2020 season

[franklin2323]

What input do you think Fletcher has? Or is he there for work experience? The CEO title doesn't mean you have to be on the committee - having a delegated rep with the required skills and experience (i.e. Cameron) is sufficient. My understanding is that recuitment and retention is a big part of Cameron's role. Why appoint someone to look after something and then sit in on the BAU anyway? Cameron can and should be reporting back to the ceo as required - saves a whole lot of time-wasting so the ceo (and the rest of the wall flies) can then focus on the aspects of the business where he can have impact.

As far as mistakes made, the season will be the judge. But the point being the committee should be trimmed to be truly effective. The 4 I nominated are likely those with the most to contribute - the others either contribute little (e.g. cfo can be consulted as needed or out of session) or are there as respective yes men (coaching staff and mates). Just another measure of our club's inability to become a professional organisation - they start with a credible idea but f**k it up through poor execution or overcooking.

How do we know it isn’t done that way?

 

[betcats]

What input do you think Fletcher has? Or is he there for work experience? The CEO title doesn't mean you have to be on the committee - having a delegated rep with the required skills and experience (i.e. Cameron) is sufficient. My understanding is that recuitment and retention is a big part of Cameron's role. Why appoint someone to look after something and then sit in on the BAU anyway? Cameron can and should be reporting back to the ceo as required - saves a whole lot of time-wasting so the ceo (and the rest of the wall flies) can then focus on the aspects of the business where he can have impact.

As far as mistakes made, the season will be the judge. But the point being the committee should be trimmed to be truly effective. The 4 I nominated are likely those with the most to contribute - the others either contribute little (e.g. cfo can be consulted as needed or out of session) or are there as respective yes men (coaching staff and mates). Just another measure of our club's inability to become a professional organisation - they start with a credible idea but f**k it up through poor execution or overcooking.

I don't know what input he has, I suspect Ivan gets what he wants in any case but the CEO should definitely be involved in the process. He is running the club, he needs to know what direction the footy department is heading a huge part of that is recruitment and retention. the footy department also needs input from the business and who better to give it then the guy overseeing the business as a whole.

 

[Panfa]

The 2 guys under immense pressure this yr in our outside backs are mansour and whare.Both were rumoured to be shopped around and age and speed is beyond them.Id give them the 1st 5 rds to show they still belong in 1st grade if they fail then it's Capewell to centre and Crichton to the wing till we find a decent replacement or McGrady recovers from injury.Mcgrady could definitely handle 1st grade he's just coming back from his 2nd knee reco got size and speed also a decent goalkicker.lastly what happened to that speedy winger we had last season from stmarys I think his name was Alan Fitzgibbon he looked like a Josh ado carr clone.

 

[Abacus]

How do we know it isn’t done that way?

This article states the 10-man committee meets twice-monthly during the season.

PANTHERS
Gould’s legacy crumbling as Panthers slash $5.6m from footy club grant
Dean Ritchie, The Daily Telegraph
December 17, 2019 4:59pm
Subscriber only
The Panthers Group has slashed its annual grant to Penrith’s football club by a whopping $5.6m after scrapping former general manager of football Phil Gould’s long-term contract policy.

A crippling one-off season of payouts to players - and Gould himself – will now enable the Panthers Group’s $9m a season allocation to the football club to be reduced to $3.4m for next season.

Penrith moved multiple players on long-term contracts this year - including Dallin Watene-Zelezniak, Reagan Campbell-Gillard, Waqa Blake and James Maloney – plus Gould’s termination – at a hefty cost of $3m.

Desperate to abandon an ill-fated policy of having one man control the club’s salary cap, long-term deals and back-ended contracts, Penrith has made dramatic financial changes since Gould resigned in April.

Penrith have been forced to end a number of contracts early. Picture by Brett Costello.
Panthers coach Ivan Cleary has installed a 10-man recruitment, retention and salary cap committee comprising himself, Brian Fletcher, Greg Alexander, Trent Barrett, Cam Ciraldo, Peter Wallace, Dave O’Neill, Matt Cameron, Jim Jones and Group Financial Controller, John White.

The group, which meets twice-monthly during the NRL season, has abandoned the club’s policy strategy of having one man – Gould – as sole salary cap boss.

