Tigers should be heavyweights

[Geo]

Justin has done alot of good but his allowance for Ivan to have free reign over recruitment and $$ is a sackable offense in my mind.

That would have been the Board's decision. A CEO would not have the authority to take that decision.

My god it sounds like he's responsible for nothing. I think CEO is the wrong title.

It appears he's solely responsible for all the good stuff but has nothing to do with any of the bad stuff.

He’s made mistakes for sure but one thing he is not responsible for is the players in the playing group. That is the purview of the Board and the Coach. Pascoe would know very little about players abilities.

Nor would I, but if I was CEO and someone came to me with a range of contracts i'd be asking them if there were any competing offers and what we're paying them compared to their previous contract. Wasn't it reported that Reynolds and Packer's offer from us was almost double their offer from their old clubs? If he's this financial whiz everyone says, wouldn't that raise alarm bells?

It depends what his instructions were from the Board.

So what is the point of him then? Is he just a figurehead?

Mostly..

Yes..he would be part of the 'team'' in terms of recruitment but power of veto is always with the board especially where large contracts are concerned..

A CEO may well be against a signing a coach wants with all the due diligence that entails..if the board is backing the coach with what he requires would carry more weight..

You can use the Dragons as an example where the Coach is not given the power over the roster ..in the end that cost him the job with a committee in the end that was selecting the team week to week..

 

[mike]

Justin is the face of WT.
He has a colossal role(for the club) and is most certainly liable for both executive and administrative responsibilities, however I think it's obvious that we suffer from poor organisational culture.
This stems from poor governance and leadership from the Board - **who are supposed to be the brains behind everything.**

Yep 100% 💯

 

[mike]

Justin has done alot of good but his allowance for Ivan to have free reign over recruitment and $$ is a sackable offense in my mind.

That would have been the Board's decision. A CEO would not have the authority to take that decision.

My god it sounds like he's responsible for nothing. I think CEO is the wrong title.

It appears he's solely responsible for all the good stuff but has nothing to do with any of the bad stuff.

He’s made mistakes for sure but one thing he is not responsible for is the players in the playing group. That is the purview of the Board and the Coach. Pascoe would know very little about players abilities.

Nor would I, but if I was CEO and someone came to me with a range of contracts i'd be asking them if there were any competing offers and what we're paying them compared to their previous contract. Wasn't it reported that Reynolds and Packer's offer from us was almost double their offer from their old clubs? If he's this financial whiz everyone says, wouldn't that raise alarm bells?

It depends what his instructions were from the Board.

So what is the point of him then? Is he just a figurehead?

His purpose is to run the day to day operations of the organisation and to follow and meet the objectives of the strategic plan agreed to with the Board. On the player recruitment side of things, very little I would think.

That maybe the case but it shouldn't be. He's in the organising every day, the board get together for a meeting probably once a fortnight. That's a dysfunctional set up if true and probably why they sought a guy with no experience.

They got him because of his links with Governments and Corporates. In that respect he is doing exactly what he was hired to do.

 

[Telltails]

Justin has done alot of good but his allowance for Ivan to have free reign over recruitment and $$ is a sackable offense in my mind.

That would have been the Board's decision. A CEO would not have the authority to take that decision.

My god it sounds like he's responsible for nothing. I think CEO is the wrong title.

It appears he's solely responsible for all the good stuff but has nothing to do with any of the bad stuff.

He’s made mistakes for sure but one thing he is not responsible for is the players in the playing group. That is the purview of the Board and the Coach. Pascoe would know very little about players abilities.

Nor would I, but if I was CEO and someone came to me with a range of contracts i'd be asking them if there were any competing offers and what we're paying them compared to their previous contract. Wasn't it reported that Reynolds and Packer's offer from us was almost double their offer from their old clubs? If he's this financial whiz everyone says, wouldn't that raise alarm bells?

It depends what his instructions were from the Board.

So what is the point of him then? Is he just a figurehead?

His purpose is to run the day to day operations of the organisation and to follow and meet the objectives of the strategic plan agreed to with the Board. On the player recruitment side of things, very little I would think.

That maybe the case but it shouldn't be. He's in the organising every day, the board get together for a meeting probably once a fortnight. That's a dysfunctional set up if true and probably why they sought a guy with no experience.

They got him because of his links with Governments and Corporates. In that respect he is doing exactly what he was hired to do.

I would think the most important role of CEO is to build business and community partnerships. I think in this area he has done well.

 

[happy_tiger]

Justin has done alot of good but his allowance for Ivan to have free reign over recruitment and $$ is a sackable offense in my mind.

That would have been the Board's decision. A CEO would not have the authority to take that decision.

My god it sounds like he's responsible for nothing. I think CEO is the wrong title.

It appears he's solely responsible for all the good stuff but has nothing to do with any of the bad stuff.

He’s made mistakes for sure but one thing he is not responsible for is the players in the playing group. That is the purview of the Board and the Coach. Pascoe would know very little about players abilities.

