2020 season

[Abacus]

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?

Ah, the old move the goal posts by claiming the other person has moved the goal posts. A betcats classic!

I've answered both questions - happy for you to go back and review at your leisure. My argument from the start has been that the committee is over-resourced - initially aimed at Ivan & Dave but you've got your tits twisted over "Brian" for some reason. For the record, if Fletcher's portfolio was rugby league only (similar to Richo, Leary & Gould) I'd agree he absolutely should be part of the committee - but it's not so he shouldn't be.

How we have 2 board members (including the Chair), 3 assistant coaches, the Group CEO & a CFO booked in for fortnightly discussions on roster management is insane. But probably a fair representation of our brains trust and the pressure they're feeling.

It really is a better discussion over a couple of pints - sometimes people take shit too seriously when its in writing.

 

[Fangs]

I'm curious to know if these sessions even occur fortnightly. They might be scheduled but I doubt they always go ahead.

If we do an end of year review I'd expect the meetings are canned. Ad hoc as per market movement. Monthly ongoing.

 

[franklin2323]

I'm curious to know if these sessions even occur fortnightly. They might be scheduled but I doubt they always go ahead.

If we do an end of year review I'd expect the meetings are canned. Ad hoc as per market movement. Monthly ongoing.

More so how formal they are too. I think they aren’t as big deal as same say

 

[franklin2323]

Ah, the old move the goal posts by claiming the other person has moved the goal posts. A betcats classic!

I've answered both questions - happy for you to go back and review at your leisure. My argument from the start has been that the committee is over-resourced - initially aimed at Ivan & Dave but you've got your tits twisted over "Brian" for some reason. For the record, if Fletcher's portfolio was rugby league only (similar to Richo, Leary & Gould) I'd agree he absolutely should be part of the committee - but it's not so he shouldn't be.

How we have 2 board members (including the Chair), 3 assistant coaches, the Group CEO & a CFO booked in for fortnightly discussions on roster management is insane. But probably a fair representation of our brains trust and the pressure they're feeling.

It really is a better discussion over a couple of pints - sometimes people take shit too seriously when its in writing.

Fortnightly might of just been last year there was lots of work to do last year. Maybe not so often is needed now.

If the board wants costs cut then how better then have some members to sit in on discussions?

Brandy is also NSW Assistant coach who works in the media. He’d have access to things like how Tetevano went off the field at the Roosters etc.

To have these guys listening in to the meeting is a good thing as long as they stay in their lane

 

[Fangs]

More so how formal they are too. I think they aren’t as big deal as same say

That too. It may be a classic conference call meeting while playing solitaire.

I hope someone is taking down actions.

 

[Abacus]

I'm curious to know if these sessions even occur fortnightly. They might be scheduled but I doubt they always go ahead.

If we do an end of year review I'd expect the meetings are canned. Ad hoc as per market movement. Monthly ongoing.

From the 12 minute mark in his interview posted 12 December, Matt Cameron says they are happening fortnightly - more often leading up to 30 June.

Interesting that he says Brian is there to ensure compliance with Board (although Dave & Brandy are on the panel already) and for financial transactions (even though the CFO is also there). There seems to be some duplication of functions/responsibilities.

I'd be surprised if the regularity drops off as they will now be looking at 2021 onwards, given these players have been able to test the market from 1 November. A lot can happen in a month - particularly if clubs are looking to move players before round 1 2020.

 

[Abacus]

More so how formal they are too. I think they aren’t as big deal as same say

Cameron refers to meeting fortnightly with a set agenda. This is in addition to the group that looks at the salary cap "every day of the week."

In which case wouldn't you want a level of formality? Otherwise you risk the criticism that the meeting is not true collaboration but just a way of appeasing the masses.

 

[Abacus]

Fortnightly might of just been last year there was lots of work to do last year. Maybe not so often is needed now.

If the board wants costs cut then how better then have some members to sit in on discussions?

