Opinion Stephen Silvagni

[Accidental genius]

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

If we can fill that role with a quality candidate we won’t hear about internal bickerings...they will be sorted before they have a chance to develop. MLG comes across very amateurish and based on what has transpired under his nose since he’s been there suggest he can’t do it satisfactorily. He must be replaced otherwise it will be business as usual for us.

 

[HARKER]

Did we create a new List Management structure just for SOS and are we going to keep the same structure in place when we find ourselves a new LM or is Agresta looking over his shoulder now?
Will the new LM want whatever Agresta really is - The LM's assistant.

I wonder whether SOS's mate Brodie, will be asked to hang around or be asked to move on by the new LM?

When will the next time be when Liddle fronts the media?
Right or wrong, he's now perceived as the person who killed Bambi. Not going to be many fans favourite for a while.
Not a great position to be in as a CEO and someone driving membership.

Will MLG front the media? That would be interesting.

Poor old Teague having to be the face of the club over the coming weeks, although the holiday period can't come soon enough for the CFC.

 

[bigm386]

If we can fill that role with a quality candidate we won’t hear about internal bickerings...they will be sorted before they have a chance to develop. MLG comes across very amateurish and based on what has transpired under his nose since he’s been there suggest he can’t do it satisfactorily. He must be replaced otherwise it will be business as usual for us.

MLG and family made their money ripping off migrants, nothing impressive about him in the slightest.

Fraser Brown has something

 

[Stamos]

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

What?
They did lie to the membership, and they’re treating us like idiots, along with disrespecting not only a club legend, but 2 current players.

While the COI is an issue, it’s obviously not the reason for his sacking, or this would have been planned a year out and would have been done professionally, with a replacement ready to go.

 

[Sector 7G]

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?

Surely Carlton should have just used the standard lines used when a terminated employee leaves. "SOS has decided to part ways with the Carlton Football Club to pursue other interests".

Everyone knows what it means but there is really no point going into details that will only make everyone involved look worse than they do already.

 

[Blue__Balls]

What?
They did lie to the membership, and they’re treating us like idiots, along with disrespecting not only a club legend, but 2 current players.

While the COI is an issue, it’s obviously not the reason for his sacking, or this would have been planned a year out and would have been done professionally, with a replacement ready to go.

Again, again, again - not necessarily.

It is entirely possible and reasonable that there were specific situations throughout the year that gave the administration cause for concern.

It's a managed response, sure, but it's one that in the context of the situation makes sense. There is, without a doubt, a conflict of interests in having a father running the list management team responsible for negotiating his sons' contracts and continued employment. You can't argue otherwise, it's clear as day. That doesn't mean SOS was necessarily doing anything wrong in that space, just that the circumstances are loaded with the potential for people's actions to be compromised. If it was any club but Carlton who released a statement saying they were not going to renew the contract of their list manager because he had 2 kids on their list, nobody here would blink. Because it is logical.

Is there more to this story? I have no doubt. But it seems like people complain about us being a "basket case", but at the same time expect the club to roll out a statement saying Liddle is contracted, SOS isn't, we'd prefer SOS but he's leaving soon anyway, so we may as well stick with Liddle, but then we have to let SOS go to avoid a punch-up in the cafeteria because Liddle invited Ellis over for a tour. Like that somehow makes us look more organised?

And still, I cannot fathom how this anti-Liddle crowd cannot come to terms with the possibility that he's not a rogue element, and was acting on behalf of people at the club who didn't have the profile to call SOS out on things that may or may not have happened.

We don't know the full story, but it seems only those calling for Liddle's head are unable to admit that. They seem to have all the facts, or at least all the facts they need to justify their anger.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Surely Carlton should have just used the standard lines used when a terminated employee leaves. "SOS has decided to part ways with the Carlton Football Club to pursue other interests".

Everyone knows what it means but there is really no point going into details that will only make everyone involved look worse than they do already.

Or the facts. Carlton committed to a full rebuild with SOS and his 5 year contract was ending in 2019. Given the bulk of the rebuild has now been completed, and following an internal review of football operations, we are restructuring the football and list management department.

SOS was offered an alternative position in our newly structured department, but has instead elected to pursue other opportunities. We wish him all the best in his future endeavours and look forward to seeing him around the club and on GameDay.

 

[Stamos]

Again, again, again - not necessarily.

It is entirely possible and reasonable that there were specific situations throughout the year that gave the administration cause for concern.

It's a managed response, sure, but it's one that in the context of the situation makes sense. There is, without a doubt, a conflict of interests in having a father running the list management team responsible for negotiating his sons' contracts and continued employment. You can't argue otherwise, it's clear as day. That doesn't mean SOS was necessarily doing anything wrong in that space, just that the circumstances are loaded with the potential for people's actions to be compromised. If it was any club but Carlton who released a statement saying they were not going to renew the contract of their list manager because he had 2 kids on their list, nobody here would blink. Because it is logical.

