Jump to content
Melbourne Football

City Football Group (CFG) [Owner of Melbourne City]


Torn Asunder
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Good weekend for CFG and their "beautiful football."

Arsenal beat Manchester City 2-1.
Orlando beat New York City 2-1.
Perth beat Melbourne City 2-0.
Kashiwa beat Yokohama Marinos 2-0.

Lyon women beat Manchester City women 3-1 (Champions League).

Torque drew 0-0 with Miramar Misiones.

Melbourne City's NPL team are in fact the only CFG club to have come out of any fixture ahead this weekend.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Falastur said:

Lyon women beat Manchester City women 3-1 (Champions League).

Torque drew 0-0 with Miramar Misiones.

Melbourne City's NPL team are in fact the only CFG club to have come out of any fixture ahead this weekend.

Wouldn't want to be late to work at CFG Monday morning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jovan said:

Wouldn't want to be late to work at CFG Monday morning.

It's  going to be a big one. 

Emergency board meeting has been called. 

They all have to travel to Kamino

have a long flight 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something occurred to me watching Arsenal beat Man City and it got me thinking about us here. We have heard our players constantly talk about us being a big club and I always would think that yes ok I suppose in some way we are a big club with our facilities and money behind us. I guess the first question is are we really? You could say that we have become a 'big club' (as described by our players) artificially with no success at all. 

I wonder whether our players really had the mentality, responsibility and expectation that is on players that play for big clubs. Or whether they were merely trying to convince themselves of this. The performance last night was definitely not one that's expected and quite the contrary. Are we struggling to have the right mentality because we have been handed everything to us? Im not sure and also probably didn't articulate this in the best way. But clearly there's an issue with the mentality of the team that doesn't match the sentiments that we keep hearing from players and coaches. Keen to hear the thoughts of others...

Edited by n i k o
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, n i k o said:

Something occurred to me watching Arsenal beat Man City and it got me thinking about us here. We have heard our players constantly talk about us being a big club and I always would think that yes ok I suppose in some way we are a big club with our facilities and money behind us. I guess the first question is are we really a big club. You could say that we have become a 'big club' (as described by our players) artificially with no success at all. 

I wonder whether our players really had the mentality, responsibility and expectation that is on players that play for big clubs. Or whether they were merely trying to convince themselves of this. The performance last night was definitely not one that's expected from a big club. Are we struggling to have the right mentality because we have been handed everything to us? Im not sure and also probably didn't articulate this in the best way. But clearly there's an issue with the mentality of the team that doesn't match the sentiments that we keep hearing from players and coaches. Keen to hear the thoughts of others...

It's interesting and until City actually has success, I think we've seen that we're still going to struggle to attract the best players, or the right kind of players in a professional league of this standard.

The facilities and the CFG network will attract promising local players, but are we setting ourselves up to recruit players would look at us as a 1/2 year stopover before heading to a bigger league. People have spoken about the fact that we seem to play as individuals rather than a cohesive unit and I think that's part of the problem. You really need to nail your visa signings each year and I think we were pretty unlucky there (apart from the handling of Sorensen) with some impossible to predict injuries, but I think that just as important is nailing your mainstay Australians who will provide you with that nucleus for a number of years. Looking at our current squad, that would include Kamau, Brattan, Kilkenny, Fitzgerald and Caceres. But most of those players are either on loan, or would have aspirations of moving to a bigger club/league to further their careers. Mooy was never going to be here for too long and we wasted his two years at the club.

I'm not going to slam Kilkenny for his temperament this year. It's a bit hard to criticise him for openly criticising his teammates, while at the same time demanding that we get a much tougher manager who will deliver some necessary home truths (I could do without the referee abuse though, especially in a post-match interview when we've played like crap). Let's see how he goes with a more functional team.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SF33 said:

It's interesting and until City actually has success, I think we've seen that we're still going to struggle to attract the best players, or the right kind of players in a professional league of this standard.

The facilities and the CFG network will attract promising local players, but are we setting ourselves up to recruit players would look at us as a 1/2 year stopover before heading to a bigger league. People have spoken about the fact that we seem to play as individuals rather than a cohesive unit and I think that's part of the problem. You really need to nail your visa signings each year and I think we were pretty unlucky there (apart from the handling of Sorensen) with some impossible to predict injuries, but I think that just as important is nailing your mainstay Australians who will provide you with that nucleus for a number of years. Looking at our current squad, that would include Kamau, Brattan, Kilkenny, Fitzgerald and Caceres. But most of those players are either on loan, or would have aspirations of moving to a bigger club/league to further their careers. Mooy was never going to be here for too long and we wasted his two years at the club.

