Noakes back immediately

[Facts Only]

My son play soccer, sat on the fence at sutho oval in 67.

Did you start breeding late.

I sat on the fence as a brat at sutho back in 67. That was four and half plus decades ago.

You want to buy the kid a suitcase.

Hilarious Quigs hahahaha - too good.

If what you say is true and YOU were at Sutho back then, I suggest you'd be about mine and Aireys age - yehhh ???


Yet you don't know anything about Aireys ???

Played Australian Schoolboys with Sironen, Elias, Langmack etc
Played for the Sharks - mainly reserves, due to injury.
Played Juniors at Gymea and Engadine
Captain Coach Engadine to a few A grade premierships

Obviously you were precisely that "A fence sitter" - or a soccer player hahaha

 

[newman]

You didn't just call Quigs a soccer player.

 

[Facts Only]

You didn't just call Quigs a soccer player.

Sorry Quigs - slip of the tongue - to a sharks supporter

 

[Feej]

Obviously you were precisely that "A fence sitter" - or a soccer player hahaha

 

[Miller was a legend]

Quigs is gonna go gymea gorilla on this guys arse

 

[coolumsharkie]

Quigs would have been an older fence sitting kid at Sutho in 67', christ Aireys would have been a baby, like me.

 

[spider]

We bag the administrators for years, as far back as not backing greg bird during his time

Then bag them for not getting in busters corner

We bag them for jumping at shadows and laying down by sacking the fab four to save themselves at the hands of an external party

We then demand their mandate to be as it was spruiked and to reinstate them, the barrow reefy used to remind us of this point ran on 8 cylinders

Wasn't it their mandate? Didn't most want this to occur?

Finally it starts and there is uncertainty toward the decision, yet the reinstatement of the coach could be perceived as the most hypocritical move amongst it all.

Konrad has moved on to other employment, not sure about the Doc but a deal has been reached to compensate, and Moons is in discussions. Maybe the board have applied their due diligence and are trying to stick to their word.

Either way, regardless of the outcome of the ASADA crap, im more than happy we are not bent over holding our ankles to ransom due to the scrawlings from the like of Bourbon Bec.

 

[carcharias]

We bag the administrators for years, as far back as not backing greg bird during his time

Then bag them for not getting in busters corner

We bag them for jumping at shadows and laying down by sacking the fab four to save themselves at the hands of an external party

We then demand their mandate to be as it was spruiked and to reinstate them, the barrow reefy used to remind us of this point ran on 8 cylinders

Wasn't it their mandate? Didn't most want this to occur?

Finally it starts and there is uncertainty toward the decision, yet the reinstatement of the coach could be perceived as the most hypocritical move amongst it all.

Konrad has moved on to other employment, not sure about the Doc but a deal has been reached to compensate, and Moons is in discussions. Maybe the board have applied their due diligence and are trying to stick to their word.

Either way, regardless of the outcome of the ASADA crap, im more than happy we are not bent over holding our ankles to ransom due to the scrawlings from the like of Bourbon Bec.

I agree.

I don't give a f**k who is in charge because it wont make a pinch of piss difference really.
I cannot imagine anyone else who attempted to get elected doing some magical job of saving the club from this shit.

The doc has his own doc business still...Pretty sure that is the case.

 

[Frailty]

We bag the administrators for years, as far back as not backing greg bird during his time

Then bag them for not getting in busters corner

We bag them for jumping at shadows and laying down by sacking the fab four to save themselves at the hands of an external party

We then demand their mandate to be as it was spruiked and to reinstate them, the barrow reefy used to remind us of this point ran on 8 cylinders

Wasn't it their mandate? Didn't most want this to occur?

Finally it starts and there is uncertainty toward the decision, yet the reinstatement of the coach could be perceived as the most hypocritical move amongst it all.

Konrad has moved on to other employment, not sure about the Doc but a deal has been reached to compensate, and Moons is in discussions. Maybe the board have applied their due diligence and are trying to stick to their word.

