2020 season

[Abacus]

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.

Ok, in reality most members of the panel occupy a seat and contribute little. The main contributers are those I nominated earlier for the 4 man panel - meaning the other 6 are there either for appearances, ego, to waste time or potentially to stack the numbers when it comes time to reach a consensus.

I think you've got confused. My position is that the CEO (& 5 others) is having little or no practical contribution to the committee, is a waste of time being there and should find something more practical to do in his role's realm of responsibilities. Further, the club jas taken a good idea and bastardised it to the point of idiocy and malfunction.

I've sat on my fair share of committees, working groups, PCGs, boards and whatever other descriptor has been used over the years and yes, my experience is that in most cases they work the same way - the chair guides the discussion, the more people in attendance the harder it is to keep the attendees on subject and on time and generally the same result can be achieved by having the right 4 or 5 people involved as having a group 2 or 3 times that number. Reducing the number of attendees improves efficiency and accountability.

 

[franklin2323]

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.

Pretty much this. Take last year with the guys that got the exemption that comes off the cap for this season. It keeps everyone in the loop that it will affect the recruitment going forward. Allows coaches to know this and maybe move around other players so not to use that cap space

 

[Aliceinwonderland]

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.

Well said, No 2 committees work the same. It depends largely on the various personalities, as to the dynamics of the group. To suggest that the CEO and group CEO not be involved when they hold the purse strings..........crazy talk.

 

[betcats]

Ok, in reality most members of the panel occupy a seat and contribute little. The main contributers are those I nominated earlier for the 4 man panel - meaning the other 6 are there either for appearances, ego, to waste time or potentially to stack the numbers when it comes time to reach a consensus.

I think you've got confused. My position is that the CEO (& 5 others) is having little or no practical contribution to the committee, is a waste of time being there and should find something more practical to do in his role's realm of responsibilities. Further, the club jas taken a good idea and bastardised it to the point of idiocy and malfunction.

I've sat on my fair share of committees, working groups, PCGs, boards and whatever other descriptor has been used over the years and yes, my experience is that in most cases they work the same way - the chair guides the discussion, the more people in attendance the harder it is to keep the attendees on subject and on time and generally the same result can be achieved by having the right 4 or 5 people involved as having a group 2 or 3 times that number. Reducing the number of attendees improves efficiency and accountability.

I’m not confused at all, I just don’t agree with your opinion, let’s leave it at that to avoid around in circles.

 

[betcats]

Well said, No 2 committees work the same. It depends largely on the various personalities, as to the dynamics of the group. To suggest that the CEO and group CEO not be involved when they hold the purse strings..........crazy talk.

Yep I agree. The CEO is dealing with marketing and maintaining relationships with our sponsors, he is aware of the overall financial position of the club and he is beholden to the members as much or more so then the coach. He is one part of the clubs face. I find it ludicrous to suggest he should have zero input. I doubt there are any nrl CEO’s who have zero input into recruitment.

 

[Abacus]

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

I really hope this is not what they are doing - you've just explained a low-level roundtable catch-up. Although I fear with 10 people involved it likely is what they are doing.

Alternatively:
1. Head coach advises areas lacking in current and projected squads with priority assigned to positions.
2. Junior development advises progress and likely status of developing juniors i.e. whether there are any "superstars" in the prioritised positions in the lower grades;
3. GM advises cap available (including change from previous update) and proposed external candidates for prioritised positions.
4. Panel assess relative merits of internal v external players (both on & off field) and prioritise development vs retention vs recruitment to identify solution/target.
5. GM negotiates with respective player managers to extend/recruit identified players. Provides status of negotiations at subsequent meetings. Where agreement reached between parties for material or contentious signings, seek CEO/Board ratification.
6. Rinse and repeat.

I know its brief but it assigns responsibility to each committee/panel member and their reason for involvement. Additional attendees are not required and only serve to delay the above process. Again, others may be consulted out of session.

 

[Abacus]

I’m not confused at all, I just don’t agree with your opinion, let’s leave it at that to avoid around in circles.

Just clarifying your misrepresentation of my position. Otherwise happy to leave it with you.

Yep I agree. The CEO is dealing with marketing and maintaining relationships with our sponsors, he is aware of the overall financial position of the club and he is beholden to the members as much or more so then the coach. He is one part of the clubs face. I find it ludicrous to suggest he should have zero input. I doubt there are any nrl CEO’s who have zero input into recruitment.

Um, Fletcher is not an NRL CEO... He's the Group CEO so responsible for reporting to the Board re the licensed operations as well as football - but can't contribute 100% (or even 20%) of his time to football hence the reason a GM is appointed. So Cameron as GM should be involves in all things football & Fletcher as Group CEO gets the overview including contentious matters (i.e. need to know basis).