I'm not going to slam Kilkenny for his temperament this year. It's a bit hard to criticise him for openly criticising his teammates, while at the same time demanding that we get a much tougher manager who will deliver some necessary home truths (I could do without the referee abuse though, especially in a post-match interview when we've played like crap). Let's see how he goes with a more functional team.

Interesting you touch on individuals playing for themselves. Maybe like you said the club can be seen as more of a stepping stone for a number of players rather than a destination. The potential to move overseas through CFG is the lure and we are a vehicle to get to that. 

Kilkenny is an angry little gnome that gets upset at others even after he's fucked up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Kilkenny is an angry little gnome that gets upset at others even after he's fucked up. 

He's not perfect, granted. But he's pretty clearly a quality Australian player in this competition who is at a great age to hang around for another four years or so and that's a valuable asset to have. We need passionate players who opposition supporters hate.

He needs to cut back on the tantrums. But as I think I've said before, his behaviour is one of those things that only seems to be a problem when the team is losing. Look at Kenny Lowe and Graham Arnold and how they conduct themselves on the bench, even if they're comfortably leading a game. The commentators love it, they point to it as evidence of the club not accepting anything but excellence. When you're winning, Kilkenny-esque behaviour looks great. When you're losing, it looks terrible.

I should have added Franjic and Bouzanis (and arguably Malik) to the group of Australians as well. Tongyik, Arzani, Genreau and other youth players are too young to be added to the group. I think there's something wrong if you're playing regular A-League football as a teenager and you don't have loftier ambitions. But once you get to the age of someone like Fitzgerald, Brattan, Caceres, or even Kamau and you're still not an out and out star of the competition (or even a regular starter), I think it's time to give yourself an honest appraisal and consider whether you should perhaps adjust your ambitions to becoming an outstanding A-League player.  As important as hitting on our visas next year, I think we need to have a serious conversation with our regular Australian first team members and ask them where they see themselves in 3-5 years time. We need at least a few that see themselves sticking at City and being part of building something here. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Whats CFG doing. Y havent we sacked valkanis yet. They should have already figured out who our coach is towards the last games of the season. We need to sign a coach first week of preseason and we should have already sacked valkanis. He is a disgrace to melbourne city and the A league. He is making decisions of who we sign or not such as the rumor of Troisi. CFG are to focused of NYC and Manchester City

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jessee Jenkinson said:

Interesting the bit at the end:

While they are in the hunt for a coach, there could also be a change of CEO with incumbent Scott Munn believed to under scrutiny with the club struggling to reach a wider membership base and only able to attract an average crowd of 10,528 this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I go to bat for Scott a fair bit on here but I'm pretty sure that since the CFG takeover he has fuck all say on who get's the coaching role. Also, from what I understand Sidwell was the one who had the final word on those decisions in the Heart days too. My suspicion is that Marwood probably has the final say on most football department decisions at the club with Petrillo having a large amount of input.

I don't think our Football Department failings have all that much to do with Munn.

EDIT: Quoted you @n i k o but by the time I'd finished writing my post I realized I wasn't really addressing your question

Edited by Embee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Embee said:

I know I go to bat for Scott a fair bit on here but I'm pretty sure that since the CFG takeover he has fuck all say on who get's the coaching role. Also, from what I understand Sidwell was the one who had the final word on those decisions in the Heart days too. My suspicion is that Marwood probably has the final say on most football department decisions at the club with Petrillo having a large amount of input.

I don't think our Football Department failings have all that much to do with Munn.

EDIT: Quoted you @n i k o but by the time I'd finished writing my post I realized I wasn't really addressing your question

All good, your post touches on my question though

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Embee said:

I know I go to bat for Scott a fair bit on here but I'm pretty sure that since the CFG takeover he has fuck all say on who get's the coaching role. Also, from what I understand Sidwell was the one who had the final word on those decisions in the Heart days too. My suspicion is that Marwood probably has the final say on most football department decisions at the club with Petrillo having a large amount of input.

I don't think our Football Department failings have all that much to do with Munn.

EDIT: Quoted you @n i k o but by the time I'd finished writing my post I realized I wasn't really addressing your question

Tend to agree. Even for specific off-field issues, we don't know how much control he has. Some may very well be driven from Manchester, and all he gets told is to implement something or other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is there isnt a single person outside of the football club, and perhaps to a degree FFA that could tell us with any credibility how good or bad a job Munn is doing. What i can say however, is in my conversations with club staff in the past they have all spoke glowingly of Munn and how good a job he has done.
That doesnt mean anything solid one way or the other, but I'd certainly take an internal perspective over an external one any day of the week.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Tend to agree. Even for specific off-field issues, we don't know how much control he has. Some may very well be driven from Manchester, and all he gets told is to implement something or other.