Either way, regardless of the outcome of the ASADA crap, im more than happy we are not bent over holding our ankles to ransom due to the scrawlings from the like of Bourbon Bec.

The fact is that the board HAVEN'T applied their due diligence. They have made a decision that affects the operation and future of the football club without the consultation of the CEO, COO, Head of Football Operations, and the club lawyer. If you think doing so is due diligence, than your understanding of business operations is extremely limited.

The action taken by the previous board did stink of a snap reaction, but so does this one. I do not disagree they were elected on their promise to review and reinstate the four - but the most significant mandate they need to do is ensure the future of the club and I think this has placed that in doubt.

Unlike the previous scenarios you used, such as the Bird and Seymour incidents, we were not in a position where we face significant financial pressures that could ultimately bring down the club. What will your feelings be if the ASADA report shows illegal use, the players are suspended, sue the club, club is found liable, and the NRL gives us zero support because we directly spat in their faces?

In a situation where our club is talking about struggling finances, than why would we increase game day costs to replace those doing it for free? Why would we piss off the NRL and thus make the CEO whose salary was subsidised walk out? Why would we offer financial compensation to two of the 4 without the finalisation of the ASADA report which may show their culpability?

 

[carcharias]

This had crossed my mind.
I wouldn't think Cullen would be a leak but f**k me who can you trust?

Cronulla chairman Damian Keogh has defended keeping his board's decision on the four sacked support staff members strictly confidential, because of the leaking of the Kavanagh report to News Ltd.
The Sharks board defied the wishes of the NRL on Monday by reappointing strength and conditioning coach Mark Noakes, while the possible reinstatement of long-serving doctor David Givney, physiotherapist Konrad Schultz and football manager Darren Mooney would be discussed further as the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority continued its investigations into an alleged supplement program employed by the club in 2011.
The Keogh-led board also offered the four men an apology for any damage their reputations may have suffered when the former board headed by Damian Irvine dismissed them as a result of the initial ASADA investigation in March.
The announcement flew in the face of what Bruno Cullen, who was parachuted into Cronulla by the NRL to help manage the club as interim chief executive, had recommended. Cullen resigned in protest and said on Monday he couldn't comment on the board's decision because ''I don't know why they made it''.
Advertisement
Keogh maintained it was an issue that needed to be dealt with in secret after the report by former ASADA deputy Trish Kavanagh into the alleged supplement program was leaked to News Ltd. However, he said it was incorrect to think Cullen wasn't aware of the review the board had conducted.
''What he ultimately was not aware of was what the outcomes were based on, and to be honest, with regard to that, the review documents, and all the work that was done on it, was decided to be kept very much in-house because, obviously, the Kavanagh report was leaked and News Ltd have had that and it has been used very aggressively against the club,'' he said.
''We certainly did not want to widely circulate some stuff that might've added to that.
''We knew there was going to be an element of controversy to the decision, that's just the way it is, and it would've been controversial for us as a board [that had promised to review the dismissals during the election] if we hadn't have done it as well.''
Keogh said he had enjoyed working with Cullen and added the former Brisbane chief executive had made an invaluable contribution to the Sharks during a tough time. He said the club wouldn't be rushing to appoint a new chief executive because the present management structure was ''strong''.
''We're not necessarily going to rush into what the executive structure may look like moving forward but we're very confident we have the people involved at the moment to handle the task,'' he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ion-inhouse-20130730-2qxdk.html#ixzz2aZdXlI2x

 

[Frailty]

This had crossed my mind.
I wouldn't think Cullen would be a leak but f**k me who can you trust?


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ion-inhouse-20130730-2qxdk.html#ixzz2aZdXlI2x

From my understanding, the Kavagnah Report leak happened before Bruno Cullen. And if there is new information that came to light that exonerated the four - then wouldn't you want that to made public.

They wanted to keep it 'in-house' but made decisions without consulting our COO, Head of Football Ops and out lawyer. Awesome.

