Sack Humphreys

[innsaneink]

Sheens can be sacked if they fail to make the semies and only half his remaining contract is to be paid out.

What a great manager Tim has, he knows the only person with that kinda dough is Tims good bestest bud ol harry T…Harry luvs Tim....he knows the club cant afford to pay him out, so someone agreed to this heavily weighted lopsided contract in favour of Sheens, someone agreed,,,,,,hmm, what a funny ol fellow

 

[stryker]

I dont see your point goose..people get sacked all the time for underperforming. I am not that mad at not making the 8…I gave up on that outcome 6/7 weeks ago...it is that we only played a couple of good games of footy all year. That happens when you have a poor roster - we didnt. We were lucky that Robbie, Benji and Beau were able to pull freak plays out of their bums early this year and get us some very wobbly victories because we certainly played poorly enough to win that spoon.

 

[Yossarian]

You guys are right, we should just keep everything as it is. I'm happy that the CEO has addressed members concerns by telling us that sheens is wicked at moving gym equipment, I'm on board with all our player signings, I'm completely behind the way the coach uses our roster.

Seriously I don't get when mediocrity became ok? You talk about reality? The reality is in the real world if this management group had failed so hard they would be looking on seek.com. But because they are tied to something that creates so much passion in people they are given a pass. Look at it this way, if your Internet provider continually failed your expectations would you stick with them? No way, you would shop around and change company but it's not that easy with a sporting team, you don't have a history of watching Optus with your mates /family.

Also, it's ok to be critical. I want sheens gone- indifferent on the CEO but the bare minimum for me is sheens is shown the door.Am I now not a " real fan" for questioning the hierarchy at the club?

Reality is if we keep the current staff at the club we will sink into long period of being cellar dwellers. We will fail to attract better players/ sponsors. We will go back to the days pre JV of not being able to keeps quality JR's and generally we will not look forward to March anymore. I don't want that.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Nobody is saying accept mediocrity - the point Goose was trying to make was that in the last 3 years the team has run =2nd, 4th, =9th and sacking someone on that basis (results alone in the past 3 years) could be considered harsh.

The irony of your last paragraph is that that was the situation before Sheens came on board and no matter how long he hangs on, those days are fortunately gone.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

What you fail to put into perspective is the fact that we aren't looking solely at the last three years. What about 2006-2009? Or does that not matter anymore?

The fact is, the weaknesses and problems of this team have not been addressed in seven years. Sheens has to take responsibility for that. For me it is not solely about our finishing position, but what we see on the park every week. The same issues are raising their ugly head all the time and are never addressed. This is the real issue here.

Our defense has not ever been at an acceptable standard (even in 10 and 11 it was inconsistent).
Our attitude stinks.
Our kicking game is the worst in the comp.
We make the same dumb mistakes over and over again.
There is zero mental toughness.
Nobody is ever dropped for poor performance.
Players are constantly played out of position.

If Sheems hasn't fixed most of these problem in seven years, then why will 2013 be any different? And if it won't be any different, then why shouldn't he be sacked?

He would not have survived at any other club for this long and you know it.

 

[tig_prmz]

**Nobody is saying accept mediocrity - the point Goose was trying to make was that in the last 3 years the team has run =2nd, 4th, =9th and sacking someone on that basis (results alone in the past 3 years) could be considered harsh.**

The irony of your last paragraph is that that was the situation before Sheens came on board and no matter how long he hangs on, those days are fortunately gone.

true but u cant ignore what happened before that.

however, to me and to may others, it's way beyond the results.

 

[Yossarian]

What you fail to put into perspective is the fact that we aren't looking solely at the last three years. What about 2006-2009? Or does that not matter anymore?

If Sheems hasn't fixed most of these problem in seven years, then why will 2013 be any different? And if it won't be any different, then why shouldn't he be sacked?

He would not have survived at any other club for this long and you know it.

Because this thread is about Stephen Humphreys. As far as I know Humphreys extended Sheens' contract by one season in 2010, we ran =2nd and then Sheens contract was extended.

The other reason is that you can hardly sack someone for what happened 4-7 years ago. The fact is he wasn't fired in 2008 or 2009… Imagine if you were performing well in your job and they fired you for doing a bad job 4 years ago.

I think we all agree that if 2013 is another non-finals year then Sheens will have to go. FWIW I think his time is up now but from the perspective that I think we need a fresh start.

