Cameron Schwab

[Jens Lehmann 75]

Mmkay Brendan.

Keep posting your waffle. It keeps the thread at the top of the forum. The more people read it the merrier.

Played on a break.

You're just happy the posts from yesterday are gone, since I comprehensively destroyed your spineless arguments.

I'm happy for this thread to stay up too, RR.

And I'm happy for some logical and deserved criticism of Schwab.

No skin off my nose.

But so far, you're blindly clutching at straws.

[rjay 24,924]

If he does go....he will receive a pay out that the club cannot afford.....We will be without a CEO for some considerable whilst we find a suitable replacement.....You either want him to publically talk about the footy side of things..or you don't Which is it....? This club is out of debt now....It has never been out of debt since I can remember(I'm nearly 60)....But you go ahead join a revolution and burn down the place....It might make you feel better.....

You can't keep someone on just because of his payout. If he is not the right man for the job and the ultimate reckoner on this, wins & loses says he is not then it is better to move now than to keep flogging a dead horse.

As far as debt goes we are already $500k back because of some inept performance on our behalf.

[Satyriconhome 10,877]

The clubs out of debt due to supporters, if hes allowed to finish his current contract that means hes been there 8 seasons, a club is judged on wins and final performances,not some peasant designing blazers and red and blue prints and China Experiments, its all pie in the sky with this guy, its amazing that there are 60 yr olds out there willing to swallow that garbage.

I repeat where is your evidence re Hankook........posters are judged on what they post, you are ranked just above Rangey at the moment or are you trying to sink lower....61 by the way

[rjay 24,924]

You're just happy the posts from yesterday are gone, since I comprehensively destroyed your spineless arguments.

I'm happy for this thread to stay up too, RR.

And I'm happy for some logical and deserved criticism of Schwab.

No skin off my nose.

But so far, you're blindly clutching at straws.

The scoreboard is the final judge on performance in football and it doesn't look good, there is no more logical and deserved criticism than that.

[rjay 24,924]

Ok, since you won't address the above fabrication, I will.

Schwab was given feedback that as part of his role as CEO, he was involving himself with the operations of the football department too much, to the point of interfering. This has been scaled back considerably to concentrate on the roles within his job description.

Or simply hasn't given a quote to the media, since it is not his responsibility nor is it necessary.

The coach can sufficiently deal with a single disappointing loss, and the president has given a statement also.

Maybe you'd like a quote from the boot-studder?

Besides, if he did give comment, I'd wager London to a brick, you'd find another feeble way to criticise Schwab.

What restriction has been made to his duties? That he's been told to concentrate on his own role and not interfere with others?

That's your interpretation of it??

"Restricted" would imply he is doing less than he should. You think he should be interfering?

"Light" would imply that Schwab is doing less than the workload of someone in his position - what evidence do you have of this?

All this shows, is that Schwab was actually taking on more responsibility in an attempt to affect change, but in a misguided manner.

After seeking feedback, he has corrected his behaviour.

Sorry rjay, but you're well out of your depth on this one.

Good to see you can read Brendon.

I would have thought it was his responsibility to be fronting the club through the whole tanking debacle and to explain how we could have been fined $500k. Any CEO worth his salt would have held a press conference at a bare minimum, it's not the President or Chairmans job.

You are right, it is up to the coach to talk about match day issues, but it is up to the CEO to take care of any other issues effecting the club, particularly issues he had a role in.

[Jens Lehmann 75]

Good to see you can read Brendon.

I would have thought it was his responsibility to be fronting the club through the whole tanking debacle and to explain how we could have been fined $500k. Any CEO worth his salt would have held a press conference at a bare minimum, it's not the President or Chairmans job.

You are right, it is up to the coach to talk about match day issues, but it is up to the CEO to take care of any other issues effecting the club, particularly issues he had a role in.

I'm not sure you'll find too many people that agree with that, save for those want to stick pins in Schwab.

So you're big criticism is in fact that he didn't do a presser in regards to the tanking verdict?

For what purpose?

What did you want him to say exclactly?

One of the criticisms of him previously was that he was too visible.

Now he stays away from the media and concentrates on doing his job.

As long as he continues to do it well, I'm pretty happy with that result.

[Jens Lehmann 75]

And surely it'd be "Brendan", would it not?

