Our new coach - 2016: Brendon Bolton - 25/8/15

woof · **Joined:** Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:51 am **Posts:** 4919

john.flynn wrote:

I am not sure why people think it is the board's fault if the team isn't performing. Boards of any company just steer the ship. To me, the board is responsible to make sure the a good football department is in place (i.e. coaches, recruitment, etc) then get on with running the CFC business. Their role is to sort out stadium deals, find sponsorship, balance the finances, etc. Judge the board on that not on the on-field performance. They should be involved in sackings when things go awry but our biggest problem has been recruitment and development. I do not think you can dump that on the board.

Ok, we had a 1.6 million dollar loss last year and we are heading for a greater loss this year.
Our board is just steering the ship, the problem is the ship is the Titanic.

camel · **Posted:** Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:10 pm

john.flynn wrote:

I am not sure why people think it is the board's fault if the team isn't performing. Boards of any company just steer the ship. To me, the board is responsible to make sure the a good football department is in place (i.e. coaches, recruitment, etc) then get on with running the CFC business. Their role is to sort out stadium deals, find sponsorship, balance the finances, etc. Judge the board on that not on the on-field performance. They should be involved in sackings when things go awry but our biggest problem has been recruitment and development. I do not think you can dump that on the board.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but ultimately the board is responsible for both the direction of the club and the hiring/firing of the people who matter (ie. coach, CEO etc.)

Our dud recruiting is either a response to the board's direction or dud staff, both of which the board owns the responsibility for.

Sadly for us there have been more failures than successes and until recently we haven't had any real signs the board was able to understand, much less accept, its responsibilities.

The MLG/Trigg partnership may not be ideal and it may not be perfect but small steps of progress to being a modern-day club are being made.

dane · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:14 am **Posts:** 22357

woof wrote:

john.flynn wrote:

I am not sure why people think it is the board's fault if the team isn't performing. Boards of any company just steer the ship. To me, the board is responsible to make sure the a good football department is in place (i.e. coaches, recruitment, etc) then get on with running the CFC business. Their role is to sort out stadium deals, find sponsorship, balance the finances, etc. Judge the board on that not on the on-field performance. They should be involved in sackings when things go awry but our biggest problem has been recruitment and development. I do not think you can dump that on the board.

Ok, we had a 1.6 million dollar loss last year and we are heading for a greater loss this year.
Our board is just steering the ship, the problem is the ship is the Titanic.

Don't worry! The equalisation fund will prop us up!

kezza · **Joined:** Thu May 11, 2006 6:11 pm **Posts:** 15001

dane wrote:

woof wrote:

john.flynn wrote:

I am not sure why people think it is the board's fault if the team isn't performing. Boards of any company just steer the ship. To me, the board is responsible to make sure the a good football department is in place (i.e. coaches, recruitment, etc) then get on with running the CFC business. Their role is to sort out stadium deals, find sponsorship, balance the finances, etc. Judge the board on that not on the on-field performance. They should be involved in sackings when things go awry but our biggest problem has been recruitment and development. I do not think you can dump that on the board.

Ok, we had a 1.6 million dollar loss last year and we are heading for a greater loss this year.
Our board is just steering the ship, the problem is the ship is the Titanic.

Don't worry! The equalisation fund will prop us up!

So, I take it we wont have to fork out money to prop up other clubs next year?
You know the clubs we are propping up, the ones that receive millions from the AFL and are above us on the ladder.

muzza · **Joined:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:41 pm **Posts:** 2385

Stone Free wrote:

sandramd1967 wrote:

Kouta as our fittness coach he looks a million dollars still

Maybe Juddy? He'd be a great fitness coach you would think.

A sport science and exercise phys degree would be handy

Bluey44 · **Posted:** Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:26 pm

There's a firewalled article on the HUN right now which I think is basically some trolling journo asking Marc Murphy whether Barker should get the job.
Of course, he said yes.

Let's just end this charade of trying to have a 'process'.

It's too much work for Triggsy and his panel .... Just do what the HUN tells you to do.

emtwenty · **Joined:** Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:29 pm **Posts:** 7074

Drewgirl wrote:

Em - I did not mention them as I like them

No worries - but I was asking Psych why other positive trades are excluded from the conversation. Did Mick only have a say in the failed trades?

The Rhino · **Joined:** Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:20 pm **Posts:** 6923

You're bordering on dangerous territory asking those sorts of questions.

You'll go from the imaginary foe list to him putting his fingers in his ears and yelling LALALALA NOT LISTENING whenever you post..

redback · **Joined:** Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:17 pm **Posts:** 2646

emtwenty wrote:

Drewgirl wrote:

Em - I did not mention them as I like them

No worries - but I was asking Psych why other positive trades are excluded from the conversation. Did Mick only have a say in the failed trades?

positive trades, I really can't think of another one
singular, doc

redback · **Joined:** Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:17 pm **Posts:** 2646

yep sorry I like Jaksch also, maybe whiley

AGRO · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:44 am

Bluey44 wrote:

There's a firewalled article on the HUN right now which I think is basically some trolling journo asking Marc Murphy whether Barker should get the job.
Of course, he said yes.