To suggest that the CEO and group CEO not be involved when they hold the purse strings.

When did we get a CEO in addition to a Group CEO?

Most organisations work on the basis of employees having levels of financial approval. Budgets are approved by the Board and handed down to the appropriate personnel. Most recruitment/retention would be able to be completed by the GM (high dollars or reputational factors aside) - otherwise they're nothing more than a bottleneck to the Group CEO - and the Group CEO should not want or need to be involved in every signing/re-signing, let alone discussions about potential signings.

 

[TheFrog]

I’d agree with mid field. We by no means have been terrible but we can and should be aiming to be the best. So a change of approach is needed to get there sometimes.

Wins Decade by Decade (Draw counted as half a win, losing playoff for 5th counted as a finals year)

1967-69 Played 66 Won 23.5 Lost 42.5 Win% 35.6 Finals Years 0
1970-79 Played 220 Won 71.5 Lost 148.5 Win% 32.5 Finals Years 0 Spoons 1
1980-89 Played 241 Won 103 Lost 136 Win% 42.7 Finals Years 3 Spoons 1
1990-99 Played 226 Won 113 Lost 113 Win% 50.0 Finals Years 3 GF 2 Prem 1
2000-09 Played 233 Won 116 Lost 117 Win% 49.8 Finals Years 3 GF 1 Prem 1 Spoons 2
2010-19 Played 250 Won 124 Lost 126 Win% 49.6 Finals Years 5

What to make of these numbers? A slow progression from perennial cellar dwellers to mid-table, although overall win percentage has remained constant for three decades now. The 2010s were more even than the previous two decades, lacking both the highs and the lows. I think it was Gus's aim to make us a regular finals side, rather than win comps, and in that he succeeded.

 

[betcats]

Just clarifying your misrepresentation of my position. Otherwise happy to leave it with you.

Um, Fletcher is not an NRL CEO... He's the Group CEO so responsible for reporting to the Board re the licensed operations as well as football - but can't contribute 100% (or even 20%) of his time to football hence the reason a GM is appointed. So Cameron as GM should be involves in all things football & Fletcher as Group CEO gets the overview including contentious matters (i.e. need to know basis).

When did we get a CEO in addition to a Group CEO?

Most organisations work on the basis of employees having levels of financial approval. Budgets are approved by the Board and handed down to the appropriate personnel. Most recruitment/retention would be able to be completed by the GM (high dollars or reputational factors aside) - otherwise they're nothing more than a bottleneck to the Group CEO - and the Group CEO should not want or need to be involved in every signing/re-signing, let alone discussions about potential signings.

So how much time is Fletcher spending on footy? You’ve got no clue if it’s 5 percent or 50 percent. I find it ridiculous you are using percentages of the CEOs time and where it should be spent as part of your argument.

Besides having to many people what have they actually done wrong?

 

[franklin2323]

I really hope this is not what they are doing - you've just explained a low-level roundtable catch-up. Although I fear with 10 people involved it likely is what they are doing.

Alternatively:
1. Head coach advises areas lacking in current and projected squads with priority assigned to positions.
2. Junior development advises progress and likely status of developing juniors i.e. whether there are any "superstars" in the prioritised positions in the lower grades;
3. GM advises cap available (including change from previous update) and proposed external candidates for prioritised positions.
4. Panel assess relative merits of internal v external players (both on & off field) and prioritise development vs retention vs recruitment to identify solution/target.
5. GM negotiates with respective player managers to extend/recruit identified players. Provides status of negotiations at subsequent meetings. Where agreement reached between parties for material or contentious signings, seek CEO/Board ratification.
6. Rinse and repeat.

I know its brief but it assigns responsibility to each committee/panel member and their reason for involvement. Additional attendees are not required and only serve to delay the above process. Again, others may be consulted out of session.

So who goes back to the board and ok's the budget going forward?

Why not have the other coaches there so to save a meeting again later with Ivan passing it on?

 

[Pomoz]

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

Complex though the salary cap is, a competent accountant with a grasp of excel could model it easily. This would include the ability to do detailed scenario analysis such as you suggested. What if we have three injuries? What if we get three extra rep players so we have to pay rep bonuses? Actuaries regularly carry out far more complex calculations using statistical analysis. This isn't rocket science.

One of the reasons that this has become an issue for many clubs is because they put football people in charge without the support of somebody who is trained in analysis and modelling. I think the clubs now realise that the calculations can become complex and they need proper commercial support to manage it.

