Confirmed: Matulino to hang up boots after career ending knee injury.

[JD Tiger]

@ElleryHanley I think Pascoe has been good. But yes, Pascoe fired, and Cleary sued. (If true)

 

[momo_amp_medo]

I wonder what the odds of Burgess getting medically retired ? I bet there wont be any issues nor drawn out drama like what is happening with Mats.

It appears that Mats had a pre-existing condition

If the rumor is true that Mattalino failed a medical with another club and that Cleary signed him long term without a medical........which Pascoe rubber stamped...then Pascoe has to be fired.

Let's see.

Now whose whacky rumour was that.
Seriously you really believe that?

 

[ElleryHanley]

I wonder what the odds of Burgess getting medically retired ? I bet there wont be any issues nor drawn out drama like what is happening with Mats.

It appears that Mats had a pre-existing condition

If the rumor is true that Mattalino failed a medical with another club and that Cleary signed him long term without a medical........which Pascoe rubber stamped...then Pascoe has to be fired.

Let's see.

Now whose whacky rumour was that.
Seriously you really believe that?

there has been a long running rumor that mattalino was rejected by another club after failing their medical. this was before we came in for him.

maybe The Pom knows more about it?

we will know soon enough anyway. If the NRL deny it on that basis...pre existing.

 

[Needaname]

I read it somewhere.
Not in a rumour format.
An actual quote.
It was the Knights and he did not pass their medical test prior to coming to us.

 

[Needaname]

@Needaname
Might have been in a Barry Toohey article.

 

[ElleryHanley]

I read it somewhere.
Not in a rumour format.
An actual quote.
It was the Knights and he did not pass their medical test prior to coming to us.

Yes, that was it.

If Pascoe signed off on a four year deal for a bloke who failed a medical, then he should quit IMO.

If we are left with Ben not able to play at 500 plus Pascoe's fine then that is around 800 000 of next year's cap lost DIRECTLY due to Pascoe. That is insanity, no other CEO will have cost their club 10% of the cap.

 

[momo_amp_medo]

I read it somewhere.
Not in a rumour format.
An actual quote.
It was the Knights and he did not pass their medical test prior to coming to us.

Yes, that was it.

If Pascoe signed off on a four year deal for a bloke who failed a medical, then he should quit IMO.

If we are left with Ben not able to play at 500 plus Pascoe's fine then that is around 800 000 of next year's cap lost DIRECTLY due to Pascoe. That is insanity, no other CEO will have cost their club 10% of the cap.

If that’s true With the new CEO, Board and Coach ...... Pascoe would no longer be our CEO.

 

[ElleryHanley]

I read it somewhere.
Not in a rumour format.
An actual quote.
It was the Knights and he did not pass their medical test prior to coming to us.

Yes, that was it.

If Pascoe signed off on a four year deal for a bloke who failed a medical, then he should quit IMO.

If we are left with Ben not able to play at 500 plus Pascoe's fine then that is around 800 000 of next year's cap lost DIRECTLY due to Pascoe. That is insanity, no other CEO will have cost their club 10% of the cap.

If that’s true With the new CEO, Board and Coach ...... Pascoe would no longer be our CEO.

Why? The stuff up re Robbie is not even debatable. So, there is no "if".

The mess re Cleary is not debatable, so there is no "if" there also. Pascoe vouched for Cleary from years of working together and handed him the keys to everything. I may sound harsh, but it was Pascoe's job to get that charachter assessment right.

Could it not just be that we have a poor CEO and a weak board for not removing him?

 

[Newtown]

I read it somewhere.
Not in a rumour format.
An actual quote.
It was the Knights and he did not pass their medical test prior to coming to us.

Yes, that was it.

If Pascoe signed off on a four year deal for a bloke who failed a medical, then he should quit IMO.

If we are left with Ben not able to play at 500 plus Pascoe's fine then that is around 800 000 of next year's cap lost DIRECTLY due to Pascoe. That is insanity, no other CEO will have cost their club 10% of the cap.

If that’s true With the new CEO, Board and Coach ...... Pascoe would no longer be our CEO.

Why? The stuff up re Robbie is not even debatable. So, there is no "if".

The mess re Cleary is not debatable, so there is no "if" there also. Pascoe vouched for Cleary from years of working together and handed him the keys to everything. I may sound harsh, but it was Pascoe's job to get that charachter assessment right.

