Interesting questions have been raised (constantly) about our club and a SCAPEGOAT to blame.
Personally I am usually quick in seeing obvious problems and when you look at the period my experience covers, I have seen most of the things that only Parramatta supporter's can lament and relate to.
This particular one is a quandry, I think MONS needs to go, but I don't actually blame him for any of the events that recognise the damage that has been outlined. I think he could be sitting back in his arm chair asking how he ended up in this mess?.......... I don't think he has ever been the final decision maker on most of the things we would like to blame him for.
The other protaganist and yes Scapegoat is Jim Saratinos? So I am going to critique both him and MON's and explain why they have been blamed
The pathways coaches are recognised for their strong roles in rescuing the situation post Covid and I see no blame evolving there (unless it is still evolving).....the fan base tend's to overate them (our juniors) because we should be so strong in this area, yes we are a Development Club and we do provide a lot of players.....we would it seems not be overly good at bringing through the ones that we would like to claim. Maybe we are just victim's of that process as we have struggled to obtain balance with juniors and recruitment and in endeavoring to satisfy that equation.......Fcuked up Both!
Reverting to MONS you need to go back to his recruitment, he probably was never the right guy to table as General Manager Football whereas the reality is that the first grade coach in both BA's and JR's terms have been the final arbitar in almost all decisions outside of the financial impact of cap and policy. I think MON's has probably done a fine job in structuring and recruiting pathway coaches, even the women's coach.
So this leads me to the final "scapegoat" Bernie Gurr! What!! you say....the guys the best thing to happen post the renaissance!.... yes that's true! he did a great job...but did he finish it?
I blame Bernie because he recruited MON as a General Manager Football, a role that he showed was pretty toothless because BA's power was at its peak and he (BA) really was the guy, making the decisions on recruitment and retention. Yes the position (GM) was part of the review, but a more constructive process would have allowed the person to grow into the role where the structure allowed it to.
MON's went about his business developing pathways and faciltating people in lower level's behind First and Second Grade and executing signings made for him. Never really empowered in the primary sense..
Jim Saratinos inherited Bernie's role, Jim is obviously a fine administrator and financial manager.....as a CEO empowered to be much more decisive about football matters, he simply wasn't !
Based on his inexperience in that role which he basically stayed out of and during the initial period that he came in, he saw/ recognised that BA had things under control and was content to leave it at that.
Intelligent people do quickly learn just the same and all the time this was happening Jim was learning heaps about the football side and I can only presume making judgements of the relative incumbents. He never had the football background or experience that Bernie had, who would have maybe acted very differently if he chose to stay on.....he left for greener pastures in the states, but is to this day still a passionate Parramatta supporter.
So we were left with our primary scapegoats and to evaluate the thoughts that come through this forum, we need to understand better than we do that things are not as Black and White to just go out and attack individuals for the perception of their failures.
Too many people on here put themselves in a position of decision makers, whereas they have no real understanding of how business works or things happen, everyone is entitled to an opinion, not saying that, just saying that the intelligence and actual judgement of making these things happen are stuffed up in a lot of busineses without thinking the guys have no fcuking idea!
I can only think of our politicians in comparison, but just remember, you put them there as well!!!
I don't have the answers BTW but Iam writing this so an understanding of the pieces that make up the "Parra Lament" are understood better. Everyone seems to have the answers by "sacking MON and JS" without understanding how pieces fit and what needs to be done......My initial reaction is that MON needs to go, because his credibility has now got huge question marks and that JIM needs to stay as I think we need a CEO like him but with the understanding of having proper GM Football who reports through him.....the GM Football needs a lot of thought because I would actually have Ryles also reporting to him, with a clear defintion I might add. Obviously that person needs to be very "powerful" to command such a role!
An after thought by the way and not a recommendation, is that Jason Ryles could be a great GM Football and he appoints a coach to work under him! Early days for such a move, but I think that's where a lot of these processes need to head in the sense of how a coach is perceived......Foz's example of a coach and what he is achieving is an example that the modern day coach can keep it simple and the GM does the slogging!
An heirachel structure at Parra could be GM Football runs all Football Matters.....reports through CEO for Finance & Administration Matters...... . First Grade Coach reports through and appointed by GM Football,........ Manager Pathways and Administration reports through GM Football.
Replies
Love the write up Pops, you have a way of raising multiple points of view without taking pot shots directly at any of them. Great for encouraging discussion. I could learn something from that!!
Here's where I get so baffled with this whole situation. We don't have to rewrite history, there is a very clear papertrail here of exactly what Mark was hired to do:
https://thecumberlandthrow.com/2018/09/25/the-spotlight-selecting-t...
https://www.parraeels.com.au/news/2018/10/05/club-statement-eels-ap...