“In the view of the retention committee, those long-term deals weren’t in the best interests of the club. We have tidied everything up but we have to take a hit in one year,” said Fletcher, Panthers Group chief executive.

“We are trying to reduce long-term and back-ended contracts. We had to make some hard financial decisions going forward.”

With the payouts now settled, and the salary cap committee in place, the Panthers Group don’t feel a need to inject $9m a year into the football club.

Penrith players have a drink during Penrith NRL training on a hot Sydney day in Penrith. Picture: Brett Costello
The Daily Telegraph can reveal an exclusive break down of the Panthers financial figures this season which included:

* An amount of $2.8m being given to propagate and develop junior rugby league in the Penrith district.

* Around $1.5m needed for the upkeep of Panthers Academy and Panthers Stadium.

* About $800,000 given to medically retired players Sam McKendry and Tim Browne.

* Approximately $3m spent on coaching and football staff.

* Despite the huge outlay, the Panthers Group still posted a $23m cash profit for this year.

All payouts had to be finalised in one year – not over a player’s contract term. That meant the payout figure was excessively high for 2019.

“When you’re releasing long-term contracts, the accounting standards make you put the full amount in the year that a player leaves the club,” said Fletcher.

Former Panthers general manager Phil Gould. Picture: AAP/Joel Carrett
“We have now come up with a different business model in terms of retaining and releasing players. We have made adjustments after making mistakes before, financially.

“The committee has to approve everything and then a recommendation goes to the board for final approval. When Gus resigned, Ivan suggested that a retention committee be formed, a collaborative committee and not just one person.

“The retention committee feels very confident where the club has landed now. We don’t have long-term contracts that aren’t manageable. The committee now feels that we have to be 110 per cent right for a player to sign a long-term deal.”

Penrith now has just one player on a long-term deal – halfback Nathan Cleary.

Matt Cameron's interview about 12 minutes in also confirms all 10 personnel meet fortnightly - https://www.penrithpanthers.com.au/...ses-recruitment-retention-and-the-salary-cap/

 

[Abacus]

I don't know what input he has, I suspect Ivan gets what he wants in any case but the CEO should definitely be involved in the process. He is running the club, he needs to know what direction the footy department is heading a huge part of that is recruitment and retention. the footy department also needs input from the business and who better to give it then the guy overseeing the business as a whole.

The Group CEO needs to worry about gaming and bar profits and maybe approve/reject the recommendation of the panel/committee. The misconception is that the CEO needs to be involved in the decision making process for recruitment - for a guy that knows footy and what he's doing I'd agree 100%.

For Fletcher, he's a racing guy with little rugby league background. If he's not adding anything to the committee's process, why be there? The business of the licensed clubs is very different to that of the rugby league club - hence Matt Cameron's role of GM Rugby League.

If there is some business-specific input required for recruitment/retention I'd love to hear it. Particularly with the Deputy Chairman already involved.

 

[Pomoz]

The committee is overcooked. Any more than 5 people and its a time-wasting bullshit exercise. Everyone gets to have a say and you lose 20 minutes discussing 1 player that no one wants anyway.

For starters, Dave should not be there. He's meant to be the chairman ffs. The chairman and board are responsible for appointing senior roles and then getting the f**k out of the way. If he wants to be involved in the day-to-day business he should relinquish his role on the board and and apply for a job based on his rugby league experience based on his credentials.

How much do you think Fletcher knows about player recruitment and what do you think he contributes to the committee. IMO, nothing. So he's just wasting his (& everyone else's) time being there.

If they want a committee it should be along the lines of:
1. Matt Cameron (chair)
2. Ivan Cleary (head coach & coaching staff rep)
3. Brandy (board's rep)
4. Jim Jones (junior development)

Each person brings the input of their respective groups to the meeting (Cameron should know the cap position and be comfortable advising the panel in this respect). All of a sudden you have more focused discussion and decisions with no single area of the business over-represented.

Tamou would be $650k-$700k by himself. I'd have Edwards sitting about $250k-$300k. So about $750k-$900k available by replacing these 2 with 1 guy on $100k-$150k. Still doesn't make a 15-gamer a must keep - particularly should 2nd season syndrome hit him. If I could sign him for $200k-$250k for 2-3 years, I'm happy to keep him. If he asks for $300k, show the winger the door.

