10 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Off the top of my head Brayshaw TMac Hunt Salem

Harmes, Smith, Jones, Lever, Brown could all be added to the list for varying reasons too...

20 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Off the top of my head Brayshaw TMac Hunt Salem

But you don't want Tommy Mac playing back do you mate? My heart couldn't handle it. 

Players playing out of position? Please. Their position is where they are selected. I"m sure Robby preffered being a wing man but still gave his all and was a star at hb under barrassi. If they dont like that they shouldn't be playing a team sport.

But leaving that aside some of the names listed above are lucky they are playing. Most would not get a game at one of the top clubs.

Tmac? Was close to being dropped as a defender. Made frost look a good kick. Yet still went for glory kicks.

Brayshaw? Defensively gut run week, in week out and then worry about being a full time mid.

Salem? not sure he is out of position but has stagnated and gives us little.

Hunt? Like tmac kicking is too poor to be a defender and couldn't adapt to zones and having no space to run and carry into. Given a chance to save his career up forward and hasn't taken it. If out of contract will be cut at seasons end and won't be picked up by another club.

Jones? What is his best position these days?

In any case the issue of players being played in spots tbey are not suited to is a function of poor list management. And I blame roos and Goodwin for that. I mean how many inside bulls with average foot skills do you need? There are only 3 mids starting at each centre bounce at any one time.

5 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Listen to the Demonland podcast where Peter Jackson was asked about Pert coming in.

His response was damning and I miss Jackson a lot.

First off no departing CEO appoints their replacement, it is and always should be a Board decision. A good CEO grooms potential internal successors and for Jackson it was Mahoney. There was an erroneous assumption Mahoney for CEO was a certainty amongst the in clique that included Jackson and Mahoney, and then the Board did what they should and appointed who they thought was best to carry out the Board’s vision and strategy - Pert. Whether Pert has been able to do that is neither here nor there for the purpose of this story, it is the Board’s role to make the appointment which is key.

Jackson’s nose was out of joint due to his plan being scuttled, hence any damning response.

In any organisation it’s highly dangerous, and likely toxic, to keep an unsuccessful CEO candidate around, irrespective of their abilities in their role. It takes a very mature person to accept they missed out, and then wholly support the person they missed out to.

Any organisation has cliques, it’s whether the cliques are healthy or toxic, and those on the inside of toxic cliques always see their clique as healthy if it’s working well for them. A toxic clique can get in the way of decisions that most benefit the organisation as loyalty to the people in the clique can override. A toxic clique can put good people on the outer if that clique holds power.

In my career in corporates I have exposure to high profile CEOs and other C-suite execs who you would see frequently in the press if you read business sections of newspapers or the AFR, and the public persona and image can be quite different to the reality. I was a direct report briefly to a current CEO of a major company, and he talked the talk but didn’t walk it by his actions. I still get a chuckle when I see some of the stuff he comes out with publicly given some of the things I know and have experienced first hand with him.

From discussions I had with someone formerly at the club, MFC was not miles off my corporate experiences.

Edited July 9, 20204 yr by Lampers
Typos

11 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Are we talking the third party information?  As I said, that's not evidence.

And who are these players who are being 'played out of position'?  Outside of someone like Brayshaw, I don't think I've seen anyone being played out of their main position.  You could go as far as saying players like Trac got their wish - he put in more effort over pre-season to build his fitness and he has been rewarded with the midfield minutes he craved.

Strikes me as a bit far fetched.  But hey, that's just me, as you said in your post we can take out of what we wish.

Harmes !!!! 

8 hours ago, A F said:

But you don't want Tommy Mac playing back do you mate? My heart couldn't handle it. 

I'm not saying I want those players played elsewhere I was just brainstorming which players he could be referring to

9 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Harmes, Smith, Jones, Lever, Brown could all be added to the list for varying reasons too...

Lever can hardly complain as the loose + 1 down back LN.  He should be happy he's getting a game at the moment.  Not exactly setting the world on fire vs expectations.  Hopefully he'll come good but he surely couldn't (shouldn't) be in any such mix (IF there is one...and there shouldn't be....they've achieved nothing as a group till now) at the present.

50 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Lever can hardly complain as the loose + 1 down back LN.  He should be happy he's getting a game at the moment.  Not exactly setting the world on fire vs expectations.  Hopefully he'll come good but he surely couldn't (shouldn't) be in any such mix (IF there is one...and there shouldn't be....they've achieved nothing as a group till now) at the present.

I agree mate. I was just trying to think of players who could potentially think they're not in their best roles.

Personally Lever doesn't strike me as one who would complain anyway.

20 hours ago, Older demon said:

(re Pert)... Did you know he follows up constructive emails to the club by personally reaching out to the member? ...

Can confirm. Got the shock of my life when I picked up the phone. Rational, thoughtful.