 

15 minutes ago, bt50 said:

The reality is there isnt a single person outside of the football club, and perhaps to a degree FFA that could tell us with any credibility how good or bad a job Munn is doing. What i can say however, is in my conversations with club staff in the past they have all spoke glowingly of Munn and how good a job he has done.
That doesnt mean anything solid one way or the other, but I'd certainly take an internal perspective over an external one any day of the week.

Agree with you both, particularly regarding internal/external perception. Upper management types are easy targets for sports fans when the reality is most of them have absolutely 0 idea what those staff members actually do or what their KPIs are.

Membership would definitely be something he's held accountable for internally, although if they're thinking of axing him based on those numbers this season I'd say that's very harsh, hard to attract members to the type of product we've put out over the last 6-8 months. At least we were thoroughly enjoyable to watch last season for the most part.

Edited by Embee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The membership numbers are probably the only thing the mens team can hang their hat on this season. 

Compared to previous seasons and other teams its not declining. 

Obviously it should be higher but 13k or whatever it finished at is reasonable. 

What's a concern is fan engagement and city voice and that citizens thing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As CEO he is responsible for everything, including making the hard decisions to improve the performance of the club as a whole.

I suspect he isn't hard enough nor critical enough of the organisation he leads, and has led to mediocrity and the problematic culture that has been officially revealed by an independent critique (Hodgson).

With all the changes over the last 4 years, the two things that haven't changed is Munn and the deterioration of our culture which, as others have said, has been in a downward spiral from the second season.

Munn has had more than enough time to turn it around, his time is up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, playmaker said:

As CEO he is responsible for everything, including making the hard decisions to improve the performance of the club as a whole.

I suspect he isn't hard enough nor critical enough of the organisation he leads, and has led to mediocrity and the problematic culture that has been officially revealed by an independent critique (Hodgson).

With all the changes over the last 4 years, the two things that haven't changed is Munn and the deterioration of our culture which, as others have said, has been in a downward spiral from the second season.

Munn has had more than enough time to turn it around, his time is up.

And this opinion is based on your weekly attendance at Aami and what other contact have you had with the internal runnings of the club. 

Since CFG takeover Munn has been almost invisible compared to the Heart days. 

I got no idea if he deserves to be sacked but don't you think if he was doing such a poor job he would be replaced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, playmaker said:

As CEO he is responsible for everything, including making the hard decisions to improve the performance of the club as a whole.

I suspect he isn't hard enough nor critical enough of the organisation he leads, and has led to mediocrity and the problematic culture that has been officially revealed by an independent critique (Hodgson).

With all the changes over the last 4 years, the two things that haven't changed is Munn and the deterioration of our culture which, as others have said, has been in a downward spiral from the second season.

Munn has had more than enough time to turn it around, his time is up.

I get what your saying but I don't think your post touches on the reality of being in amongst the club and team in person. That's not to say you can't be right. But to assume Munn is responsible for 'everything' with no input from Marwood or anyone else, yeh I'm not sure it's that clear cut. Regarding our culture as a team, I'd say that's mostly got to do with the interpersonal interactions with the management staff and players and most importantly the results on game day. 

Anyway none of us know exactly what's going on on the inside, everyone's free to speculate, but for me this season the burning question is how much influence do CFG have on how/what/why and who is making decisions at Melbourne in every facet if the club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, playmaker said:

As CEO he is responsible for everything, including making the hard decisions to improve the performance of the club as a whole.

I suspect he isn't hard enough nor critical enough of the organisation he leads, and has led to mediocrity and the problematic culture that has been officially revealed by an independent critique (Hodgson).

With all the changes over the last 4 years, the two things that haven't changed is Munn and the deterioration of our culture which, as others have said, has been in a downward spiral from the second season.

Munn has had more than enough time to turn it around, his time is up.

Everything you've written in that post is a baseless assumption made with no actual evidence whatsoever, unless of course you have a detailed list of his duties and KPIs at the club to provide us with.

You talk about a 'deterioration of culture', jesus, where you following this club during the Heart days? What deterioration of culture? As poor as we may currently be by our own lofty standards we're miles ahead of where we were as the Heart, not to mention that as a CLUB itself we seem to permeate a culture of ambition and success if anything. Our women's and youth team's have both won silverware accross multiple seasons and continue to set high bars at those level whilst inept senior team coaches continue to see us fall short on the men's side (whilst still bringing home a trophy this season).