Cleary in a sponsors box so sponsors like him? Come on Franklin, I know you're not daft. Cleary would be there on his club's instruction. I was talking more about drawing new sponsors (& players) to the club. His contribution to the club's Xmas message almost put me to sleep with his lack of authenticity and apparent preparation. If that's also how engages with sponsors and players then he's getting a mill a year to be head coach (with questionable results) and sit on an overcooked committee.

Not sure what you mean by most were off contract last year - players or sponsors? If players, then the only must keep player we re-signed was Fish. Burns nice to keep. Most of the other resignings were preseason & midseason upgrades of juniors to allow the player to be NRL-eligible. Those that could get offers elsewhere took them.

A very good explanation of why a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Anybody who has been present at that size of committee for a business meeting, knows what you mean about it being dysfunctional. IT project committees are probably the worst example of where a huge gathering is created to ensure representation of the whole business and the project slows to a crawl, nothing gets done and in trying to please everybody, the final result is a frankensteins monster that doesn't work properly.

Quite right that the chairman should butt out of recruitment, he has no skill in that area. The Board should be focused on strategy and making sure the business is implementing the strategy, establishing the values of the business and the long term sustainability of the business to meet the shareholders needs. The chairmen, according to the institute of directors is supposed to be:

• providing leadership to the board
• taking responsibility for the board’s composition and development
• ensuring proper information for the board
• planning and conducting board meetings effectively
• getting all directors involved in the board’s work
• ensuring the board focuses on its key tasks
• engaging the board in assessing and improving its performance
• overseeing the induction and development of directors
• supporting the chief executive/MD

Notice the lack of mention about day to day running of the business and recruitment.

To be fair,O'Neill wouldn't be the first chairmen who wants to run the business and is just a frustrated CEO.

 

[betcats]

The Group CEO needs to worry about gaming and bar profits and maybe approve/reject the recommendation of the panel/committee. The misconception is that the CEO needs to be involved in the decision making process for recruitment - for a guy that knows footy and what he's doing I'd agree 100%.

For Fletcher, he's a racing guy with little rugby league background. If he's not adding anything to the committee's process, why be there? The business of the licensed clubs is very different to that of the rugby league club - hence Matt Cameron's role of GM Rugby League.

If there is some business-specific input required for recruitment/retention I'd love to hear it. Particularly with the Deputy Chairman already involved.

How many club ceos do you think have no input in the football department or recruitment? They take responsibility for the overall success of the foitball department as much as anyone. I think there would be input from a marketing stand point for certain in regards to recruitment and retention, probably bigger financial inputs also, the salary cap is a long way from the be all end all of the clubs finances. And the fact is the ceo in theory approves or dissaproves any potential signings. Why waste Cameron’s time having him fill in the ceo on the committee’s discussions when he has far more important things to be doing? Streamline the whole process by including the boss in the discussions.

 

[Abacus]

How many club ceos do you think have no input in the football department or recruitment? They take responsibility for the overall success of the foitball department as much as anyone. I think there would be input from a marketing stand point for certain in regards to recruitment and retention, probably bigger financial inputs also, the salary cap is a long way from the be all end all of the clubs finances. And the fact is the ceo in theory approves or dissaproves any potential signings. Why waste Cameron’s time having him fill in the ceo on the committee’s discussions when he has far more important things to be doing? Streamline the whole process by including the boss in the discussions.

I think you've missed that Fletcher is the Group CEO - not the football CEO. He shouldn't be spending more than 10-15% of his time on rugby league. If he's decided that needs to be on recruitment/retention when there are other areas that need to be included, well its either unbelievably selfish or stupid. Particularly with a GM in place (as is in place with all Panthers leagues clubs) that should be handling the day to day and reporting to the Group CEO (Fletcher). Hence you end up with Cameron doing his job and not having Fletcher trying to do the parts of Cameron's job he likes for him.

 

[Abacus]

The CEO needs to have a seat at the table. Not to discuss potential players but to know the fallout. Take Tetevano as example coaching staff it is a no brainer, contract wise too no brainer but for sponsors ok and the brand need the CEO’s imput

Agreed the CEO should be consulted on these occasions - but not all signings need this consideration. Hence CEO consultation can be done out of session -preferably pre-session so the panel doesn't waste time discussing it in detail if the CEO/Board have no appetite for it.

