Opinion Stephen Silvagni

Remove this Banner Ad

Stamos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nah sorry Stamos they didn’t lie, it’s a very real situation and one talked about many times on this board over the last 5 years.

The real reasons imo were the beginnings of a dysfunctional footy dept/list management where one guy clearly had far too much power and didn’t want to be held accountable to those in and around him. To put that stuff in a press release would be complete and utter madness.

The leaks and innuendo coming out from SOSs side meant a simple press release saying both sides were happy to move on would have been even more disingenuous.

COI is one clear area that is completely obvious to all and sundry, the rest is not fit to be published and would denigrate an absolute great of the club.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
slashin_velvet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which would have been perfect IF there was some decorum on the way out ie no leaks to the press which can have only come from one side of the fence
Otherwise is completely disingenuous in the curcumstances presented.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
teagueyubeauty said:
Nah sorry Stamos they didn’t lie, it’s a very real situation and one talked about many times on this board over the last 5 years.

The real reasons imo were the beginnings of a dysfunctional footy dept/list management where one guy clearly had far too much power and didn’t want to be held accountable to those in and around him. To put that stuff in a press release would be complete and utter madness.

The leaks and innuendo coming out from SOSs side meant a simple press release saying both sides were happy to move on would have been even more disingenuous.

COI is one clear area that is completely obvious to all and sundry, the rest is not fit to be published and would denigrate an absolute great of the club.


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

They did lie. That's neither the reason, or the central reason.

Personality clashes, power struggles, sure, they're not going to put that in a press release. But look at slashin_velvet's post on the previous page, it's easy to make it respectful to SOS, Jack and Ben, and the supporters without going into the gory details.

The decision to sack SOS aside, we have absolutely botched this whole thing.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

teagueyubeauty said:
Which would have been perfect IF there was some decorum on the way out ie no leaks to the press which can have only come from one side of the fence
Otherwise is completely disingenuous in the curcumstances presented.


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

Much less disingenuous than what they put out.
And it still accounts for SOS' displeasure. To blame SOS' behaviour for the petty press release is just wrong.
 
JustaBattler said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting take on it.

So you're suggesting that Liddle arranged the tour with Ellis, and SOS was overruled on Betts, because he was leaving and those who were staying were proactively taking on greater responsibility? They were happy for SOS to do his thing at the trade table, but as far as which targets we'd go for, he was left out of the decision making process?

I think this is the first time I've seen that theory, and I'll be honest, it makes a lot more sense to me than some other suggestions.

As to your last question....well, it would be a better situation than some kind of political power play behind the scenes. If the higher-ups at the club knew SOS wasn't going to be continuing in the same role, and that's why Ellis met with Liddle (previous relationship) and Teague/Liddle got their way with Betts, then it would indicate neither of those are issues of disunity. The "problem" then would lie with how the situation was tabled with SOS, or in how he reacted to it, or both.

Food for thought, cheers.
 
Stamos said:
Who else could possibly have made the decision?
And for what reason?
Click to expand...

I'm saying it wouldn't be one person's call to make. So the theory that Liddle has come in and put a target on SOS's back and knifed him to improve his own influence at the club doesn't really stack up. If everything SOS was doing was 100% to the board's satisfaction, there's no chance Liddle could have just sacked him.
 
teagueyubeauty said:
No it’s not Stamos, it’s a very real issue whether you like it or not.

And I’d bet my house on the fact you would have completely lost your shit also if that was the press release
Click to expand...

I've never said it's not an issue, but it's not THE issue.

And no, I'm much more upset at the way we've handled this (and the reasoning behind it, which in this case it pretty much the same thing) than the actual decision itself.

If the COI was the reason to move SOS on, we could have handled it much more professionally, and we would already have a replacement
 
Blue__Balls said:
That's an interesting take on it.

So you're suggesting that Liddle arranged the tour with Ellis, and SOS was overruled on Betts, because he was leaving and those who were staying were proactively taking on greater responsibility? They were happy for SOS to do his thing at the trade table, but as far as which targets we'd go for, he was left out of the decision making process?

I think this is the first time I've seen that theory, and I'll be honest, it makes a lot more sense to me than some other suggestions.