The Job Description was literally online and well circulated at the time. It outlined that Mark's role is accountable for:
This is an incredibly unambiguous list. I'd wager it's also a pretty ordered list the the things at the top being the highest priority for measuring success.
This is what Mark has been hired to do, and paid to do, assumably for the last 8 odd years. Why are some folks feeling so cautious about having the direct conversation about it? It truly baffles me. I'll even give him the pass marks on some - the training facilities, superbly delivered. 10 out of 10. Player wellbeing and education - I think we do very well here too. 10 out of 10. But now let's move on to all the other aspects...
If Iongi kept dropping the ball on every kick receive would we be here saying "Oh but remember that game 2 years ago when he caught it in that one game?? Why don't we talk about that you big meanies!!", or would we be saying "I'm not sure that catching was part of Iongi's role, I think he's more just there to look cool and carry the drinks". No - we'd say "We know what a fullback does, and he's failing at it. He has to go!"
So why, when we have a literal job description to reference, are we so gun shy around the discussion of Mark?
Our club is struggling in player roster and recruitment and player contract negotiations - those are two of his top 3 duties. Straight up. Unambiguous.
If Ryles, or BA, or Rogers, or Jim, or blooming Santa and the Easter Bunny are stopping him from achieving his accountabilities...too bad so sad. You're a GM. Figure it out or move on.
Honestly this wouldn't fly for a second in the corporate world. It's 100% not personal, I'm sure MON is an amazing bloke and I wish him all the happiness in the world, I just want the best possible people in all of our positions at the Eels because we are attempting to be an elite sports club and that requires elite talent in every position possible.
It's not scapegoating to call out an employee who is specifically not meeting outcomes against his literal job description. I just don't buy all the hand waving and distractions. The fact that "MON bashing" has basically become a meme on here speaks to the absurdity of the situation, not the cruelty of the sites members. Scapgoating implies that person is not accountable for what you're blaming them for - Mark is, by the very definition of the publicly recorded job description, accountable for the things most folks are holding him accountable for. This is accoutability, not scapegoating.
Alternatively, if he is as you imply Pops, accountable for nothing - I'll happily take his wage to also do nothing, it sounds like a good gig and I could do with the stress reduction.
Hi Captain, do you think these Top 3:
. . . are the same as talent scout? Because after a bunnch of very fair remarks about which I agree, you then say the issue is "the club requires elite talent". Again I agree there. But what is the relation between finding and/or selecting elite talent and negotiating contracts that fit the cap and result in recruitment and retention? To me it seems there has been a slippage, where those first three roles are reduced to talent scout.
IF there is a slippage there, that is instructive, because you claim not to be scapegoating but holding to account. Accountability is direct responsibility for a role. Scapegoating is blaming one when the responsibility is actually distributed. We would all thus know if MON is being scapegoated if he is being directly blamed for poor talent scouting or poor talent retention AS IF his distributed roles as chief negotiator of all contracts (retention and recruitment) and responsibiloity for cap compliance was reduced to talent scout.
Lots of people are Responsible for talent scouting. Mark is Accountable. It's the old RACI matrix, and it's why it's built into job descriptions just as it is for Mark.
Kelly Bayer Rosmarin wasn't the one who was personally responsible for incorrectly routed phone towers and caused Optus to drop service to millions including 000 calls. She was the CEO and thus accountable. And she was marched out the door because of it.
Mark van Dyck wasn't the one who personally sold bad pizzas at Dominos. But he was the CEO when their sales went down. So he got fired.
Sol Trujillo didn't personally make Telstra customer service poor. But it happened on his watch. He got fired.
You get the idea.
I never said Mark was solely responsible - he's definitely not, there are heaps of hands in this pie. He is, however, solely accountable. That's the role of a GM, it's written in black and white. That's why you earn the big bucks in those roles.
Responsible people get disciplined. Accountable people get fired.
Captain, I agree with all of that above. The distinction between being responsible and being accountable is vital.
I will note here, though, that under the glare of a critique of scaepgoating, you took the time to clearly articulate a non-scapegoating critique of MON.
I am then just saying that too many are simply not being as careful and pointed as you were above, and instead are collapsing accountable into responsible, which is one recipe for scapegoating.
Thanks Cappy and Daz,
When reading your first list of duties Cappy, I could not but think "motherhoods".
I am a bit out of it these days, so I am sure my thinking doesn't suit current objectives and processes in the executive management scene. I say this when I refer to Mons list of duties and how you go about them for 'abstract things like executive leadership.