 

[betcats]

I think you've missed that Fletcher is the Group CEO - not the football CEO. He shouldn't be spending more than 10-15% of his time on rugby league. If he's decided that needs to be on recruitment/retention when there are other areas that need to be included, well its either unbelievably selfish or stupid. Particularly with a GM in place (as is in place with all Panthers leagues clubs) that should be handling the day to day and reporting to the Group CEO (Fletcher). Hence you end up with Cameron doing his job and not having Fletcher trying to do the parts of Cameron's job he likes for him.

No I didn’t miss that. How do you think this committee works? If the ceo isn’t involved in recruitment what part of the footy department is he supposed to be spending 15 percent of his time on? Player development? Coaching? I really hope not. He is a part of the recruitment process by definition of his role, having him on the committee makes sense to me.

 

[Pomoz]

How many club ceos do you think have no input in the football department or recruitment? They take responsibility for the overall success of the foitball department as much as anyone. I think there would be input from a marketing stand point for certain in regards to recruitment and retention, probably bigger financial inputs also, the salary cap is a long way from the be all end all of the clubs finances. And the fact is the ceo in theory approves or dissaproves any potential signings. Why waste Cameron’s time having him fill in the ceo on the committee’s discussions when he has far more important things to be doing? Streamline the whole process by including the boss in the discussions.

A good theory, but as an ex-CEO I can tell you that if you sit on every meeting that is leading to you needing to give your approval, then you would need 24/7 to be able to do it all. The idea is that the relevant people put together their proposal and recommendations and you, (sometimes together with the board) and your key advisers, the CFO, COO etc. review the proposal and ask questions and make a decision.Often people are sent away to modify the proposal or to get further information. The CEO sometimes gets involved in the meetings leading to the proposal, when the CEO can add value because they have experience in an area or, to ensure that the initial proposal is on the right track, but that's it. There is just too much to do to sit in on all the meetings.

The group CEO at the Panthers is running a complex organisation, I don't understand how it is a good use of his time to help decide whether Capewell is a good signing or not. What possible value can he add? He should review the proposal, it should be signed off by the CFO and commercial manger (if they have one) to say it is financially sustainable and won't cause salary cap issues. He should review where the signing fits in the salary cap over the next five years and then let the football GM do his job. As for O'Neill, WTF he is doing on the committee is anybody's guess.

Anyway, if I'm not going to be a hypocrite, I shouldn't focus on how they do it, even if its in breach of accepted leadership and board management principles, but focus on the results achieved. We shall see in due course if their unusual board management and general leadership is an issue at the end of the season.

 

[Abacus]

No I didn’t miss that. How do you think this committee works? If the ceo isn’t involved in recruitment what part of the footy department is he supposed to be spending 15 percent of his time on? Player development? Coaching? I really hope not. He is a part of the recruitment process by definition of his role, having him on the committee makes sense to me.

You really want the operation of a committee explained? OK, in simple terms, the more members on a committee the more guys you have standing around holding shovels than actually digging.

I'd hope the CEO is more involved with business planning, longer term customer communciation (including members, fans and marketing) building sustainable partnerships with major sponsors, lobbying government for funding, ensuring that the strategic direction set by the Board is appropriately communicated to the GM and implemented accordingly and reviewing any recommendations from any sub-committees (including others across the group e.g. audit, IT, security, finance, gaming, bars and catering, property development).

I get that recruitment is the sexy part of rugby league (apart from holding aloft premiership trophies) and everyone just wants to be involved - I just expect the Group CEO would be wasted in a room where everyone knows more than him, and can arrive at a recommendation without him, for his approval/decline. So instead of sitting in a meeting for 2 hours, the CEO can get the 15 minute version for the same outcome. But if he and the Chairman have nothing better to do with their time they could sunbake in the middle of Panthers stadium and probably be more productive than they are holding shovels.

