Memo Ken and Mike - this is how you handle issues

[Nuffy]

At least the Bulldogs are proactive in addressing supporters concerns, the supporters might not like the answers but at least they get some.

Unlike some clubs who seem unable or unwilling to alay supporters concerns?

BULLDOGS chief executive Malcolm Noad has defended the club's recruitment and retention policy on its website after receiving emails querying the loss of Nate Myles and Roy Asotasi.

Noad posted a message to the club's fans yesterday after Myles accepted a three-year offer from the Sydney Roosters, less than a month after Asotasi signed a lucrative contract with South Sydney.
The Bulldogs wanted to keep both players but were hamstrung by the salary cap, an issue Noad raised with his fellow chief executives at a meeting of club officials in Sydney yesterday.
Noad called for an investigation into how clubs could be better rewarded for developing players beyond the existing long-serving player exemption under the salary cap, which is restricted to $100,000 per club.
The Dogs boss had earlier told the club's supporters the cap was to blame for the loss of Myles and Asotasi.
"I have received a number of emails and heard comments on radio asking 'Why have the Bulldogs let players like Nate Myles and Roy Asotasi go to other clubs?'," Noad said.

 

[CJKnight]

Because with the amount of talent they have have in the forwards, the Bulldogs can afford to let some go.

They have Mason, O'Meley, Asotasi, SBW, Myles, Grimaldi... they can't have all of them at once! And stay under the salary cap. Imagine Mason's paypacket.

 

[antonius]

Because with the amount of talent they have have in the forwards, the Bulldogs can afford to let some go.

They have Mason, O'Meley, Asotasi, SBW, Myles, Grimaldi... they can't have all of them at once! And stay under the salary cap. Imagine Mason's paypacket.

You're missing the point. Nuffy is saying that the Dogs have a communication with their fans, and will reply to concerns. Not something the Knights can boast about I'm affraid.

 

[B-dos]

Exactly right.

We hear nothing. The supporters of the Knights are continually treated as "the little people" as per the comments of Tyler last year. The fact the Nuffy has not received a reply to his letter is clear proof that they (the board) disregard and ignore the thoughts and questions of the fans.

 

[Voice of Reason]

The famous "little people" quote is proven to be an ATTITUDE. Surprise surprise!!

 

[Burwood]

How many people (besides Nuffy) have expressed their thoughts in a letter to Newcastle's management? I can imagine Noad getting at least a couple of dozen fiery emails from disgruntled fans yesterday which (as stated in the story) was why Noad replied on the club website.

If Newcastle management have only recieved a couple of emails asking about our stance on recruitment then I don't expect them to make a public announcement to the Newcastle fanbase. Personally replying to Nuffy's letter is a different matter, however.

 

[Voice of Reason]

Nuf, Cram, Macavity and I met and have subsequently spoken with Tyler,Crowe and the ship of fools throughout last season and on each occassion we were assured how "in touch" the Knights management felt they were with the fans and that they deal with huge volumes of letters, emails and telephone calls from fans who had concerns. The tragic thing is that they think they are doing a good job communicating with the fans. The reality is that they are suffering dillusions. They dont, and moreso,WONT listen to fans with genuine concersn because THEY KNOW BEST.

 

[Nuffy]

After much prompting from me, I actually got a response of sorts.

Nothing I might add from Conway but a email from Tyler.

Not a single answer to any question posed, just a series of platitudes and the inference that Tyler and the club indulged us last year and that would be the end of it.

He offered the opinion that the board and club were doing a good job with a disclaimer about resources, ironic considering the extent of the crowing from the club about the addition of resources last year.

There was also a not so subtle dig about disgruntled supporters and he signed off by saying that there would be no more correspondence entered into.

It seems that you can only ask about issues once, and then they become neutralised?

Unfortunately for Mr Tyler, he chose to avoid answering any legitimate questions, and rather resorted to platitudes and avoidance. For a club that proports to be about the members and a community based club, there seems little actual desire to interact with the members or heaven forbid, answer some specific questions about the running of the club.

Some clubs have shown respect for their supporters and members, through public acknowledgement of supporters concerns and specific responses to current issues.

I commend the Bulldogs and Canberra for their recent candidness. I just wonder why other clubs are so reluctant to be truly answerable to their supporters and members?

I also wonder why a board that is specifically installed to represent members is unwilling to make representation to the club on behalf of those members.

Whats the point in being a member if you can't have you say, and whats the point of having a member elected board if they are not interested in feedback?

Whether my questions have merit or otherwise, they seem to be echoing the thoughts of many and I would have thought that based on the groundhog daylike performance of the club yet again in the player trading period, a little bit of self analysis may be in order.

If the club believes it has done a excellent job in player recruitment and retention, lets hear Ken and Mike actually say so, if they haven't, then lets hear why and also how they will improve in 2007.

Is that too much to ask?