Cronulla chairman's future in the balance

[samshark]

So the answer is no.

Until I see Brown say Irvine approached him on it..I will call bullshyte.

Not forgetting DI stood in front of the entire contingent at the AGM and denied it.


These journo's get this crap form here I swear.

I reckon they even get it emailed to them from people on here.

The article above is the one I was referring to. I was at the AGM and heard what Irvine said. After reading the supposed quotes from Brown I dont know who to believe now.

 

[Frailty]

You have a man who runs his own business and is giving up 30+ hours a week to run a football club with no pay.

He did this on his own back. If he wanted to 'run' the club - he should have gone for CEO. He is Chairman - he simply puts decisions to the board - not make them.

He cleans out the bludgers, he brings in new people.

Who leave, i.e. Fisk, or have a dodgy history, i.e. Feening.

He is the only one with the balls enough to confront Ricky, and as predicted Ricky doesnt like anybody challenging him.

But doesn't have the balls to do it in person. Instead floats out a trainer to sound out Brown.

To me he seems like an asset in the short term at least.

The club needs people like that.

The club needs long term stability.

 

[Quigs]

Yeah but the good news is ... how good is Quigsy's memory.

See #16 and #18

What's the name of that memory thingy... I have not got it yet.

Cheers
Declared Idiot #88
Quigs

 

[Special K]

How did they even hire Feening with this cloud around her?

 

[samshark]

You have a man who runs his own business and is giving up 30+ hours a week to run a football club with no pay.

He cleans out the bludgers, he brings in new people.

He is the only one with the balls enough to confront Ricky, and as predicted Ricky doesnt like anybody challenging him.

To me he seems like an asset in the short term at least.

The club needs people like that.

This is true but I think he is digging a few holes for himself as well. Its not helping that we dont have a new CEO in place. I new it was bad idea to let this process drag out.

At the end of the day as well people need to remember that the SMH is running a campaign to destablise and get rid of the club. Have been doing so since last year. This is plainly obvious.

There are other agendas at work. Phil Gould, Roy Masters, both work for the Herald, neither like or want the sharks in the comp. Roosters have no juniors. We have assets, we have the third biggest junior base in Sydney but are stuck in the middle of St.George and Illawarra. Imagine the super power StGeorge would become if they took over our area.

Like I said people, lots of agendas at play here by the Herald.

 

[Hughesy215]

How did they even hire Feening with this cloud around her?

Usually, you will need to demonstrate that you have lived together for at least two years. This is overlooked if there is a child of the relationship, or in other exceptional circumstances. Other criteria that can determine de facto status include:

• length of relationship
• co-habitation
• distribution of household duties
• financial interdependence
• joint assets
• the care and control of any children of the relationship;
• whether friends and relatives see you as "de facto";
• whether you intend the relationship to be permanent.

So at 26 its hard to say if they were going to be determined at De Facto but I am not sure

 

[The Popper]

Putting a woman in charge attempts to get people onside. The Labor Party has done it successfully on a few occasions (Kirner, Lawrence) and hopes to do it again (Gillard, Keneally).

 

[Eion]

How did they even hire Feening with this cloud around her?

I'd like to know how Feening's name came up for the position in the first place. Was she personally known to Irvine?

He is coming across as being very defensive of her, which would be understandable if she was a mate, but strikes me as a bit weird if not. Jobs for mates / family is exactly the sort of practice that has landed us in the sh!t for years.

 

[The Masked Avenger]

. Jobs for mates / family is exactly the sort of practice that has landed us in the sh!t for years.

Ssssh don't mention the war!

 

[King of the Hill]

He's the Chairman, why wouldn't he support his staff?

If Ricky wants to quit, what else is he going to do? Say "no you're not allowed"?

We don't know about the Brown stuff.

Is the Barrett stuff legit?

 

[DJShaksta]

I genuinely think Irvine has the best interests of the Sharks at heart.
The guy bleeds black, white & blue, sure he may make a few fugg ups, but I reckon his passion for the club is a big positive.

 

[Frailty]

He's the Chairman, why wouldn't he support his staff?

When that staff member is being investigated for improper practices, and they hold a senior position in your club - you don't follow with the attitude he has approached the issue with.

If Ricky wants to quit, what else is he going to do? Say "no you're not allowed"?

The club is quite within their rights to say no. But either way, the decision needs to go to board - before he gives the story to a newspaper! It is a joke that he informs the media before the board.

We don't know about the Brown stuff.

We know he wasn't happy with Stuart... But didn't act on it.

Is the Barrett stuff legit?

Who knows.. But where there is smoke, there is fire.

 

[Snoop Shark]

Talk about a fuggen circus....If we cant get the stuff off the field right how the hell are we going to get the results on the field???

 

[Snoop Shark]

And frenzy i know we have had more then a few run ins over the years but it looks like your thoughts about this chairman were spot on!

 

[fizman]

If there was one single ounce of truth about the approach from the Sharks to Nathan Brown, he would be coaching the team in 2011.

 

[Frailty]

If there was one single ounce of truth about the approach from the Sharks to Nathan Brown, he would be coaching the team in 2011.

And the basis for this is? Perhaps Brown realised if Irvine didn't have the balls to see Stuart, what's stopping him from doing it in the future.

I heard some information whilst the rumours were going around, that he didn't want to be at the Sharks because of the uncertain future.

 

[fizman]

So Frailty,

Your saying that the Sharks approached Brown to coach in 2011 and that Brown declined the position based on our financial position??

 

[Special K]

Why take over as coach at the sharks? Brown doesn't have the best reputation in Aus and taking our basket case of a club on doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

He is better off waiting for a better situation to come along.

 

[fizman]

I disagree. Whether we are a basket case or not, we are still an NRL team in the best competition in the world.

The expectations are so low at Cronulla that anyone capable of lifting us from the bottom will be deemed as a genius.

I think it is the perfect opportunity for a coach to enhance their reputation. Our playing roster is much stronger than what is being displayed.

I believe that IF Brown was offered the position, he would have taken it with both hands

1. For the challenge
2. Be closer to family

 

[pk76]

Ffs. This club

What's the definition of imploding

Has anyone ever dug under our ground to see if we have buult on some cursed burial ground

:lol::lol:

I had to chuckle when I read that.


Sharkies fans, keep up the faith. Any change is painful especially likes of culture change. I am sure your club will survive and thrive in years to come.

(I am not a pro/anti Irvine)