So unless you're saying,and are able to prove, that Scott Munn is somehow responsible for SOLELY the culture within the men's team (and not the rest of the club) or the appointing of the men's team's manager (he isn't) then I have no idea how you could have reasonably come to any of these conclusions.

Edited by Embee
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Embee said:

Everything you've written in that post is a baseless assumption made with no actual evidence whatsoever, unless of course you have a detailed list of his duties and KPIs at the club to provide us with.

Yes the evidence is there and quite clear. I am pretty sure Marwood and Hodgson left here happy right!

From a return on investment view point we have failed. I am pretty sure the KPIs were such that they had expected more on field success and further growth in the club. I am sure that they know that the upsurge in membership is due to the Cahill factor and not an organic growth based on smart leadership from the CEO.

Your counter argument is also baseless as you have shown no evidence that you know anymore than me on the topic or that your comments are based on nothing more than your own opinion.

 

1 hour ago, Embee said:

You talk about a 'deterioration of culture', jesus, where you following this club during the Heart days? What deterioration of culture? As poor as we may currently be by our own lofty standards we're miles ahead of where we were as the Heart, not to mention that as a CLUB itself we seem to permeate a culture of ambition and success if anything.

 

Miles ahead in culture? Don't think so. Definitely on resources and a perceived mindset, but from where i stand the overall culture of ambition and success is just talk and propaganda and the softness of our culture and human resources still exist and has been pointed out by Hodgson.

But anyway it is consistent with what has been observable by us (the observers) anyway, on and off the field, and by the fact that many of the club's human resources and players are able to excel in other in other environments which is also a clear indication of what an improved culture can do and this puts the spotlight directly on Munn and nobody else

 

1 hour ago, Embee said:

Our women's and youth team's have both won silverware across multiple seasons and continue to set high bars at those level whilst inept senior team coaches continue to see us fall short on the men's side (whilst still bringing home a trophy this season).

 

With all due respect to the youth and women, they do not have any real significant impact to the club's overall success. The men's team are the money makers and they are the measuring stick to the club's success. If anything if you eliminate the youth and women's team, the bottom line would be much fatter.

 Furthermore, the fact that no other A league team can compete with our CFG infrastructure for the relatively new youth and women competitions, which automatically attracts the best of the best. This success has got nothing to do with Munn but more to do with CFG resources.

 

2 hours ago, Embee said:

 

So unless you're saying,and are able to prove, that Scott Munn is somehow responsible for SOLELY the culture within the men's team (and not the rest of the club) or the appointing of the men's team's manager (he isn't) then I have no idea how you could have reasonably come to any of these conclusions.

If you think Munn does not have a great influence on what goes on at Bundoora as CEO then this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Everything needs to be consulted and ticked off by a CEO, and in the case of the off shore ownership then he is the leader, representative and administrator of the company he runs in this location. To suggest he had no weight behind the decision of the management, coaches and on-field crisis management is just ignorant. And to suggest that Van shit and Valkanis somehow weren't supported and didn't get the tick of approval from Munn before they were given their positions is very ignorant.

From CFG's view point, Munn has been given the best facilities, best resources, best players and the fact that there is still no real improvement of performance is ringing alarm bells and for good reason.

 The fact that Marwood had to come for a month to critique the off field performances, and had Hodgson as his on-field adviser shows quite obviously that all is not good at Bundoora and that the real picture wasn't being communicated to head office, you know, filtered content to suggest everything is ok, nothing to see here.

All things point to the fact that Munn's expiry date has well past and the only way to get rid of the mediocrity is to get rid of all those involved, starting at the top. 

I will stick with my story, you stick with yours, I will leave it at that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Yes the evidence is there and quite clear. I am pretty sure Marwood and Hodgson left here happy right!

From a return on investment view point we have failed. I am pretty sure the KPIs were such that they had expected more on field success and further growth in the club. I am sure that they know that the upsurge in membership is due to the Cahill factor and not an organic growth based on smart leadership from the CEO.

Your counter argument is also baseless as you have shown no evidence that you know anymore than me on the topic or that your comments are based on nothing more than your own opinion.

 

Miles ahead in culture? Don't think so. Definitely on resources and a perceived mindset, but from where i stand the overall culture of ambition and success is just talk and propaganda and the softness of our culture and human resources still exist and has been pointed out by Hodgson.

