Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:52 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Gareth you will always be beholden to GH because of 2004 and you would be happy with another 32 years of what came before 2004 because as a Leeds fan that should be your lot. You views are noted and you are entitled to them. I don't agree - no surprise - I think what happened in 2004 is not relevant now, in fact what happened in 2009 isn't relevant now - what is relevant is now and now isn't pretty. Whilst you may postulate that it is mine or Gotcha's fault - you know who is to blame.

An example of the real world - Ken Morrison had built the supermarket group up for 37 years into one of the countries biggest companies - he bought Safeway in 2004 he struggled to integrate it due to his inability to embrace technology - 2006 Marc Bolland is brought in to replace him. That is the value of what had happened in the past in the real world.

Proper entities don't look back romantically at what has happened in the past, they are far to focused in planning what is going to happen in the future to grow their business.

Using that analogy, being best doesn't matter it's the ability to squeeze the last penny out of the customer and enhancing shareholder value that matters. You the consumer are not important as long as you are spending.

Here's another analogy - Ryanair has more customers complaining about it than any other airline. The don't give a fig about the customers and yet Michael O'Leary is lauded by the people that matter to him - the shareholders.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:00 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Gareth you will always be beholden to GH because of 2004 and you would be happy with another 32 years of what came before 2004 because as a Leeds fan that should be your lot. You views are noted and you are entitled to them. I don't agree - no surprise - I think what happened in 2004 is not relevant now, in fact what happened in 2009 isn't relevant now - what is relevant is now and now isn't pretty. Whilst you may postulate that it is mine or Gotcha's fault - you know who is to blame.

An example of the real world - Ken Morrison had built the supermarket group up for 37 years into one of the countries biggest companies - he bought Safeway in 2004 he struggled to integrate it due to his inability to embrace technology - 2006 Marc Bolland is brought in to replace him. That is the value of what had happened in the past in the real world.

Proper entities don't look back romantically at what has happened in the past, they are far to focused in planning what is going to happen in the future to grow their business.

I see what you're saying, but the day sports clubs fail to retain a little more sentimentality (not by the bucket, but a little) than supermarket chains will be the day the exercise becomes pointless.

Sport is big business nowadays, but some sort of ideal still has to separate it from the Fortune 500.

For me, trhe key difference is that, by and large, sports clubs are still just about driven by on-field activity, in that the off-field stuff exists to support the on-field stuff, rather than the other way around. Boundaries have shifted, lines have blurred, but that remains the case for the majority of clubs.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:04 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

How are you going get any go forward - none of these are currently giving the side any go forward - two of them will be mid 30s next year!! Everyone on here is suggesting the route of the problem is the pack getting dominated by the better sides - how will this improve matters?

Which better props are you after? Those players are capable of generating go-forward. If JP isn't, I suggest that you need to look beyond personnel for the source of the problem. If there's an issue elsewhere (and I think there is, and I think it's the coach) then changing the playing roster will make no difference.

The over 30 problem is where the right choices as props 4,5, and 6 for the squad come in. I'd expect all of 1-5 in the list to get plenty of game time, and 6 to play a few in rotation. If Ambler and Amor are good enough to be 4 and 5 next year, and Singleton is ready to be 6 and play a bit more often, that leaves the front row in good shape. If they're not, then time to go and we need to bring somebody in from outside. Props in their 30s are no problem, provided your succession planning is OK.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:11 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Gareth you will always be beholden to GH because of 2004 and you would be happy with another 32 years of what came before 2004 because as a Leeds fan that should be your lot. You views are noted and you are entitled to them. I don't agree - no surprise - I think what happened in 2004 is not relevant now, in fact what happened in 2009 isn't relevant now - what is relevant is now and now isn't pretty. Whilst you may postulate that it is mine or Gotcha's fault - you know who is to blame.

An example of the real world - Ken Morrison had built the supermarket group up for 37 years into one of the countries biggest companies - he bought Safeway in 2004 he struggled to integrate it due to his inability to embrace technology - 2006 Marc Bolland is brought in to replace him. That is the value of what had happened in the past in the real world.

Proper entities don't look back romantically at what has happened in the past, they are far to focused in planning what is going to happen in the future to grow their business.

You're assuming RL works like any other major business.

For one thing, an RL club is *not* a major business, it's a niche concern. While it's true that CEOs in listed companies are only as good as their last few quarters, maybe a bit more if you consider past success, the process of change and recruitment works entirely differently. With Morrison's or M&S or whoever, you can identify one of hundreds of up-and-comers or experienced hands or rainmakers from the retail industry worldwide and attempt to poach them to take your company forward. In RL the talent pool resides almost entirely inside the Hetherington's house.

Which other RL administrator are you looking for? Take away the sugar-daddies and Leeds are the most profitable club, the best run, and have the best CEO by the conventional business standards you're using. By those same standards, yes, if it's judged that the waters will be different ahead and a new man should be in control then it's viable to consider changing the CEO even when on top. But with what candidate? Outside RL, Leeds are on the level (support base, turnover etc.) of a smaller Championship to larger League One football club. I doubt that an administrator from there (or more likely from *below* there, who would move) would know the market or do his job anything like as well as GH, whatever whizzy theories about revenue streams he may have. Harlequins got their new CEO from County Cricket: how's it going for him?

