Keep Coach or New coach

[Swordy]

Bog average roster due to mismanagement by Justin and Ivan

Justin who?

Justin Pass Cow

Then @bagnf05 needs to realise that Pascoe does not decide who the Tigers sign and let go.

The idea is to blame the people responsible, not those you don't like.

Madge and Hartigan are the people - at least you got one right.

Do I need to pull out the article where he called himself the lead negotiator with Teddy and the like?

No you don't.

He may be the negotiator and sign the contract on behalf of the Tigers but he does not decide who comes and who goes.

The word negotiator seems indicate he had a big say. At least on price.

That is not selecting/dismissing the player. I think the Board would have a say in amounts more so than the CEO.

Neither of us know - so just guesswork.

You put the boot into Pascoe at every opportunity, I defend him. Stalemate. Let's leave it there again.

He called himself the lead negotiator. Not me. I don't know how you could say he had nothing to do with retention and recruitment.

I dont like to butt into the discussion of others, but Pascoe as the CEO is as the lead negotiator, and he is to follow instructions given to him by the board.

If his instruction is...say...get rid of a hooker, captain and club icon, then he is to do that whether he likes it or not in the best way possible.

If his instruction is to....say....retain an existing underperforming halfback, then he does that in the best way possible.

Neither are his choices, but he does it the best way possible in line with the club strategy.

Same as every CEO in every organisation. They are the fall guy, the lead negotiator, but not the decision maker.

 

[gallagher]

Bog average roster due to mismanagement by Justin and Ivan

Justin who?

Justin Pass Cow

Then @bagnf05 needs to realise that Pascoe does not decide who the Tigers sign and let go.

The idea is to blame the people responsible, not those you don't like.

Madge and Hartigan are the people - at least you got one right.

Do I need to pull out the article where he called himself the lead negotiator with Teddy and the like?

No you don't.

He may be the negotiator and sign the contract on behalf of the Tigers but he does not decide who comes and who goes.

The word negotiator seems indicate he had a big say. At least on price.

That is not selecting/dismissing the player. I think the Board would have a say in amounts more so than the CEO.

Neither of us know - so just guesswork.

You put the boot into Pascoe at every opportunity, I defend him. Stalemate. Let's leave it there again.

He called himself the lead negotiator. Not me. I don't know how you could say he had nothing to do with retention and recruitment.

I dont like to butt into the discussion of others, but Pascoe as the CEO is as the lead negotiator, and he is to follow instructions given to him by the board.

If his instruction is...say...get rid of a hooker, captain and club icon, then he is to do that whether he likes it or not in the best way possible.

If his instruction is to....say....retain an existing underperforming halfback, then he does that in the best way possible.

Neither are his choices, but he does it the best way possible in line with the club strategy.

Same as every CEO in every organisation. They are the fall guy, the lead negotiator, but not the decision maker.

Well he disagrees then. He accepted responsibility on Teddy leaving. So if the board tells him to sign JAC and he fails. That on him?

 

[Swordy]

Bog average roster due to mismanagement by Justin and Ivan

Justin who?

Justin Pass Cow

Then @bagnf05 needs to realise that Pascoe does not decide who the Tigers sign and let go.

The idea is to blame the people responsible, not those you don't like.

Madge and Hartigan are the people - at least you got one right.

Do I need to pull out the article where he called himself the lead negotiator with Teddy and the like?

No you don't.

He may be the negotiator and sign the contract on behalf of the Tigers but he does not decide who comes and who goes.

The word negotiator seems indicate he had a big say. At least on price.

That is not selecting/dismissing the player. I think the Board would have a say in amounts more so than the CEO.

Neither of us know - so just guesswork.

You put the boot into Pascoe at every opportunity, I defend him. Stalemate. Let's leave it there again.

He called himself the lead negotiator. Not me. I don't know how you could say he had nothing to do with retention and recruitment.

I dont like to butt into the discussion of others, but Pascoe as the CEO is as the lead negotiator, and he is to follow instructions given to him by the board.

If his instruction is...say...get rid of a hooker, captain and club icon, then he is to do that whether he likes it or not in the best way possible.

If his instruction is to....say....retain an existing underperforming halfback, then he does that in the best way possible.

Neither are his choices, but he does it the best way possible in line with the club strategy.

Same as every CEO in every organisation. They are the fall guy, the lead negotiator, but not the decision maker.

Well he disagrees then. He accepted responsibility on Teddy leaving. So if the board tells him to sign JAC and he fails. That on him?