But anyway it is consistent with what has been observable by us (the observers) anyway, on and off the field, and by the fact that many of the club's human resources and players are able to excel in other in other environments which is also a clear indication of what an improved culture can do and this puts the spotlight directly on Munn and nobody else

 

With all due respect to the youth and women, they do not have any real significant impact to the club's overall success. The men's team are the money makers and they are the measuring stick to the club's success. If anything if you eliminate the youth and women's team, the bottom line would be much fatter.

 Furthermore, the fact that no other A league team can compete with our CFG infrastructure for the relatively new youth and women competitions, which automatically attracts the best of the best. This success has got nothing to do with Munn but more to do with CFG resources.

 

If you think Munn does not have a great influence on what goes on at Bundoora as CEO then this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Everything needs to be consulted and ticked off by a CEO, and in the case of the off shore ownership then he is the leader, representative and administrator of the company he runs in this location. To suggest he had no weight behind the decision of the management, coaches and on-field crisis management is just ignorant. And to suggest that Van shit and Valkanis somehow weren't supported and didn't get the tick of approval from Munn before they were given their positions is very ignorant.

From CFG's view point, Munn has been given the best facilities, best resources, best players and the fact that there is still no real improvement of performance is ringing alarm bells and for good reason.

 The fact that Marwood had to come for a month to critique the off field performances, and had Hodgson as his on-field adviser shows quite obviously that all is not good at Bundoora and that the real picture wasn't being communicated to head office, you know, filtered content to suggest everything is ok, nothing to see here.

All things point to the fact that Munn's expiry date has well past and the only way to get rid of the mediocrity is to get rid of all those involved, starting at the top. 

I will stick with my story, you stick with yours, I will leave it at that.

 

You strongly lack the concept of grey dont you?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Yes the evidence is there and quite clear. I am pretty sure Marwood and Hodgson left here happy right!

From a return on investment view point we have failed. I am pretty sure the KPIs were such that they had expected more on field success and further growth in the club. I am sure that they know that the upsurge in membership is due to the Cahill factor and not an organic growth based on smart leadership from the CEO.

Your counter argument is also baseless as you have shown no evidence that you know anymore than me on the topic or that your comments are based on nothing more than your own opinion.

 

Miles ahead in culture? Don't think so. Definitely on resources and a perceived mindset, but from where i stand the overall culture of ambition and success is just talk and propaganda and the softness of our culture and human resources still exist and has been pointed out by Hodgson.

But anyway it is consistent with what has been observable by us (the observers) anyway, on and off the field, and by the fact that many of the club's human resources and players are able to excel in other in other environments which is also a clear indication of what an improved culture can do and this puts the spotlight directly on Munn and nobody else

 

With all due respect to the youth and women, they do not have any real significant impact to the club's overall success. The men's team are the money makers and they are the measuring stick to the club's success. If anything if you eliminate the youth and women's team, the bottom line would be much fatter.

 Furthermore, the fact that no other A league team can compete with our CFG infrastructure for the relatively new youth and women competitions, which automatically attracts the best of the best. This success has got nothing to do with Munn but more to do with CFG resources.

 

If you think Munn does not have a great influence on what goes on at Bundoora as CEO then this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Everything needs to be consulted and ticked off by a CEO, and in the case of the off shore ownership then he is the leader, representative and administrator of the company he runs in this location. To suggest he had no weight behind the decision of the management, coaches and on-field crisis management is just ignorant. And to suggest that Van shit and Valkanis somehow weren't supported and didn't get the tick of approval from Munn before they were given their positions is very ignorant.

From CFG's view point, Munn has been given the best facilities, best resources, best players and the fact that there is still no real improvement of performance is ringing alarm bells and for good reason.

 The fact that Marwood had to come for a month to critique the off field performances, and had Hodgson as his on-field adviser shows quite obviously that all is not good at Bundoora and that the real picture wasn't being communicated to head office, you know, filtered content to suggest everything is ok, nothing to see here.

All things point to the fact that Munn's expiry date has well past and the only way to get rid of the mediocrity is to get rid of all those involved, starting at the top. 

I will stick with my story, you stick with yours, I will leave it at that.

 

The difference between you and me is I don't make ridiculous sweeping statements with that baseless information as if I'm some kind of footballing and busines savant unlike yourself.

But please, continue to tell us about how you know exactly how City/CFG operate, Marwood and Hodgson's exact opinions on the club and all the insider information you have regarding Scott Munn's power at the club.

God you're fucking thick.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that those of us on this forum who defend Scott Munn have either met him, know people that have worked with him or have listened to him speak at functions.