Interestingly, Rothfield was bagging the club for not having a CEO previously, wonder if he will do it now that his mate has said they won't be having a CEO anytime soon.

 

[carcharias]

Lets not forge who put Cullen there.
Can you say for sure he wouldn't be passing on info to the NRL who would then pass onto the farksticks from the daily tele?

 

[Frenzy.]

From my understanding, the Kavagnah Report leak happened before Bruno Cullen. And if there is new information that came to light that exonerated the four - then wouldn't you want that to made public.

They wanted to keep it 'in-house' but made decisions without consulting our COO, Head of Football Ops and out lawyer. Awesome.

Interestingly, Rothfield was bagging the club for not having a CEO previously, wonder if he will do it now that his mate has said they won't be having a CEO anytime soon.

And the club insurers.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Actually I didnt want them reinstated until after the ASADA rubbish was finished.
My point was that they promised it & knew nothing about the case.
For them to re-instate, prior to ASADA dying its natural prolonged death, is just as ridiculous as them promising it.
In the end, the re-instated 1 out of 4. So its a broken promise.
They also reinstated 1, which is an abomination of due dilligence.
They have put the NRL offside & jeopardised the future of the entire club.

Keogh & hius henchmen are lunatics.

 

[Frenzy.]

Hilarious Quigs hahahaha - too good.

If what you say is true and YOU were at Sutho back then, I suggest you'd be about mine and Aireys age - yehhh ???


Yet you don't know anything about Aireys ???

Played Australian Schoolboys with Sironen, Elias, Langmack etc
Played for the Sharks - mainly reserves, due to injury.
Played Juniors at Gymea and Engadine
Captain Coach Engadine to a few A grade premierships

Obviously you were precisely that "A fence sitter" - or a soccer player hahaha

It's Airey. No "s", and yes, he is a cork. Always was.

 

[spider]

The fact is that the board HAVEN'T applied their due diligence.

How do you know that?

They have made a decision that affects the operation and future of the football club without the consultation of the CEO, COO, Head of Football Operations, and the club lawyer. If you think doing so is due diligence, than your understanding of business operations is extremely limited.

Yes, as displayed with the sacking of the fab 4

Unlike the previous scenarios you used, such as the Bird and Seymour incidents, we were not in a position where we face significant financial pressures that could ultimately bring down the club. What will your feelings be if the ASADA report shows illegal use, the players are suspended, sue the club, club is found liable, and the NRL gives us zero support because we directly spat in their faces?

Couldn't give a f**k, we have sat back and been bent over since the start of the year, does it really matter - no it doesn't because if illegal findings are substantiated then a minor appointment like this will be a spot on the moon in comparison to what happens to the club overall as the NRL will be powerless, so their support is useless.

If you think appointing Cullen was merely good faith in financial assistance from the NRL then you are easily led astray.

In a situation where our club is talking about struggling finances, than why would we increase game day costs to replace those doing it for free? Why would we piss off the NRL and thus make the CEO whose salary was subsidised walk out? Why would we offer financial compensation to two of the 4 without the finalisation of the ASADA report which may show their culpability?

Obviously the ability not to leak all that goes on in the board room raises knee-jerk questions, but Cullen and Noyce weren't even there when this originally unfolded.

 

[spider]

Actually I didnt want them reinstated until after the ASADA rubbish was finished..

You started a thread taking aim because nothing had happened reefy......

Where did you state you wanted it done after ASADA - and if so, why say they had failed on their mandate if time was still on their side?

 

[Frailty]

How do you know that?

CEO, COO, Head of Football Ops, Club Lawyer, & Club Insurers not consulted.
Making significant decisions that affect the legal and football operations future without these blokes is a clear breach of due diligence.

Yes, as displayed with the sacking of the fab 4

Never said the 4 should have been sacked. In fact said it was a snap decision by the previous board, whilst this is a snap decision by the current board. Both have demonstrated poor governance. This doesn't mean the actions of the current board are ok 'just because the old board f**ked up too'.