 

[Abacus]

A good theory, but as an ex-CEO I can tell you that if you sit on every meeting that is leading to you needing to give your approval, then you would need 24/7 to be able to do it all. The idea is that the relevant people put together their proposal and recommendations and you, (sometimes together with the board) and your key advisers, the CFO, COO etc. review the proposal and ask questions and make a decision.Often people are sent away to modify the proposal or to get further information. The CEO sometimes gets involved in the meetings leading to the proposal, when the CEO can add value because they have experience in an area or, to ensure that the initial proposal is on the right track, but that's it. There is just too much to do to sit in on all the meetings.

The group CEO at the Panthers is running a complex organisation, I don't understand how it is a good use of his time to help decide whether Capewell is a good signing or not. What possible value can he add? He should review the proposal, it should be signed off by the CFO and commercial manger (if they have one) to say it is financially sustainable and won't cause salary cap issues. He should review where the signing fits in the salary cap over the next five years and then let the football GM do his job. As for O'Neill, WTF he is doing on the committee is anybody's guess.

Anyway, if I'm not going to be a hypocrite, I shouldn't focus on how they do it, even if its in breach of accepted leadership and board management principles, but focus on the results achieved. We shall see in due course if their unusual board management and general leadership is an issue at the end of the season.

This is it 100%!

 

[betcats]

A good theory, but as an ex-CEO I can tell you that if you sit on every meeting that is leading to you needing to give your approval, then you would need 24/7 to be able to do it all. The idea is that the relevant people put together their proposal and recommendations and you, (sometimes together with the board) and your key advisers, the CFO, COO etc. review the proposal and ask questions and make a decision.Often people are sent away to modify the proposal or to get further information. The CEO sometimes gets involved in the meetings leading to the proposal, when the CEO can add value because they have experience in an area or, to ensure that the initial proposal is on the right track, but that's it. There is just too much to do to sit in on all the meetings.

The group CEO at the Panthers is running a complex organisation, I don't understand how it is a good use of his time to help decide whether Capewell is a good signing or not. What possible value can he add? He should review the proposal, it should be signed off by the CFO and commercial manger (if they have one) to say it is financially sustainable and won't cause salary cap issues. He should review where the signing fits in the salary cap over the next five years and then let the football GM do his job. As for O'Neill, WTF he is doing on the committee is anybody's guess.

Anyway, if I'm not going to be a hypocrite, I shouldn't focus on how they do it, even if its in breach of accepted leadership and board management principles, but focus on the results achieved. We shall see in due course if their unusual board management and general leadership is an issue at the end of the season.

I didn’t say he needs to sit in on every meeting. I’d say the coaches and GM have plenty of discussions about recruitment without the chairman, ceo or even brandy present. I see the relevant footy people bringing potential signings to the committee and the committee giving their approval almost as a formality. I very much doubt the ceo is debating with the coaching staff what position we need to target etc.

The chairman doesn’t belong, the ceo does imo. Who has commented on potential signings or signings from the club since Gus left? The ceo, it seems a no brainer he should have some involvement in the committee to me.

And yes the results are far more important then who sits on the committee, i think they have recruited pretty well so far so we will see what the future holds.

 

[franklin2323]

A good theory, but as an ex-CEO I can tell you that if you sit on every meeting that is leading to you needing to give your approval, then you would need 24/7 to be able to do it all. The idea is that the relevant people put together their proposal and recommendations and you, (sometimes together with the board) and your key advisers, the CFO, COO etc. review the proposal and ask questions and make a decision.Often people are sent away to modify the proposal or to get further information. The CEO sometimes gets involved in the meetings leading to the proposal, when the CEO can add value because they have experience in an area or, to ensure that the initial proposal is on the right track, but that's it. There is just too much to do to sit in on all the meetings.

The group CEO at the Panthers is running a complex organisation, I don't understand how it is a good use of his time to help decide whether Capewell is a good signing or not. What possible value can he add? He should review the proposal, it should be signed off by the CFO and commercial manger (if they have one) to say it is financially sustainable and won't cause salary cap issues. He should review where the signing fits in the salary cap over the next five years and then let the football GM do his job. As for O'Neill, WTF he is doing on the committee is anybody's guess.

Anyway, if I'm not going to be a hypocrite, I shouldn't focus on how they do it, even if its in breach of accepted leadership and board management principles, but focus on the results achieved. We shall see in due course if their unusual board management and general leadership is an issue at the end of the season.