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:27 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I don't agree - no surprise - I think what happened in 2004 is not relevant now, in fact what happened in 2009 isn't relevant now - what is relevant is now and now isn't pretty. Whilst you may postulate that it is mine or Gotcha's fault - you know who is to blame.

An example of the real world - Ken Morrison had built the supermarket group up for 37 years into one of the countries biggest companies

Interesting analogy.

In terms of now did you see the last set of accounts filed by Leeds CF&A ltd?

I think they're a huge pat on the back for GH (and they have nothing to do with 2004) and put us at the forefront of every RL club in this country.

I don't just admire GH for what he did in 2004 (or any of the title winning season's for that matter). I admire him, in particular, for where he has taken the club from 1997 to where it is now. That has diddly squat to do with on field results or the odd poor coach appointed to the 1st team.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:45 pm  

craigizzard wrote:

You're assuming RL works like any other major business.

For one thing, an RL club is *not* a major business, it's a niche concern. While it's true that CEOs in listed companies are only as good as their last few quarters, maybe a bit more if you consider past success, the process of change and recruitment works entirely differently. With Morrison's or M&S or whoever, you can identify one of hundreds of up-and-comers or experienced hands or rainmakers from the retail industry worldwide and attempt to poach them to take your company forward. In RL the talent pool resides almost entirely inside the Hetherington's house.

Which other RL administrator are you looking for? Take away the sugar-daddies and Leeds are the most profitable club, the best run, and have the best CEO by the conventional business standards you're using. By those same standards, yes, if it's judged that the waters will be different ahead and a new man should be in control then it's viable to consider changing the CEO even when on top. But with what candidate? Outside RL, Leeds are on the level (support base, turnover etc.) of a smaller Championship to larger League One football club. I doubt that an administrator from there (or more likely from *below* there, who would move) would know the market or do his job anything like as well as GH, whatever whizzy theories about revenue streams he may have. Harlequins got their new CEO from County Cricket: how's it going for him?

Are you seriously suggesting out of all the potential business men out there GH is simply the best? you are aren't you!!!

Take away the sugar daddy from Leeds and it would not be where it is now - it is easier to run a business when you have no real money worries - you can make mistakes and they are not catastrophic. I am not suggesting Hetherington has not done a great job in the past, but that is not now and what I see now is a shambles of a RU club, a RL side with falling attendances and a team that are unable to compete with the better sides in the comp, playing at a ground that is 3/4s derelict. Maybe my idea of a business doing well is not the same as yours.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:47 pm  

After what I heard today, I'm fully behind the decision taken by Mr Hetherington (and Brian Mac)

There's been many controversial comings and goings of Leeds players over the years where the majority don't know the full facts, and can only guess, but on the whole, what GH has done has always been in the interests of the club as a whole.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:48 pm  

El Diablo wrote:

Which better props are you after? Those players are capable of generating go-forward. If JP isn't, I suggest that you need to look beyond personnel for the source of the problem. If there's an issue elsewhere (and I think there is, and I think it's the coach) then changing the playing roster will make no difference.

The over 30 problem is where the right choices as props 4,5, and 6 for the squad come in. I'd expect all of 1-5 in the list to get plenty of game time, and 6 to play a few in rotation. If Ambler and Amor are good enough to be 4 and 5 next year, and Singleton is ready to be 6 and play a bit more often, that leaves the front row in good shape. If they're not, then time to go and we need to bring somebody in from outside. Props in their 30s are no problem, provided your succession planning is OK.

Props in the 30s are no problem provided they are of suitable quality - I have seen nothing from Kylie, Bailey or Peacock since his return to suggest that is the case.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:37 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting out of all the potential business men out there GH is simply the best? you are aren't you!!!

Er...no.

But what was your problem? The financial side or the playing/recruitment side? There are many higher calibre CEOs than GH in the world (although many of them will be involved in considerably bigger concerns than Leeds CF&A). As it is GH is still doing a creditable job on this side of things. Your criticism, as I understand it, is in his management appointments and his staff succession planning (and I would also be critical on both counts): but where are these businessmen who also know both sports administration and the specifics of RL personnel as well as GH to both perform this task better than him while also keeping the balance sheet healthy?

If you were advertising GH's job tomorrow, GH would have the best CV for it.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:57 pm  

G1 wrote:

I agree.

It's a baffling decision on the coach's part. But I've been baffled by softKirke's continual selection for about 18 months now dating back to Bluey's time.

That said, GH must back the coach in such matters as to undermine him would make what might be a bit of a mess much, much worse.

We have to separate McDermott's decision to play Kirke ahead of Cross from GHs handling of the subsequent fall out. The former s a head scratcher. The latter seems by the book.

I suspect (and could be wrong here) that it's all down to what happens in training. You have 2 players, one that knuckles down in training and one that larks about / turns up late / doesn't do what they're supposed to / etc. To try and keep some control of the team the coach has to pick the former and drop the latter.