Opinion Stephen Silvagni

Remove this Banner Ad

For the posters that are pointing the finger directly at the kids, in particular Jack, I’ll leave you with this little, but factual thought. It is no coincidence that once JSoS was playing forward and applying the ‘defensive pressure’ and ‘doing the one percenters’, that some of our other more fancied forwards who incidentally weren’t playing don’t do, we started to score and the kid was directly instrumental in many score assist.

And after all that our beloved management team don’t believe he deserved his spot.:rolleyes:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Stanly said:
I beg to differ.

One could argue that Blakey has much more of a conflict than SOS. Blakey Snr is a significant part of team selection (and his sons teammates). Is he compromised at selection meetings? Does he step outside if his son is out of form and may be dropped. Huge conflict. Does Longmire baulk slightly at getting pissed at Blakey Jnr in th box, or when thinking of giving him a spray at quarter time cause his dads there and is also Longmire's right hand man. Dosn Longmire need that extra layer? Plenty of conflict there.

Whilst SOS may have some input into length and $$$ terms of contracts, that wasn't his portfolio. His job was to bring players into the club. It can easily be separated.
Click to expand...

you make some good points, your last sentence i think is incorrect, if anyone knows better, feel free to correct, but SOS as far as im aware, is/was responsible for contract negotiations and how much players would make.
 
DangerousD said:
you make some good points, your last sentence i think is incorrect, if anyone knows better, feel free to correct, but SOS as far as im aware, is/was responsible for contract negotiations and how much players would make.
Click to expand...

SOS would be responsible for negotiations but he doesn't control the cap, so would definitely have to sit down with Lloyd and Liddle to get guidelines as to how high we can go.
 
SurreyBlue said:
For the posters that are pointing the finger directly at the kids, in particular Jack, I’ll leave you with this little, but factual thought. It is no coincidence that once JSoS was playing forward and applying the ‘defensive pressure’ and ‘doing the one percenters’, that some of our other more fancied forwards who incidentally weren’t playing don’t do, we started to score and the kid was directly instrumental in many score assist.

And after all that our beloved management team don’t believe he deserved his spot.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Are we sure that any of this has come about because Jack and/or Ben don’t currently deserve their spot, either in the 22 in Jack’s case or on the list in Ben’s? I’m not certain that’s the issue. I believe the issue is more about the potential for that to occur in the future. I don’t think Jack has been “gifted” games at all. As you stated, his defensive efforts in the F50 were incredibly important to our resurgence under Teague. I believe he is almost a lock in our best 22 for that very reason. I confess to not knowing enough about Ben to have an opinion about his prospects, but on heritage alone he deserves the chance to prove his worth.
I believe the club has pulled the wrong rein in explaining the reasons why SOS has left/been let go. In trying to deflect from the personality clashes and stubbornness which has most likely fractured the relationship beyond repair, the statement has focused on the “conflict of interest” angle - one we here on the forum clearly don’t agree with. As mentioned elsewhere, this has put undue pressure on JSOS & BSOS, and potentially TSOS.
In trying the do the right thing by a departing legend, the club has ballsed it up royally.
I hope this doesn’t turn the Silvagni boys off the club, as I truly believe they belong here. I am hopeful the inner sanctum of the coaching and playing group have rallied around them and softened the horrible treatment they have endured the past day or so.
 
Own The Future said:
I hope this doesn’t turn the Silvagni boys off the club, as I truly believe they belong here. I am hopeful the inner sanctum of the coaching and playing group have rallied around them and softened the horrible treatment they have endured the past day or so.
Click to expand...
I honestly believe Jack, and probably Ben, will still be at the club well beyond any of the current administration. Their teammates and coaching staff would have their arms around them as we speak.

Jack took his game to a new level last year, and Ben looks like a competitive beast like his old man.

The club is of course bigger than any individual, and the Silvagni legacy has been a huge part of it for over half a century. I don't think the actions of a few individuals within the club at this point will impact on this legacy....and I truly believe SOS would be telling his boys as much.
 
Stamos said:
If they had any brains, they would have said that now that the rebuild is complete, and due to the salary cap, we’re changing the structure of the football department and the (unusual) position of General Manager of List Management and Strategy is now redundant
Click to expand...

or keep the best list manager in the country, because.... he is the best list manager in the country. 🤷‍♂️
I just can’t get past this point. How many times have you heard people say the most important person in a football club is the list manager. I think I’m really struggling with it , because of who he is . He really brought back faith that we could be good again, and the only person bth. I thought I was starting to trust the club again, not now, not at the moment. I don’t believe in messiahs, just leaders. Sos lead like he did on field. I suppose it feels just like losing a great player. Footy is emotions, we try and hide it on this site with big responses and arguments, but we just want to trust again.
 