 

[Yossarian]

**Nobody is saying accept mediocrity - the point Goose was trying to make was that in the last 3 years the team has run =2nd, 4th, =9th and sacking someone on that basis (results alone in the past 3 years) could be considered harsh.**

The irony of your last paragraph is that that was the situation before Sheens came on board and no matter how long he hangs on, those days are fortunately gone.

true but u cant ignore what happened before that.

however, to me and to may others, it's way beyond the results.

That's an argument for sacking him in 2009 not 2012\. After those failures we ran top 4 the next two seasons.

I agree with your last sentence, perhaps Goose does too. The argument was more that based on recent results sacking him could appear harsh. But I agree he seems to be getting diminishing returns and that is not necessarily his fault or the players' fault it is just the reality of these things.

 

[tig_prmz]

no yoss you cannot just ignore the past. and this past isn't even that far away.

you can look at everything in two ways: one from the outside, the other from the inside..
i) from the outside, THIS is the fact 3/10; 30%.. NOT GOOD ENOUGH ! at ANY club.
ii) from the inside, well we just need to see how much we've improved in the things we're weak at to understand how good/bad he really is.

 

[happy_tiger]

a poor year and we want to sack everyone.

I often wonder if people realise these guys are real people with real jobs.

8 sides make the semies, 8 dont. Calling for every man and his dog to be sacked if you dont make the semies is massively over the top.

The end of 2009 was the time where Sheens should have rightly been under pressure, The 2005 premiership prob kept him in business, consecutive top 4 finishes, rightfully gets you enough points for a bad, year. If he has another bad year he will be sacked.

Humphreys extended a contract of a coach after they finished top4 and had the club in good shape, this is normal behavior, he even put a protection clause in there about not making the semies being grounds to be sacked and lose half his contract.

In the NRL the difference between success and failure is very small. Failure is disappointing but given there is a loser in every game, a reality that fans would do well to accept as part and parcel of the game.

Just wondering of the 8 sides that missed the semis who had the playing personnel of Robbie Farah ,Benji Marshall ,Keith Gallaway,Gareth Elllis ,Chris Lawrence , Adam Blair ,Chris Heighington 7 internationals Goose 8 if you include Chisholm

 

[Tiger_Watto]

no yoss you cannot just ignore the past. and this past isn't even that far away.

you can look at everything in two ways: one from the outside, the other from the inside..
i) from the outside, THIS is the fact 3/10; 30%.. NOT GOOD ENOUGH ! at ANY club.
ii) from the inside, well we just need to see how much we've improved in the things we're weak at to understand how good/bad he really is.

The past (pre2010) is irrelevant when it comes to sacking the bloke. The moment he was given a new contract, is the only period when his performance relating to the contract can be judged. The fact he was given a contract extension, followed by a new contract after such poor years is a questionable matter. But its happened and therefore Sheens has ended up with a free ride to GO and can now collect his $200.00.

We (the fans) can judge the bloke on his entire history as that is public record, but we can't determine whether he should be sacked (previously or now) unless we know the conditions of his employment!

 

[tigerbalm]

What you fail to put into perspective is the fact that we aren't looking solely at the last three years. What about 2006-2009? Or does that not matter anymore?

The fact is, the weaknesses and problems of this team have not been addressed in seven years. Sheens has to take responsibility for that. For me it is not solely about our finishing position, but what we see on the park every week. The same issues are raising their ugly head all the time and are never addressed. This is the real issue here.

Our defense has not ever been at an acceptable standard (even in 10 and 11 it was inconsistent).
Our attitude stinks.
Our kicking game is the worst in the comp.
We make the same dumb mistakes over and over again.
There is zero mental toughness.
Nobody is ever dropped for poor performance.
Players are constantly played out of position.

If Sheems hasn't fixed most of these problem in seven years, then why will 2013 be any different? And if it won't be any different, then why shouldn't he be sacked?

He would not have survived at any other club for this long and you know it.

Just want to make sure people read this post^^^^+1
\
\
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[Yossarian]

no yoss you cannot just ignore the past. and this past isn't even that far away.

you can look at everything in two ways: one from the outside, the other from the inside..
i) from the outside, THIS is the fact 3/10; 30%.. NOT GOOD ENOUGH ! at ANY club.
ii) from the inside, well we just need to see how much we've improved in the things we're weak at to understand how good/bad he really is.

