I watched footy classified last night and I thought what they said was pretty accurate. I mean how many reviews do you need to do before you do a full and comprehensive review. It also shouldn’t be that hard to work out the two people that need to be held most accountable are Goodwin and JM. If this review is comprehensive I expect both should be sacked, highly unlikely that will happen though but it should, in my opinion.
 

39 minutes ago, sue said:

Sorry to air my ignorance, but I'd be grateful if anyone can provide a list of job titles in a FD and what they actually do - like a duty statement.  For example, what does the football manager actually manage?

Errrrr    all the footballs of course?

Just now, SFebes said:

Yeah saw his post and sounded more like an opinion, have seen nothing official to say its "external"

Besides media reports I have seen nothing officially from the club that it is even happening. 

34 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Unfortunately, the club no longer publishes a staff list so don't have all the latest names.

The FD structure is:

GM Football - Mahoney.  His director reports are:

• List Manager - Lamb (incl recruitment)
• Coach (and Player Development) - Goodwin
• Sports Science & Medical - Burgess
• Football Admin -
• AFLW Coach - Stinear
• Casey Football Manager - Maynard (I think)
• Technology - ?
• Academy - ?
• Sports Psychologist - ?
• Player Development - ?

Thanks. So the GM Football  probably has no day to day duties. I presume Football Admin makes sure the bus and air travel is organised, jumpers, footys pumped etc.

2 hours ago, sue said:

Thanks. So the GM Football  probably has no day to day duties. I presume Football Admin makes sure the bus and air travel is organised, jumpers, footys pumped etc.

I've reflected on the list in my earlier post and believe The GM's 'Span of Control' is too wide. 

There is a real case to restructure the GM department and separate roles into those directly related to football outcomes (The Coalface) and those that support those outcomes (The Back Office): eg

To reclassify the list in my earlier post:

Football (The Coalface):

• List Manager - Lamb (incl recruitment)
• Coach (and Player Development) - Goodwin
• Sports Science & Medical - Burgess
• Technology - ?
• AFLW Coach - Stinear

Football Support (The Back Office):

• Football Admin -
• Academy - ?
• Sports Psychologist - ?
• Player Development (Admin) - ?
• Casey Football Manager - Maynard (I think)

 

This structure creates a real focus on the reason we exist:  to regularly contend for the premiership and win some.

The Football Manager (The Coalface) role is where we need a new person.  One who can ensure we have the right coaches and development staff to maximise the players capabilities.

Edited October 6, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

21 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I've reflected on the list in my earlier post and believe The GM's 'Span of Control' is too wide. 

There is a real case to restructure the GM department and separate roles into those directly related to football outcomes (The Coalface) and those that support those outcomes (The Back Office): eg

To reclassify the list in my earlier post:

Football (The Coalface):

• List Manager - Lamb (incl recruitment)
• Coach (and Player Development) - Goodwin
• Sports Science & Medical - Burgess
• AFLW Coach - Stinear

Football Support (The Back Office):

• Football Admin -
• Technology - ?
• Academy - ?
• Sports Psychologist - ?
• Player Development (Admin) - ?
• Casey Football Manager - Maynard (I think)

 

This structure creates a real focus on the reason we exist:  to regularly contend for the premiership and win some.

The Football (The Coalface) role is the highest priority for a new person.  One who can ensure we have the right coaches and development staff to maximise the players capabilities.

That seems lost on a lot LH. Simple facts, the FD have had a lot of player changes over the last few years this their list. We have played finals once in the last four years and once in the last 13. The results stop at the FD door. 

LH

well argued but I would be concerned that your plan renders the coach too powerful. In fact the coach is already too powerful by virtue of contracts and pay levels (see Goodwin).

I see the Football GM as a manager responsible for the medium to long term on field success of the club. It is the job of that person to put in place all the necessary systems to support on field success in the medium as well as the short term.

Coaches are more concerned with short term success. Goodwin in 2021 is a perfect example.

The dynamic between the GM and the coach is one area I think is evolving. I am not sure where the balance should be.

Interesting debate to have and I would be glad to hear how this dynamic is managed in other professional sports starting with NRL and then looking overseas. 

 

22 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

LH

well argued but I would be concerned that your plan renders the coach too powerful. In fact the coach is already too powerful by virtue of contracts and pay levels (see Goodwin).

I see the Football GM as a manager responsible for the medium to long term on field success of the club. It is the job of that person to put in place all the necessary systems to support on field success in the medium as well as the short term.

Coaches are more concerned with short term success. Goodwin in 2021 is a perfect example.