ChrisKaias said:
What do you all want the media release to say?

It could have given Liddle's side of the story and listed some things negative to SOS. Instead it focused on something that SOS could not help, is a legitimate issue, and one that by all reports Liddle was concerned by.

Of course it's not the full story, and nobody thinks it is and the club doesn't expect people will think it is. But is it really the place to say 'he was a difficult personality who didn't play well with others yada yada'? Best to try and leave it on a good note.

Many of you won't like to hear this but the cult of SOS I'm witnessing really isn't that unlike the cult of Hird (and no, I'm not comparing the two, just the way they are revered by fans and can do no wrong). My biggest wish is that we never, ever have a club legend in a role like that again.
Click to expand...

This thread has moved so fast that I'm only just catching up and seeing this post.

What I would have expected the release to say is something that is far more respectful to a bloke who has twice given his all to the club. Hell, they could have even spun it as his decision, or at least a mutual one. But it seems that Liddle just had to take one last swipe at him as he's heading out the door; making sure that everyone is under no illusions that he's terminated SOS's tenure.

I've read an awful lot of the reactions to this and I don't see cult, I mostly see anger. To draw parallels with Hird is to suggest that people are blind to some significant failing of SOS. But apart from around the fringes, it is universally accepted here that he has done at least a good job, and to many he's done a great job, and yet we're losing him over personalities?

It's a f**king disgrace. And demonstrates that at the very least, our CEO lacks the ability to manage strong-willed people in what is often an emotionally turbulent environment. And having failed in that role, lacks the humility to properly acknowledge the departure of a legend of the club.

ChrisKaias said:
My biggest wish is that we never, ever have a club legend in a role like that again.
Click to expand...

Even if they are amongst the best in the buisness in the position they hold? Then my most fervent wish is that you're never in a position to make decisions as to who might fill roles at the club.
 
Limestone said:
or keep the best list manager in the country, because.... he is the best list manager in the country. 🤷‍♂️
I just can’t get past this point. How many times have you heard people say the most important person in a football club is the list manager. I think I’m really struggling with it , because of who he is . He really brought back faith that we could be good again, and the only person bth. I thought I was starting to trust the club again, not now, not at the moment. I don’t believe in messiahs, just leaders. Sos lead like he did on field. I suppose it feels just like losing a great player. Footy is emotions, we try and hide it on this site with big responses and arguments, but we just want to trust again.
Click to expand...

This is it. You nailed it for me. My trust is shaken again, just as I felt ready to believe for the first time in so many years.

Really spewing that the real stuff is so far away.

Bounce the ball ffs
 
ChrisKaias said:
You misunderstand conflict of interest, it isn't about or the same as competing interests within the business, it's about a conflict with a personal interest you have outside the business. This conflict does go beyond the dynamic that is present in every meeting, every day, and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

The perception of a conflict also becomes an issue, and it isn't an answer to just say 'well Jack is earning his spot so it doesn't matter'. It puts everyone in an awkward position, let's say SOS absents himself from a decision whether to delist Ben at the end of next year - who makes the decision instead? People working under him? Do you think they could make a decision without doubt creeping into their mind about how their boss would react to them making a call to delist his son? Maybe, maybe not, but it's awkward. And it's the awkwardness which makes this a really tough situation even if you try your best to manage it.

Nobody thinks this was the only reason all of this happened, but it was clearly the most palatable reason to include in the media release without needing to dump on SOS or anyone else.
Click to expand...

This is lawyer talk, not real world talk. "Nobody thinks this is the real reason but they had to say something palatable"... No, in the game of winning people's hearts and minds, just be ****ing honest. Because we will guess at (and eventually find out) the bulk of the truth anyway.

Foundations rocked again. Not because of this so called Messiah complex you claim is consuming us, but because if it looks like shit and smells like shit then guess what?
 
Opine said:
You’re confusing a fiduciary obligation with a conflict of interest. While the latter exists of the former, it goes well beyond a mere conflict to encompass what you’ve described. But they are not the same thing. Furthermore, the presence of a conflict isn’t of itself terminal to a relationship. You’re a lawyer, you would know this.
Click to expand...
What a lot of gobbledygook!
A fiduciary obligation is imposed by a court of equity in the context of a relationship of trust - and what is such a relationship is itself defined by a court of equity.
Stephen Silvagni was in a contractual relationship with the club, not a fiduciary relationship.
The law relating to conflicts of interest is entirely seperate from the law relating to fiduciary relationships and fiduciary obligations.
There are two recognised types of conflict of interest known to law.
First, an actual conflict. Second, an apparent or ostensible conflict.
And to answer an earlier poster, No “ this is not lawyer’s talk”. The law relating to conflicts of interest has evolved as a result of dealing with real life problems. It is not some artificial construct imposed on ordinary life by a bunch of academic lawyers.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