Did you deal with anything as hard to manage as the Salary Cap though? Only takes a few injuries and your next years cap is stuffed. Better to have the guys best dealing with that atleast in the room if needed then to be blind sided by it

 

[franklin2323]

You really want the operation of a committee explained? OK, in simple terms, the more members on a committee the more guys you have standing around holding shovels than actually digging.

I'd hope the CEO is more involved with business planning, longer term customer communciation (including members, fans and marketing) building sustainable partnerships with major sponsors, lobbying government for funding, ensuring that the strategic direction set by the Board is appropriately communicated to the GM and implemented accordingly and reviewing any recommendations from any sub-committees (including others across the group e.g. audit, IT, security, finance, gaming, bars and catering, property development).

I get that recruitment is the sexy part of rugby league (apart from holding aloft premiership trophies) and everyone just wants to be involved - I just expect the Group CEO would be wasted in a room where everyone knows more than him, and can arrive at a recommendation without him, for his approval/decline. So instead of sitting in a meeting for 2 hours, the CEO can get the 15 minute version for the same outcome. But if he and the Chairman have nothing better to do with their time they could sunbake in the middle of Panthers stadium and probably be more productive than they are holding shovels.

Does the coaching staff really need to be part of the financial discussions? I say no but them in the room means they know where it is going as far as player retention and if they can call up x player etc. Better them to be holding the shovel and not needed then to need those shovels to dig out of hole

 

[betcats]

You really want the operation of a committee explained? OK, in simple terms, the more members on a committee the more guys you have standing around holding shovels than actually digging.

I'd hope the CEO is more involved with business planning, longer term customer communciation (including members, fans and marketing) building sustainable partnerships with major sponsors, lobbying government for funding, ensuring that the strategic direction set by the Board is appropriately communicated to the GM and implemented accordingly and reviewing any recommendations from any sub-committees (including others across the group e.g. audit, IT, security, finance, gaming, bars and catering, property development).

I get that recruitment is the sexy part of rugby league (apart from holding aloft premiership trophies) and everyone just wants to be involved - I just expect the Group CEO would be wasted in a room where everyone knows more than him, and can arrive at a recommendation without him, for his approval/decline. So instead of sitting in a meeting for 2 hours, the CEO can get the 15 minute version for the same outcome. But if he and the Chairman have nothing better to do with their time they could sunbake in the middle of Panthers stadium and probably be more productive than they are holding shovels.

No I didn't want it explained, I wanted your opinion on how this committee works in reality. Do you really believe that every committee in the world has the same dynamics, the same processes? That is is pretty stupid if you ask me. I asked your opinion because you keep implying the CEO is having some major input on our potential signings.

 

[franklin2323]

No I didn't want it explained, I wanted your opinion on how this committee works in reality. Do you really believe that every committee in the world has the same dynamics, the same processes? That is is pretty stupid if you ask me. I asked your opinion because you keep implying the CEO is having some major input on our potential signings.

The way I see it is like this:

Like a normal meeting there is an agenda with minutes. Not everyone talks about every subject or not everyone is needed to talk just listen. When it is their item or an area they need to explain or discuss they do. More to keep everyone on the same page then anything really

 

[Abacus]

Does the coaching staff really need to be part of the financial discussions? I say no but them in the room means they know where it is going as far as player retention and if they can call up x player etc. Better them to be holding the shovel and not needed then to need those shovels to dig out of hole

Um, I think you may have the wrong end of the shovel. The panel (including coaches rep) needs to know the cap position so they don't waste time talking about a player that is unattainable i.e. Latrell @ $1m p.a.

And a 4 man panel ensures the work is done without the other 6 sitting around doing nothing.

 

[betcats]

The way I see it is like this:

Like a normal meeting there is an agenda with minutes. Not everyone talks about every subject or not everyone is needed to talk just listen. When it is their item or an area they need to explain or discuss they do. More to keep everyone on the same page then anything really

Yep it help keeps people on the same page. It also provides oversight and transparency for a very important aspect of the clubs success. The clubs management has been presented as very fragmented and factional the last few years and there are reports our cap situation was once again not good. I think this addresses both those issues.