Can anyone fault how Cleary has handled things?

[Cultured_Bogan]

I hate the sexism card being drawn when the going gets tough.
It's with any minority, racism, sexism, whateverism.
Politically correct society gone mad.

People can't have any criticism of her time on the board or be branded as a sexist.

In reading of all this, does Marina Go actually ever say people criticising her are being sexist? Or that they are criticising her performance as a chairperson simply because she is a woman?

From my view she is pointing out that people are giving her undue attention, much of it negative, because she is one of the few women in the game. That a male chairperson in her position would not get so much media attention. And I agree with that, I said it before, who can even nominate the list of chairpersons especially those that oversaw contentious times at the Tigers. Who was the chair when Sheens was dumped, can you remember that without looking it up?

You need to be really careful here differentiating between criticism of a performance and criticism of a person's background. And it is my opinion that if you yourself are not from a minority, you will never truly understand what it is like, try as you might. I am a white middle-class male, I am as far from underprivilege and minority as can be. But at least I am aware of it, at least I have a long hard think before I toss out the card "this is political correctness gone mad!"

Phil Rothfield's treatment of Go has been completely abhorrent.

 

[jirskyr]

Phil Rothfield's treatment of Go has been completely abhorrent.

Buzz Rothfield has a list of mis-steps so long he could have used them to walk to the moon. He's the archetype of the old-guard, pisshead, misogynist, stab-in-dark, one-sided school of rugby league journalism. He has deep-seated hatreds and biases, everyone knows what they are; he is transparent, ugly, vicious and at times immoral.

I don't read him, I don't quote him. He's a dinosaur, his time is up and before long he'll be done. I actually hoped he was done with that Eddie Hayson nonsense, but he dodged a bullet there.

 

[supercoach]

I will ask you a question…name 3 chairpersons at any other club??? My point is Go attracts a lot of media attention and is probably one of the very few chairpersons that one in fifty league fans might know. Why does she attract this attention?? Probably a lot of reasons and especially the last 12 months, things like Farahgate,Simonia,Taylors sacking, poor performances, big 4 contracts and Cleary have all got her name out there, but she at least puts her face and name to all these things. I don't see to many other chairpersons or board members tacking ownership for any drama at other clubs, they usually leave it to the CEO.

Sadly the gutter Jurnos have a big sway in what happens in the NRL and they can make things very hard for anyone in there radar and Go is being targeted big time. Good thing is she is smarter than all of them combined

 

[matchball]

I hate the sexism card being drawn when the going gets tough.
It's with any minority, racism, sexism, whateverism.
Politically correct society gone mad.

People can't have any criticism of her time on the board or be branded as a sexist.

In reading of all this, does Marina Go actually ever say people criticising her are being sexist? Or that they are criticising her performance as a chairperson simply because she is a woman?

From my view she is pointing out that people are giving her undue attention, much of it negative, because she is one of the few women in the game. That a male chairperson in her position would not get so much media attention. And I agree with that, I said it before, who can even nominate the list of chairpersons especially those that oversaw contentious times at the Tigers. Who was the chair when Sheens was dumped, can you remember that without looking it up?

You need to be really careful here differentiating between criticism of a performance and criticism of a person's background. She is absolutely open to criticism of her performance. But I always challenge people to really illustrate where a chairperson has misperformed, if they even understand what the chairperson's role is. Is it the chair's fault that they sacked a coach? She's only overseen one sacking. Is it the chair's fault that the team isn't winning? Partially, but lots of chairs have been there. Is it the chairs fault Tigers might lose some players? No idea, and who is to say roster changes aren't for the better?

Justin Pascoe had to detail the Tigers governance to the press recently, even the press isn't clear exactly who does what at the Tigers - and it's not our responsibility to explain it to outsiders either.

And it is my opinion that if you yourself are not from a minority, you will never truly understand what it is like, try as you might. I am a white middle-class male, I am as far from underprivilege and minority as can be. But I am aware of my lack of understanding, I have a long hard think before I toss out the card "this is political correctness gone mad!"

I'm talking about article. The use of sexism in the title.
I hate even the term being used. I don't base my comments on her because she is a woman. I'm do it because she is doing a terrible job. She knows, I know it and just about everyone else does but she gets a pass because nobody wants to be seen as "sexist" and criticize her poor handling of our club.

She was a token woman when the game needed a few to give it more appeal after sex scandals etc.
Let's call a spade a spade.

 

[jirskyr]

She was a token woman when the game needed a few to give it more appeal after sex scandals etc.
Let's call a spade a spade.

Then you go and say "token woman". You have to realise you torpedo any credibility you have in the sexism debate when you use that phrase. And if you don't know what I mean by that, you really don't get the debate at all, you are turning up for a knife fight with a rifle.

Actually I'll go further with that.

You truly think that NRL appoints women to areas of authority and responsibility just to head-off negative press about sex scandals and other male misdoings? Give it more appeal to whom, to male viewers? Bit of candy on TV? Or appeal to women viewers, so they can identify with a woman on telly or in the papers?