Is there more to this story? I have no doubt. But it seems like people complain about us being a "basket case", but at the same time expect the club to roll out a statement saying Liddle is contracted, SOS isn't, we'd prefer SOS but he's leaving soon anyway, so we may as well stick with Liddle, but then we have to let SOS go to avoid a punch-up in the cafeteria because Liddle invited Ellis over for a tour. Like that somehow makes us look more organised?

And still, I cannot fathom how this anti-Liddle crowd cannot come to terms with the possibility that he's not a rogue element, and was acting on behalf of people at the club who didn't have the profile to call SOS out on things that may or may not have happened.

We don't know the full story, but it seems only those calling for Liddle's head are unable to admit that. They seem to have all the facts, or at least all the facts they need to justify their anger.

But the COI is not THE reason.

And this whole cluster**** has not been managed professionally, which is enough reason to want Liddle out. Aside from the fact that all information available points to Liddle sacking SOS due to a power battle.

 

[Stamos]

Or the facts. Carlton committed to a full rebuild with SOS and his 5 year contract was ending in 2019. Given the bulk of the rebuild has now been completed, and following an internal review of football operations, we are restructuring the football and list management department.

SOS was offered an alternative position in our newly structured department, but has instead elected to pursue other opportunities. We wish him all the best in his future endeavours and look forward to seeing him around the club and on GameDay.

See how easy that was?

 

[JustaBattler]

Again, again, again - not necessarily.

It is entirely possible and reasonable that there were specific situations throughout the year that gave the administration cause for concern.

It's a managed response, sure, but it's one that in the context of the situation makes sense. There is, without a doubt, a conflict of interests in having a father running the list management team responsible for negotiating his sons' contracts and continued employment. You can't argue otherwise, it's clear as day. That doesn't mean SOS was necessarily doing anything wrong in that space, just that the circumstances are loaded with the potential for people's actions to be compromised. If it was any club but Carlton who released a statement saying they were not going to renew the contract of their list manager because he had 2 kids on their list, nobody here would blink. Because it is logical.

Is there more to this story? I have no doubt. But it seems like people complain about us being a "basket case", but at the same time expect the club to roll out a statement saying Liddle is contracted, SOS isn't, we'd prefer SOS but he's leaving soon anyway, so we may as well stick with Liddle, but then we have to let SOS go to avoid a punch-up in the cafeteria because Liddle invited Ellis over for a tour. Like that somehow makes us look more organised?

And still, I cannot fathom how this anti-Liddle crowd cannot come to terms with the possibility that he's not a rogue element, and was acting on behalf of people at the club who didn't have the profile to call SOS out on things that may or may not have happened.

We don't know the full story, but it seems only those calling for Liddle's head are unable to admit that. They seem to have all the facts, or at least all the facts they need to justify their anger.

You are making up a lot of things in your valiant attempt to justify the unjustifiable - kudos for the effort I'm sure your heart is in the right place.

 

[Broadside]

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

if they hadn't sacked Bolton it may have happened this year. That was the circuit breaker.

 

[Blue__Balls]

You are making up a lot of things in your valiant attempt to justify the unjustifiable - kudos for the effort I'm sure your heart is in the right place.

Making up things is what everyone here is doing.

People are trying to join a bunch of distant dots, and some are determined to paint Liddle as a power-hungry back stabber without any genuine evidence that that's the case. On the other hand, nobody is trying to claim that SOS was an egotistical megalomaniac who refused to listen to any opinion but his own. But realistically, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, that both parties made mistakes and something had to give.

I'm trying to talk in possibilities, because this whole thing is foggy as hell. And yet those who claim absolute surety seem to be those who have already passed judgement on Liddle because SOS had been here longer and oversaw a mammoth list rebuild.

 

[Blue__Balls]

But the COI is not THE reason.

And this whole clusterfu** has not been managed professionally, which is enough reason to want Liddle out. Aside from the fact that all information available points to Liddle sacking SOS due to a power battle.

They didn't say it was THE reason, did they Stamos. They said the decision "centred around" it. Very, very, different things.

 

[JustaBattler]

Making up things is what everyone here is doing.

People are trying to join a bunch of distant dots, and some are determined to paint Liddle as a power-hungry back stabber without any genuine evidence that that's the case. On the other hand, nobody is trying to claim that SOS was an egotistical megalomaniac who refused to listen to any opinion but his own. But realistically, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, that both parties made mistakes and something had to give.

I'm trying to talk in possibilities, because this whole thing is foggy as hell. And yet those who claim absolute surety seem to be those who have already passed judgement on Liddle because SOS had been here longer and oversaw a mammoth list rebuild.

The situation isn't very difficult to understand if you stand back and be honest with yourself. The votes whatever they were went Liddle's way - SOS got sacked.

There is actually no need whatsoever to speculate on anything - in fact, one doesn't even have to attempt characterisation of the various personalities involved or motivation.

Liddle decided that SOS's services as a list manager were ultimately worth less to Carlton than the cost of what he has determined to be the difficulties of managing the fact that 2 of SOS's sons are currently on the list at Carlton.

Simple.

 

[iAsbestos]

It is simply incorrect to suggest SOS doesn't actively pursue small forwards. Every year he has been at the club, we have brought in options to play that role in the side.

