Todd Greenberg has got to go!

[Spot On]

You believe Todd is doing a great job Timmah?

 

[Valheru]

Its not about defending Todd or not, he's made plenty of mistakes like every other CEO of every major sporting organisation has.

Just a bit over the same old bullshit of attacking the current CEO. Whittaker Moffat Gallop Smith now Greenberg, it's the same shit every time. No informed debate, just crusades against the bloke in charge every time.

So yes, snore.

You will be waiting a long time for that to change, people just like a whinge.

It is like the PM. Can you imagine a world where a PM is congratulated for doing a good job lol

 

[insert.pause]

Greenberg was praised for being “innovative” while at the dogs, but has come up with nothing while in charge at the NRL. He’s shown to be very much in the mould of gallop, a manager, not a leader. However, I do have some sympathy for the role considering they are only ever putting out fires because the players can’t behave themselves and the clubs are run like chook raffles, leaving little attention for innovation.

 

[Timmah]

You believe Todd is doing a great job Timmah?

Dunno, can you read? I literally said:

Its not about defending Todd or not, he's made plenty of mistakes like every other CEO of every major sporting organisation has.

 

[Spot On]

Dunno, can you read?

As per usual, a typical deflection instead of giving a simple response.

The forum can now assume you believe he is doing a poor job and therefore the criticism of his tenure in this thread is warranted and you can now piss off and stop crying over it.

Unless you want to answer the original question instead of referring to one of your ambiguous statements again to avoid being involved in a genuine discussion.

Is he doing a great job? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

If you believe he is, are you able to outline the reasons why?

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Greenberg was praised for being “innovative” while at the dogs, but has come up with nothing while in charge at the NRL. He’s shown to be very much in the mould of gallop, a manager, not a leader. However, I do have some sympathy for the role considering they are only ever putting out fires because the players can’t behave themselves and the clubs are run like chook raffles, leaving little attention for innovation.

I feel like most of this is just journalist perspective...

Obviously not as aggressive as the Tele, but still it is very easy to take the exact same action and characterize it in different ways. For all i can see, he just had a better run with the media when he was at the Dogs.

I assume it was just trying to stoke the drama of "the current CEO is shit, who is next in line? Oh look, here is our new golden boy". And after golden boy gets the job "What a disappointment, who is next?".

You can already see it. Most of the media are backing Vlandys to take over for Todd.

 

[Spot On]

You sound like Greenburg himself Timmah - all talk but no substance. No direction. No answers.

Fantastic qualities for a CEO hey.

 

[Tiger5150]

Who do you hire as a CEO when all the experienced CEO's have died out, given they are the only ones who you believe deserve to be appointed.

Your response proves, undoubtedly, that you have zero idea about how business is run, therefore, having any further debate with you on this matter would be like trying to teach algebra to a blind and tone deaf house brick.

I have a business degree and run my own business.

I find it amazing that you think it is acceptable for the NRL to settle for someone without the relevant experience. When all the CEO have "died out" the NRL should settle for someone with less experience, but whilst they are still thriving and they keep making new ones, the NRL should seek out, interview and employ the best with the most relevant experience. They didnt and as a result Greenburg will be assessed accordingly.

 

[Tiger5150]

...and it was his second role as CEO too. Facts don't seem to be this dude's strong suit.

Im good with facts, comprehension on the other hand isnt your best point.

I never said he hadn't been a CEO I said...."Please point out to me where in that history of employment prior to CEO of NRL is ANY experience in running a large organisation effectively."

The bulldogs is NOT a large organisation comparable to the NRL. The Bulldogs (as for all the clubs) is not a large organisation, it turns over somewhere between $15m-$20m and about 2/3 of that turnover is a grant from the NRL and most of the rest would be a grant from the Leagues Club. It is hardly a large or complex organisation. Bulldogs (Football Club) would probably employ around 50 people.

Being a CEO isnt an end in itself. I have been a CEO and NO WAY would I be qualified to run an organisation like the NRL. Neither is Toddy.

So Timmah, let me ask you again, where in Todds employment history, is ANY experience in running a large organisation effectively?

 

[madunit]

I have a business degree and run my own business.

I find it amazing that you think it is acceptable for the NRL to settle for someone without the relevant experience. When all the CEO have "died out" the NRL should settle for someone with less experience, but whilst they are still thriving and they keep making new ones, the NRL should seek out, interview and employ the best with the most relevant experience. They didnt and as a result Greenburg will be assessed accordingly.

