Jump to content

  • Latest Podcast: Brad Green

Big Carl

Peter Jackson's Replacement?

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Just on SEN - Stephen Trigg available and discussing he'd be a good fit for Dees perhaps.

Salary Cap rorter @crows..

 

Are you kidding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

Salary Cap rorter @crows..

 

Are you kidding?

Read what I wrote, I didn't suggest the guy....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Just on SEN - Stephen Trigg available and discussing he'd be a good fit for Dees perhaps.

For goodness me, a twice failed CEO? A good fit? Simply wont happen.

it seems there is a fair bit of mates pumping up mates happening here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blinkybill said:

For goodness me, a twice failed CEO? A good fit? Simply wont happen.

it seems there is a fair bit of mates pumping up mates happening here.

Lucky KB still hates CS for sacking him.

We would have to listen to him flogging him on SEN as a great CEO if they were mates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trigg mustn’t have watched must football lately, he must think we’re still crap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Huh?

While there are MCC reps on the board, where have any of the current board displayed any of the qualities that you have listed above? In fact, who exactly on the board do you take issue with? Glenn Bartlett (an old school tie MCC type if I ever saw one)?

Now I am convinced this is dee-luded. Just need a few multi colored letters and different text types, more bizarre non sequiturs (though your Don Pyke thread was a pretty true to form), references to the Northern stand and the social club and the gig will be up.

This current running of this club is the best I have witnessed since the early 70's. 

And I assume the board is doing this as well ?

 

CBF, you always lower yourself to play the man, when you have a weak argument, but still try to argue the point. just because you think your protecting the club. 

But we have to look at our failures, to grow from them.

 

This board has been under heavy scrutiny from the AFL, who have cast a strong eye over our board appointees, since they sent us PJ and Roosy.

And so they should have, because of the hopeless work done by our boards/admins over the past 50 years.

I am of the strong opinion that the issue with our past weak boards is the Mcc influence, and therefore the reluctance to change from that.

The club needs to change from where and what it has been.  It is not solely the lack of success that's been our problem.

It has all stemmed from the decisions made;,, from hiring of personnel;,,  to decisions made that effect the supporters and how they feel about our club.
 

We have been an absolute basket case of a club for 50+ years. 

Our support base has been weakened in that time, when other teams have gone from strength to strength, as clubs.

 

We cannot claim we are a power club now, as we have recently added a number of members who are climbing on, since we have got the excitement back.

 

The time to judge the strength of a club and its support base is when it's struggling.

 

.

Edited by DV8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, DV8 said:

This current running of this club is the best I have witnessed since the early 70's. 

And I assume the board is doing this as well ?

 

CBF, you always lower yourself to play the man, when you have a weak argument, but still try to argue the point. just because you think your protecting the club. 

But we have to look at our failures, to grow from them.

 

This board has been under heavy scrutiny from the AFL, who have cast a strong eye over our board appointees, since they sent us PJ and Roosy.

And so they should have, because of the hopeless work done by our boards/admins over the past 50 years.

I am of the strong opinion that the issue with our past weak boards is the Mcc influence, and therefore the reluctance to change from that.

The club needs to change from where and what it has been.  It is not solely the lack of success that's been our problem.

It has all stemmed from the decisions made;,, from hiring of personnel;,,  to decisions made that effect the supporters and how they feel about our club.
 

We have been an absolute basket case of a club for 50+ years. 

Our support base has been weakened in that time, when other teams have gone from strength to strength, as clubs.

 

We cannot claim we are a power club now, as we have recently added a number of members who are climbing on, since we have got the excitement back.

 

The time to judge the strength of a club and its support base is when it's struggling.

 

.

OK. I'll bite. 

Again I ask, who on the board is suspect? You speak in broad generalizations but never put anything up to back up what you are saying except tales of the 50's when Norm Smith supposedly murdered people with a cattle stun gun, Anton Chigurh style, for being unable to kick both feet.

The only time I have heard league HQ ever express doubts about our board is when Alan Stockdale and Jeff Kennett were thinking of running for the board. And even that was second hand from PJ on 'On the Couch' all the way back in 2013. Where and when have they 'put serious scrutiny on our current board'? The board as far as I'm concerned has done it's job in actual oversight of the club while setting broader organizational direction e.g. Moving out of the gaming industry.