2015 - Wright, Gallucci, Lamb, Sumner, Cuningham
2016 - Polson, Lebois, Gallucci, Pickett
2017 - Lang, Garlett
2018 - Fasolo, Bugg, Owies
2019 - Deluca, Betts, Honey, Phillips, Martin could be argued, and we know the story with Papley.

Most have not worked out - but the numbers are there.

Whether correct or not, it seems small forwards are seen as the 'least important' position, or at least the easiest to fill.

Of course we could have gone harder at small forwards over the journey, but I think the strategy to bring them in last, or at least spend the least amount of currency on them early in the build, is the correct one.

It is no coincidence now that we have done the hard yards, we have started looking more intently at smaller dynamic types for the forward 50.

Loves a good Tall defender

 

[Nori]

They didn't say it was THE reason, did they Stamos. They said the decision "centred around" it. Very, very, different things.

Splitting hairs. Stamos's argument is still valid. If this was the driver behind the decision to release SOS it could have been orchestrated gracefully, rather than a complete shit show.

 

[Blue__Balls]

The situation isn't very difficult to understand if you stand back and be honest with yourself. The votes whatever they were went Liddle's way - SOS got sacked.

There is actually no need whatsoever to speculate on anything - in fact, one doesn't even have to attempt characterisation of the various personalities involved or motivation.

Liddle decided that SOS's services as a list manager were ultimately worth less to Carlton than the cost of what he has determined to be the difficulties of managing the fact that 2 of SOS's sons are currently on the list at Carlton.

Simple.

Just him? Because again, this seems to be the agenda being perpetuated by some. It was all him, he has to go.

 

[Gethelred]

Orchestration only works when all parties are willing to be orchestrated...

 

[Blue__Balls]

Splitting hairs. Stamos's argument is still valid. If this was the driver behind the decision to release SOS it could have been orchestrated gracefully, rather than a complete shit show.

Splitting hairs, in a carefully constructed statement?

That's exactly what it's designed to do. Imply one thing, but indicate another if you care to read properly.

If there were no other issues at play, the statement would have said he was "leaving due to a conflict of interests". It doesn't, it says the conflict of interests was central, and if you don't think that's a deliberate choice of words then you're not giving it enough thought.

 

[HARKER]

Even if we knew all the facts and had spoken to SOS and Liddle independent of one another, different people will apportion blame to varying degrees.
No doubt SOS was stubborn and hard to work with. No secret here at all.
Little doubt that Liddle stepped over the mark in the way he dealt with certain situations.

We can go on blaming one or the other but again - That's not the problem.
The problem is; 'How does the club keep finding itself in these bitter situations?"

Nothing will change unless the head gets lopped off and transplanted with a new one and even then it may not be enough.
Maybe we just are who we are.

 

[JustaBattler]

Just him? Because again, this seems to be the agenda being perpetuated by some. It was all him, he has to go.

SOS completed the last trade and draft period - having been told his services are no longer required. This 'contextualises' Liddle and Lloyds actions regarding touring Ellis around Carlton. It would have been common knowledge around the Club that SOS was gone.

This is the most substantial and important piece of the jigsaw puzzle that was 'missing' previously.

This means that Ellis/Betts etc had nothing to do with SOS's exit.

These are the factual points upon which we can all agree.

So Carlton had decided that SOS's services were no longer required BEFORE trade and draft periods.

The how and why's of it all if taken on face value (and why not?) boiled down to 'Carlton' not being able to see a way of managing any noise that may come across its way from media speculation about perceived conflict of interest regarding SOS's sons.

No problem all is good - right?

 

[Earls Smother]

There's only one of Earl's pearls that anyone should be interested in...

I know it's the SOS thread, but this moment should be celebrated in all threads on all boards at all times!
Was sitting up behind the Geelong cheersquad, and nearly pulled the champagne from the gutted thermos and gave it to them after this happened. Sensibly (or boringly), I waited until half through the last quarter.
Never understood why Dr. Hook wrote a song about a Colin Sylvia smother, when they had Earls (or Buzz's in '81) to commemorate (albeit in advance). Stupid one-eyed supporters!

 

[Stamos]

Making up things is what everyone here is doing.

People are trying to join a bunch of distant dots, and some are determined to paint Liddle as a power-hungry back stabber without any genuine evidence that that's the case. On the other hand, nobody is trying to claim that SOS was an egotistical megalomaniac who refused to listen to any opinion but his own. But realistically, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, that both parties made mistakes and something had to give.

I'm trying to talk in possibilities, because this whole thing is foggy as hell. And yet those who claim absolute surety seem to be those who have already passed judgement on Liddle because SOS had been here longer and oversaw a mammoth list rebuild.

I don't think many are claiming that SOS is perfect. And there's plenty of evidence about Liddle. Chief amongst them is this "foggy as hell" situation.
It has not been handled at all professionally, which is a bigger problem than the actual decision itself.

 

[Stamos]

Just him? Because again, this seems to be the agenda being perpetuated by some. It was all him, he has to go.

Who else could possibly have made the decision?
And for what reason?

 

[El Topo]

If we think this is bad, wait until Jack requests a trade to *fc