What I think we will miss the most from having SOS at the helm isn’t the draft picks and recruiting of free agents (the team can manage that) - it’s his negotiating ability and his ability to not overpay. There’s been dozens of examples but just in the past 2 months:
he re-signed Casboult for one year even though Cas and many on here wanted him signed for 2 years
He got Kemp with Pick 17 instead of Pick 11 and hence we got Philp free
He got Honey as a rookie which is cheaper than getting him with a late national draft pick

And behind the scenes he’s re-signed our players on lower salaries than others could get away with. We are going to face salary cap issues beginning 2021 and not having SOS handle all those negotiations means we will likely lose one or more big name players.

SOS built a strong list from the ground up and it’s a shame he won’t be around to keep the list together and fill in the gaps with prudent salary cap management.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Percy2257 said:
What a lot of gobbledygook!
A fiduciary obligation is imposed by a court of equity in the context of a relationship of trust - and what is such a relationship is itself defined by a court of equity.
Stephen Silvagni was in a contractual relationship with the club, not a fiduciary relationship.
The law relating to conflicts of interest is entirely seperate from the law relating to fiduciary relationships and fiduciary obligations.
There are two recognised types of conflict of interest known to law.
First, an actual conflict. Second, an apparent or ostensible conflict.
And to answer an earlier poster, No “ this is not lawyer’s talk”. The law relating to conflicts of interest has evolved as a result of dealing with real life problems. It is not some artificial construct imposed on ordinary life by a bunch of academic lawyers.
Click to expand...

it's law, it's the Vibe and, no that's it, it's the vibe
 
Stamos said:
If they had any brains, they would have said that now that the rebuild is complete, and due to the salary cap, we’re changing the structure of the football department and the (unusual) position of General Manager of List Management and Strategy is now redundant
Click to expand...

So lie to the membership? Come on Stamos, you’ve been losing your mind for using what is actually a conflict but not the full gory story and now you want them to lie.

I think it proves that it wouldn’t have mattered what they put out certain sections were going to lose it anyway


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
SurreyBlue said:
For the posters that are pointing the finger directly at the kids, in particular Jack, I’ll leave you with this little, but factual thought. It is no coincidence that once JSoS was playing forward and applying the ‘defensive pressure’ and ‘doing the one percenters’, that some of our other more fancied forwards who incidentally weren’t playing don’t do, we started to score and the kid was directly instrumental in many score assist.

And after all that our beloved management team don’t believe he deserved his spot.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? What absolute nonsensical drivel


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
I don't think this situation could have been handled any worse.

The extra pressure the administration has just heaped onto the Silvagni boys, which was already ridiculous is inexcusable. It screams of gutless leadership and an absolute failure of accountability.

We really need a clean out at board and senior leadership level and have for a very long time
 
teagueyubeauty said:
So lie to the membership? Come on Stamos, you’ve been losing your mind for using what is actually a conflict but not the full gory story and now you want them to lie.

I think it proves that it wouldn’t have mattered what they put out certain sections were going to lose it anyway


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

ahh they already did lie.

You’re as bad at reading the room as our illustrious leaders....


You and ChrisKaisis keep hinting like you know something. So spill the beans. Tell us the truth you so clearly know. Every detail. Then maybe we will all agree with you.
Or we will continue to be embarrassed and sad that just when our club appeared to be through this shit they have gone and done it all over again.
 
Ockhams razor said:
To an extent I understand.

However, Blues took it to a new level of scrutiny and I totally disagree with the club statement focussing on SOS’ kids.
Unnecessary, unprofessional and smacks of amateurism.

Maybe it’s fair on Jack & Ben as adults earning good $$ from the club. Totally unacceptable scrutiny on Tom.

Without the club’s statement re conflict of interest the media wouldn’t be focussing on a junior who, like all 17 year old’s is making his way in life amongst a myriad of pressures and doesn’t need a HS article focussing on their (incorrect) perception of his deficiencies.
Click to expand...

So do I and the terms unprofessional and amateur come about all too often when it comes to this club. Disorganised fits in quite well also.

So whose idea was it to use the Stephen's kids as a reason for his departure? -
The difficult decision to not enter into a new contract with Silvagni as GM List Management and Strategy centred around the increasing complexity of having two sons on the playing list.

Who signed off on this as being a good idea?
 
Accidental genius said:
To me it’s looking more and more like MLG is not fit for his position. All this developed under his eyes but he was napping at the wheel. He is a terrible public speaker as well. About time this position was filled with someone who has some bloody idea.
Click to expand...

A board challenge involving Fraser Brown will happen one day I hope. Have dealt with him in the professional world and was impressed.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Stephen Silvagni

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top