Have I managed anything as complex as the salary cap? Yes, as a CEO and especially as a CFO where my job was to carry out detailed scenario analysis on complex projects, some worth hundreds of millions of dollars, with multiple expense lines, operational data and hundreds of staff. I don't think I am unusual in that regard, There are plenty of people in business who have done the same.

 

[Pomoz]

Ok, in reality most members of the panel occupy a seat and contribute little. The main contributers are those I nominated earlier for the 4 man panel - meaning the other 6 are there either for appearances, ego, to waste time or potentially to stack the numbers when it comes time to reach a consensus.

I think you've got confused. My position is that the CEO (& 5 others) is having little or no practical contribution to the committee, is a waste of time being there and should find something more practical to do in his role's realm of responsibilities. Further, the club jas taken a good idea and bastardised it to the point of idiocy and malfunction.

I've sat on my fair share of committees, working groups, PCGs, boards and whatever other descriptor has been used over the years and yes, my experience is that in most cases they work the same way - the chair guides the discussion, the more people in attendance the harder it is to keep the attendees on subject and on time and generally the same result can be achieved by having the right 4 or 5 people involved as having a group 2 or 3 times that number. Reducing the number of attendees improves efficiency and accountability.

My experience is the same. You just need the right people and clear accountability. When management theorists started espousing theories about empowerment as the current answer to improve performance, some leaders started going nuts with committees and including people from every part of the business. Costly meetings went for hours and achieved very little, having minutes makes very little difference.

It's easy to just put everybody in room so "we are on the same page", and "you all have input into the decision". The truth is, it's the senior management equivalent of "CC"ing everybody with an email so you can say when something goes wrong "but I copied you on the email, you were aware of what's going on". In this case "you were in the room, you knew what was going on".

 

[Abacus]

So how much time is Fletcher spending on footy? You’ve got no clue if it’s 5 percent or 50 percent. I find it ridiculous you are using percentages of the CEOs time and where it should be spent as part of your argument.

Besides having to many people what have they actually done wrong?

I thought you didn't want to go around in circles? But welcome back!

I don't really care how much time he's spending on footy other than it should be used where he can actually contribute and not just sitting in recruitment meetings listening to people that know what they're talking about - particularly when its not part of his job. And as long the more important part of his role is not neglected as a result. To be fair he's probably there at Dave's (who really doesn't have a clue) request.

I provided a whole list of things earlier that Fletcher should be focused on with footy other than recruitment - things he (& Dave) should know about. I also said earlier that the proof will be in the 2020 pudding but so far they've not strengthened our squad for 2020. I do acknowledge that 1 preseason is not enough to judge outcomes.

The questions however should be what have they delivered and is what they are doing (10 people in a room each fortnight with the majority contributing little) the best way to get the outcomes for the club? Or do we keep doing things the Panthers way (amateurish), wait for it to all go wrong and then do it all again?

Disclaimer: I'll retract everything if the Roosters or Storm model involves a 10 man recruitment committee.

 

[betcats]

I thought you didn't want to go around in circles? But welcome back!

I don't really care how much time he's spending on footy other than it should be used where he can actually contribute and not just sitting in recruitment meetings listening to people that know what they're talking about - particularly when its not part of his job. And as long the more important part of his role is not neglected as a result. To be fair he's probably there at Dave's (who really doesn't have a clue) request.

I provided a whole list of things earlier that Fletcher should be focused on with footy other than recruitment - things he (& Dave) should know about. I also said earlier that the proof will be in the 2020 pudding but so far they've not strengthened our squad for 2020. I do acknowledge that 1 preseason is not enough to judge outcomes.

The questions however should be what have they delivered and is what they are doing (10 people in a room each fortnight with the majority contributing little) the best way to get the outcomes for the club? Or do we keep doing things the Panthers way (amateurish), wait for it to all go wrong and then do it all again?

Disclaimer: I'll retract everything if the Roosters or Storm model involves a 10 man recruitment committee.

You really are just talking to make yourself sound intelligent now. It’s not really working.

Answer the questions I asked in my last comment, you have just moved the goal posts with this response. What have they done wrong? What percentage of time is Brian spending on the footy side of things?

 

[franklin2323]

Complex though the salary cap is, a competent accountant with a grasp of excel could model it easily. This would include the ability to do detailed scenario analysis such as you suggested. What if we have three injuries? What if we get three extra rep players so we have to pay rep bonuses? Actuaries regularly carry out far more complex calculations using statistical analysis. This isn't rocket science.

One of the reasons that this has become an issue for many clubs is because they put football people in charge without the support of somebody who is trained in analysis and modelling. I think the clubs now realise that the calculations can become complex and they need proper commercial support to manage it.