And those who call for his head have never had anything to do with him and don't understand the difference in roles between a CEO and a board of directors.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the point of how much a CEO has to say, in the private sector it varies. For example Rupert Murdoch is the controller of all his empire however he does have local CEOs for each of is businesses and who doubts how much say the local CEO has when Rupert calls the shots? I have worked for multi-nationals and the local CEO is held responsible for a small amount of stuff because there is regular oversight from head office. Of course there are some very strong CEOs that actually do wield real power but overall the picture is not as black and white as it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

On the point of how much a CEO has to say, in the private sector it varies. For example Rupert Murdoch is the controller of all his empire however he does have local CEOs for each of is businesses and who doubts how much say the local CEO has when Rupert calls the shots? I have worked for multi-nationals and the local CEO is held responsible for a small amount of stuff because there is regular oversight from head office. Of course there are some very strong CEOs that actually do wield real power but overall the picture is not as black and white as it seems.

And thats the point really ; no-one knows what the go is at City other than those inside. Playmaker, of course is entitled to his opinion and what he thinks is happening, but when you try to pass off an opinion as fact unashamedly then you're going to have a bad time...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Embee said:

The difference between you and me is I don't make ridiculous sweeping statements with that baseless information as if I'm some kind of footballing and busines savant unlike yourself.

But please, continue to tell us about how you know exactly how City/CFG operate, Marwood and Hodgson's exact opinions on the club and all the insider information you have regarding Scott Munn's power at the club.

God you're fucking thick.

 

Don't let logic get in the way of your delusion, perhaps you can enlighten me on the facts of your counter argument, or perhaps you are just the almighty sear who knows everything and there is no need to justify your own opinions. I have given enough detail and you disagree, that's fine,

50 minutes ago, Jacques Le Cube said:

It seems to me that those of us on this forum who defend Scott Munn have either met him, know people that have worked with him or have listened to him speak at functions.

And those who call for his head have never had anything to do with him and don't understand the difference in roles between a CEO and a board of directors.

 

So what! Just because he may be a top bloke and charismatic doesn't mean he is good at his job or that he is the person to lead us into the future. Base solely on performance I don't see anything special and if anything it is quite underwhelming in the last 4 years.

The solidity and progressiveness of a long-standing CEO is observed quite easily actually, it's organisational culture and the success of its core business(the money maker) is where it's at. Enough said.

To change the culture you change the CEO and my reasoning is given in my previous post.

 

2 hours ago, bt50 said:

You strongly lack the concept of grey dont you?

Sorry I don't think grey is the right colour after this season's efforts. The point is if you are going to bring in a new gaffer and support staff to instill change, you don't want any stinking, rotting old wood preventing progress.

 

59 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

On the point of how much a CEO has to say, in the private sector it varies. For example Rupert Murdoch is the controller of all his empire however he does have local CEOs for each of is businesses and who doubts how much say the local CEO has when Rupert calls the shots? I have worked for multi-nationals and the local CEO is held responsible for a small amount of stuff because there is regular oversight from head office. Of course there are some very strong CEOs that actually do wield real power but overall the picture is not as black and white as it seems.

Totally agree, however one thing that holds true, is that a CEO is always held accountable for culture, morale and giving accurate accounts of business operations for the purposes of optimisation. I find it hard to believe that anyone can say Munn has done this effectively when observing the suboptimal performance and questionable decisions that have been made in the past few years.

If I look at it as a potential shareholder scenario, I wouldn't invest in the group if Munn was CEO solely based on the current culture at the club's core business (men's team) and it's lack of leadership which ultimately is Munn's responsibility to manage and he had enough time to make good.

 

In summary, if CFG really want to turn this club around then the old needs to be removed and new need to have a clean slate to build something different and better that what has been. We don't need this rot hanging around.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bt50 said:

And thats the point really ; no-one knows what the go is at City other than those inside. Playmaker, of course is entitled to his opinion and what he thinks is happening, but when you try to pass off an opinion as fact unashamedly then you're going to have a bad time...

It's like slamming your head repeatedly against a brick wall, absolutely fucking pointless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bt50 said:

And thats the point really ; no-one knows what the go is at City other than those inside. Playmaker, of course is entitled to his opinion and what he thinks is happening, but when you try to pass off an opinion as fact unashamedly then you're going to have a bad time...

Where did I try to pass it off as fact,

7 hours ago, playmaker said:

As CEO he is responsible for everything, including making the hard decisions to improve the performance of the club as a whole.

