Taking a wrecking ball to the club! (Recent Media Reports)

[Lestronge]

can you list them?

 

[Lestronge]

That’s Tony Crawfords LinkedIn education tab . His experience is too long to post on here , and his current business’ main clientele appears to be company’s in a similar situation to the wests tigers .
I’m not sure on Gary Barnier , but I believe his profile is not nearly as prestigious as Tony’s , with also some questionable business dealings about 10 years ago .
I still think Tony’s resume is more than enough to warrant and justify conducting an external review within the club.

 

[twentyforty]

OK so he's a CPA and a member of an affiliate association.
Is that it?

 

[diedpretty]

The Throbs biggest hit was a cover wasn’t it?

It’s spoken on because it’s been trotted out here since forever - especially when his credentials are questioned, you either get his musical ‘career’ as a response or crickets.

Yea it was a Rolling Stones cover - Fortune Teller. Also had a hit with Black. Most Australian bands were doing covers in the 60s and 70s. My point was why the hell do people bag his music career when it has nothing to do with his crap management.

 

[diedpretty]

OK so he's a CPA and a member of an affiliate association.
Is that it?

That sounds like a Monty Python skit.

 

[TigerJunior4]

OK so he's a CPA and a member of an affiliate association.
Is that it?

From your perspective what would be the required qualifications to conduct a review?

 

[twentyforty]

That’s Tony Crawfords LinkedIn education tab . His experience is too long to post on here , and his current business’ main clientele appears to be company’s in a similar situation to the wests tigers .
I’m not sure on Gary Barnier , but I believe his profile is not nearly as prestigious as Tony’s , with also some questionable business dealings about 10 years ago .
I still think Tony’s resume is more than enough to warrant and justify conducting an external review within the club.

You probably couldn't find it because it doesn't exist.

You are entitled to your opinion just as I am. My point is not to cast doubt on ability to recognize problem areas within their scope, whatever that was. I'm just saying it looked questionable from the start, and possibly why it was done pro bono.

I'm interested to know what you think is the real issue at WT and whether it was addressed by HBG or during the review stage. If it wasn't, why not?

What are the hurdles to overcome during the implementation of the recommendations?

 

[twentyforty]

From your perspective what would be the required qualifications to conduct a review?

It depends on one's perception of what the issues are, but from an outsider looking in, there seems to be three main problems, and they seem to have very little to do with money?
1. Recruitment profiling and identification.
2. Organisational behaviour.
3. Interpersonal relationships and their impact on organisational behaviour.

 

[TigerJunior4]

It depends on one's perception of what the issues are, but from an outsider looking in, there seems to be three main problems, and they seem to have very little to do with money?
1. Recruitment profiling and identification.
2. Organisational behaviour.
3. Interpersonal relationships and their impact on organisational behaviour.

That’s all well and good but that relates to experience and not a qualification which is what you were questioning before.

I’d argue the reviewers have this professional experience anyway given they conducted organisational reviews before.

What you just described would be covered in a business degree but really it would be professional experience that augments what you learn during the degree and professional experience is probably exponentially more important and valuable.

The review covered interpersonal relationships and organisational behaviour based on what was included in the SMH article.

 

[tigertragic]

You probably couldn't find it because it doesn't exist.

You are entitled to your opinion just as I am. My point is not to cast doubt on ability to recognize problem areas within their scope, whatever that was. I'm just saying it looked questionable from the start, and possibly why it was done pro bono.

I'm interested to know what you think is the real issue at WT and whether it was addressed by HBG or during the review stage. If it wasn't, why not?

What are the hurdles to overcome during the implementation of the recommendations?

The hurdle is the new revised board trying to roll back or control the progress of the review or its intended outcome of a football board independent of HBG

 

[hammertime]

OK so he's a CPA and a member of an affiliate association.
Is that it?

Dude. Go on his linked in. It's a simple google search. He's been a director at several sporting organisations, held board positions and was CFO with the NRL. He knows what good should look like.

I'm a director at a top consultancy and play in this space a bit. Tony's resume absolutely dumps on mine by a long, long way.

Couldn't think of many more qualified.

 

[twentyforty]

That’s all well and good but that relates to experience and not a qualification which is what you were questioning before.

I’d argue the reviewers have this professional experience anyway given they conducted organisational reviews before.

What you just described would be covered in a business degree but really it would be professional experience that augments what you learn during the degree and professional experience is probably exponentially more important and valuable.

The review covered interpersonal relationships and organisational behaviour based on what was included in the SMH article.

I’m not arguing qualifications + skill + experience + knowledge is better than experience alone. You’re on your own there.
Just saying because the issues seem to be people related I would have expected a professional skilled in at least one of the behavioural sciences. And also to oversee/monitor the implementation of change.
Less internal conflict and puts both wests and Balmain on the same team.

 

[twentyforty]

Dude. Go on his linked in. It's a simple google search. He's been a director at several sporting organisations, held board positions and was the CFO of the NRL. He knows what good should look like.

I'm a director at a top consultancy and play in this space a bit. Tony's resume absolutely dumps on mine by a long, long way.

Couldn't think of many more qualified.

People put anything on linked in. Many years ago I found a firm in Europe had me on their consultancy team.

 

[hammertime]

People put anything on linked in. Many years ago I found a firm in Europe had me on their consultancy team.

If you're argument is that the linked in data is faked, then geez man... that's stretching.