Let's just end this charade of trying to have a 'process'.

It's too much work for Triggsy and his panel .... Just do what the HUN tells you to do.

Mark Robinson is practically begging us to appoint John Barker right now.

So I trust therefore our Sub-Committee stay the course and consider anyone else. :wink:

emtwenty · **Joined:** Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:29 pm **Posts:** 7074

redback wrote:

yep sorry I like Jaksch also, maybe whiley

Everitt has been handy

camel · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:23 am

emtwenty wrote:

redback wrote:

yep sorry I like Jaksch also, maybe whiley

Everitt has been handy

If you wanna believe, believe in me!

ThePsychologist · **Joined:** Sun May 03, 2009 9:52 am **Posts:** 7893

redback wrote:

positive trades, I really can't think of another one
singular, doc

Docherty and possibly Jaksch but that's about it. The others are handy at best, mostly overpaid and in the end haven't advanced our list at all or got us closer to a flag.

Punter22 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:42 am

As long as we're all clear that Mick was personally responsible for every single poor decision the club has made since the salary cap penalties (and honestly, who can really be certain his grubby fingers weren't in that pie either?). Every player leaving that we like, every recruit and trade we don't like, Mick was solely responsible for all of it. We MUST have a boogeyman. We demand it!

Bluey44 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:49 am

Punter22 wrote:

As long as we're all clear that Mick was personally responsible for every single poor decision the club has made since the salary cap penalties (and honestly, who can really be certain his grubby fingers weren't in that pie either?). Every player leaving that we like, every recruit and trade we don't like, Mick was solely responsible for all of it. We MUST have a boogeyman. We demand it!

This basically sums up the 2015 discussion on TC

ThePsychologist · **Joined:** Sun May 03, 2009 9:52 am **Posts:** 7893

Bluey44 wrote:

Punter22 wrote:

As long as we're all clear that Mick was personally responsible for every single poor decision the club has made since the salary cap penalties (and honestly, who can really be certain his grubby fingers weren't in that pie either?). Every player leaving that we like, every recruit and trade we don't like, Mick was solely responsible for all of it. We MUST have a boogeyman. We demand it!

This basically sums up the 2015 discussion on TC

I blame the whole football department. The issue is we keep making the same mistakes over and over and never learn.

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18024

There are possibly thousands of positive posts about Malthouse on TC. Too many people wanting to paint him as some sort of victim. :lol:

No doubt he made some good decisions but he made a lot more poor decisions. That's why he's gone.
Let's get over it and move on.

camel · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:05 pm

Bluey44 wrote:

Punter22 wrote:

As long as we're all clear that Mick was personally responsible for every single poor decision the club has made since the salary cap penalties (and honestly, who can really be certain his grubby fingers weren't in that pie either?). Every player leaving that we like, every recruit and trade we don't like, Mick was solely responsible for all of it. We MUST have a boogeyman. We demand it!

This basically sums up the 2015 discussion on TC

Yeah, nah.

Mick was bad for Carlton, but there's been plenty of criticism levied out to those who hired him. Further, panning the recruiting staff/decisions has been ongoing for the life of TC.

It's just as simple and lazy to say everyone is blaming Mick for everything as it is to say that everything that's bad with Carlton is Mick's fault.

Punter22 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:03 pm

camelboy wrote:

Bluey44 wrote:

Punter22 wrote:

As long as we're all clear that Mick was personally responsible for every single poor decision the club has made since the salary cap penalties (and honestly, who can really be certain his grubby fingers weren't in that pie either?). Every player leaving that we like, every recruit and trade we don't like, Mick was solely responsible for all of it. We MUST have a boogeyman. We demand it!

This basically sums up the 2015 discussion on TC

Yeah, nah.

Mick was bad for Carlton, but there's been plenty of criticism levied out to those who hired him. Further, panning the recruiting staff/decisions has been ongoing for the life of TC.

It's just as simple and lazy to say everyone is blaming Mick for everything as it is to say that everything that's bad with Carlton is Mick's fault.

Yeah, nah.

eg Mick being blamed for players leaving when six months ago those departures were based on completely different reasons. Mick being blamed for recruiting decisions when every person on this board knows there's a list committee who jointly owns those decisions. No doubt by the end of this year if Yarran or Hendo leave, Mick will somehow be responsible for that as well.

Mick was bad for Carlton and sacking him was absolutely the right decision. There's a hell of a lot of history being rewritten on this board since May.

Our new coach - 2016: Brendon Bolton - 25/8/15

Who is online