Secondly, they never 'sent' us Paul Roos. PJ headhunted Roos and was on the record as saying if he couldn't convince him then he would pursue either Rocket Eade or Mark Williams. If he was sent as you claim, those two would never have been in consideration.

For all your confidence in Gill and Co., he is now one step away from being forced to testify in a civil case into his conduct during the supplements saga (which the AFL made an absolute pigs ear of). He is the same Gill who put forth the most pizz weak condemnation of what was happening to Adam Goodes for fear of upsetting undefined stakeholders. The same bloke who lead an organization so arrogant that is was willing to tell Victoria Police that it would handle Dusty Martin and Chopstickgate. To me that smacks of an organization that values expediency and PR over actual corporate integrity.

Oh, he was also in charge when his mate Simon, as well as others, were busy with young female staff members. If those are the type of people who will be under consideration then forget it.

Your concept of football is bound to a bygone age that no longer exists. You can continue to live in a past that has little relevance to now or see things as they actually are.

 

 

Edited by Colin B. Flaubert
Wanted to add a few more points
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Probably out of our price range but James Sutherland's done a better job than his current reputation reflects as the CEO of cricket Aus. Launched the Big Bash, made some big money with a TV deal, done the rounds with the players on a pay deal. Worth a phone call at least to see if he wants to move his office just down the street. The more competition the better.

I don't share your enthusiasm for James Sutherland. In my view under his watch cricket has gone backwards overall. I accept that there has been great progress in women's cricket and the Big Bash, but cricket is no longer the dominant summer pastime like it used to be.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cricket does not now get the TV coverage that it once received.

I can remember seeing regular reports and even live coverage of Sheffield Shield matches. This doesn't happen now.

How many of us could name the best players in each State team, or which ones are pushing for national selection?

And when less cricket is shown live on TV interest in the game will dwindle considerably.

Recent on field bloopers and general boorish sledging do little to enhance the once popular sport.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I don't share your enthusiasm for James Sutherland. In my view under his watch cricket has gone backwards overall. I accept that there has been great progress in women's cricket and the Big Bash, but cricket is no longer the dominant summer pastime like it used to be.  

Hmmmm!!! 

This from Chip Le Grand in The Australian today.

When he took over Cricket Australia in 2001, its total revenue was about $50 million a year. That figure is now about $500m a year

According to Cricket Australia records, 436,000 people played cricket in some form in the 2000-01 financial year. Total participation in cricket now stands at 1,429,523 — about one in every 20 Australians.

The important number for ­Sutherland is 135,223. This is the number of primary school-aged girls and boys who play the game. Nearly 36,000 of them are ­enrolled in Milo Cricket and 20,567 play T20 Blast. Neither ­program existed in 2001. A further 79,000 play junior club cricket.

Also record attendances at Tests last summer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

OK. I'll bite. 

Again I ask, who on the board is suspect? You speak in broad generalizations but never put anything up to back up what you are saying except tales of the 50's when Norm Smith supposedly murdered people with a cattle stun gun, Anton Chigurh style, for being unable to kick both feet.

The only time I have heard league HQ ever express doubts about our board is when Alan Stockdale and Jeff Kennett were thinking of running for the board. And even that was second hand from PJ on 'On the Couch' all the way back in 2013. Where and when have they 'put serious scrutiny on our current board'? The board as far as I'm concerned has done it's job in actual oversight of the club while setting broader organizational direction e.g. Moving out of the gaming industry.

Secondly, they never 'sent' us Paul Roos. PJ headhunted Roos and was on the record as saying if he couldn't convince him then he would pursue either Rocket Eade or Mark Williams. If he was sent as you claim, those two would never have been in consideration.

For all your confidence in Gill and Co., he is now one step away from being forced to testify in a civil case into his conduct during the supplements saga (which the AFL made an absolute pigs ear of). He is the same Gill who put forth the most pizz weak condemnation of what was happening to Adam Goodes for fear of upsetting undefined stakeholders. The same bloke who lead an organization so arrogant that is was willing to tell Victoria Police that it would handle Dusty Martin and Chopstickgate. To me that smacks of an organization that values expediency and PR over actual corporate integrity.

Oh, he was also in charge when his mate Simon, as well as others, were busy with young female staff members. If those are the type of people who will be under consideration then forget it.

Your concept of football is bound to a bygone age that no longer exists. You can continue to live in a past that has little relevance to now or see things as they actually are.

 

 

 AGAIN I say, this board/admin is doing the best job that I can recall in my lifetime.  note that means there is no issue with this current administration that I'm aware of.