Couldn't give a f**k, we have sat back and been bent over since the start of the year, does it really matter - no it doesn't because if illegal findings are substantiated then a minor appointment like this will be a spot on the moon in comparison to what happens to the club overall as the NRL will be powerless, so their support is useless.

I actually give a f**k about the club. If you think the NRL's support would be useless, than you are foolish beyond belief.

If you think appointing Cullen was merely good faith in financial assistance from the NRL then you are easily led astray.

Cullen was appointed because our club was destroying itself. It needed an experienced operator to sort our shit out, but we didn't have the finances to pay someone. The NRL have more reason than 'good faith'. It is in the best interests of the game itself for a club not to fall apart.

Obviously the ability not to leak all that goes on in the board room raises knee-jerk questions, but Cullen and Noyce weren't even there when this originally unfolded.

Relevance of whether Cullen and Noyce were there at the start? Neither were the board?

In summary, a rabble to start with continues to be a rabble that pisses people off now because we want to have the bravado to say 'we've been f**ked too long' whilst we metaphorically turn a soft f**king in the ass to a brutal raping.

 

[spider]

CEO, COO, Head of Football Ops, Club Lawyer, & Club Insurers not consulted.
Making significant decisions that affect the legal and football operations future without these blokes is a clear breach of due diligence.

You do know the make up of the current board and their affiliations. It's easy to assume they didn't take DD, to do so infers they are incompetent. Maybe from assessing the reports they have reason to issue apologies for many reasons...

Never said the 4 should have been sacked. In fact said it was a snap decision by the previous board, whilst this is a snap decision by the current board.

They have been in office for some time, that's not a snap decision.

actually give a f**k about the club. If you think the NRL's support would be useless, than you are foolish beyond belief

.

If their support was any good it would be at the front end in a proactive manner, not reactive at the back end. Then again, it is Dave Smith.

Cullen was appointed because our club was destroying itself. It needed an experienced operator to sort our shit out, but we didn't have the finances to pay someone. The NRL have more reason than 'good faith'. It is in the best interests of the game itself for a club not to fall apart.

We had the development over the line which financially ensures the future, they could afford a CEO - to use your line 'then you are foolish beyond belief' to think otherwise.

Relevance of whether Cullen and Noyce were there at the start? Neither were the board?

Exactly my point.

In summary, a rabble to start with continues to be a rabble that pisses people off now because we want to have the bravado to say 'we've been f**ked too long' whilst we metaphorically turn a soft f**king in the ass to a brutal raping.

They are not being told what to do when to do - doesn't read like a raping for mine.

 

[Frailty]

You do know the make up of the current board and their affiliations. It's easy to assume they didn't take DD, to do so infers they are incompetent. Maybe from assessing the reports they have reason to issue apologies for many reasons...[/QUOTES]

They are either incompetent or corrupt. I don't care if the board assessed the reports themselves, when the decision is made without the CEO, COO, Head of Football Ops, Club Lawyer, and Club Insurer it is clear as day that DD has not been taken.

They have been in office for some time, that's not a snap decision.

The decision had already been made prior to them getting elected.

If their support was any good it would be at the front end in a proactive manner, not reactive at the back end. Then again, it is Dave Smith.

What would 'front end proactive' support be? I dare say helping appoint a CEO, and assisting in also bring Noyce into the club is front end.

We had the development over the line which financially ensures the future, they could afford a CEO - to use your line 'then you are foolish beyond belief' to think otherwise.

We still had a $3 Million dollar debt and operating on a shoestring budget. Unless you wanted to continue to run everything at a loss, increasing that debt until money from the development was coming in (which won't be until 2015 at the earliest).

Exactly my point.

You made no point at all. I was asking the relevance of your statement that they weren't there.

They are not being told what to do when to do - doesn't read like a raping for mine.

Quite simply, either accept we are getting f**ked and minimise damage, or resist by biting the hand that feeds and get f**ked over completely. We have chosen the latter.