And I own Deustche Bank and McDonalds.

Greenberg is doing okay. Half the shit people attack him for are to do with matters that should be handled by someone else first.

Slackjawed simpletons will just attack him (or whoever is running the game, irrespective of their previous employment/experience) because they're mindless puppets who follow the moronic lead of their favourite Daily Telegraph journos.

People attacked Moffatt, Whiticker, Gallop & Smith despite all having wildly different backgrounds and experiences. It doesn't matter who the next CEO is, how much CEO experience they've had, or Rugby League experience, they will still be shit upon.

The rhetoric of these boorish imbeciles NEVER changes.

 

[madunit]

Im good with facts, comprehension on the other hand isnt your best point.

I never said he hadn't been a CEO I said...."Please point out to me where in that history of employment prior to CEO of NRL is ANY experience in running a large organisation effectively."

The bulldogs is NOT a large organisation comparable to the NRL. The Bulldogs (as for all the clubs) is not a large organisation, it turns over somewhere between $15m-$20m and about 2/3 of that turnover is a grant from the NRL and most of the rest would be a grant from the Leagues Club. It is hardly a large or complex organisation. Bulldogs (Football Club) would probably employ around 50 people.

Being a CEO isnt an end in itself. I have been a CEO and NO WAY would I be qualified to run an organisation like the NRL. Neither is Toddy.

So Timmah, let me ask you again, where in Todds employment history, is ANY experience in running a large organisation effectively?

The Bulldogs is a large organisation.

Your whole post here is reliant upon you changing your initial stance of

"ANY experience in running a large organisation"

to "a large organisation comparable to the NRL"

Trying to argue with you is like trying to pin the tail on a donkey, while someone is constantly moving the donkey.

 

[Timmah]

As per usual, a typical deflection instead of giving a simple response.

The forum can now assume you believe he is doing a poor job and therefore the criticism of his tenure in this thread is warranted and you can now piss off and stop crying over it.

Unless you want to answer the original question instead of referring to one of your ambiguous statements again to avoid being involved in a genuine discussion.

Is he doing a great job? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

If you believe he is, are you able to outline the reasons why?

You claim to want a genuine discussion, yet you believe an assessment of someone's performance in a role is as simple as a "are they doing a great job" with two options for the answer.

Anybody with half an idea knows the business world and the sporting landscape is far more complex than that.

 

[Western_Eel]

It doesn’t matter who the ceo is, your just going to hate him. Todd doesn’t make the decisions anyway

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I have a business degree and run my own business.

I find it amazing that you think it is acceptable for the NRL to settle for someone without the relevant experience. When all the CEO have "died out" the NRL should settle for someone with less experience, but whilst they are still thriving and they keep making new ones, the NRL should seek out, interview and employ the best with the most relevant experience. They didnt and as a result Greenburg will be assessed accordingly.

They tried that, got DSmith and he was run out of the game....

So they went with Toddy, a "Rugby League person". Are we all happy now?

 

[Tiger5150]

The Bulldogs is a large organisation.

Your whole post here is reliant upon you changing your initial stance of

"ANY experience in running a large organisation"

to "a large organisation comparable to the NRL"

Trying to argue with you is like trying to pin the tail on a donkey, while someone is constantly moving the donkey.

The Bulldogs is NOT a large organisation by ANY measure. It is classified by the ATO as a medium enterprise. If it was measured purely on the income it actually generates, it would actually be a small enterprise under ATO guidelines. This is not a sledge on the Bulldogs, all the clubs would be in the same boat with perhaps the exception of the Broncos.

My stance hasnt changed a bit. Todd has never run a large organisation before the NRL and it shows.

I am not climbing into Greenburg or slagging him off. I think he is doing an OK job at treading water and putting out fires and I think he is doing the best that he can. Thats the problem, this is the best that he can do. This for me is why his lack of previous experience is relevant. He is and always has been, totally reactionary, his whole "career" has been built on his serious face and stern words but its all talk. Please feel free to point out any proactive things he has done to improve the NRL. Generally he reacts quickly to any real or perceived problem with a reactionary action which usually has negative repercussions later.