Brandy is also NSW Assistant coach who works in the media. He’d have access to things like how Tetevano went off the field at the Roosters etc.

To have these guys listening in to the meeting is a good thing as long as they stay in their lane

Even in a slimmed down panel, I'd have Brandy involved - for the reasons you've mentioned above.

The cost cutting argument doesn't make sense. If you had your panel of 4 or 5 - they get on with the job at hand. Adding people leads to things taking longer so increasing the costs (more time = more cost).

Keeping people in their lane could work if you have voting and non-voting members. The non-voting members are there as subject matter experts only so provide input when required/necessary only. It still means you have half a dozen people in the room "just in case". But I'm not sure how the Chair, Group CEO and assistant coaches fall into the SME category.

 

[Abacus]

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

Budgets are approved by the Board annually and usually include the funding to pay player contracts across all grades. Player bonuses would be reported to the Board where they are material &/or likely to contribute to a budget overspend.

The Zoom platform is usually used to distribute information rather than meeting facilitation - particularly if there are 100 people involved. No doubt some attendees would dial in for some meetings. I think the point from the start is that it is difficult (best case) to have 10 people actively involved in a meeting - hence the suggestion to consolidate it to a much more manageable, efficient and accountable 4 or 5 people.

Yes, meetings involve multiple people p sorry, couldn't resist).

 

[betcats]

Ah, the old move the goal posts by claiming the other person has moved the goal posts. A betcats classic!

I've answered both questions - happy for you to go back and review at your leisure. My argument from the start has been that the committee is over-resourced - initially aimed at Ivan & Dave but you've got your tits twisted over "Brian" for some reason. For the record, if Fletcher's portfolio was rugby league only (similar to Richo, Leary & Gould) I'd agree he absolutely should be part of the committee - but it's not so he shouldn't be.

How we have 2 board members (including the Chair), 3 assistant coaches, the Group CEO & a CFO booked in for fortnightly discussions on roster management is insane. But probably a fair representation of our brains trust and the pressure they're feeling.

It really is a better discussion over a couple of pints - sometimes people take shit too seriously when its in writing.

Mate I don't have anything twisted about Brian I am just allergic to bullshit. You are talking about the CEO and what he should be doing day to day as if you have intimate knowledge of his role down to breaking up where his time should be spent by percentages and yet when questioned further on this break down you backtrack massively "I don't really care how much time he spends on footy" is a direct contradiction to your earlier comment "he shouldn't be spending more then 15 percent of his time on footy"...it comes off as bull shit when you contradict yourself, that is true in any walk of life. If you want to be taken seriously think about what you are saying, back tracking isn't an answer.

 

[Kilkenny]

From the 12 minute mark in his interview posted 12 December, Matt Cameron says they are happening fortnightly - more often leading up to 30 June.

Interesting that he says Brian is there to ensure compliance with Board (although Dave & Brandy are on the panel already) and for financial transactions (even though the CFO is also there). There seems to be some duplication of functions/responsibilities.

I’m not an expert in these issues, far from it, but I think there may be Corporate Goverrnance issues/responsibilities that I assume Fletcher would be across as opposed to O’Neill / Brandy. That’s my guess anyway as to why he may be required at certain levels.

 

[Blues Riff]

 

[Abacus]

Mate I don't have anything twisted about Brian I am just allergic to bullshit. You are talking about the CEO and what he should be doing day to day as if you have intimate knowledge of his role down to breaking up where his time should be spent by percentages and yet when questioned further on this break down you backtrack massively "I don't really care how much time he spends on footy" is a direct contradiction to your earlier comment "he shouldn't be spending more then 15 percent of his time on footy"...it comes off as bull shit when you contradict yourself, that is true in any walk of life. If you want to be taken seriously think about what you are saying, back tracking isn't an answer.

Below is the post where I clearly outlined where the Group CEO's time should be focused. You've replied to it so I know you've seen it, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

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.