Well, depends on why JAC didn't come I guess. Pascoe can disagree all day, but the CEO role is to execute the will of the board.

If the board said "Pascoe, you have up to 500K to get JAC. Make it happen." He offers 500K, but JAC goes to dogs for 550K, that's not on Pascoe.

But if he offered 400K to JAC and he said bugger off, I hate you and the club, then that is partly on Pascoe.

The board has a lot to answer for at WT. I admit I know very little about the people and machinations of the WT board, but its not rocket science to see they are failing. Others who follow deeper or know more about Wests Ashfield might know more.

Pascoe also has a responsibility to the board in outlining his opinion on what he thinks is possible and how. Strategy is a CEO responsibility. Maybe he doesnt have one, or maybe the board don't listen and think they know better. I'd lean to the latter based on his strategies elsewhere. He obviously has them

 

[BZN]

Bog average roster due to mismanagement by Justin and Ivan

Justin who?

Justin Pass Cow

Then @bagnf05 needs to realise that Pascoe does not decide who the Tigers sign and let go.

The idea is to blame the people responsible, not those you don't like.

Madge and Hartigan are the people - at least you got one right.

Do I need to pull out the article where he called himself the lead negotiator with Teddy and the like?

No you don't.

He may be the negotiator and sign the contract on behalf of the Tigers but he does not decide who comes and who goes.

The word negotiator seems indicate he had a big say. At least on price.

That is not selecting/dismissing the player. I think the Board would have a say in amounts more so than the CEO.

Neither of us know - so just guesswork.

You put the boot into Pascoe at every opportunity, I defend him. Stalemate. Let's leave it there again.

He called himself the lead negotiator. Not me. I don't know how you could say he had nothing to do with retention and recruitment.

I dont like to butt into the discussion of others, but Pascoe as the CEO is as the lead negotiator, and he is to follow instructions given to him by the board.

If his instruction is...say...get rid of a hooker, captain and club icon, then he is to do that whether he likes it or not in the best way possible.

If his instruction is to....say....retain an existing underperforming halfback, then he does that in the best way possible.

Neither are his choices, but he does it the best way possible in line with the club strategy.

Same as every CEO in every organisation. They are the fall guy, the lead negotiator, but not the decision maker.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[gallagher]

Bog average roster due to mismanagement by Justin and Ivan

Justin who?

Justin Pass Cow

Then @bagnf05 needs to realise that Pascoe does not decide who the Tigers sign and let go.

The idea is to blame the people responsible, not those you don't like.

Madge and Hartigan are the people - at least you got one right.

Do I need to pull out the article where he called himself the lead negotiator with Teddy and the like?

No you don't.

He may be the negotiator and sign the contract on behalf of the Tigers but he does not decide who comes and who goes.

The word negotiator seems indicate he had a big say. At least on price.

That is not selecting/dismissing the player. I think the Board would have a say in amounts more so than the CEO.

Neither of us know - so just guesswork.

You put the boot into Pascoe at every opportunity, I defend him. Stalemate. Let's leave it there again.

He called himself the lead negotiator. Not me. I don't know how you could say he had nothing to do with retention and recruitment.

I dont like to butt into the discussion of others, but Pascoe as the CEO is as the lead negotiator, and he is to follow instructions given to him by the board.

If his instruction is...say...get rid of a hooker, captain and club icon, then he is to do that whether he likes it or not in the best way possible.

If his instruction is to....say....retain an existing underperforming halfback, then he does that in the best way possible.

Neither are his choices, but he does it the best way possible in line with the club strategy.

Same as every CEO in every organisation. They are the fall guy, the lead negotiator, but not the decision maker.

Well he disagrees then. He accepted responsibility on Teddy leaving. So if the board tells him to sign JAC and he fails. That on him?

Well, depends on why JAC didn't come I guess. Pascoe can disagree all day, but the CEO role is to execute the will of the board.

If the board said "Pascoe, you have up to 500K to get JAC. Make it happen." He offers 500K, but JAC goes to dogs for 550K, that's not on Pascoe.

But if he offered 400K to JAC and he said bugger off, I hate you and the club, then that is partly on Pascoe.

The board has a lot to answer for at WT. I admit I know very little about the people and machinations of the WT board, but its not rocket science to see they are failing. Others who follow deeper or know more about Wests Ashfield might know more.

Pascoe also has a responsibility to the board in outlining his opinion on what he thinks is possible and how. Strategy is a CEO responsibility. Maybe he doesnt have one, or maybe the board don't listen and think they know better. I'd lean to the latter based on his strategies elsewhere. He obviously has them

Your won't hear me praise the board. I'm just doubtful Pascoe had nothing to do with the roster at all. I find posters who suggest that have an agenda.