Nor would I, but if I was CEO and someone came to me with a range of contracts i'd be asking them if there were any competing offers and what we're paying them compared to their previous contract. Wasn't it reported that Reynolds and Packer's offer from us was almost double their offer from their old clubs? If he's this financial whiz everyone says, wouldn't that raise alarm bells?

It depends what his instructions were from the Board.

So what is the point of him then? Is he just a figurehead?

Mostly..

Yes..he would be part of the 'team'' in terms of recruitment but power of veto is always with the board especially where large contracts are concerned..

A CEO may well be against a signing a coach wants with all the due diligence that entails..if the board is backing the coach with what he requires would carry more weight..

You can use the Dragons as an example where the Coach is not given the power over the roster ..in the end that cost him the job with a committee in the end that was selecting the team week to week..

What does a GEO do

 

[hobbo1]

Justin has done alot of good but his allowance for Ivan to have free reign over recruitment and $$ is a sackable offense in my mind.

That would have been the Board's decision. A CEO would not have the authority to take that decision.

My god it sounds like he's responsible for nothing. I think CEO is the wrong title.

It appears he's solely responsible for all the good stuff but has nothing to do with any of the bad stuff.

He’s made mistakes for sure but one thing he is not responsible for is the players in the playing group. That is the purview of the Board and the Coach. Pascoe would know very little about players abilities.

Nor would I, but if I was CEO and someone came to me with a range of contracts i'd be asking them if there were any competing offers and what we're paying them compared to their previous contract. Wasn't it reported that Reynolds and Packer's offer from us was almost double their offer from their old clubs? If he's this financial whiz everyone says, wouldn't that raise alarm bells?

It depends what his instructions were from the Board.

So what is the point of him then? Is he just a figurehead?

Mostly..

Yes..he would be part of the 'team'' in terms of recruitment but power of veto is always with the board especially where large contracts are concerned..

A CEO may well be against a signing a coach wants with all the due diligence that entails..if the board is backing the coach with what he requires would carry more weight..

You can use the Dragons as an example where the Coach is not given the power over the roster ..in the end that cost him the job with a committee in the end that was selecting the team week to week..

What does a GEO do

Puts peanuts like you in the cooler
?

 

[cochise]

Justin has done alot of good but his allowance for Ivan to have free reign over recruitment and $$ is a sackable offense in my mind.

That would have been the Board's decision. A CEO would not have the authority to take that decision.

My god it sounds like he's responsible for nothing. I think CEO is the wrong title.

It appears he's solely responsible for all the good stuff but has nothing to do with any of the bad stuff.

He’s made mistakes for sure but one thing he is not responsible for is the players in the playing group. That is the purview of the Board and the Coach. Pascoe would know very little about players abilities.

Nor would I, but if I was CEO and someone came to me with a range of contracts i'd be asking them if there were any competing offers and what we're paying them compared to their previous contract. Wasn't it reported that Reynolds and Packer's offer from us was almost double their offer from their old clubs? If he's this financial whiz everyone says, wouldn't that raise alarm bells?

It depends what his instructions were from the Board.

So what is the point of him then? Is he just a figurehead?

He is responsible for implementing the directions of the board, that is a CEO's role.

 

[cochise]

Justin is the face of WT.
He has a colossal role(for the club) and is most certainly liable for both executive and administrative responsibilities, however I think it's obvious that we suffer from poor organisational culture.
This stems from poor governance and leadership from the Board - **who are supposed to be the brains behind everything.**

The board is the over lying issue I think aswell. They have no one to answer to.

They should be answerable to the owners of the club.

 

[cochise]

Justin has done alot of good but his allowance for Ivan to have free reign over recruitment and $$ is a sackable offense in my mind.

That would have been the Board's decision. A CEO would not have the authority to take that decision.

My god it sounds like he's responsible for nothing. I think CEO is the wrong title.

It appears he's solely responsible for all the good stuff but has nothing to do with any of the bad stuff.

He’s made mistakes for sure but one thing he is not responsible for is the players in the playing group. That is the purview of the Board and the Coach. Pascoe would know very little about players abilities.

Nor would I, but if I was CEO and someone came to me with a range of contracts i'd be asking them if there were any competing offers and what we're paying them compared to their previous contract. Wasn't it reported that Reynolds and Packer's offer from us was almost double their offer from their old clubs? If he's this financial whiz everyone says, wouldn't that raise alarm bells?

It depends what his instructions were from the Board.

So what is the point of him then? Is he just a figurehead?

His purpose is to run the day to day operations of the organisation and to follow and meet the objectives of the strategic plan agreed to with the Board. On the player recruitment side of things, very little I would think.

That maybe the case but it shouldn't be. He's in the organising every day, the board get together for a meeting probably once a fortnight. That's a dysfunctional set up if true and probably why they sought a guy with no experience.

That is exactly how a lot of organisations run. There may be slight variations depending on the board.

