One of our wags on here suggested a way of getting rid of MON is retiring him.... a tongue in cheek suggestion may I say! I'm sure he can be sacked if required?
A retirement package or sacking may not be necessary. We will still need to find a replacement for him and frankly it is up to Ryles and the CEO to say we need more in the position of GM Football.
Hard to argue with that need face value, me as a past supporter of MON having suggested previously that I am surprised he still with us.
I have also thought in recent times that he has been kept because he had a focus on the total scene, grade and junior developments,
Interesting in the sense that everyone rubbishes him on his negotiating ability. We really cannot judge him on that, as it is subjective. Many on here will say he can be judged and he has failed.
Frank the Tank made a defence for him based that it is a hard job if your hands are tied. We won't argue that one with Wiz but I do not hold him totally responsible and the so called abject failure's of R&R, LB made the point that our recent signings and success gives him a success that has not been aknowledged.
Just to throw another opinion in......How's this sound?
I wonder if we should get someone like an ex or current player manager just to do contract negotiations and leave MON with the overview football role. Once they agree on who they want let the assigned Head Hunter can go after the target..... and/or have the same person quietly make it known who we don't want. It can be a totally different player management philosophy.
Maybe we can loan juniors/development players to Perth or PNG on the same basis that Melb seem to do it. Also it is someone who can monitor who is after our juniors and what defences do we have to combat and manage them.
This type of role fundamentally doesn't necessarily sit as an automatic for a good General Manager Football and maybe this ancillory management role is a good way to go.
Replies
Don't know about that Pops isn't the way we operate when it comes to talent aquisition go through our 5 man committee and then we move from there or has that all changed ?
I was under the understanding that's how we operate.
Beautiful rhetoric done by all democracies Coryn.
BA always had last say and directions and I would suggest that Ryles does as well with alot of help from his staff. BA's staff were yes men with the possible exceptance of his assistant.
That 5 man commitee is HOF, ryles, ceo, rogers (have no idea what he does) ......is there 5 or only 4 ?
Depending on the flavour of the month, Mons would do the paper work and sourcing, ryles would do sourcing and reviewing, ceo would be looking at cap management and finances. Once the target is located I would assume that Mons does the leg work. If a player like Galvin came up he may meet with a commitee.
We do not appear to have a head talent scout? The CEO would have nothing to do with sourcing. He would make political judgements and take names to the board if considered appropriate, JAC would have been in that category I assume.
We are a club that has the longest premiership drought in the game... that is a difficult one to dodge at the negotiating table, something MON isn't responsible for. But I still believe we need a better HoF at the table negotiating for us.
Yeh! I think that was what I was saying as well and offered a solution as a negotiating alternative.
Not one of the big thinkers on here even picked up on it.
They were too busy playing the man, rather than the ball!
Typical, why most on here if put into a think tank, would be the first asked to leave.
Let's also get a guy with a big tounge to lick the stamps , a guy with a deep voice to make the phone calls, a guy with a big dick to swing it at the end of the table.
Your suggestion was if someone's no good at part of their job, let's keep this person and hire someone to do the other part of their job.
How about we just get someone who can do the job ? As the old saying goes, the chains only as strong as it's weakest link, you putting more links in doesn't solve the problem. It's just makes the weak chain longer.
Gee you put some thought into that Wizzy.
I like the weakest link stuff son, no good at part of their job so why employ them at all? Another good point.
Now what confuses me is the big tongue and the big swinging dick....my thinking he we could save some labour costs if we can get a guy with the tonge and the dick....there is a saving to be had there.
Yep you can go into the think tank on that basis.....but be warned! just because you have a big mouth and obviously you are a big dick.....doesn't qualify you automatically for the new role. You should include in your resume about selling soft drinks, because maybe you can negotiate the contracts as well. One downside you should note, you will maybe reporting to the HOF in which case you will have to learn to table top dance, whilst swinging that dick.....are you sure your up to it.
A retirement package...so he gets more money for his incompetence ffs Poppa...I think you need a blog break SMH
I rather a general manager that keeps the long view and having the different structures of the club linked together and humming rather than a "master negotiator".
All this "master negotiator" nonsense is just throw money at players and that's that.
My problem with MON (and Arthur before him) is some of the recruitment of the "value-for-money" players.
Signing Harper and Murchie, a 27-28 year old journeymen and try and crack gold seems stupid and just pads the squad with players that won't add much and will block youth development.
Punts on the likes of Samrani, Papalii, Kautoga, Simonsson, all signed at 23 years old or younger, is more like it. And as it has been seen those players were a success or going to be.
It seems to me that Brad had big control on recruitment for the first grade, and it seems Ryles has assumed that control now. So MON is just an executor, while keeping tabs on the rest of the club and the links there.
I have questions marks about him and I'd rather a stronger mind general manager with a clearer vision. MON seems to be just "doing a job". In short he's not a limiting factor in my view to us improving. At least in the short term.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next