As part of this conversation I'd be interested to hear about precedent in other clubs that sack or remove the CEO due to on-field performance only (or primarily). That's not a wise-crack, I'd simply like to see examples of what other clubs have done if they step their CEO down because the first grade side is unsuccessful.
I keep coming back to an example where Joe Kelly was CEO of Manly during the years they were busted for salary cap and failed to make the finals (2015-2016), and he oversaw the replacement of Geoff Toovey by Trent Barrett, which was a horror show. Barrett himself shown the door after Kelly left.
Kelly was suspended for 9 months after the Manly salary cap debacle, which I think was adjusted to 6 months on appeal. The catcher is that Kelly was hired by Roosters starting 2017 and he served his suspension whilst under the employ of the Roosters. He is STILL the CEO of the Roosters. Now if everything is to be believed about Roosters "keeping everyone they want", then Joe Kelly must be a decent CEO, even though his tenure at Manly was very ordinary and, at times, provably illegal.
The reality is the Board isn't keeping Pascoe on for the fun of it, and he's been here since the tail end of 2015, so he's on 6 years now, which means at least 1 contract extension (and he's not being fired right now, so probably on his 2nd extension).
The Board will have KPIs in place and you can only assume Pascoe is meeting those KPIs, otherwise they would have moved him on. I am going to guess it's easier to find a club CEO than a top-tier Head Coach, because CEOs can come from business but coaches can only come from rugby league.
So assuming Pascoe is meeting his KPIs and yet the team is still unsuccessful, it follows that hiring a new CEO is very likely to maintain the status quo unless you increase the KPIs. But the KPIs are on the Board, so its a criticism of the board if the CEO isn't being pushed hard enough.
And if we all concede that CEOs are generally not football operation people (they basically raise funding to support football operations), then I'm not clear how removing Pascoe will directly translate into better on-field performance.
Pascoe doesn't hire the coach, he doesn't hire the trainers, he doesn't personally select the players. He runs the business and delivers funding to the football operations departments. So in replacing him, you will only be adjusting the potential funds given to Football Ops, not the actual way in which the teams are trained or coached.
And given that Pascoe started season 2016, and Tigers have been in trouble for most seasons prior to 2016, and the current finals drought includes 4 seasons before Pascoe arrived, it's evident that the Tigers struggles are not Pascoe-centric.
Now I say all this not specifically in defence of Pascoe. I have no issues if he is sacked and he can't say he hasn't been given a decent tenure. I wouldn't have a clue who Tigers might replace him with. I'll caveat that Pascoe's predecessors were typically not well received and were replaced in short time, so a long-served CEO might be a good thing.
My cautioning is that I believe most anti-Pascoe people are just tired of his face, as much as anything else they can clearly point the finger at. And my personal opinion is that replacing Pascoe is unlikely to change the fundamental influence of the CEO.
Especially if the new CEO isn't some white-hot rugby league CEO weapon, and I don't think Tigers have a history of attracting the cutting-edge talent of the game.