As to your last question....well, it would be a better situation than some kind of political power play behind the scenes. If the higher-ups at the club knew SOS wasn't going to be continuing in the same role, and that's why Ellis met with Liddle (previous relationship) and Teague/Liddle got their way with Betts, then it would indicate neither of those are issues of disunity. The "problem" then would lie with how the situation was tabled with SOS, or in how he reacted to it, or both.

Food for thought, cheers.
Click to expand...

The issue of SOS's value to Carlton taking into account the sons playing at the club stuff is the open question.

I'm on the side which says his value to Carlton is far greater than any potential 'awkwardness' that may be involved in managing the situation.
From an organisational point of view - without resorting to speculation about motive/character/personality etc - SOS is demonstrably one of the better list managers going around - these aren't 'easy' to find.
So on balance the management rationale for deciding it was time to see SOS out - would be difficult and risky and any experienced CEO would be reluctant to see him go - you don't let assets like this leave if you can help it.
However if SOS can be replaced by an equally capable list manager if not better (unlikely) then on balance the decision will be moot. What remains will be the manner in which the decision has been communicated.

Without needing to resort to short hand emotive labelling of any character - I think kowtowing to the potential for negative media about SOS's 'favouring' his sons as reported as a primary driver for SOS being let go - is a nonsense which leads to speculation.
 
Azzurro said:
Username is apt. Agenda driven post is driven and agenda-y. You and old mate dangerousd and whoever else blaming SOS and crew for everything - now including our volume of ITK!? We have had ITKs posting here ever since I have been around, and it ain't stopping because you say so.

Shocking week for the club - and this post along with that full of shit press release is your attempt at controlling the narrative? Pull the other one.
Click to expand...
your little rant at me was two days ago, are you still thinking of me? Time to move on, why do you need to tie me in with this nonsense?

Is it that hard to accept, that people with a different view, don’t have an agenda?

You do realise that, by me thinking this has been blown out of proportion and that a lot of the reasons for SOS departure mentioned here, are not the real reasons, does NOT in anyway make me anti SOS.

Here are the facts Azzuro:

The club has decided to move on Steve Silvagni, despite him doing a good job.

Everything else is opinions based on rumours, media articles and what people are told. We disagree on the why.

Lastly, which is my opinion, which you love hearing them.

The club has moved on a club legend in SOS, an employee, who imo has done a really good job, I don’t think a decision like this was taken lightly and the club obviously think it’s the right move, for, I’m sure, many reasons.

I don’t think the club and the board would make a decision like this, unless there were good reasons. Was the media release crap, yes it was, has the situation been handled well, not at all. Was the main reason conflict of interest, I really doubt it. Does anyone benefit from knowing the real reasons, I don’t think so.

Feel free to call me out whenever you want, critique my posts, argue your point, hopefully in a direct reply and not tied to some unrelated rant.
 
JustaBattler said:
The issue of SOS's value to Carlton taking into account the sons playing at the club stuff is the open question.

I'm on the side which says his value to Carlton is far greater than any potential 'awkwardness' that may be involved in managing the situation.
From an organisational point of view - without resorting to speculation about motive/character/personality etc - SOS is demonstrably one of the better list managers going around - these aren't 'easy' to find.
So on balance the management rationale for deciding it was time to see SOS out - would be difficult and risky and any experienced CEO would be reluctant to see him go - you don't let assets like this leave if you can help it.
However if SOS can be replaced by an equally capable list manager if not better (unlikely) then on balance the decision will be moot. What remains will be the manner in which the decision has been communicated.

Without needing to resort to short hand emotive labelling of any character - I think kowtowing to the potential for negative media about SOS's 'favouring' his sons as reported as a primary driver for SOS being let go - is a nonsense which leads to speculation.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing.

The only thing I'll address at this stage (because I should actually get some work done...) is that I don't think it's fair to assume the conflict of interests line is about kowtowing to the potential for negative media. It's entirely possible that there are actual issues arising from said CoI internally.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Blue__Balls said:
Thanks for sharing.