... and more so that's not how linkedin works. Firms do not tag you. Not sure what you're talking about there.

Where do you personally see the gap? No one ever fits the remit 100%

 

[TigerJunior4]

I’m not arguing qualifications + skill + experience + knowledge is better than experience alone. You’re on your own there.
Just saying because the issues seem to be people related I would have expected a professional skilled in at least one of the behavioural sciences. And also to oversee/monitor the implementation of change.
Less internal conflict and puts both wests and Balmain on the same team.

The problem is you were arguing it. I saw you argue that exact point so don’t try to be a revisionist here mate. You’re only contradicting yourself.

You do realise that Julie Romero actually blocked the Wests Tigers board from engaging a firm to monitor the implementation of the review recommendations or is that something you’ve chosen to turn a blind eye to because it doesn’t fit into your narrative?

 

[Lestronge]

You probably couldn't find it because it doesn't exist.

You are entitled to your opinion just as I am. My point is not to cast doubt on ability to recognize problem areas within their scope, whatever that was. I'm just saying it looked questionable from the start, and possibly why it was done pro bono.

I'm interested to know what you think is the real issue at WT and whether it was addressed by HBG or during the review stage. If it wasn't, why not?

What are the hurdles to overcome during the implementation of the recommendations?

What do I think the main issues are/ were ?
1. A lack of clear plan that had everyone rowing in the same direction . Whilst I’m sure there were a bunch of mission statements , and core values , beliefs etc . I’m positive this was all fluff and not many people actually adhered to it .
2. Governance that had less to do with balancing a spreadsheet ( which was creative accounting in the end) , and more to do with winning football matches .
I’m not advocating for this amount of debt but , there’s a reason most of the biggest sporting organisations are in extreme debt . They spend the money and win big . It’s not just about the money it’s about what that does to the overall culture ie.” This club is absolutely the elite of the elite” . This reverberates throughout the whole business . Even down to the social media team and the people who ship the members packages .
3. The abandonment of being a development club , was extremely short sighted and as is the nature of those things it took years for the true effects to take shape . Much like the reverse will be true . Whilst this is a football department issue , it’s absolutely the boards fault that this was ever implemented , and Pascoe and Go and the Fedora along with the rest of the board have to be held accountable for a knee jerk decision based on hurt feeling around a big 4 that was really only a big 2 , and one of those 2 had to change positions and wait 8 years for that to truely bare fruit .
The other cultural issues raised by the review I have zero idea about , and only those interviewed who are around the club can answer to them , and the accuracy of the reviews findings .
All of this is obviously the opinion of me , someone who has limited insight into this club.

 

[twentyforty]

The problem is you were arguing it. I saw you argue that exact point so don’t try to be a revisionist here mate. You’re only contradicting yourself.

You do realise that Julie Romero actually blocked the Wests Tigers board from engaging a firm to monitor the implementation of the review recommendations or is that something you’ve chosen to turn a blind eye to because it doesn’t fit into your narrative?

OK, but I’m not going to argue that it’s you who is argumentative. People tend to form an opinion based on their own experiences.
But I could argue that the review has busted the boil, which, while not producing the desired result, has forced out some home truths.

 

[TigerJunior4]

OK, but I’m not going to argue that it’s you who is argumentative. People tend to form an opinion based on their own experiences.
But I could argue that the review has busted the boil, which, while not producing the desired result, has forced out some home truths.

Right….so you sit there and criticise the reviewers because you don’t know what their qualifications are and then when you get called out about it you make some veiled comment or reference about people forming opinions based on their own experiences.

I mean if you’ve got something to say come out and say it. Some directness would be appreciated.

I’ll just add that you’re the one being argumentative with every poster on here who truly wants to see the review recommendations implemented in full.

I agree the review has given us Richo and had some positive impacts.

However are you comfortable that Burgess, after resigning from the West Tigers board has found his way back in less than six months?

Are you satisfied with Burgess’ skillset and experience and do you believe that he adds value to the Wests Tigers board?

Are you comfortable with Romero’s instructions to the board and Chairperson asking them not to circulate board papers, pass or discuss resolutions and

Are you happy that HBG dismissed the recommended talent acquisition agency/company only to go through a tender process and hire that same company?

 

[twentyforty]

Right….so you sit there and criticise the reviewers because you don’t know what their qualifications are and then when you get called out about it you make some veiled comment or reference about people forming opinions based on their own experiences.

I mean if you’ve got something to say come out and say it. Some directness would be appreciated.

I’ll just add that you’re the one being argumentative with every poster on here who truly wants to see the review recommendations implemented in full.

I agree the review has given us Richo and had some positive impacts.

However are you comfortable that Burgess, after resigning from the West Tigers board has found his way back in less than six months?

Are you satisfied with Burgess’ skillset and experience and do you believe that he adds value to the Wests Tigers board?

Are you comfortable with Romero’s instructions to the board and Chairperson asking them not to circulate board papers, pass or discuss resolutions and

Are you happy that HBG dismissed the recommended talent acquisition agency/company only to go through a tender process and hire that same company?

How could I be comfortable with any of that. Im not even comfortable with having predicted months ago those 2 would weasel their way back onto the WT board. Go back through my posts.

 

[TigerJunior4]

How could I be comfortable with any of that. Im not even comfortable with having predicted months ago those 2 would weasel their way back onto the WT board. Go back through my posts.

Fair enough. I shouldn’t have misjudged there particularly if you’ve predicted these two would get back on the board.