So if he have won the premiership this year you'd sack him because he only made the finals 50% of the time? His overall record is a discussion point for us but in terms of whether the guy gets the elbow you have to go on the results he's produced recently. Who else gets sacked for their performance before their most recent employment contract?

Anyway I'm not suggesting he has a great record overall or advocating for his retention, I'm just puting forward a viewpoint that he can really only be judged on his immediate past when it comes to whether he gets fired or not and the facts of his recent record are 2 top 4 appearances in the last 3 years.

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

I don't care about last season, he had a stronger squad this year and had a team to win the comp and we couldn't make the finals.

To me thats a fail and I just don't understand why so many people around here are happy with it.

To add more onto it we now have lost our best backrower to fill with "depth" players and Royce is back in the picture.

Sure we still have a team that should challenge next season put any coach in charge of the team and that won't change - to me says we have a quality team just not a coach and coaching staff who can manage them correctly which needs to be rectified.

I can't wait till he is shown the door, hopefully the warriors will bail us out and let us pursue a change because Sheens has no plan B/C or D and the happy go lucky gameplan is readable
and now defined below average after finishing =9th
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[supercoach]

Humphreys job involves a lot more than trying to build a winning football team,sponsorship,a link between our club and the NRL, a link between the board and the players and lots of other things. In general he is doing a good job,he has not sent us bankrupt and we have a good profile.I think he is one of the better CEOs going around. Sheens is a different kettle of fish, he is paid big big money to get a winning team and he has failed more than he has succeeded .

 

[weststigers4life]

Controversial NRL star Willie Mason joined Triple M's Nightly Sports Show, The Rush Hour as a co-host to talk openly the current state of the game and his career.

Willie On The Failed Tigers Deal

As you can see in the video above, Willie talks about the deal he had with Wests Tigers, which fell through at the beginning of the 2012 season.

"The players and the coaches did want me but obviously it goes a bit higher than that these days," said Willie. "They probably thought I was too much of a risk."

The perception is that he's a bad influence on young blokes but Willie disagreed.

"I think I'm a good influence on most players. Throughout my career I was thought I was a good influence. So it does piss you off a little bit," said Willie. Sorry, I don't know how to post the link to this video & audio from triple M's website but I think it was a poor decision not to sign Big Willie.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[boonboon]

In hindsight he played well for the knights but at the time no other c
UBS wanted to touch him, our sponsors didn't want him ( who pay our bills) and most fans didn't want him so we made the right decision. Also who is to say Willie in Newcastle where players are sheltered and protected and he is near family would be the same as Willie in sydney

 

[Yossarian]

He may be a bit of a goose some time but he makes for interesting radio. It was a pretty entertaining chat. Gotta love a bloke who answers honestly and avoids cliches. Like when they asked him about his NFL tryout.

"If they offered you a contract would you have done a Sonny Bill?"
"Probably yeah!"

 

[weststigers4life]

In hindsight he played well for the knights but at the time no other c
UBS wanted to touch him, our sponsors didn't want him ( who pay our bills) and most fans didn't want him so we made the right decision. Also who is to say Willie in Newcastle where players are sheltered and protected and he is near family would be the same as Willie in sydney

Only people inside clubs or actual family/friends of players will know the exact truth behind decisions & we as fans, can only make assumptions on what we hear or read on the issue. At the time, there were fans like myself that would of been happy & could see our forwards/team would of benefited if we signed him. Who knows if he would of played as good if we signed him instead of the knights but it's his last chance & i don't doubt he would of played well if he was here. You would assume players like him & Carney who are on their last chances would have clauses in their contracts about if they stuff up off the field & know any little slip ups now & their career is finished.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[kh_canada]

It was probably for the better that Willie didn't sign with us.
With all the speculation that rose last year about certain players' relationships, it was good to avoid all that this year, who knows, Willie might not have gotten along well at Concord.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

In hindsight he played well for the knights but at the time no other c
UBS wanted to touch him, our sponsors didn't want him ( who pay our bills) and most fans didn't want him so we made the right decision. Also who is to say Willie in Newcastle where players are sheltered and protected and he is near family would be the same as Willie in sydney

The fact that many of our fans didn't want him tells you all you need to know about the large majority of our fan base.

I wonder what any of the sponsors who didn't want Willie would think now? They sure got value from their deals this year after we missed the 8\. :crazy