[rjay 24,924]

And surely it'd be "Brendan", would it not?

Happy to see you can spell your own name Brendan.

[McQueen 17,864]

One thing is for sure and that is CS is quite possibly the most disliked AFL club identity as far as the media go. They absolutely love to hate him. McClure had another shot at him on 360 last night.

Does a CEO really have that much of a bearing on culture? If he drove the tanking methodology that in-turn lead to the terrible culture at the club recently, then the answer is yes.

Personally, I can appreciate some of his work with regards to securing sponsorship and managing that side of the business but I'm unaware of what might've been possible and what he potentially failed at. All I care for is results on the football field and if his influence is still causing grief amongst the FD or playing group then he should FRO. I can't be sure of it though.

Let's give the coach and the players a chance to redeem themselves and the club and maybe our obsession with trying to find any problem remotely connected to poor performances will wane. Schwab included.

[Yossarian 1,820]

One thing is for sure and that is CS is quite possibly the most disliked AFL club identity as far as the media go. They absolutely love to hate him. McClure had another shot at him on 360 last night.

Does a CEO really have that much of a bearing on culture? If he drove the tanking methodology that in-turn lead to the terrible culture at the club recently, then the answer is yes.

Personally, I can appreciate some of his work with regards to securing sponsorship and managing that side of the business but I'm unaware of what might've been possible and what he potentially failed at. All I care for is results on the football field and if his influence is still causing grief amongst the FD or playing group then he should FRO. I can't be sure of it though.

Let's give the coach and the players a chance to redeem themselves and the club and maybe our obsession with trying to find any problem remotely connected to poor performances will wane. Schwab included.

Agree entirely.

[Range Rover 1,935]

You're just happy the posts from yesterday are gone, since I comprehensively destroyed your spineless arguments.

I'm happy for this thread to stay up too, RR.

And I'm happy for some logical and deserved criticism of Schwab.

No skin off my nose.

But so far, you're blindly clutching at straws.

101L - 32W

[dee_star 63]

Putting aside the personal stuff for a couple of minutes, there's two questions when it comes to the CEO that I believe still need to be answered:

1. What was the content of the Andrews Review when it comes to the CEO?

2. Why did the Board feel it was in the Clubs best interest to tell CS at the end of July 2011 that his contract would not be renewed at the end of 2011?

The logical conclusion is that both questions are linked, in which case, if the Board felt Cameron wasn't the right CEO for the footy club in July 2011 and were only persuaded to change after Gary Lyon's intervention to sack the Coach (thinking that a Club without a CEO or a Coach would be in turmoil), why is Cameron now the right person for the job?

[Jens Lehmann 75]

101L - 32W

Right.

So what has caused that win-loss ratio?

Why do you expect it to be any different?

Stop hiding behind it and analyse what you see as symbolic of our failure.

And nice photo, great imagery... I get it.

"The wold is at the door."

But beyond a colourful cliche, what do you even mean by that?

It's emotive guff with no substance.

The club isn't in "crisis." That's pure hyperbole.

We have problems, and we need to analyse them then find realistic solutions.

You're as bad as the media jocks, RR.

Difference is, they want to create a frenzy so they have something to talk about and justify their existence.

Oh.

Maybe you're not so different...

Putting aside the personal stuff for a couple of minutes, there's two questions when it comes to the CEO that I believe still need to be answered:

1. What was the content of the Andrews Review when it comes to the CEO?

2. Why did the Board feel it was in the Clubs best interest to tell CS at the end of July 2011 that his contract would not be renewed at the end of 2011?

The logical conclusion is that both questions are linked, in which case, if the Board felt Cameron wasn't the right CEO for the footy club in July 2011 and were only persuaded to change after Gary Lyon's intervention to sack the Coach (thinking that a Club without a CEO or a Coach would be in turmoil), why is Cameron now the right person for the job?

1. We'll never know the exact content of the Andrews Report, not should we.

But it was obvious that it recommended a restructuring of the football department, and that for them to be able to do their jobs properly, it needed less interference from the administration.

Schwab had tried to right the ship himself by being a control freak and having too much control in areas where he should have given people the resources and opportunity to fulfil their roles and responsibilities as outline in their job description, or replace them with those that could.