Could it not just be that we have a poor CEO and a weak board for not removing him?

With regards to the Matulino situation I think that Pascoe and Cleary were at that time very matey matey and Pascoe was allowing Cleary to make decisions which Pacoe should have had more involvement with.

 

[momo_amp_medo]

I read it somewhere.
Not in a rumour format.
An actual quote.
It was the Knights and he did not pass their medical test prior to coming to us.

Yes, that was it.

If Pascoe signed off on a four year deal for a bloke who failed a medical, then he should quit IMO.

If we are left with Ben not able to play at 500 plus Pascoe's fine then that is around 800 000 of next year's cap lost DIRECTLY due to Pascoe. That is insanity, no other CEO will have cost their club 10% of the cap.

If that’s true With the new CEO, Board and Coach ...... Pascoe would no longer be our CEO.

Why? The stuff up re Robbie is not even debatable. So, there is no "if".

The mess re Cleary is not debatable, so there is no "if" there also. Pascoe vouched for Cleary from years of working together and handed him the keys to everything. I may sound harsh, but it was Pascoe's job to get that charachter assessment right.

Could it not just be that we have a poor CEO and a weak board for not removing him?

The Robbie drama at the time would have been JT push for the Board to approve. What would you have done that’s different on that one?

Cleary was our messiah .... and don’t recall many that complained about his appointment and his recruitment at the time. But correct me if you did post a disapproval at that time.

Ben recruitment without medical rumour is just that “a media rumour” based on another rumour that supposedly him not passing medical at the knights. As I said if we indeed did recruit without a medical pass then it’s poor form. But knowing what checks and ticks previous Chair (Go) demanded before Board approval I would doubt that the story/ rumour has legs. But open for discussion I supposed but not A hanging offence to be pointed towards our current CEO.

 

[ElleryHanley]

I read it somewhere.
Not in a rumour format.
An actual quote.
It was the Knights and he did not pass their medical test prior to coming to us.

Yes, that was it.

If Pascoe signed off on a four year deal for a bloke who failed a medical, then he should quit IMO.

If we are left with Ben not able to play at 500 plus Pascoe's fine then that is around 800 000 of next year's cap lost DIRECTLY due to Pascoe. That is insanity, no other CEO will have cost their club 10% of the cap.

If that’s true With the new CEO, Board and Coach ...... Pascoe would no longer be our CEO.

Why? The stuff up re Robbie is not even debatable. So, there is no "if".

The mess re Cleary is not debatable, so there is no "if" there also. Pascoe vouched for Cleary from years of working together and handed him the keys to everything. I may sound harsh, but it was Pascoe's job to get that charachter assessment right.

Could it not just be that we have a poor CEO and a weak board for not removing him?

With regards to the Matulino situation I think that Pascoe and Cleary were at that time very matey matey and Pascoe was allowing Cleary to make decisions which Pacoe should have had more involvement with.

Yes....and that is the issue.

If, at my work, I vouched for and appointed a mate...gave him carte blanche...sat back whilst he ran up millions in commitments and contracts...and then he screwed the place badly and massively betrayed us, well it would be me and solely me who was responsible. At that level character assessment is vital and Pascoe basically sold the club on Cleary's character. I am surprised so many defend him on it, but you have a right to your opinions.

 

[jirskyr]

Pascoe vouched for Cleary from years of working together and handed him the keys to everything. I may sound harsh, but it was Pascoe’s job to get that charachter assessment right.

I'm pretty sure it's the Board that defines the power and scope of the Head Coach, not the CEO. Pascoe may have vouched for Cleary, but the Board hired him and the Board set the parameters of his station.

The CEO works at the discretion of the Board - cannot over-rule them.

 

[balmain boy]

Matulino said he was drawn back to Australia to reunite with his former coach and to his friends in Sydney. And a good contract. Newcastle is in the middle nowhere and it would be highly doubtful he would have looked to go their first. There's been no suggestions from anywhere or anyone else that he ever went to newie. One random source means nothing

 

[hsvjones]

Regardless if he didn't pass another teams medical he played like 40 games with us with no injuries.. That speaks for itself but as we are not a big club the NRL likes it will get declined unfortunately.

 

[hammertime]

Regardless if he didn't pass another teams medical he played like 40 games with us with no injuries.. That speaks for itself but as we are not a big club the NRL likes it will get declined unfortunately.