Those duties to me are something that has been constructed by the "human resources dork" who wants to make sure the job gets a higher enough profile to meets the points he has made to reach their objectives of a definition of an executive profile. I will just about guarantee you that list was written before MON was employed!
Let me say if I was looking at that list as my duties, I would diesect out exactly like Daz has done in seperating a set of "abstracts" like talent scouting ...... a skil that is indefinable and something that is dear to my heart, as President of a Grade Cricket club and Chairman of selectors as part of the process after coaching and identifying, I loved how some guys could just make judgements. A great friend of mine fitted the character, we were watching a 14 year old playing his first game of grade cricket and he got a "pair" I said to my friend what do you think after that....he said he will play First grade before he turns 17, I said how can you say that after getting 2 ducks.....long story short he was playing for Australia when he turned 18. Some people can recognise talent and others you could hit with a sledge hammer and they will never understand what a shit judge they are. Talent scouting belongs to a breed you can't buy!
In Mons case I would say having never met the guy that the initiative to pick up the bat after getting a couple of ducks are not one of his drivers. The fact he has other skils we presume must exist based on his longevity. Your guess in that respect is as good as mine.
I read your last post Cappy and it made me think about accountability.
Again showing my naiviety I believe (this is an insight or as someone could rightfully say a guess).
I suspect that there is not a lot of sophisication of an ownership structure like you outlined with those executives, because that is where the buck stopped.
In Mons case the cards are held pretty much around the one table and my guess is that groups involved in management are all part of a process of not a very high sophisication level.
This brings me back to leadership and initiative and the missing link is that aggressive driver, whether that is a Gould,Richardson , Matt Cameron, Ponissi or the like or another version of benevolent dictarship such as a Politis, a Russell Crow (involved benefactor) and finally as Hoey often points out the "sugar daddies" of the rich clubs, like Laudy's etc.
In a club like Parramatta this is something we have been structured as part of the renaissance to avoid.....it could be what's biting us on the arse and yes I have no answers other than Mathew Beach needs to play a leadership role at a level above the known incumbents.....JS, MON, JR,
Poppa, I can add to your anecdote about the grade cricketer. Sometimes I see grad students whom I think "they will make it", and others "nah they will not make it". Academia is a hyper competitive market, with precariat positions more the norm now than tenured and the road to tenue now often going through years of precariat and soft-money research positions. As one of the lucky tenured I realize that sometimes the judgment of "they will NOT make it" is institition specific. Not here, but maybe there. For contingent reasons to do with those instititional contexts.
Thus, spotting "talent" is actually relational? It's seeing some things that suggest success is feasible, but also making judgments about under which contexts that success is most likely?
With those thoughts in mind, my bet is that talent scouting for footy players has similar issues attached to it
You have identified those aspects Daz and I assume you now manage to them with as much instinct as you do intellect.... I see Adam underneath this posts questions the "metrics" in measuring your top 3 listed.
This is where I am very different to most, I don't need a metric apart from the obvious i.e. he made 25 tackles and no misses to he made 40 tackles and 10 misses. That metric tells me I need to understand what and how we are measuring. Plenty of academics will go out with a metric or score but miss that somewhere in that paper he has struck on something a lot more important than giving the rights answers to pass a test!
I had a money market dealer I brought into my office to suggest he wasn't going to make it and that he should look at other things in his career direction. This young man had 3 degrees and his first suggestion was "do you think I should do another degree" my response was trying to explain it was not the reason, but by all means do another degree (he was a lot smarter than me intellectually) just take that degree into any area you think you can grow into. Most money market dealers at the time had a shelf life of less than 10 years and no vision as to what they would do afterwards when the lunches, cocktail parties and piss ups became boring!
You have identified areas that I can no longer relate too and one (like money market dealing) has been made obsolete (my assumption, wouldn't know) by AI.... that's not a criticism of AI just an understanding of how out of it people like me are in this modern era.
Can't see AI helping NRL teams in the junction of Parra's lament....too many factors that put us in trying to control the uncontrollable.
What metrics are you using to conclude that he is failing in those 3 aspects of his role?
That's a pretty wide list of things to be responsible for. I'm not defending MON's record here, but I'm not sure the club got the responsibilities right here, especially considering the training facility was always going to take up a lot of time for whoever was responsible for delivering it. That type of role should ideally have gone to someone who has capacity to run projects, not someone in an operational role. To be accountable for day to day operations and also major projects and initiatives means that one or the other will inevitably fall short. That's for the club to reflect on when they look at how each employee has delivered on their KPIs.
There's no doubt that player roster and recruitment has failed in recent years, and that should be a major focus for next season.
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
of 8 Next