9 hours ago, Lampers said:

First off no departing CEO appoints their replacement, it is and always should be a Board decision. A good CEO grooms potential internal successors and for Jackson it was Mahoney. There was an erroneous assumption Mahoney for CEO was a certainty amongst the in clique that included Jackson and Mahoney, and then the Board did what they should and appointed who they thought was best to carry out the Board’s vision and strategy - Pert. Whether Pert has been able to do that is neither here nor there for the purpose of this story, it is the Board’s role to make the appointment which is key.

Jackson’s nose was out of joint due to his plan being scuttled, hence any damning response.

In any organisation it’s highly dangerous, and likely toxic, to keep an unsuccessful CEO candidate around, irrespective of their abilities in their role. It takes a very mature person to accept they missed out, and then wholly support the person they missed out to.

Any organisation has cliques, it’s whether the cliques are healthy or toxic, and those on the inside of toxic cliques always see their clique as healthy if it’s working well for them. A toxic clique can get in the way of decisions that most benefit the organisation as loyalty to the people in the clique can override. A toxic clique can put good people on the outer if that clique holds power.

In my career in corporates I have exposure to high profile CEOs and other C-suite execs who you would see frequently in the press if you read business sections of newspapers or the AFR, and the public persona and image can be quite different to the reality. I was a direct report briefly to a current CEO of a major company, and he talked the talk but didn’t walk it by his actions. I still get a chuckle when I see some of the stuff he comes out with publicly given some of the things I know and have experienced first hand with him.

From discussions I had with someone formerly at the club, MFC was not miles off my corporate experiences.

This is an excellent post. However, I disagree with the comment "it’s highly dangerous, and likely toxic, to keep an unsuccessful CEO candidate around". It sometimes may be, but not always. Depends on the character (ego) of the person who missed out as much as the competence of the person who is appointed CEO. I've worked in many organisations where people who applied for the top job missed out but just got on with business with no rancour. I can't say whether Mahoney should or should not have left or been moved on; that can only be known by Mahoney himself and the people within the club.

26 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

This is an excellent post. However, I disagree with the comment "it’s highly dangerous, and likely toxic, to keep an unsuccessful CEO candidate around". It sometimes may be, but not always. Depends on the character (ego) of the person who missed out as much as the competence of the person who is appointed CEO. I've worked in many organisations where people who applied for the top job missed out but just got on with business with no rancour. I can't say whether Mahoney should or should not have left or been moved on; that can only be known by Mahoney himself and the people within the club.

And we will only find out down the track LDC. 

10 hours ago, Lampers said:

First off no departing CEO appoints their replacement, it is and always should be a Board decision. A good CEO grooms potential internal successors and for Jackson it was Mahoney. There was an erroneous assumption Mahoney for CEO was a certainty amongst the in clique that included Jackson and Mahoney, and then the Board did what they should and appointed who they thought was best to carry out the Board’s vision and strategy - Pert. Whether Pert has been able to do that is neither here nor there for the purpose of this story, it is the Board’s role to make the appointment which is key.

Jackson’s nose was out of joint due to his plan being scuttled, hence any damning response.

In any organisation it’s highly dangerous, and likely toxic, to keep an unsuccessful CEO candidate around, irrespective of their abilities in their role. It takes a very mature person to accept they missed out, and then wholly support the person they missed out to.

Any organisation has cliques, it’s whether the cliques are healthy or toxic, and those on the inside of toxic cliques always see their clique as healthy if it’s working well for them. A toxic clique can get in the way of decisions that most benefit the organisation as loyalty to the people in the clique can override. A toxic clique can put good people on the outer if that clique holds power.

In my career in corporates I have exposure to high profile CEOs and other C-suite execs who you would see frequently in the press if you read business sections of newspapers or the AFR, and the public persona and image can be quite different to the reality. I was a direct report briefly to a current CEO of a major company, and he talked the talk but didn’t walk it by his actions. I still get a chuckle when I see some of the stuff he comes out with publicly given some of the things I know and have experienced first hand with him.

From discussions I had with someone formerly at the club, MFC was not miles off my corporate experiences.

Nice insight into the Corporate world. I think the model for MFC is somewhere between boutique and big bus. Footy clubs sometimes kid themselves they are the equivelant of big corporating. My concept of boutique is simply being a family and sponsor friendly and accessable footy club. So first rate communication for supporters and good training facility for players and supporters to get involved. Keep it simple. 

14 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I disagree, either there are problems and the supporters have a right to know or there aren't and it doesn't matter anyway. I don't really see the harm with people posting things they've heard - no-one will name names as it will betray confidences and everyone should take anything they read with a grain of salt if they're smart enough.

Most of the time these things have an element of truth though, I remember when the message from the club was everything is rosy and Schwab accused people of taking pot shots from the cheap seats. Well it turns out it was worse than insinuated and the place was rotten to the core.

