazy or do not give a stuff. its far more complex than that. i'm not responding to thrawns post b/c i will just get upset and mouth off again and i don't want to do that. but its not because i don't have a reply but we are going around in circles here and i have made my point.

 

[btdg]

Quite clearly your posts are derived from a very slender understanding of what the corporate culture is - at best - a totally distorted picture based on shibboleths, stereo-types and left wing cliches - ad hominem for a VERY good reason - you are not presented coherent arguments - rather personal anxieties translated without substantiation into generalised attacks against "Corporate Culture". you arguments at time border on reasonable - and then meander off into anti capitalist / corporate diatribes.

Stick to your underlying arguments because your corporate culture analogy is completely ridiculous - it is so obvious that you are presenting this argument framed within a personal agenda of anti-corporate hatred. Your arguments are consistently hypocritical and self denying.

If you want to say that Pagan was appointed without due process then say it - but trying show that this is a Corporate manifestation is patently ridiculous - due process is followed in corporations - it breaks down when individuals behave poorly.

Even in your response you have indicated that players should be paid an equal salary - how absurd ! Seriously - some of points were verging on accetable if nothing other than rehashes of the history of football - your anti corporate diatribes are just that - anti corporate outbursts with no real meaning beyond emotional angst and logical illiteracy.

As it happens the best thing that has happened to the carlton football club is the intervention of one of Australia's biggest corporate kings - find me a person on this board who things Dick Pratts involvement with the club is bad thing.

you rave on about colingwood - I point out their corporate culture - and no response.

You call for firing and cuts of the most vindictive kind - a heartless corporate act if ever I have seen one - no response.

you call football clubs who maintain relationships with past players a corporate approach ?

Get over your anti- corporate agenda mate - it may be the root of all evil in your liberal head but beyond that is completely inconsistent.

cheers.

The 'corporate culture' phrase was just a metaphor, as you pointed out before, not one that was coined by myself. Most people had no difficulty with that concept. And its one that the Carlton football club and fans have embraced, as far as I can see. Obviously there are benefits that go along with such a culture; as I pointed out, in the 80s those benefits extended to on-field performance as well.

My point was that there are certain elements entrenched in the culture of the carlton football club that mirror certain ugly elements found in the corporate world. As an analogy, it was one that most people understood, and several others agreed with. You don't have to be a die-hard socialist to have witnessed instances in which corporate cultures have gone rotten, in some cases due to similar factors to those affecting the Carlton football club; cheating or manipulating the 'system', seeking quick fixes, artificially inflating expectations to cover entrenched problems, putting undue faith in the ability of 'great men', and covering up for your mates. If I implied that ALL corporate cultures are like that, then that was perhaps a bit misleading; most people understood though, and no metaphors are perfect. I did, in fact originally describe it as 'our rotten corporate culture', although I do concede that I did generalise a bit about corporations after that...

As for your specfic claims:
- first of all, its not really that relevant what my political beliefs about corporations are. What is important is the relevance of the metaphor to the Carlton football club. We could debate all day whether or not I'm right or wrong about corporations in general, but that seems off topic to me.

- Secondly, no-where did I advocate all players being paid the same. You are setting up straw-man arguments here. What I did say was that corporate pay structures are unreasonable in AFL football due to the salary cap. I'm assuming (based on your apparent background in business) that you are familiar with the 'tournament' theory as it applies to corporate pay structures that see CEOs getting many multiple times the average wage? While the reasoning underpinning that theory might apply to a non-salary cap sporting league, in the AFL, minimum salaries, contract structures and the need to balance a team mean it doesn't really work. For starters, its not necessarily anti-corporate to point out the exorbitant salaries paid to the top people. Nor is it anti-corporate to believe that similar structures won't work in the AFL. In addition, a rejection of anti-corporate structures doesn't mean an advocacy of equality of salary.

- Thirdly, my point about due process in the coaching selections I think remains relevant. My point in relation to corporations was more the 'boys club' mentality. Ratten's prime factor in getting hte job appears to be his background as a Carlton player, and closeness with several board members. Nothing in his prior coaching resume or his stint as caretaker indicates he was the best candidate available. Prior to that, Pagan was 'head-hunted' as a saviour, without much apparent thought to his suitability for the position. The coach prior to that was annointed successor to the previous coach without due process. I guess you are correct in pointing out that good corporations WOULD follow due process; my defence would again be that my metaphor was intended towards the elements of bad corporate practice that get those corporations into trouble.

- As for Collingwood, no-where did I 'rave on' about them. I simply contrasted their drafting practice, which appears to be continuous rebuilding, to our prior claim to be a club that never rebuilds. Collingwood are probably as 'corporate' as we are, but better managed at this point.

- On Dick Pratt, I think its probably best we bide our time before annointing him the 'best thing that has happened to the club' (really? Better than winning 3 premierships in 4 years in the late 70s?). In the late 90s, most Carlton people thought John Elliot was good for the club. I don't think Pratt will end up having quite the same effect, but at the same time I'm not sure his influence is necessarily as great as people make out. Time will be the judge on that, but at this point its still open to interpretation. His influence certainly hasn't had much impact on the field so far...

- I don't have an issue with football clubs maintaining relationships with past players. I do have an issue with football clubs giving them directorships for life, or not holding those past players employed by the club to the same standards as other employees. I also have an issue with clubs paying past players illegally to circumvent the salary cap, and I have an issue with past players being appointed to significant positions in the club (such as head coach) if it is likely to be to the detriment of our on-field performance. I think those types of relationships go beyond what is reasonable for a sporting club.

- As for my calling for firings and cuts; I would suggest that those involved in the past salary cap scandal are not fit to be directors of a football club. I don't think that is unreasonable. Yet several still remain in place.