100%. If he played that many games, then he couldnt have been hired with a pre existing issue that had a significant risk to be career ending.

 

[gallagher]

I read it somewhere.
Not in a rumour format.
An actual quote.
It was the Knights and he did not pass their medical test prior to coming to us.

Yes, that was it.

If Pascoe signed off on a four year deal for a bloke who failed a medical, then he should quit IMO.

If we are left with Ben not able to play at 500 plus Pascoe's fine then that is around 800 000 of next year's cap lost DIRECTLY due to Pascoe. That is insanity, no other CEO will have cost their club 10% of the cap.

If that’s true With the new CEO, Board and Coach ...... Pascoe would no longer be our CEO.

Why? The stuff up re Robbie is not even debatable. So, there is no "if".

The mess re Cleary is not debatable, so there is no "if" there also. Pascoe vouched for Cleary from years of working together and handed him the keys to everything. I may sound harsh, but it was Pascoe's job to get that charachter assessment right.

Could it not just be that we have a poor CEO and a weak board for not removing him?

Pascoe's the new teflon.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Yeah, like those above, to me the Matulino bringing this supposed career ending injury with him story has no legs, as he missed what, only one match with WT prior to the current injury. I do though recall him having also been suffering a bone on bone knee condition, which I have had for a good number of years now. This though is manageable and I have put up with it as an on the tools builder, as I am also considered too young to have a full knee replacement.

Very hard to imagine further huge degradation or similar worsening of Osteo Arthritis can change things from one week to the next without a further injury being the catalyst.

Still, I understand the frustrations @ElleryHanley holds on many fronts, as eight years without a finals appearance has me really struggling to keep my own glass half full. The post Sheens years hamstrung by cap issues were somewhat acceptable in the circumstances, but to find the club pretty well back there after finally clearing that hurdle is demoralising.

 

[Telltails]

Pascoe vouched for Cleary from years of working together and handed him the keys to everything. I may sound harsh, but it was Pascoe’s job to get that charachter assessment right.

I'm pretty sure it's the Board that defines the power and scope of the Head Coach, not the CEO. Pascoe may have vouched for Cleary, but the Board hired him and the Board set the parameters of his station.

The CEO works at the discretion of the Board - cannot over-rule them.

Cleary came with a reputation and credentials aside of having worked before with Pascoe that were well known, and if character assessment in the NRL is determined by hiring people that are not tempted by money and opportunity then all CEO's have little hope of getting that right.
You can blame Pascoe for the Ambassador stuff up but not for the choices Ivan Cleary made - unless of course your motivation is to attack Pascoe.

 

[gallagher]

Pascoe vouched for Cleary from years of working together and handed him the keys to everything. I may sound harsh, but it was Pascoe’s job to get that charachter assessment right.

I'm pretty sure it's the Board that defines the power and scope of the Head Coach, not the CEO. Pascoe may have vouched for Cleary, but the Board hired him and the Board set the parameters of his station.

The CEO works at the discretion of the Board - cannot over-rule them.

Cleary came with a reputation and credentials aside of having worked before with Pascoe that were well known, and if character assessment in the NRL is determined by hiring people that are not tempted by money and opportunity then all CEO's have little hope of getting that right.
You can blame Pascoe for the Ambassador stuff up but not for the choices Ivan Cleary made - unless of course your motivation is to attack Pascoe.

The CEO of the NRL doesn't enjoy the same leeway on here.

 

[Telltails]

Pascoe vouched for Cleary from years of working together and handed him the keys to everything. I may sound harsh, but it was Pascoe’s job to get that charachter assessment right.

I'm pretty sure it's the Board that defines the power and scope of the Head Coach, not the CEO. Pascoe may have vouched for Cleary, but the Board hired him and the Board set the parameters of his station.

The CEO works at the discretion of the Board - cannot over-rule them.

Cleary came with a reputation and credentials aside of having worked before with Pascoe that were well known, and if character assessment in the NRL is determined by hiring people that are not tempted by money and opportunity then all CEO's have little hope of getting that right.
You can blame Pascoe for the Ambassador stuff up but not for the choices Ivan Cleary made - unless of course your motivation is to attack Pascoe.

The CEO of the NRL doesn't enjoy the same leeway on here.

Clearly. Seibold did exactly the same thing to South's. And their CEO did what ours did got a better replacement - like all good CEO's should do.