I suspect he isn't hard enough nor critical enough of the organisation he leads, and has led to mediocrity and the problematic culture that has been officially revealed by an independent critique (Hodgson).

With all the changes over the last 4 years, the two things that haven't changed is Munn and the deterioration of our culture which, as others have said, has been in a downward spiral from the second season.

Munn has had more than enough time to turn it around, his time is up.

Can't see it can you?

Checking a post prior to critiquing the post would be wise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Where did I try to pass it off as fact,

Can't see it can you?

Checking a post prior to critiquing the post would be wise.

 

If you insist:

7 hours ago, playmaker said:

As CEO he is responsible for everything, including making the hard decisions to improve the performance of the club as a whole.

You dont know that. You aren't privy to the inner workings or dealing to the clubs, nor am I. You might well be right, but you dont know that as fact.

I suspect he isn't hard enough nor critical enough of the organisation he leads, and has led to mediocrity and the problematic culture that has been officially revealed by an independent critique (Hodgson).

That's not official, unless you've seen the report from Roy.

With all the changes over the last 4 years, the two things that haven't changed is Munn and the deterioration of our culture which, as others have said, has been in a downward spiral from the second season.

We've finished higher on the ladder as City in all of our seasons than our best season as Heart. That says improvement as an overall, not deterioration. I can still see the argument that we are worse off given the resources, even if i disagree with it, but either answer is not fact, its subjective.

Munn has had more than enough time to turn it around, his time is up.

 

3 hours ago, playmaker said:

Yes the evidence is there and quite clear. I am pretty sure Marwood and Hodgson left here happy right!

Where? and whats clear? Again, you drawing a conclusion might be the correct one, but it doesnt make it fact.

From a return on investment view point we have failed. I am pretty sure the KPIs were such that they had expected more on field success and further growth in the club. I am sure that they know that the upsurge in membership is due to the Cahill factor and not an organic growth based on smart leadership from the CEO.

Your counter argument is also baseless as you have shown no evidence that you know anymore than me on the topic or that your comments are based on nothing more than your own opinion.

No-one is really making a counter argument other than to say that your opinion is based on assumption, not fact. 

Miles ahead in culture? Don't think so. Definitely on resources and a perceived mindset, but from where i stand the overall culture of ambition and success is just talk and propaganda and the softness of our culture and human resources still exist and has been pointed out by Hodgson.

But anyway it is consistent with what has been observable by us (the observers) anyway, on and off the field, and by the fact that many of the club's human resources and players are able to excel in other in other environments which is also a clear indication of what an improved culture can do and this puts the spotlight directly on Munn and nobody else

The only way of knowing how involved Munn is with the football department is by being inside the club or CFG. If he has no control over appointments or signings, its hard to place any blame on him for the team culture. Possibly he does have a big say, but my point is none of us know.

With all due respect to the youth and women, they do not have any real significant impact to the club's overall success. The men's team are the money makers and they are the measuring stick to the club's success. If anything if you eliminate the youth and women's team, the bottom line would be much fatter.

 Furthermore, the fact that no other A league team can compete with our CFG infrastructure for the relatively new youth and women competitions, which automatically attracts the best of the best. This success has got nothing to do with Munn but more to do with CFG resources.

Possibly, but if you're saying that everything that is good that happens is CFG's doing and everything that's bad that happens is Munn's fault, you're hardly being fair are you?

 

3 hours ago, playmaker said:

If you think Munn does not have a great influence on what goes on at Bundoora as CEO then this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Everything needs to be consulted and ticked off by a CEO, and in the case of the off shore ownership then he is the leader, representative and administrator of the company he runs in this location. To suggest he had no weight behind the decision of the management, coaches and on-field crisis management is just ignorant. And to suggest that Van shit and Valkanis somehow weren't supported and didn't get the tick of approval from Munn before they were given their positions is very ignorant.

No it doesnt. This isnt a normal company so the normal rules don't necessarily apply. They might, but they dont have to. Unless you actually know, you don't know. Stop pretending you do.

From CFG's view point, Munn has been given the best facilities, best resources, best players and the fact that there is still no real improvement of performance is ringing alarm bells and for good reason.

I absolutely agree with this point, but neither myself nor you know what CFG's view point is.

 The fact that Marwood had to come for a month to critique the off field performances, and had Hodgson as his on-field adviser shows quite obviously that all is not good at Bundoora and that the real picture wasn't being communicated to head office, you know, filtered content to suggest everything is ok, nothing to see here.

All things point to the fact that Munn's expiry date has well past and the only way to get rid of the mediocrity is to get rid of all those involved, starting at the top. 