 

[851]

How many Current Tigers players would play first grade in the top teams???

Maybe Luch,
Maybe Adam Doeuhi,
Maybe Joffa...

The rest are good up and coming players that will need some time..

Brooks definitely, Twal, Mikaele, Talau, Laurie, Nofoaluma.

Twal, on the bench possibly....

Based on form, the others wouldnt make Mel, Panthers, Roosters etc

However, there is so much potential to build around under the guidance of Madge

Funny how the Huth and Momo get a run at the undefeated 'Riff when many on here thought they shouldn't be in our 17.

Exactly, our team has some holes to fill for sure, but are not as bad as the NRL ladder suggests, and that is down to coaching

 

[BAGNF05]

Bog average roster due to mismanagement by Justin and Ivan

Justin who?

Justin Pass Cow

Then @bagnf05 needs to realise that Pascoe does not decide who the Tigers sign and let go.

The idea is to blame the people responsible, not those you don't like.

Madge and Hartigan are the people - at least you got one right.

Do I need to pull out the article where he called himself the lead negotiator with Teddy and the like?

No you don't.

He may be the negotiator and sign the contract on behalf of the Tigers but he does not decide who comes and who goes.

The word negotiator seems indicate he had a big say. At least on price.

That is not selecting/dismissing the player. I think the Board would have a say in amounts more so than the CEO.

Neither of us know - so just guesswork.

You put the boot into Pascoe at every opportunity, I defend him. Stalemate. Let's leave it there again.

He called himself the lead negotiator. Not me. I don't know how you could say he had nothing to do with retention and recruitment.

I dont like to butt into the discussion of others, but Pascoe as the CEO is as the lead negotiator, and he is to follow instructions given to him by the board.

If his instruction is...say...get rid of a hooker, captain and club icon, then he is to do that whether he likes it or not in the best way possible.

If his instruction is to....say....retain an existing underperforming halfback, then he does that in the best way possible.

Neither are his choices, but he does it the best way possible in line with the club strategy.

Same as every CEO in every organisation. They are the fall guy, the lead negotiator, but not the decision maker.

So keep the puppet?

 

[Swordy]

Bog average roster due to mismanagement by Justin and Ivan

Justin who?

Justin Pass Cow

Then @bagnf05 needs to realise that Pascoe does not decide who the Tigers sign and let go.

The idea is to blame the people responsible, not those you don't like.

Madge and Hartigan are the people - at least you got one right.

Do I need to pull out the article where he called himself the lead negotiator with Teddy and the like?

No you don't.

He may be the negotiator and sign the contract on behalf of the Tigers but he does not decide who comes and who goes.

The word negotiator seems indicate he had a big say. At least on price.

That is not selecting/dismissing the player. I think the Board would have a say in amounts more so than the CEO.

Neither of us know - so just guesswork.

You put the boot into Pascoe at every opportunity, I defend him. Stalemate. Let's leave it there again.

He called himself the lead negotiator. Not me. I don't know how you could say he had nothing to do with retention and recruitment.

I dont like to butt into the discussion of others, but Pascoe as the CEO is as the lead negotiator, and he is to follow instructions given to him by the board.

If his instruction is...say...get rid of a hooker, captain and club icon, then he is to do that whether he likes it or not in the best way possible.

If his instruction is to....say....retain an existing underperforming halfback, then he does that in the best way possible.

Neither are his choices, but he does it the best way possible in line with the club strategy.

Same as every CEO in every organisation. They are the fall guy, the lead negotiator, but not the decision maker.

So keep the puppet?

The CEO is a puppet in every organisation. Its the boards Chairman that should wear the heat 100%.

Currently that is Lee Hagipantelis. Previously it was Marina Go (whom I liked). Marina sorted the structure out properly to transform it from a joke of a place to a professional business. I think Hagipantelis is shrewd enough and succesful enough to continue that on and actually order the culture change.

These significant transformations, as in team culture, are measured in years - not weeks or months. Even longer in the case of football clubs because it is a male dominated, raffle ticket selling, BBQ cooking, canteen lady mentality. These JRLFC self appointed junior football car park tools is usually what is on the board in these clubs because they graduated from junior football clubs or similar. Electrician by day, kids coach and board member by night and suddenly they find themselves in the big time and out of their depth.

