Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

2041 said:
Why shouldn't he? Here are some examples of why he might:
- Recruitment have been discussing a contract with one of the agent's players. The agent says: "This sounds interesting but the Tigers have been a mess for years. My guy is ambitious and wants to go to a club that's going to be a contender. Is there any chance I could sit down with the top brass to hear about their vision for the club and try to get a sense of whether it's a place I'm happy to recommend my client commits to?"
Click to expand...
This is a very amatureish way to go about it.
History has shown that we like to show off the club with tours of the COE and Q&A's with the actual people who will be involved...i.e. the coaching staff and the player in person.
The CEO, cant be trusted to get everything correct in a sitdown without his subject matter experts in attendance.
2041 said:
- Pascoe recognises that he's not been helping recruitment and retention. As part of bringing Fulton in, he said "I'm going to stay out of your way if at all possible but we'll have a better working relationship if I have a better understanding of how your department works. As part of this can I come to a player agent meeting to get a sense of the type of things that get discussed, so I can try to make sure the club supports what you're doing in future?"
Click to expand...
He has been here 8 years.
If he doesnt have some idea of how this department functions by now, he doesnt care.
2041 said:
- Recruitment have been discussing signing one of the agent's players. As part of this the contract is going to need to be topped up by a TPA the agent believes he can source from a third party who likes the Tigers. However, this third party is in the same field as an existing sponsor and is therefore a potential conflict of interest. This isn't an issue recruitment or sponsorship can resolve independently so it has to be escalated.
Click to expand...
This one is more legitimate.
If recruitment already have someone on the hook, and negotiations have escalated to this level, then yes he should be involved.
2041 said:
I could come up with more if you like. The point is, this story isn't even smoke without fire - there's barely any smoke, and it's coming from a pile of wet leaves.
Click to expand...
Youve only come up with one so far so knock yourself out.
 
Tucker said:
This is a very amatureish way to go about it.
History has shown that we like to show off the club with tours of the COE and Q&A's with the actual people who will be involved...i.e. the coaching staff and the player in person.
The CEO, cant be trusted to get everything correct in a sitdown without his subject matter experts in attendance.

He has been here 8 years.
If he doesnt have some idea of how this department functions by now, he doesnt care.

This one is more legitimate.
If recruitment already have someone on the hook, and negotiations have escalated to this level, then yes he should be involved.

Youve only come up with one so far so knock yourself out.
Click to expand...
I don't think I need to. There are reasons why this meeting could have happened that aren't "management meddling in recruitment" - that's all I need to demonstrate, as no evidence has been offered that this meeting was a case of management meddling in recruitment. Do you have any?
 
balmain boy said:
He's on about 500-550k.

For him to re-sign we'd want him to cut his salary in half. He'll back himself to get more elsewhere
Click to expand...
balmain boy said:
He's on about 500-550k.

For him to re-sign we'd want him to cut his salary in half. He'll back himself to get more elsewhere
Click to expand...
Madge / Hartigan era truly was horrific...anyone who gave Laurie 500 last year of his deal should never work in the game again.

For those saying "Laurie is in our best 17"...have you watched State Cup? He has been atrocious. Barely even bothers on kicks, meanders across in cover D, and in attack just does whatever...chip for himself when up 6 late in a game and need field position...

He is a (gifted) park footy player...would be great in a bush league.

Nowhere near NRL level discipline or desire. I doubt gets more than a min from a desperate club...maybe a train and trial.

The fact we knocked back his manager's long term deal for 600 or so should go down as one of the club's best ever moments. Madge and co would have jumped for joy and extended him for years.
 
2041 said:
Pascoe is the chief executive: he needs to know about what's going on in every department. A meeting between the CEO and the recruitment manager doesn't say anything about anything. Besides, the club has offices: they could meet any time they wanted, and probably do. This is a total non-story.
Click to expand...

You're wrong.

He needs to know what's going on across the organisation, yes sure, agreed. But he is NOT part of teh football department, he has no insights into teh type of players we do or don't want. His only part in recruitment is signing the contract, and potentially helping source Third party deals. That's it. Neither Pascoe or Lee should ever be present at a standard recruitment meeting.
Does the head coach not outline the vision of the organisation? Occasionally, particularly for high profile players, there may occasionally be a need to get the band together as a show of force and answer any additional questions. But in reality both these two have been embarrassed almost every single time they've done ANYTHING footy related! Pascoe would get the low down across department in a meeting with department heads, he should not be attending meetings that don't concern him, that's micromanagement, and a turn off for prospective employees
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 603 (members: 7, guests: 596)
Back
Top