It is frustrating when we don't see the CEO or President have some kind of media presence when supporters are on the verge of insurrection. You can't have it both ways, asking supporters to dig deep with one hand then treating them with contempt with the other. The communication from the club needs to be both direct and broad, they always ask questions in surveys about communication from the club, how connected you feel to the club as a supporter etc. Well personally when I fail to hear from either of the clubs leaders to give me some confidence they have things under control it makes me feel disconnected.

Some strong sentiments there, Doc.  I'll address each one as best I can.

As for the first paragraph.  If there are problems, and we have no idea if there are, then of course we should know about it.  The last thing we want is for things to go belly up at board level.  However, there is no indication of this at all, and people are merely trying to connect dots but doing nothing more than putting rumours out there that can't be supported.  The only thing I dislike around posting things they've heard is that it is super easy to do - I can say I've got contacts within the club who tell me that everyone is on the same page and that they are determined to turn things around on field and continue to be stable financially off it.  I can just say that I can't share who I got the info off and boom, I'm covered.  It's not necessarily as harmful if it occurs during trade time - people post all sorts of wacky rumours then - but trying to almost stir up a bit of trouble within the supporter group seems disingenuous.  Of course, there are enough people here who take the info with a grain of salt, but it only takes a few others to start referencing them in other threads all the time and the rumour has legs.

As to the last point, what do you want Bartlett and Pert to do right now?  How are they both treating us with contempt?  That seems such a strong, and strange, comment to me.  I'd much rather they continue to work their backside off behind the scenes to ensure the financial security of our club moving forward.  That is their job.  The job of Mahoney, Goodwin and the players is they are seen far more, talk about the on field stuff, while we might get an update here and there from the others.  I'm just not totally sure what you expect to hear from them on a regular basis.  I feel as though the club have stepped things up, especially during all the COVID stuff, and are giving us as much access as possible.

Let's be honest though, and I feel like SWYL for typing this and it makes me feel dirty, but wins are the thing we should be focusing on.  Right now, we don't have them, and the pressure is beginning to mount.  I'd like to see Goodwin and the team lift their game over the coming weeks, while I'd like Pert and Bartlett to continue to focus their time on ensuring the long term future of our club, especially during such a difficult time.

7 hours ago, 58er said:

Harmes !!!! 

Fair point, although you can see why they might have shifted him there.

I've seen others mentioned as well, but outside of Harmes and Gus, I don't think they are valid  Hunt, for example, lost the plot across half back (in fact he has never been the same player since he got knocked out against the Crows) and they have tried to resurrect his career as a forward.  You could argue that the club are trying different things there to see what might work.   

Salem is a strange one - does he have the capacity to play as a mid?  I feel like we haven't found his best position yet.  He doesn't strike me as a wingman, and you can't blame them for wanting his kicking skills to be used across half back.  Not convinced he is a forward either.

Having said that, I'm with @binman - players should always put the team first.  If they coach needs them in a certain position, then they roll with it (unless they stick Max in the back pocket and have Nev rucking).

4 hours ago, frankie_d said:

Can confirm. Got the shock of my life when I picked up the phone. Rational, thoughtful.

Should've asked him to step out of retirement and help fix our backline issues

17 hours ago, Lampers said:

First off no departing CEO appoints their replacement, it is and always should be a Board decision. A good CEO grooms potential internal successors and for Jackson it was Mahoney. There was an erroneous assumption Mahoney for CEO was a certainty amongst the in clique that included Jackson and Mahoney, and then the Board did what they should and appointed who they thought was best to carry out the Board’s vision and strategy - Pert. Whether Pert has been able to do that is neither here nor there for the purpose of this story, it is the Board’s role to make the appointment which is key.

Jackson’s nose was out of joint due to his plan being scuttled, hence any damning response.

In any organisation it’s highly dangerous, and likely toxic, to keep an unsuccessful CEO candidate around, irrespective of their abilities in their role. It takes a very mature person to accept they missed out, and then wholly support the person they missed out to.

Any organisation has cliques, it’s whether the cliques are healthy or toxic, and those on the inside of toxic cliques always see their clique as healthy if it’s working well for them. A toxic clique can get in the way of decisions that most benefit the organisation as loyalty to the people in the clique can override. A toxic clique can put good people on the outer if that clique holds power.

In my career in corporates I have exposure to high profile CEOs and other C-suite execs who you would see frequently in the press if you read business sections of newspapers or the AFR, and the public persona and image can be quite different to the reality. I was a direct report briefly to a current CEO of a major company, and he talked the talk but didn’t walk it by his actions. I still get a chuckle when I see some of the stuff he comes out with publicly given some of the things I know and have experienced first hand with him.

From discussions I had with someone formerly at the club, MFC was not miles off my corporate experiences.

Ok, Gary.