The dynamic between the GM and the coach is one area I think is evolving. I am not sure where the balance should be.

Interesting debate to have and I would be glad to hear how this dynamic is managed in other professional sports starting with NRL and then looking overseas. 

 

Good comments.

Perhaps I was a bit vague.  The idea was to split the GM Football role into two Managers.  The Manager Football would be responsible for all things football of which the coach is a part of.   If the coach becomes too powerful it hasn't been set up well.

Not sure how other sports are structured.

Edited October 6, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

This discussion does raise the point that no one person should by virtue of their contract have the ability to frustrate the whole of the club's development.

Whether Goodwin is the right coach or not is irrelevant if we are precluded from moving him on because of cost issues.

The AFL has insisted that for those clubs under their funding control coaches should have a maximum pay out provision in their contracts of six months. If all clubs were to adopt this stance problem solved. Soft caps and limited budgets have made this a necessity

57 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Good comments.

Perhaps I was a bit vague.  The idea was to split the GM Football role into two Managers.  The Manager Football would be responsible for all things football of which the coach is a part of.   If the coach becomes too powerful it hasn't been set up well.

Not sure how other sports are structured.

I think if that happened they would both still answer to a GM of Football, not to Pert.

Pert doesnt manage the football department, he manages the club. If he had to coordinate and manage reporting from the Manager Football and from the Manager Football Support, he would have to be involved in the department.

 

I can find evidence of people filling the following positions at MFC (website, news releases, demonland, LinkedIn), most of who would be direct reports to Pert:

-CFO and Head of Major Projects

-Chief Commercial Officer

-GM of Football and Casey Operations (Mahoney)

-GM of Marketing, Comms and Digital (Ryan Larkin)

-GM of Casey Football (Peter Maynard, may report to Mahoney, I'm not clear, but unlikely to have a GM report to a GM)

-GM of People, Performance and Culture (Jim Plunkett)

-GM of Business Development

 

Below the GMs are a series of "Head ofs" and "Managers", for things like membership, IT, events, media and brand, partnerships and fundraising, digital sales, digital gworth, HR. These report to the Chief or GM positions.

 

 

Here is a current (?) List of staff at Carlton. You can see how big each department is, and why Josh's role cannot be split and for both to report to Pert.

https://www.carltonfc.com.au/club/about/staff

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 20204 yr by deanox

 

15 minutes ago, deanox said:

I think if that happened they would both still answer to a GM of Football, not to Pert.

Pert doesnt manage the football department, he manages the club. If he had to coordinate and manage reporting from the Manager Football and from the Manager Football Support, he would have to be involved in the department.

 

I can find evidence of people filling the following positions at MFC (website, news releases, demonland, LinkedIn), most of who would be direct reports to Pert:

-CFO and Head of Major Projects

-Chief Commercial Officer

-GM of Football and Casey Operations (Mahoney)

-GM of Marketing, Comms and Digital (Ryan Larkin)

-GM of Casey Football (Peter Maynard, may report to Mahoney, I'm not clear, but unlikely to have a GM report to a GM)

-GM of People, Performance and Culture (Jim Plunkett)

-GM of Business Development

 

Below the GMs are a series of "Head ofs" and "Managers", for things like membership, IT, events, media and brand, partnerships and fundraising, digital sales, digital gworth, HR. These report to the Chief or GM positions.

 

 

Here is a current (?) List of staff at Carlton. You can see how big each department is, and why Josh's role cannot be split and for both to report to Pert.

https://www.carltonfc.com.au/club/about/staff

 

 

 

This shows why Josh, although accountable for the footy department, really has not much to do with day to day operations. He can be a great operator, but his responsibility is to put the right people in place, and assign the resources correctly, to enable us to deliver on field.

Josh could make great decisions and be a fantastic manager but the pieces below him not work. He could pick the best coach available, but that coach isnt good enough. Is that his fault? He could pick a good enough coach, but the players get injured, or the draft outcomes are average. Is that his fault? Ultimately yes, but its hard to really pin it on him, unless he is making questionable calls.

There is a reason he was considered for the CEO role, and its because he is a corporate manager, not a football department staff member.

 

It also makes me concerned about the idea of moving him on and Alan Richardson taking the role. It is a specialist management role, and I'm not sure Richo has the appropriate skills or experience.

However it wouldnt surprise me if this is about managing the soft cap. If Richo is on a largish salary, moving him to GM Football may take his salary out of the soft cap, but still allowing him to continue to mentor or share knowledge.