Anyway, back to the coach. Plenty of learned people say there is no doubt Madge can coach. I think the changing of the entire club ethos and culture takes time. As I said, measured in years, not weeks or months. He (or whoever is coach) needs the time to do that. Our suffering is because of years of mismanagement and junior club type buffoons as opposed to anything the current coach has done.

 

[BZN]

Bog average roster due to mismanagement by Justin and Ivan

Justin who?

Justin Pass Cow

Then @bagnf05 needs to realise that Pascoe does not decide who the Tigers sign and let go.

The idea is to blame the people responsible, not those you don't like.

Madge and Hartigan are the people - at least you got one right.

Do I need to pull out the article where he called himself the lead negotiator with Teddy and the like?

No you don't.

He may be the negotiator and sign the contract on behalf of the Tigers but he does not decide who comes and who goes.

The word negotiator seems indicate he had a big say. At least on price.

That is not selecting/dismissing the player. I think the Board would have a say in amounts more so than the CEO.

Neither of us know - so just guesswork.

You put the boot into Pascoe at every opportunity, I defend him. Stalemate. Let's leave it there again.

He called himself the lead negotiator. Not me. I don't know how you could say he had nothing to do with retention and recruitment.

I dont like to butt into the discussion of others, but Pascoe as the CEO is as the lead negotiator, and he is to follow instructions given to him by the board.

If his instruction is...say...get rid of a hooker, captain and club icon, then he is to do that whether he likes it or not in the best way possible.

If his instruction is to....say....retain an existing underperforming halfback, then he does that in the best way possible.

Neither are his choices, but he does it the best way possible in line with the club strategy.

Same as every CEO in every organisation. They are the fall guy, the lead negotiator, but not the decision maker.

So keep the puppet?

The CEO is a puppet in every organisation. Its the boards Chairman that should wear the heat 100%.

Currently that is Lee Hagipantelis. Previously it was Marina Go (whom I liked). Marina sorted the structure out properly to transform it from a joke of a place to a professional business. I think Hagipantelis is shrewd enough and succesful enough to continue that on and actually order the culture change.

These significant transformations, as in team culture, are measured in years - not weeks or months. Even longer in the case of football clubs because it is a male dominated, raffle ticket selling, BBQ cooking, canteen lady mentality. These JRLFC self appointed junior football car park tools is usually what is on the board in these clubs because they graduated from junior football clubs or similar. Electrician by day, kids coach and board member by night and suddenly they find themselves in the big time and out of their depth.

Anyway, back to the coach. Plenty of learned people say there is no doubt Madge can coach. I think the changing of the entire club ethos and culture takes time. As I said, measured in years, not weeks or months. He (or whoever is coach) needs the time to do that. Our suffering is because of years of mismanagement and junior club type buffoons as opposed to anything the current coach has done.

[/QUOTE]

 

[avocadoontoast]

The CEO is a puppet in every organisation.

I'm sorry mate but that just isn't true.

 

[Swordy]

The CEO is a puppet in every organisation.

I'm sorry mate but that just isn't true.

Please explain

EDIT - I concede that not in every company in reality, such as when they are also chairman of the board or even a director. This is not the norm and is bad practice and may cause conflicts of interest.

But in the context of the role, where the CEO is appointed by the board who are shareholder representatives, the CEO is given instruction by the owners.

So my generalised statement of 'puppet in every organisation' may be a little strong and indeed incorrect in some instances. I stand corrected. I genuinely meant in the general context of the structure.

 

[avocadoontoast]

The CEO is a puppet in every organisation.

I'm sorry mate but that just isn't true.

Please explain

The board is responsible for protecting the interests of the owners via governance, strategic plans (in conjunction with the CEO), risk etc. The Chairman is the conduit between the CEO and the Board.

The CEO is responsible for all day to day operations of a business, including executing the strategic plan which is approved by the board. The board usually don't come up with the strategic plan themselves, the CEO and other C suite executives create the vision and the strategy and take that plan to the board for approval. The board is not involved in the day to day operation of the company - they are there for checks and balances which is why normally, they are independent. Now if the CEO is failing in their delivery then the board and chair, as representatives of the owners, can absolutely remove him or her.

I have known and worked with a number of CEO's and none of them were puppets. Yes, they answer to the board, but they are in charge of the company's direction and day to day management.

 

[Swordy]

The CEO is a puppet in every organisation.

I'm sorry mate but that just isn't true.

Please explain

The board is responsible for protecting the interests of the owners via governance, strategic plans (in conjunction with the CEO), risk etc. The Chairman is the conduit between the CEO and the Board.