 

AGAIN i iterate, that I have NO Trust with Mfc choosing board members in the future, as we lose the controls of the AFL.

I think we can assume that PJ ending is timed, as we move towards possible late September action, to not have the perception of AFL interference if we happen to win a Silver Cup.

And that also the job he was sent to us to do, is nearly done.

 

PJ did not headhunt Roos.  Roosy was chosen for us at the same time as PJ.  Some 'tidying up work' needed doing around the club before Roosy would commit.  Roosy had to make his mind up, but had done well prior to his announcement. almost a year earlier.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-melbourne-ceo-peter-jackson-recommits-to-demons-20151119-gl2s5i.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/roos-announced-as-demons-coach/4940876

You really have to stop reading the papers and believing the Media PR spin, CBF.

 

CBF, you love to play word games, trying to swing perception Via deception.  I don't have confidence in Gillon at all.

What I have is confidence in the AFL mechanisms. And footy nous, more-so than their running of the games rules, etc.

 

Than you bring up your own moralistic biases,,,, which have absolutely NOTHING to do with what I referring to, regarding our past boards, and how we have gone about electing board members, over the past 5 decades.

 

What your saying, is plain rubbish.

Edited by DV8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, It's Time said:

Hmmmm!!! 

This from Chip Le Grand in The Australian today.

When he took over Cricket Australia in 2001, its total revenue was about $50 million a year. That figure is now about $500m a year

According to Cricket Australia records, 436,000 people played cricket in some form in the 2000-01 financial year. Total participation in cricket now stands at 1,429,523 — about one in every 20 Australians.

The important number for ­Sutherland is 135,223. This is the number of primary school-aged girls and boys who play the game. Nearly 36,000 of them are ­enrolled in Milo Cricket and 20,567 play T20 Blast. Neither ­program existed in 2001. A further 79,000 play junior club cricket.

Also record attendances at Tests last summer. 

Those figures do support an argument that Sutherland has done a good job. But I'm not sure I can believe the figures. Participation of over 1.4 million (which is actually one in 17, not one in 20) seems very unlikely to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I don't share your enthusiasm for James Sutherland. In my view under his watch cricket has gone backwards overall. I accept that there has been great progress in women's cricket and the Big Bash, but cricket is no longer the dominant summer pastime like it used to be.  

Summer pastimes are the summer pastimes that they used to be! Most people get 2 weeks holiday max. Most people have no interest standing in the sun every Saturday for 8 hours a day.

 

1 hour ago, corowa said:

Cricket does not now get the TV coverage that it once received.

I can remember seeing regular reports and even live coverage of Sheffield Shield matches. This doesn't happen now.

How many of us could name the best players in each State team, or which ones are pushing for national selection?

And when less cricket is shown live on TV interest in the game will dwindle considerably.

Recent on field bloopers and general boorish sledging do little to enhance the once popular sport.

 

There's way more international cricket and far more sporting choice now. No one is watching or covering the Sheffield Shield for a reason, but you'll still get passionate debate about selection on social media and forums before a test series.

The recent broadcast deal does put a bigger percentage of cricket on foxtel but there's still heaps on free to air on 7. 

I think Sutherland overstayed his welcome and probably like the players in South Africa there was a lack of leadership and some burnout from some difficult negotiations - both with the TV deals and with players. 

But it's a suggestion of a name who has worked in high level sporting admin. Josh Mahoney has managed Melbourne's footy admin which is probably about 40 million in revenue to work with. As mentioned above Sutherland is dealing with 500 million revenue! 

Sporting admin is a very shallow pool of talent, but other business administrators in sport often fail to grasp the important factors in running a football club. It's not an easy appointment to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DV8 said:

 AGAIN I say, this board/admin is doing the best job that I can recall in my lifetime.  note that means there is no issue with this current administration that I'm aware of.

 

AGAIN i iterate, that I have NO Trust with Mfc choosing board members in the future, as we lose the controls of the AFL.

I think we can assume that PJ ending is timed, as we move towards possible late September action, to not have the perception of AFL interference if we happen to win a Silver Cup.

And that also the job he was sent to us to do, is nearly done.