The only thing I'll address at this stage (because I should actually get some work done...) is that I don't think it's fair to assume the conflict of interests line is about kowtowing to the potential for negative media. It's entirely possible that there are actual issues arising from said CoI internally.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain DeLuca and Ellis though.
 
teagueyubeauty said:
Which would have been perfect IF there was some decorum on the way out ie no leaks to the press which can have only come from one side of the fence
Otherwise is completely disingenuous in the curcumstances presented.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
The circumstances presented were that he was offered an alternative role (albeit likely a demotion of sorts) and turned it down. The facts are his contract was set to expire. The facts are we have completed reviews of the football department and found that we now need someone more consultative.
 
Blue__Balls said:
Thanks for sharing.

The only thing I'll address at this stage (because I should actually get some work done...) is that I don't think it's fair to assume the conflict of interests line is about kowtowing to the potential for negative media. It's entirely possible that there are actual issues arising from said CoI internally.
Click to expand...

That goes against the statements made by the CLub itself about the situation. Yes do go back to work - it is easy for me to follow this stuff because all I have to do is flick over from Bloomberg screens and the market isn't doing much of interest for me atm.
 
Blue__Balls said:
Thanks for sharing.

The only thing I'll address at this stage (because I should actually get some work done...) is that I don't think it's fair to assume the conflict of interests line is about kowtowing to the potential for negative media. It's entirely possible that there are actual issues arising from said CoI internally.
Click to expand...

If everyone on here did a best 22 for next year how many would include Jack? I would hazard a guess that it would be about 50% - assuming that is replicated internally that alone would present some significant CoI challenges. Throw in the likelihood that Ben throws his name into selection contention at some stages this year and then Tom is looming as a possible draftee and the clubs line isn't hard to believe. I find is easier than to fully grown men with years of experience in elite sport can't work together over a difference of opinion on Ellis.
 
Macca43 said:
If everyone on here did a best 22 for next year how many would include Jack? I would hazard a guess that it would be about 50% - assuming that is replicated internally that alone would present some significant CoI challenges. Throw in the likelihood that Ben throws his name into selection contention at some stages this year and then Tom is looming as a possible draftee and the clubs line isn't hard to believe. I find is easier than to fully grown men with years of experience in elite sport can't work together over a difference of opinion on Ellis.
Click to expand...

The COI is much less about who is selected in the team, and more about who is given contracts, years & $$$, who is let go, who is chased.
 
JustaBattler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your first two paragraphs are spot on, well said. Your third totally assumes that the club statement is the only reason, which surely you don’t believe.

Liddle decided that SOSs services as list manager were ultimately worth less to Carlton than the cost of what he has determined of SOS continuing.

I’m sure this decision wouldn’t have been made, unless there were other issues.
 
JustaBattler said:
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?
Click to expand...

Do you believe, SOS is going solely because of difficulties regarding his boys? Everything else you posted above makes sense and everything regarding Ellis and Betts is nothing to walk out on a job over.

So why are you solely focusing on the COI part? If there were issues internally regarding SOS, I’m glad they aren’t being posted on every news site.
 
teagueyubeauty said:
Nah sorry Stamos they didn’t lie, it’s a very real situation and one talked about many times on this board over the last 5 years.

The real reasons imo were the beginnings of a dysfunctional footy dept/list management where one guy clearly had far too much power and didn’t want to be held accountable to those in and around him. To put that stuff in a press release would be complete and utter madness.

The leaks and innuendo coming out from SOSs side meant a simple press release saying both sides were happy to move on would have been even more disingenuous.

COI is one clear area that is completely obvious to all and sundry, the rest is not fit to be published and would denigrate an absolute great of the club.


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

Complains about leaks from SOS while here as a spokesperson for Liddle’s leaks.
 
DangerousD said:
Do you believe, SOS is going solely because of difficulties regarding his boys? Everything else you posted above makes sense and everything regarding Ellis and Betts is nothing to walk out on a job over.

So why are you solely focusing on the COI part? If there were issues internally regarding SOS, I’m glad they aren’t being posted on every news site.
Click to expand...

Nobody believes that that is the reason, and yet that's what was in the press release.
 
JustaBattler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Votes from whom exactly?
Maybe, just maybe it was easier to see one walk than for several to do so.

SOS knew he couldn't navigate through the situation, given what he had against him and not even his friend (MLG) could help him.

All in all, bad business from our club to allow....allow....things to get so out of hand.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Stephen Silvagni

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top