I will stick with my story, you stick with yours, I will leave it at that.

 

Look at the end of the day its probably wording and you not using phrases such as "it looks like", "in my opinion", "probably" and the like, but you are phrasing opinions as undisputed fact, and then getting your back up when people call you out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, playmaker said:

Totally agree, however one thing that holds true, is that a CEO is always held accountable for culture, morale and giving accurate accounts of business operations for the purposes of optimisation. I find it hard to believe that anyone can say Munn has done this effectively when observing the suboptimal performance and questionable decisions that have been made in the past few years.

If I look at it as a potential shareholder scenario, I wouldn't invest in the group if Munn was CEO solely based on the current culture at the club's core business (men's team) and it's lack of leadership which ultimately is Munn's responsibility to manage and he had enough time to make good.

 

Just to expand on this, that would be dependent on the nature of the ownership of the business. When there is a dominant shareholder such as Rupert Murdoch, culture and morale don't rate and Rupert is on the record as saying so however this is not the case with regards with companies with a large shareholder base.

With respect to accurate accounts, that comes down to what is the boards definition of accurate accounts. As an example, the now defunct Ansett was once owned jointly by Murdoch and Abeles who extracted capital from the business and then departed. You would not know it at the time because for some reason the press and the forerunner to ASIC said the accounts were accurate. It was some years later that Ansett went to bust and then it came out that Ansett's capital base had been raided.

So to the business at hand, we have a dominant shareholder reknown for secrecy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Just to expand on this, that would be dependent on the nature of the ownership of the business. When there is a dominant shareholder such as Rupert Murdoch, culture and morale don't rate and Rupert is on the record as saying so however this is not the case with regards with companies with a large shareholder base.

With respect to accurate accounts, that comes down to what is the boards definition of accurate accounts. As an example, the now defunct Ansett was once owned jointly by Murdoch and Abeles who extracted capital from the business and then departed. You would not know it at the time because for some reason the press and the forerunner to ASIC said the accounts were accurate. It was some years later that Ansett went to bust and then it came out that Ansett's capital base had been raided.

So to the business at hand, we have a dominant shareholder reknown for secrecy.

Good point. We already know, based on the reported cost of the Chinese (CITIC/CMG) 13% holding in CFG and a back-calculation of the worth of Melbourne City, that the Melbourne investment is now worth a lot more than the original amount CFG paid for us (there were some numbers tossed about at the time of the CITIC buy-in, but I can't find them so won't guess at what they were). So, depending on what Scott Munn's actual accountabilities are, and depending on his actual KPIs, it's quite possible that he's doing everything Mubarek and Mansour want him to do.

IMO we should concentrate on the football, and those off-field matters directly connected with the football, rather than speculate on the internal workings of CFG.

Edited by jw1739
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Good point. We already know, based on the reported cost of the Chinese (CITIC/CMG) 13% holding in CFG and a back-calculation of the worth of Melbourne City, that the Melbourne investment is now worth a lot more than the original amount CFG paid for us (there were some numbers tossed about at the time of the CITIC buy-in, but I can't find them so won't guess at what they were). So, depending on what Scott Munn's actual accountabilities are, and depending on his actual KPIs, it's quite possible that he's doing everything Mubarek and Mansour want him to do.

IMO we should concentrate on the football, and those off-field matters directly connected with the football, rather than speculate on the internal workings of CFG.

Yes. The 2 Ss. Soccer and Sausages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bt50 said:

If you insist:

 

 

Look at the end of the day its probably wording and you not using phrases such as "it looks like", "in my opinion", "probably" and the like, but you are phrasing opinions as undisputed fact, and then getting your back up when people call you out.

Sorry but I don't see a problem with my posts as in context to the discussion they are pretty clear what the intent is. If we are only allowed to post if we witness everything first hand then nothing would really be open to discussion. I don't get my back up at all mate. All good. I just find it interesting that Munn somehow gets absolved from responsibility when he is the captain of the ship. Sure he may have to point the ship as directed but he is ultimately responsible for everything that happens on there. Anyway enough said.

I don't think Marwood and Hodgson came over to play marbles at Bundoora that's for sure.

 

5 hours ago, NewConvert said:

When there is a dominant shareholder such as Rupert Murdoch, culture and morale don't rate and Rupert is on the record as saying so however this is not the case with regards with companies with a large shareholder base.

 

You are missing my point. Anyway I am sure that if he had invested into one of his offices enough needed to have the best of everything to dominate the competition and it was reported that the poor performance was due to a poor leadership and culture, then heads would roll starting at top, I have no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...