Opinion Stephen Silvagni

Remove this Banner Ad

Arr0w said:
Stamos, pointless cherry picking one game, surely you know by now what Bolton was trying to do. Right or wrong his method was about the future.

Teague thus far is the complete opposite and while wins are satisfying, hopefully that is not at the expense of the bigger picture
Click to expand...

I wasn't cherry picking, that was the game where Bolton truly lost the plot.

I cannot see how a success starved team being ordered to change tactics and blow a big lead could in any way, help the future or be about 'the big picture'
 
Blue__Balls said:
Opinion only, based on what I've heard and what makes the most sense to my mind:

I reckon the decision to not renew SOS's contract took place somewhere around the time Bolton finished up. Not sure exactly what prompted it - could have been Liddle, could have been Lloyd, could have been Agresta. If my guess on the timing is off, it could also have been been Teague after he was given the HC position. However it happened, I think that once that decision was reached, the club would have wanted to incrementally shift some of what SOS would typically handle to others. Hence increased weight to other voices on the List Management sub-committee.

I honestly don't think there was a major CoI incident (ie. SOS giving his kids a contract they didn't deserve, or SOS refusing to draft a player who he perceived to be a threat to one of his kids positions in the side). If there was, we'd have heard a hell of a lot more noise about it. Instead, I think it was a realisation that there were going to be more and more decisions coming up that would/could influence Jack/Ben/Tom(?), and that rather than waiting for something to go wrong, the timing (ie. end of SOS's contract, "completion" of the list rebuild) made it a good time to part ways. Maybe there were complementary issues around shared voice and input from the team, or maybe those issues arose after his exit was tabled and SOS got his hackles up.

I'm on record a few times as saying I value what SOS has done, would love someone with his cahones running our LM team moving forward, but can also see value in shifting our reputation towards "Carlton is a good club to work with".

I think it's incredibly unlikely that Liddle has strolled into the club, pushed up the membership numbers, tried to recruit Ellis without consulting anyone, then shoved SOS out the door because SOS shut down the Ellis conversation. That seems remarkably childish and petulant for a CEO, and I really don't think the board would have gone along with it if that were the sequence of events.
Click to expand...

I will respond to what you wrote here but here is where my point pivots:

do you think SOS was being overuled on list decisions because of the conflict of interest?
 
Gethelred said:
You're doing it again; you're misrepresenting what I said because it disagrees with you.

What I said was that those close games are a coin toss - as an analysis I read demonstrated - and we were unlucky to be on the wrong side of a few, which led to us being 1-11. You're using a singular example when the argument is collective; we had multiple losses by small margins in the first half of this year, are you going to mount a 'poor coaching' argument for each of them? Is Teague a poor coach because he lost several games by less than a kick?

For the last time: I think that Bolton was left vulnerable by some of the decisions SOS made. Does that exclude the fact that he, Brendon Bolton, also contributed to his own demise with his potentially excessive developmental mindset? No, it does not, so why are you either insisting that it does?
Click to expand...

Only 2 of the losses in the first half of the year were by less than 2 goals.
And in one of them, we blew a 6 goal lead.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Rosscoe said:
I will respond to what you wrote here but here is where my point pivots:

do you think SOS was being overuled on list decisions because of the conflict of interest?
Click to expand...

I think (if SOS was in fact being overruled) it was because the club had decided SOS was going to exiting the club at year's end, and therefore they elected to give more control/influence to other stakeholders via the committee.

So not being overruled because of CoI specifically, but because he was leaving (which was in turn, partly at least, because of the CoI issue).

It's perhaps a little pedantic, but it's a distinction I think is relevant and needs to be understood.
 
Bolton was not left vulnerable as it was well known we had 66 games where Bolton was going to be given full protection from losses at the expense of education and blooding youth.

Bolton lost his job because by round 13 the players were mentally shot and confused (that * game it was obvious), and it was Bolton's stubborn ways that caused his downfall..... that he's put his hand up recently to confirm. Round 13 getting rid of SOS would not have done anything, there is only one way to reset a list in that position mid-season and that is sacking the coach (fair or not... see the results they generally incur).
 
Blue__Balls said:
I think (if SOS was in fact being overruled) it was because the club had decided SOS was going to exiting the club at year's end, and therefore they elected to give more control/influence to other stakeholders via the committee.

So not being overruled because of CoI specifically, but because he was leaving (which was in turn, partly at least, because of the CoI issue).

It's perhaps a little pedantic, but it's a distinction I think is relevant and needs to be understood.
Click to expand...

I thought that was what you posted but was not sure.

So mid year it was decided that SOS would not have his contract renewed and it was when he was let go.

IMO our kicking was woeful leading up to Boltons sacking and for me the jury was still out regarding SOS, i also thought our players were being given to much direction considering their age too though. A new coach would reveal where we had the problem. So i thought that the decision to not have his contract renewed was pre mature.