It comes down to a few key points:
1. Panthers has a GM Rugby League who, in his own words, is responsible for salary cap management.
2. This GM reports to the Group CEO, along with the other GMs in the Panthers Group, meaning the Group CEO has to split his time among a number of business functions.
3. Given the impact that the profitability of the flagship Penrith Leagues Club has on the rest of the Group's functions, I would hope a substantial part of his time (up to 50%) would be focused here.
4. Add in the other 4 leagues club and footy, governance and Board meeting prep for the rest of his time and it becomes pretty clear that footy should not be more than 10%-15% of his time. What time he actually spends is up to he & Dave - it may be more than that (including sitting in on retention committees and day-to-day business) if they lack the confidence to empower the rugby league management team.

I don't mind if you don't believe a word I say but I'm posting based my experience in senior roles including working with and advising GMs, CEOs and Boards. What you want to know is your mate Brian's working schedule. I'm not Brian or his EA so you'll have to seek the answer to that elsewhere.

 

[Abacus]

I’m not an expert in these issues, far from it, but I think there may be Corporate Goverrnance issues/responsibilities that I assume Fletcher would be across as opposed to O’Neill / Brandy. That’s my guess anyway as to why he may be required at certain levels.

Sure. I just proposed a hypothetical best-practice panel of 4 people.

If there are underlying concerns for the Board that requires increased focus on rugby league operations (maybe due to a realignment of functions/management approach) then they should have increased presence.

 

[franklin2323]

Sure. I just proposed a hypothetical best-practice panel of 4 people.

If there are underlying concerns for the Board that requires increased focus on rugby league operations (maybe due to a realignment of functions/management approach) then they should have increased presence.

Like the budget getting cut and Gus’ duties being re-directed?

 

[betcats]

Below is the post where I clearly outlined where the Group CEO's time should be focused. You've replied to it so I know you've seen it, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

It comes down to a few key points:
1. Panthers has a GM Rugby League who, in his own words, is responsible for salary cap management.
2. This GM reports to the Group CEO, along with the other GMs in the Panthers Group, meaning the Group CEO has to split his time among a number of business functions.
3. Given the impact that the profitability of the flagship Penrith Leagues Club has on the rest of the Group's functions, I would hope a substantial part of his time (up to 50%) would be focused here.
4. Add in the other 4 leagues club and footy, governance and Board meeting prep for the rest of his time and it becomes pretty clear that footy should not be more than 10%-15% of his time. What time he actually spends is up to he & Dave - it may be more than that (including sitting in on retention committees and day-to-day business) if they lack the confidence to empower the rugby league management team.

I don't mind if you don't believe a word I say but I'm posting based my experience in senior roles including working with and advising GMs, CEOs and Boards. What you want to know is your mate Brian's working schedule. I'm not Brian or his EA so you'll have to seek the answer to that elsewhere.

I really don't believe much you say after you come up with those clear contradictions and try to defend them. You are just in here doing the equivalent of corporate name dropping..."when I advise CEOs, GMs and Boards" lol gfoh big noting yourself.

 

[Kilkenny]

Interesting discussions which we probably won’t have any answers to until the latter half of the season proper.

 

[Abacus]

Like the budget getting cut and Gus’ duties being re-directed?

Certainly Gould being moved on would be a driver and making sure the new guys play nicely together.

The budget cut appears to be more about not having to incur payouts for coaches and players this year vs 2019 so would be less of a factor.

 

[franklin2323]

Interesting discussions which we probably won’t have any answers to until the latter half of the season proper.

This is true. I think such meetings won’t be as frequent and we will be able to see the results regardless

 

[Abacus]

I really don't believe much you say after you come up with those clear contradictions and try to defend them. You are just in here doing the equivalent of corporate name dropping..."when I advise CEOs, GMs and Boards" lol gfoh big noting yourself.

Yep, you got me. That's why I've been posting here since 2012 - waiting for this moment to big note myself. Now excuse me while I bask in my moment of glory.