If you are at all serious about thinking about this with any depth beyond the limited sometimes ignorant comments you have made, have a look at some of these resources:
http://anitaborg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/The-Case-for-Investing-in-Women-314.pdf
http://www.mckinsey.com/global-locations/europe-and-middleeast/france/en/latest-thinking
http://www.noceilings.org/

 

[jirskyr]

I will ask you a question…name 3 chairpersons at any other club??? My point is Go attracts a lot of media attention and is probably one of the very few chairpersons that one in fifty league fans might know. Why does she attract this attention?? Probably a lot of reasons and especially the last 12 months, things like Farahgate,Simonia,Taylors sacking, poor performances, big 4 contracts and Cleary have all got her name out there, but she at least puts her face and name to all these things. I don't see to many other chairpersons or board members tacking ownership for any drama at other clubs, they usually leave it to the CEO.

Sadly the gutter Jurnos have a big sway in what happens in the NRL and they can make things very hard for anyone in there radar and Go is being targeted big time. Good thing is she is smarter than all of them combined

Totally agree. Part of the criticism levelled at Go now is just because she is approaching things differently. I get the impression she is revelling in doing it differently, getting people's nose out of joint for not doing things "the way they've always been done".

Maybe she has limited skills and intelligence, I don't know, I've never met the woman and I'm in no position nor am I qualified to judge her adequacy for a chairperson role. That's for other people to do, and it's for other people to review her performance and make decisions about her future.

But for a club that has essentially failed at winning football for most of 18 years, I can't see how a different approach is bad. Maybe Marina should keep her head low, but we've done that before and we didn't achieve success. So bugger it, let her go out there and engage criticism, let her build her profile, how can it be any worse than what her predecessors have done?

Same with the roster overhaul. MAybe we don't want to lose Broses / Woodesco, or just maybe that's the best thing that can happen to our club. When you aren't succeeding, you have to change things, and there's no limit to where that change has to start or end.

 

[Sabre]

She is absolutely open to criticism of her performance. But I always challenge people to really illustrate where a chairperson has misperformed, if they even understand what the chairperson's role is. Is it the chair's fault that they sacked a coach? She's only overseen one sacking. Is it the chair's fault that the team isn't winning? Partially, but lots of chairs have been there. Is it the chairs fault Tigers might lose some players? No idea, and who is to say roster changes aren't for the better?

My only criticism would be the handling of the Farah/Taylor situation, the way Farah left the club wasn't a good look. JT's dismissal could have been done a bit better also. As you said though, I'm not sure how much of a role Marina Go played in that.
And it's not so much the decisions themselves that were bad, just the way they were carried out.

 

[TCL]

i think the board is one thing and Go a separate thing. Go has no sway over the board and cannot alone make a decision or veto a decision made by a majority. she is a figure head, mouth piece call it what ever she does not make decisions on her own.

if the media want to criticise her for decisions that the board makes then her point is proven and the comments misguided.

 

[ricksen]

It's ridiculous that there is such angst at 'non-footy' people having any role in the administration of the game. The NRL, ARL and whatever previous incarnation of the governing body have been full of ex-players for years, and the place has been run rather poorly. Compare the governance of the NRL to that of the AFL - we are light years behind.
We obviously need canny RL minds involved, but we need serious business nous at the same time.

Buzz Rothfield has a list of mis-steps so long he could have used them to walk to the moon.

This is Pulitzer-worthy stuff. Bravo.

 

[jirskyr]

EDIT double post

 

[jirskyr]

It's ridiculous that there is such angst at 'non-footy' people having any role in the administration of the game. The NRL, ARL and whatever previous incarnation of the governing body have been full of ex-players for years, and the place has been run rather poorly. Compare the governance of the NRL to that of the AFL - we are light years behind.
We obviously need canny RL minds involved, but we need serious business nous at the same time.

This is a point I agree with and forgot to add myself. "Jobs for the boys" has long been a strategy and ultimately an issue for NRL. There is a lot of short-sighted, insular thinking still prevalent in the game and it isn't helped by this idea that only rugby league "heads" have any legitimate input into the game.

As you note, there are in fact very many examples of League-affiliated personnel doing quite poor jobs within the wider rugby league community, even if they mean well.

And if you subscribe to the old history, to compulsory rugby league affiliation, you strengthen / prolong the old rivalries, in-fighting and siege mentality that holds the game back.

 

[Harvey]

Grant Mayer was heavily criticised because the fans were concerned about the direction of the club. I would struggle to name 3 clubs chairs regardless of their gender. Go does seem to be more willing than others to take up a publicity or photo opportunity, Pascoe should be the go to for comment most boards work in the background

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

It's possible that Go attracts more attention not only because she is female, but she is a female that was appointed or recommended by the NRL to be chairperson for a club.

Her performance as Chair reflects to some extent of the NRL's ability to identify and attract leadership talent, especially females.

 

[dazza65]

IMHO she isn't being judged on being female, she, rightly or wrongly, is being judged as the chairperson of a club who, let's be honest, has the perception of being a compete fustercluck
My response to the suggestion of sexism is Raelene Castle.

 

[earl]

Go's not from the old boys club,where all the hack jurnos would spend all day and night at the bar with the CEO and board members getting there headlines. Her IQ is about ten times greater than anything from the DTs sports section.

Anyway Iam more than happy to have Go,Pascoe and Cleary shaping our future and if we lose three of the big 4 because they are unhappy with the way we are been ran…so be it

The comment regarding her IQ is pretty unfair. To work at the tele you have to fail a IQ test so 10 times that is basically a halfwit.