Have I managed anything as complex as the salary cap? Yes, as a CEO and especially as a CFO where my job was to carry out detailed scenario analysis on complex projects, some worth hundreds of millions of dollars, with multiple expense lines, operational data and hundreds of staff. I don't think I am unusual in that regard, There are plenty of people in business who have done the same.

The budget for such stuff would be set for the year or quarter. Not where a rep call up bonus money can put you over that budget. So the need to keep more in the loop is there

I go on Zoom (online) meetings atleast once a month. Sometimes more regular there could be unto 100 on that. Not everyone talks but it allows the same info to be passed down at once rather then need to have the same meeting over and over. I have seen nothing to suggest that at all times all 10 are actively involved in meetings.

I suspect plenty of other teams have multiple people present in meetings

 

[Kilkenny]

So how much time is Fletcher spending on footy? You’ve got no clue if it’s 5 percent or 50 percent. I find it ridiculous you are using percentages of the CEOs time and where it should be spent as part of your argument.

Besides having to many people what have they actually done wrong?

I don’t profess to know what percentage of Fletcher’s time would be involved in work around the football side of things. The less the better but that’s just my personal opinion.

Not only did our General Manager in Phil Gould ‘lose’ his job but the General Manager of the PDJRL Phil Cummins also lost his job and has been replaced by Nathan Marleitner. Phil Cummins was a Phil Gould appointment after being head hunted from the Eels. Other changes have occurred behind the scenes including the well known one around Scott McCrae.

I think there would be some nervous employees from our staff who operate in support of the Head Coach Ivan Cleary because another poor season in 2020 there will be scapegoats who will find themselves out of a job.

I think it is naive to accept the narrative fed to us by the three wise men since the removal of Gus Gould which for the most part has been designed to make us believe we were in very poor shape and all of the change was necessary going forward.

At the end of the day the evidence will be about the results we achieve on the football field and from my perspective nothing less that making the 8 will be acceptable given the upheaval we have gone through led by O’Neill & Fletcher.

 

[Dave's mate]

f**k me this is dire chat even for the off season

 

[franklin2323]

I don’t profess to know what percentage of Fletcher’s time would be involved in work around the football side of things. The less the better but that’s just my personal opinion.

Not only did our General Manager in Phil Gould ‘lose’ his job but the General Manager of the PDJRL Phil Cummins also lost his job and has been replaced by Nathan Marleitner. Phil Cummins was a Phil Gould appointment after being head hunted from the Eels. Other changes have occurred behind the scenes including the well known one around Scott McCrae.

I think there would be some nervous employees from our staff who operate in support of the Head Coach Ivan Cleary because another poor season in 2020 there will be scapegoats who will find themselves out of a job.

I think it is naive to accept the narrative fed to us by the three wise men since the removal of Gus Gould which for the most part has been designed to make us believe we were in very poor shape and all of the change was necessary going forward.

At the end of the day the evidence will be about the results we achieve on the football field and from my perspective nothing less that making the 8 will be acceptable given the upheaval we have gone through led by O’Neill & Fletcher.

Again attending a meeting and actually having an input are too totally different things.

That is part of the business that is sport though. The aim is too win you don’t and your job is in danger.

The club being in dire shape and needing a change are two different things. We are a mid table team in most ways the only exception being off field expenses.

If part of fixing that is getting rid of guys then so be it. Results will show if it was right or not

 

[betcats]

I don’t profess to know what percentage of Fletcher’s time would be involved in work around the football side of things. The less the better but that’s just my personal opinion.

Not only did our General Manager in Phil Gould ‘lose’ his job but the General Manager of the PDJRL Phil Cummins also lost his job and has been replaced by Nathan Marleitner. Phil Cummins was a Phil Gould appointment after being head hunted from the Eels. Other changes have occurred behind the scenes including the well known one around Scott McCrae.

I think there would be some nervous employees from our staff who operate in support of the Head Coach Ivan Cleary because another poor season in 2020 there will be scapegoats who will find themselves out of a job.

I think it is naive to accept the narrative fed to us by the three wise men since the removal of Gus Gould which for the most part has been designed to make us believe we were in very poor shape and all of the change was necessary going forward.

At the end of the day the evidence will be about the results we achieve on the football field and from my perspective nothing less that making the 8 will be acceptable given the upheaval we have gone through led by O’Neill & Fletcher.

Matt Cameron was a Gus appointee and he was promoted last year so I doubt the fact Gus appointed Cummins was a factor in him moving on but it’s possible.

 

[Kilkenny]

Matt Cameron was a Gus appointee and he was promoted last year so I doubt the fact Gus appointed Cummins was a factor in him moving on but it’s possible.

True