2. The club could see there was a rift between the football department and the administration, particularly Schwab.

This was because he interfered where he felt people weren't performing their roles effectively and he needed to have input to ensure it worked.

The board initally saw him as an antagonist, and he was in their sights.

When the board saw that his concerns were well founded, and his efforts, although misguided, were in the clubs best interests, they turned their attention to those who were failing in their posts.

Not having someone fill Leoncelli's shoes immediately led to this situation, because then this situation would have been monitored.

I can see Schwab was working with an outdated model for a football department and wasn't informed in how to build and structure a modern one.

He also knew that, hence the Andrews Report was commissioned.

From that, his role has been re-defined to prevent a similar situation occurring.

As long as that continues, he's a valuable contributor to the club.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Jens Lehmann

[mjt 640]

I repeat where is your evidence re Hankook........posters are judged on what they post, you are ranked just above Rangey at the moment or are you trying to sink lower....61 by the way

You give me your Kaspersky source and i will gladly give you the Hankook source, mine actually played for the club.

[mjt 640]

And on a side note, i purchase a members ticket at the Casey Fields game against the Saints, i still have not received it, the joints a shambles.

[Jens Lehmann 75]

And on a side note, i purchase a members ticket at the Casey Fields game against the Saints, i still have not received it, the joints a shambles.

Wow.

An administrative error, or a delay in posting a membership.

The club is going down the toilet...

Spare me.

[jordie 22]

You're just happy the posts from yesterday are gone, since I comprehensively destroyed your spineless arguments.

I'm happy for this thread to stay up too, RR.

And I'm happy for some logical and deserved criticism of Schwab.

No skin off my nose.

But so far, you're blindly clutching at straws.

I appreciate your user name.

[mjt 640]

Wow.

An administrative error, or a delay in posting a membership.

The club is going down the toilet...

Spare me.

Do you think Jens will end up managing Real Madrid, just like jose .

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Wow.

An administrative error, or a delay in posting a membership.

The club is going down the toilet...

Spare me.

Supporters like yourself only add to the complexity of the issue.

You are now conditioned to expect mediocrity.

Congratulations.

MJT was clearly using the membership purchase as an example to go with the many others.

[jimbo1982 94]

Jens,

Could you point me in the direction of any evidence you are aware of that there was a "rift between the football department (including the players) & admin (i.e. Schwabb)?" What exactly were Schwabb's concerns with those in the footy department? I find the expression "not performing in their roles effectively" a bit vague. Where is the evidence that the Board "had him in their sights", and then changed their minds & sided with him? Are you interpreting their re-appointment of him as CEO to be this, rather than the commonly held belief on Demonland that Lyon intervened on behalf of his friend (& former employer)?

[Jens Lehmann 75]

The "commonly held belief that Lyon intervened"..??

Really? People believe that?

You're honestly the first I'be heard raise it.

[Jens Lehmann 75]

And it was suitably and purposefully vague.

There is a lot to detail in that regard, but for brevity we shall say he came to the belief that the coach did not have the ability or gameplan or strategies to take us forward, and that he wasn't ruthless enough with the players, especially in terms of list management.

[stuie 7,374]

There really needs to be a fact checker filter on this thread...

I've seen VERY few known truths posted here, from either side.

Welcome to MFC where we blame footy performances on the CEO because we've just run out of other excuses.

Schwab will be looked at at the end of the season I'm sure, until then how about more obviously under performing guys like Frawley, Garland, Sylvia, Jamar, Neeld... Guarantee you that if those guys lift their games it will have more of an immediate impact on our footy performance than if Schwab was a nicer guy.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

And on a side note, i purchase a members ticket at the Casey Fields game against the Saints, i still have not received it, the joints a shambles.

Acknowledging that this is a comparitively small example of Schwab (2nd) era incompetence and without wanting to go too far off track, you may be interested to know that two of my friends who support Richmond signed up late this season (just before the Cartlon game last weekend I think).

This week, both of them received an email from the club with a link to their "my Richmond account" (whatever that is) and another link to a printable ticket to this weekend's game in case their new membership cards did not arrive in time.

Did you have a similar experience?

Edited April 4, 2013 by Hazyshadeofgrinter

[FireUp 67]

It was announced on Sunday that 8 new sponsors have come on board since the afl tanking decision including Kaspersky. Something is working at least.