Make note when Toddy holds a press conference. When it is good news or something with an easy fix, its always "I have....", "I decided....", "I will do.....".....when its bad news or something difficult to fix it is always "The board will need to....", "We will take steps.....", "we wont..........". I actually think its intentional, some NLP crap he has learnt somewhere. Without fail.

Bottom line for me, I dont actually think the NRL is in a good place and not going in a good direction, on or off the field and I dont personally have confidence that Greenburg has the skill or is the man to fix or re-direct it. The next Media Rights deal will be the most critical one ever for the NRL and I personally think the NRL has some very troubled times ahead and needs someone good at the helm.

 

[madunit]

The fact that you are debating semantics over just how big businesses are and whether they are relative in size to others is entirely irrelevant and nothing but white noise designed by you to try and win some side argument.

Picking apart the way he says some things to justify your opposition is possibly the dumbest f**king argument I've ever seen. Immensely petty and entirely pissweak criticism.

I don't care about your opinion. I've stated my point and I am right.

 

[Tiger5150]

I feel like most of this is just journalist perspective...

Obviously not as aggressive as the Tele, but still it is very easy to take the exact same action and characterize it in different ways. For all i can see, he just had a better run with the media when he was at the Dogs.

I assume it was just trying to stoke the drama of "the current CEO is shit, who is next in line? Oh look, here is our new golden boy". And after golden boy gets the job "What a disappointment, who is next?".

You can already see it. Most of the media are backing Vlandys to take over for Todd.

Of course the media will always take a position and the negative is always the easiest and most popular. This is of course easily countered however but actually doing something positive and proactive rather than just staring down the camera with a "tough" voice. The media is actually right to question what is going on or what he is doing because the media will always fill a vacuum. Todd could get the media off his back by doing a good job.

This is kind of my point with my repeating how underwhelming Greenbergs employment history is, it holds no currency, no gravitas to earn respect. Like Madunit and others have said, this is not the be all and end all of competence in the role, but if you lack the experience and qualifications to back you, you sure as hell need to front up and perform and for mine he isnt doing that other than his favourite token press conferences. He needs to do something proactive.

Tood needs to do something proactive however of course it is probably not up to him and he is probably at the beck & call of his board/masters which of course is probably how he was appointed without apparently going to the market.

Peter V'Landys is the perfect example of someone with the right experience for the NRL CEO job and his previous experience would indicate he would do a good job.

 

[madunit]

But but V'landy's has never been involved as an NRL boss before - therefore he's shit.

Pick again.

 

[Tiger5150]

The fact that you are debating semantics over just how big businesses are and whether they are relative in size to others is entirely irrelevant and nothing but white noise designed by you to try and win some side argument.

Side argument? Its my whole argument. My only point was and always has been in this thread that Todd Greenberg does not have any experience running a large organisation like the NRL, prior to the NRL. Its and unarguable fact. The sky is blue and in that list of Greenbergs employment history that Timmah posted, there is no experience running a business the size and complexity of the NRL.

Picking apart the way he says some things to justify your opposition is possibly the dumbest f**king argument I've ever seen. Immensely petty and entirely pissweak criticism.

Nah that comment about his NLP crap doesnt justify anything. It just annoys me, mostly because it shows to me the type of low level business strategies and tactics he values and its cheap party tricks. it gives me an insight into his business mind but it is irrelevant. You are right, it is pretty pissweak criticism. Of course pissweak criticism is always EASILY counteracted by examples of positive, proactive management decisions that Todd has made, but none come to mind. I would genuinely like your help with that.

I don't care about your opinion. I've stated my point and I am right.

and yet you post in a public forum titled "Todd Greenburg has got to go" which is obviously a place for people to discuss the performace of Todd Greenburg and put their opinions out there. If you are not interested and think you are right....you reason for being here is?......To convince me and others that you are right?

I dont think that this is how internet forums work, but I'll humour you. List me three positive, proactive management decisions that Todd Greenberg has made that have made the NRL better and Ill publically tell the world you are right.

1.
2.
3.

 

[Tiger5150]

But but V'landy's has never been involved as an NRL boss before - therefore he's shit.

Pick again.

My point in this thread has always been that the NRL should have sought someone with relevant experience effectively running an organisation at least of similar size and complexity as the NRL. Peter V'Landys has that experience in spades and if you were to put his experience up against Greenbergs it is no comparison.