 

PJ did not headhunt Roos.  Roosy was chosen for us at the same time as PJ.  Some 'tidying up work' needed doing around the club before Roosy would commit.  Roosy had to make his mind up, but had done well prior to his announcement. almost a year earlier.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-melbourne-ceo-peter-jackson-recommits-to-demons-20151119-gl2s5i.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/roos-announced-as-demons-coach/4940876

You really have to stop reading the papers and believing the Media PR spin, CBF.

 

CBF, you love to play word games, trying to swing perception Via deception.  I don't have confidence in Gillon at all.

What I have is confidence in the AFL mechanisms. And footy nous, more-so than their running of the games rules, etc.

 

Than you bring up your own moralistic biases,,,, which have absolutely NOTHING to do with what I referring to, regarding our past boards, and how we have gone about electing board members, over the past 5 decades.

 

What your saying, is plain rubbish.

No, I'd really should take the word of the bloke whose posts need heavy peyote use to get close to deciphering.

Why you posted those two articles (from the news media if the irony isn't lost on anyone) is beyond me as neither indicated that Roos was an AFL appointment. They just stated the terms of each's employment.

If you really would like to know how Roos was appointed, read 'Here It Is'. While Roos wondered if the Swans low balling him came about because of pressure from head office, he clearly recounts that during the closing stages of 2013, PJ and the players had to convince him before he signed on. There was no clandestine deal to get him on board in 2012 (if you are to be believed).

Your post started off as some kind of endorsement of HQ (as you wrongly have asserted that Roos was an AFL appointment) which veered off into some kind of bizarre rant against the MCC. I'm afraid to ask but when you say that 'the MFC can't choose it's board', what do you mean? That members aren't allowed to vote in board elections?

You come on here, talk absolute piffle mixed in with assertions that have no observable evidence behind them and expect people to take you on face value. If you want to come on here to do that and expect people just to nod their head and agree with you, you might want to go elsewhere.

What was that Talking Heads song you were mentioning again @beelzebub

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 10:33 PM, rjay said:

I still think it will be an internal appointment...

I've had discussions and the only details to be finalised are salary and a police check.

Look out beaches- Biffen is back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Biffen said:

I've had discussions and the only details to be finalised are salary and a police check.

Look out beaches- Biffen is back.

let me know if you need a reference, biffo

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

let me know if you need a reference, biffo

The police check will be quite an obstacle to overcome.

Did they ask for a blood sample Biff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We now seem to be good developing players, had an excellent succession plan for Roos, it makes sense to promote Josh Mahoney after serving an apprenticeship under the great man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bringbackthebiff said:

We now seem to be good developing players, had an excellent succession plan for Roos, it makes sense to promote Josh Mahoney after serving an apprenticeship under the great man

unless of course there is a better candidate...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about James Sutherland?

He mentioned Melbourne in a positive context (not about CEO role - longstanding fan loyalty without success) in his interview with Gerard Whateley this morning.

Perhaps he would like to be the one to oversee that eventual success, without the constant travel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bringbackthebiff said:

We now seem to be good developing players, had an excellent succession plan for Roos, it makes sense to promote Josh Mahoney after serving an apprenticeship under the great man

I like Mahoney, but managing a football department is light years away from CEO of a multi-million dollar club. Has there been any precedents of footy department heads being elevated directly to CEO? There may very well be, but I don’t know.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Razor said:

How about James Sutherland?

He mentioned Melbourne in a positive context (not about CEO role - longstanding fan loyalty without success) in his interview with Gerard Whateley this morning.

Perhaps he would like to be the one to oversee that eventual success, without the constant travel?

Didn' he get truly rogered by Al Nicholson in the cricket player award negotiations? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Danelska said:

unless of course there is a better candidate...

The best candidate will be the best cultural fit.

My money is on Mahoney.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

The best candidate will be the best cultural fit.

My money is on Mahoney.

I wonder how much insight PJ has given to him on the business side of the club? If PJ did expose him to that and he took to that well then it may give him a leg up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Razor said:

How about James Sutherland?

He mentioned Melbourne in a positive context (not about CEO role - longstanding fan loyalty without success) in his interview with Gerard Whateley this morning.

Perhaps he would like to be the one to oversee that eventual success, without the constant travel?

I suspect he's used to being a big fish by comparison to a footy club CEO which really doesn't carry much power given the role of the AFL. If not for the ball tampering he would probably walk into a role on the AFL Commission or the executive if he wanted to.

The ball tampering has brought a dark cloud over his administration of the great game of cricket.

I'm sure he'll pick up something in any event.

Edited by Diamond_Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×