5 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

 

Let's be honest though, and I feel like SWYL for typing this and it makes me feel dirty, but wins are the thing we should be focusing on.  Right now, we don't have them, and the pressure is beginning to mount.

Well well well, Wise Guy is finally realizing how important winning is. 
Good Clubs win far more than they lose. Good Clubs turn over much larger portions of Finance. 
 

Who knows what is going on inside The MFC. Sponsors are still being signed, so i don’t think it is dire, but it’s not right either. 
 

We took a knockout punch from Meth Coke on Preliminary Final day 2018 and we are still picking ourselves of the canvas nearly 2 years later

We need to toughen up as a Club, otherwise raising $1 mill by Christmas ? is a waste of time. 
It is on the Football Department 

18 hours ago, Lampers said:

First off no departing CEO appoints their replacement, it is and always should be a Board decision. A good CEO grooms potential internal successors and for Jackson it was Mahoney. There was an erroneous assumption Mahoney for CEO was a certainty amongst the in clique that included Jackson and Mahoney, and then the Board did what they should and appointed who they thought was best to carry out the Board’s vision and strategy - Pert. Whether Pert has been able to do that is neither here nor there for the purpose of this story, it is the Board’s role to make the appointment which is key.

Jackson’s nose was out of joint due to his plan being scuttled, hence any damning response.

In any organisation it’s highly dangerous, and likely toxic, to keep an unsuccessful CEO candidate around, irrespective of their abilities in their role. It takes a very mature person to accept they missed out, and then wholly support the person they missed out to.

Any organisation has cliques, it’s whether the cliques are healthy or toxic, and those on the inside of toxic cliques always see their clique as healthy if it’s working well for them. A toxic clique can get in the way of decisions that most benefit the organisation as loyalty to the people in the clique can override. A toxic clique can put good people on the outer if that clique holds power.

In my career in corporates I have exposure to high profile CEOs and other C-suite execs who you would see frequently in the press if you read business sections of newspapers or the AFR, and the public persona and image can be quite different to the reality. I was a direct report briefly to a current CEO of a major company, and he talked the talk but didn’t walk it by his actions. I still get a chuckle when I see some of the stuff he comes out with publicly given some of the things I know and have experienced first hand with him.

From discussions I had with someone formerly at the club, MFC was not miles off my corporate experiences.

I have been in similar roles, albeit in a media advisory role. My experience is that CEOs are often merely "faces" for organisations and don't often have as much pull as people think they do. My guess is that Jackson came in as CEO when the club actually needed a CEO to make the calls, and he was grooming someone in his shadow. Whereas Pert had the media exposure and experience and could probably be pulled alongside the board. Ultimately most company decisions that have broad impact on the entire organisation are the decisions signed off by a CEO but most decisions are signed off and incorporated by those around and below them. So your CEO experience probably isn't uncommon in the modern corporate world especially if the company is a subsidiary of an overseas company. CEOs bear the most responsibility because their KPIs would be 100% weighted on company KPIs, so there is far greater responsibility bestowed upon them, but really much of the time all they are, is media experts and spin merchants. 

That said I think Pert and co have done wonders for the club given the circusmatnces. Minimising debt is key atm and so I suspect much of the focus atm is on ensuring financial stability before prioritising on field performance. Hard to swallow but ultimately the reality given current circumstances. Yes on field performance impacts the bottom line but this year is very different.

37 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It is on the Football Department 

Too bloody right. We are a football club first and business second.

Win football games and the rest will follow

On 7/9/2020 at 4:46 PM, old dee said:

This is purely personal but I am not a fan of silent Chairman and or CEO and we have both.

I then have the feeling that when nothing is said it implies either no one knows what to do or they are doing  nothing.

Both of which way be incorrect but it leaves IMO supporters wondering what is going on.

We are 1/3 Just calm down... No need to over react if we will tomorrow seasons back on track.

CEO's of football clubs are nothing like your usual CEO.

Rightly so they have little if any say over the main driver of success. The football department.

Pert will have his kpi's and if he's meeting them fine. Most people couldn't name more than two CEO's of other footy clubs

1 hour ago, Rednblueriseing said:

We are 1/3 Just calm down... No need to over react if we will tomorrow seasons back on track.

If we were 3/0 I would still not  like silent Chiefs. As I said just me. 

8 minutes ago, old dee said:

would still not  like silent Chiefs.

SSorrymate what are you saying??

Just now, Rednblueriseing said:

SSorrymate what are you saying??

I don’t like silent chairman and CEO.  That is what we have, you never hear from them.

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

I don’t like silent chairman and CEO.  That is what we have, you never hear from them.

Yeah fair enough, pretty sure Bartlett stated when he was appointed, his philosophy was that the board do their work in the background don't need the be herd, leave that up to the FD. As long as the results are come I'd be happy with that