Who would make the call to not renew SOS contract; Liddle, Lloyd or Agresta...not a chance.

Liddle went on Sen and says that he will be reviewing the club including list management and in particular lower picks. Would he have done that without the backing of the board..maybe but i doubt it

The sub committee knowing SOS is on his way out overules him and De Luca is drafted.

What follows with Liddle touring players would of been backed by the sub committee so he wasnt undermining SOS directly but according to SOS still not sure whether his contract will be renewed would of certainly thought so...it was getting out of hand then and SOS if not before certainly should of been told about his employment then.

Just think of a time in your life when you were not sure about your employment...it sux

I reckon the sub committee kept quiet about it because they did not want to jeapordise his negotiations for what would be his final trade period.

I don't think SOS was arrogant; he was confident and always has been. Its why we have such a dynamic list, even in his final trade period as someone pointed out; knowing he was on his way out; he kept his mind, stuck to the task, backed himself and as in his playing days the club will be better for it.

How can he have a conflict of interest...when he has not done anything that would suggest so.

As you can tell; in my own way i agree with just about everything you said; except the way the club handled it.
 
Ricky Mott said:
Cuningham pick 23, Fisher pick 27. Williamson pick 61, Silvagni pick 53, DeKoning pick 30. Just to name a few.
Click to expand...

Cunningham that can't stay on the park.
Fisher who went backwards last season.
Williamson who has played 2 games in 2 seasons.
De Koning who has played 2 games in 2 seasons.

Silvagni was a father son who was always going to be drafted.

So you actually only named 5 players of which 2 have played close to regular football.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of genius recruitment. I'm not writing those players off. I'm just not putting them down as any kind of evidence of recruiting prowess yet.
 
Stamos said:
Simply by managing the situation more effectively. By avoiding the power struggle.
This was a massive own goal, which was entirely unnecessary.

And if it did get to the point where they did actually have to sack SOS, they could have done it in a manner which showed more respect to SOS, 2 current players, and the members and supporters.
Click to expand...

I think by playing the 'conflict of interest' angle Stam, (which everyone knows is bullshit), they probably have shown SOS a bit of respect.

Let me state that this decision wasnt a 'spur of the moment' act. SOS was afforded many opportunities to come to the party and adapt to the new environment, but that is not how he operates..

As an example, look at people like Nathan Buckley and Damian Hardwick. If they didn't change their ways, adopt new philosophies and listen to others, they would have been long gone. They adapted and have thrived.

My final word on this is SOS was the LM we needed to have. He was ruthless and single minded in his position in rebuilding our list. He did a brilliant job.

But everything evolves, his position evolved but he couldn't evolve with it. SOS, like nearly everyone else in life answers to someone. He just wasnt too enamoured in who he had to answer to.
 
KohPhi said:
I think by playing the 'conflict of interest' angle Stam, (which everyone knows is bullshit), they probably have shown SOS a bit of respect.

Let me state that this decision wasnt a 'spur of the moment' act. SOS was afforded many opportunities to come to the party and adapt to the new environment, but that is not how he operates..

As an example, look at people like Nathan Buckley and Damian Hardwick. If they didn't change their ways, adopt new philosophies and listen to others, they would have been long gone. They adapted and have thrived.

My final word on this is SOS was the LM we needed to have. He was ruthless and single minded in his position in rebuilding our list. He did a brilliant job.

But everything evolves, his position evolved but he couldn't evolve with it. SOS, like nearly everyone else in life answers to someone. He just wasnt too enamoured in who he had to answer to.
Click to expand...
Interesting info - thank you!
 
KohPhi said:
I think by playing the 'conflict of interest' angle Stam, (which everyone knows is bullshit), they probably have shown SOS a bit of respect.

Let me state that this decision wasnt a 'spur of the moment' act. SOS was afforded many opportunities to come to the party and adapt to the new environment, but that is not how he operates..

As an example, look at people like Nathan Buckley and Damian Hardwick. If they didn't change their ways, adopt new philosophies and listen to others, they would have been long gone. They adapted and have thrived.

My final word on this is SOS was the LM we needed to have. He was ruthless and single minded in his position in rebuilding our list. He did a brilliant job.

But everything evolves, his position evolved but he couldn't evolve with it. SOS, like nearly everyone else in life answers to someone. He just wasnt too enamoured in who he had to answer to.
Click to expand...

I think purely with the wording of the press release, they could have been more respectful, even if they wanted to use COI as the reason.

They could have also gone with a restructure of the List Management and Recruiting Team, because as you said, our needs have changed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Stamos said:
Are you going to blame a coin toss on Bolton's half time command to go defensive against the Hawks, and thus blow a 6 goal lead?
It's not an opinion.
Click to expand...

Surely you can concede that a more experienced coach and team could orchestrate a come back against us. In fact BB probably was anticipating it . His response was to go defensive- didnt work.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Stephen Silvagni

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top