 

[kiwitiger]

If I have learnt on thing in my life it's, if you want something to fail run it by committee. Seriously I hope our board do not sit around and discuss who should be recruited. Thats why they employ others. Seriously we have a bunch of super fans talking about recruits an can veto? So if the weather man is unhappy or does not rate a player he has a say? If its true that the board has final say I think we have found why we suck.

 

[cochise]

If I have learnt on thing in my life it's, if you want something to fail run it by committee. Seriously I hope our board do not sit around and discuss who should be recruited. Thats why they employ others. Seriously we have a bunch of super fans talking about recruits an can veto? So if the weather man is unhappy or does not rate a player he has a say? If its true that the board has final say I think we have found why we suck.

No

 

[kiwitiger]

If I have learnt on thing in my life it's, if you want something to fail run it by committee. Seriously I hope our board do not sit around and discuss who should be recruited. Thats why they employ others. Seriously we have a bunch of super fans talking about recruits an can veto? So if the weather man is unhappy or does not rate a player he has a say? If its true that the board has final say I think we have found why we suck.

No

But the board has final say according to some

 

[cochise]

If I have learnt on thing in my life it's, if you want something to fail run it by committee. Seriously I hope our board do not sit around and discuss who should be recruited. Thats why they employ others. Seriously we have a bunch of super fans talking about recruits an can veto? So if the weather man is unhappy or does not rate a player he has a say? If its true that the board has final say I think we have found why we suck.

No
But the board has final say according to some

No the board either puts the people in place to make those decisions or grants the CEO the power to appoint these people. It depends on how hands on the board is and how much power they delegate.

 

[tiger_one]

These types of articles serve one purpose.
Gives the journo some media "15 mins of fame."

Does it serve the game?
Does it enhance the game?
Does it foster positives in the game?


If the answer is no, that says it all. End of.

 

[Geo]

If I have learnt on thing in my life it's, if you want something to fail run it by committee. Seriously I hope our board do not sit around and discuss who should be recruited. Thats why they employ others. Seriously we have a bunch of super fans talking about recruits an can veto? So if the weather man is unhappy or does not rate a player he has a say? If its true that the board has final say I think we have found why we suck.

No the question was why did Pascoe not stop Voldamort signing Reynolds Packer Mbye to stupid contracts et al

The power of veto lies with the Board and the Weatherman not the CEO..

So the board did sit around...they backed the Coach..

 

[cochise]

If I have learnt on thing in my life it's, if you want something to fail run it by committee. Seriously I hope our board do not sit around and discuss who should be recruited. Thats why they employ others. Seriously we have a bunch of super fans talking about recruits an can veto? So if the weather man is unhappy or does not rate a player he has a say? If its true that the board has final say I think we have found why we suck.

No the question was why did Pascoe not stop Voldamort signing Reynolds Packer Mbye to stupid contracts et al

The power of veto lies with the Board and the Weatherman not the CEO..

So the board did sit around...they backed the Coach..

That is traditionally how it works, on occasions that role can be delegated to a CEO.

 

[cochise]

It's interesting that the focus has turned away from Pascoe to "the Board". I seriously don't know who is on the Board. Can someone list them for us please?

Bandeli "Lee" Hagipantelis – Chairperson (Independent)
Simon Cook (Wests Ashfield Leagues Club CEO)
Dennis Burgess (Wests Ashfield Leagues Club Board Director)
Tony Andreacchio (Wests Ashfield Leagues Club Board Director)
Michael Liubinskas (Wests Ashfield Leagues Club Board Director)
Frederick "Rick" Wayde (Wests Ashfield Leagues Club Board Director)
Danny Stapleton (Balmain Leagues Club Board Director)
James Myatt (Balmain Leagues Club Board Director)

That was in 2019 and I haven't heard of any changes.

 

[Geo]

It's interesting that the focus has turned away from Pascoe to "the Board". I seriously don't know who is on the Board. Can someone list them for us please?

Bandeli "Lee" Hagipantelis – Chairperson (Independent)
Simon Cook (Wests Ashfield Leagues Club CEO)
Dennis Burgess (Wests Ashfield Leagues Club Board Director)
Tony Andreacchio (Wests Ashfield Leagues Club Board Director)
Michael Liubinskas (Wests Ashfield Leagues Club Board Director)
Frederick "Rick" Wayde (Wests Ashfield Leagues Club Board Director)
Danny Stapleton (Balmain Leagues Club Board Director)
James Myatt (Balmain Leagues Club Board Director)

That was in 2019 and I haven't heard of any changes.

That's them

 

[Masterton]

But we are rebuilding the strategy. We are investing mostly in youth, all across the squad. Reynolds and Packer don't count, we know buying them was mistakes.

But we do need Tamou now, without him (and without Packer who is not a regular starter in our First Grade side) our oldest forward is like 24 yrs old! We need at least one experienced forward, the rest can be young, that's fine.

Yeah, it's a strange time to be hammering us for signing oldies. Besides Tamou, the purchases are firmly aimed at youngsters at the mo, and we are just about to punt a bunch of veterans.