 

 

The club has a turnover of about $50 million per year and $12mil of that is AFL player salaries. A large part of the other $40 mil is staff costs. Someone needs to manage those staff and teams

 

Edited October 6, 20204 yr by deanox

23 minutes ago, deanox said:

I think if that happened they would both still answer to a GM of Football, not to Pert.

Pert doesnt manage the football department, he manages the club. If he had to coordinate and manage reporting from the Manager Football and from the Manager Football Support, he would have to be involved in the department.

I didn't think to much about the title (GM or Manager), it was more an example of a structural split to make the FD more focused on football outcomes. 

I just looked at Richmond and found that last year they split Neil Balme's GM Football role into two parts:  "Tim Livingstone... General Manager – Football Performance and Blair Hartley ...General Manager – Football Talent. Both Tim and Blair will be a part of the Club’s senior management team.

I haven't found what the two involve to compare to my theoretical functional structure but it shows there is a precedent for suggesting the GM FD role is too big for one person and needs to be split to give the right focus on Football /OutcomesPerformance.

Edited October 6, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

19 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I didn't think to much about the title (GM or Manager), it was more an example of a structural split to make the FD more focused on football outcomes. 

I just looked at Richmond and found that last year they split Neil Balme's GM Football role into two parts:  "Tim Livingstone... General Manager – Football Performance and Blair Hartley ...General Manager – Football Talent. Both Tim and Blair will be a part of the Club’s senior management team.

I haven't found what the two involve to compare to my theoretical functional structure but it shows there is a precedent for suggesting the GM FD role is too big for one person and needs to be split to give the right focus on Football /OutcomesPerformance.

And they both report to Simon Lloyd, GM of Football.

https://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/306433/board-of-directors-executive-team

 

 

11 minutes ago, deanox said:

And they both report to Simon Lloyd, GM of Football.

https://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/306433/board-of-directors-executive-team

 

The GM Football structure split, I referred to was Neil Balme's role at Richmond.  Simon Lloyd is at Geelong.

Can we just leave it that there are a variety of structures and reporting lines.  Mine was but one example to focus on football outcomes/performance.  Richmond has another.  Other clubs might have something else.

This is where it would be very valuable for an external consultant to do our review:  Review the structure first and determine roles and job requirements before appointing someone.

Edited October 6, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

14 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The GM Football structure split, I referred to was Neil Balme's role at Richmond.  Simon Lloyd is at Geelong.

Can we just leave it that there are a variety of structures and reporting lines.  Mine was but one example to focus on football outcomes/performance.  Richmond has another.  Other clubs might have something else.

This is where it would be very valuable for an external consultant to do our review:  Review the structure first and determine roles and job requirements before appointing someone.

Good pick up, I cant help but link Balme to Geelong sometimes!

It's a good discussion though, and great to see different ways it could be presented or structured.

8 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

Seems to align with what some have already said on here about a potential general manager's role.

Tom's been on Demonland. 

2 hours ago, deanox said:

I can find evidence of people filling the following positions at MFC (website, news releases, demonland, LinkedIn), most of who would be direct reports to Pert:

-CFO and Head of Major Projects

-Chief Commercial Officer

-GM of Football and Casey Operations (Mahoney)

-GM of Marketing, Comms and Digital (Ryan Larkin)

-GM of Casey Football (Peter Maynard, may report to Mahoney, I'm not clear, but unlikely to have a GM report to a GM)

-GM of People, Performance and Culture (Jim Plunkett)

-GM of Business Development

 

Interesting that there is no senior role for "fan engagement".

Sure you can say its part of BD and membership but in reality after media rights money the next biggest source of income is the fans followed by sponsors. BD smacks of sponsorship and corporates whereas membership is administrative in the main

I thought fans were badly treated in 2020 and were taken for granted as clubs raced for the TV rights money. Understandable but no business should take a core revenue stream for granted.

19 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting that there is no senior role for "fan engagement".

Sure you can say its part of BD and membership but in reality after media rights money the next biggest source of income is the fans followed by sponsors. BD smacks of sponsorship and corporates whereas membership is administrative in the main

I thought fans were badly treated in 2020 and were taken for granted as clubs raced for the TV rights money. Understandable but no business should take a core revenue stream for granted.

What happens if we cannot go to games again in 2021? I am of the age that is in the death danger zone for the virus. I won't be going to a game next year until there is proven  effective vaccine. I love going to real game at the ground, I go to seconds games I love AFL at the ground. Watching on a screen is a much less enjoyable experience for me. This year I had less interest than all my watching over the last 60 years. So what is the club going to give me next season to compensate? This year I took the loss  thing on the chin and will probably do again next year but I reckon that the MFC will struggle to get membership above 25K if you still cannot go to games. They had better get creative or the income will drop considerably in 2021.