The CEO is responsible for all day to day operations of a business, including executing the strategic plan which is approved by the board. The board usually don't come up with the strategic plan themselves, the CEO and other C suite executives create the vision and the strategy and take that plan to the board for approval. The board is not involved in the day to day operation of the company - they are there for checks and balances which is why normally, they are independent. Now if the CEO is failing in their delivery then the board and chair, as representatives of the owners, can absolutely remove him or her.

I have known and worked with a number of CEO's and none of them were puppets. Yes, they answer to the board, but they are in charge of the company's direction and day to day management.

As above, I concede on that point. Given someone is appointed by xxxxx to carry out the wishes of xxxxx in any way they deem necessary, then sure there is a modicom or a limited amount of independence. I meant generally, they are there to carry out the requirements of the board/shareholders/owners, and not their own wishes.

My apologies.

I too have worked with a number of CEO's. Those with stronger personalities and weaker boards have more flex.

 

[avocadoontoast]

The CEO is a puppet in every organisation.

I'm sorry mate but that just isn't true.

Please explain

The board is responsible for protecting the interests of the owners via governance, strategic plans (in conjunction with the CEO), risk etc. The Chairman is the conduit between the CEO and the Board.

The CEO is responsible for all day to day operations of a business, including executing the strategic plan which is approved by the board. The board usually don't come up with the strategic plan themselves, the CEO and other C suite executives create the vision and the strategy and take that plan to the board for approval. The board is not involved in the day to day operation of the company - they are there for checks and balances which is why normally, they are independent. Now if the CEO is failing in their delivery then the board and chair, as representatives of the owners, can absolutely remove him or her.

I have known and worked with a number of CEO's and none of them were puppets. Yes, they answer to the board, but they are in charge of the company's direction and day to day management.

As above, I concede on that point. Given someone is appointed by xxxxx to carry out the wishes of xxxxx in any way they deem necessary, then sure there is a modicom or a limited amount of independence. I meant generally, they are there to carry out the requirements of the board/shareholders/owners, and not their own wishes.

My apologies.

I too have worked with a number of CEO's. Those with stronger personalities and weaker boards have more flex.

Sorry just read that. No need for apologies at all, appreciate your point of view :+1:

 

[BAGNF05]

The CEO is a puppet in every organisation.

I'm sorry mate but that just isn't true.

Please explain

The board is responsible for protecting the interests of the owners via governance, strategic plans (in conjunction with the CEO), risk etc. The Chairman is the conduit between the CEO and the Board.

The CEO is responsible for all day to day operations of a business, including executing the strategic plan which is approved by the board. The board usually don't come up with the strategic plan themselves, the CEO and other C suite executives create the vision and the strategy and take that plan to the board for approval. The board is not involved in the day to day operation of the company - they are there for checks and balances which is why normally, they are independent. Now if the CEO is failing in their delivery then the board and chair, as representatives of the owners, can absolutely remove him or her.

I have known and worked with a number of CEO's and none of them were puppets. Yes, they answer to the board, but they are in charge of the company's direction and day to day management.

I’d like to hear ‘the Boss’ explain his role in building a below average organisation when judged by its core business - professional rugby league.

 

[Red88_Tiger]

We need a coach that can attract the top players, We have plenty of money yet they won't come here even on overs.

I can’t think of anyone of note that the knights signed under Bennett when he was there

 

[avocadoontoast]

We need a coach that can attract the top players, We have plenty of money yet they won't come here even on overs.

I can’t think of anyone of note that the knights signed under Bennett when he was there

Boyd, Tahu, Gagai.

 

[Telltails]

We need a coach that can attract the top players, We have plenty of money yet they won't come here even on overs.

I can’t think of anyone of note that the knights signed under Bennett when he was there

Darius - it was a package deal wherever Bennett went.

 

[facepalmer]

Keep him until later in the season but start looking for a hotshot new gen coach with good ideas now and release him in time for that guy to come in and take over as soon as off season starts.

I think we have a good enough squad for someone who has a clue about modern tactics and player management to actually do the job honestly. Particularly when you look at club-wide depth in juniors etc.

I think Madge has done a good job being the martyr to get us through this generation ala Brian Smith and I salute him. But I have seen little evidence to suggest he has a clue how to gameplan, coach halves/attack and he has a major issue with playing favourites which we cannot afford to have at a club where one of our strengths is emerging talent that needs to be brought through.

It's a no, but a genuine thanks, from me.

 

[facepalmer]

I saw someone float Cameron Ciraldo. That's probably the person I'd be most inclined to go after too.