Edited October 6, 20204 yr by old dee

Josh Mahoney has got to Go-home-y

45 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting that there is no senior role for "fan engagement".

Sure you can say its part of BD and membership but in reality after media rights money the next biggest source of income is the fans followed by sponsors. BD smacks of sponsorship and corporates whereas membership is administrative in the main

I thought fans were badly treated in 2020 and were taken for granted as clubs raced for the TV rights money. Understandable but no business should take a core revenue stream for granted.

This is the part that took me the longest to prep that post: searching for role like this but I couldnt find it. The CFC structure has a GM - Consumer Buisness which covered membership. Melbourne Victory lists membership under its GM-Commercial. We. Dont have the break down so hard to confirm.

I think BD is more likely related to sponsorship type partnerships and Chief Commercial Officer will cover memberships, events etc. but they could both fall under BD.

A lot of fan engagement would actually fall under media/comms.

 

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Tom's been on Demonland. 

Or talking with Grand New Flag

1 hour ago, old dee said:

What happens if we cannot go to games again in 2021? I am of the age that is in the death danger zone for the virus. I won't be going to a game next year until there is proven  effective vaccine. I love going to real game at the ground, I go to seconds games I love AFL at the ground. Watching on a screen is a much less enjoyable experience for me. This year I had less interest than all my watching over the last 60 years. So what is the club going to give me next season to compensate? This year I took the loss  thing on the chin and will probably do again next year but I reckon that the MFC will struggle to get membership above 25K if you still cannot go to games. They had better get creative or the income will drop considerably in 2021.

Agree and all the more important for the club to engage fans in innovative ways. 

Full crowds in Melbourne will be July/August at the earliest assuming a vaccine approved for use by January 1. WA still doesn't have full crowds and they have not had a case in Perth for literally months. Melbourne will never go virus free for 60 days or whatever the test is for full attendance before the vaccine.

VFL could be a possibility given lower crowds but if it was the only "game in town" that creates its own problems.

The big question is whether the AFL will hub interstate until say May and take it from there.

One idea I liked (not sure if it worked) was by St Kilda who screened one of their games at a drive in.

The AFL also needs to recognise that there are fans such as yourself who will be reluctant in 2021 to attend large scale events. Like we have no alcohol areas we may need strict social distancing areas where preference is given to older fans.

3 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Agree and all the more important for the club to engage fans in innovative ways. 

Full crowds in Melbourne will be July/August at the earliest assuming a vaccine approved for use by January 1. WA still doesn't have full crowds and they have not had a case in Perth for literally months. Melbourne will never go virus free for 60 days or whatever the test is for full attendance before the vaccine.

VFL could be a possibility given lower crowds but if it was the only "game in town" that creates its own problems.

The big question is whether the AFL will hub interstate until say May and take it from there.

One idea I liked (not sure if it worked) was by St Kilda who screened one of their games at a drive in.

The AFL also needs to recognise that there are fans such as yourself who will be reluctant in 2021 to attend large scale events. Like we have no alcohol areas we may need strict social distancing areas where preference is given to older fans.

A few weeks ago I suggested that club members could be given access to games that are not on FTA. I doubt that will happen as there is too much money paid for media rights. But I can guarantee I will not be attend mass people events like AFL games. I like football but I like being alive one hell of a lot more.

On 10/2/2020 at 7:26 PM, DeeSpencer said:

I thought the forward line was eons better than last year and did a lot right. 
 

The midfield is my biggest concern. It’s where we are stacked for talent and can’t get consistent results. 
 

As I’ve said in other threads I’m happy for Mahoney and Goodwin to have one last year and win or lose together. 

The midfield did change a lot after the spray Bartlett gave the side, Oliver started bursting out of congestion and had a better kicking efficiency, in the second half of the year, GUS was showing some form, and they started rotating Viney and Gus more in the midfield, hopefully these changes the midfield showed in the second half of season continues next year for the whole season. Playing in Cairns did not come at a good time for the team, too many 4-day breaks playing in a hot and humid conditions, once we got back to Brisbane team played very well, except for the 4 th quarter against Dons, when the players probably started thinking about the Bulldogs Fremantle game.

9 hours ago, trout said:

I watched footy classified last night and I thought what they said was pretty accurate. I mean how many reviews do you need to do before you do a full and comprehensive review. It also shouldn’t be that hard to work out the two people that need to be held most accountable are Goodwin and JM. If this review is comprehensive I expect both should be sacked, highly unlikely that will happen though but it should, in my opinion.
 

Good point trout, they should both be on the hook