Castle won’t be missed at Belmore

[Vlasnik]

We just beat dragons without Reynolds moron

Who are you calling a moron ??? I didn't write the f*cking article!!!

 

[Ahecee]

For all feminists out there, this is an example of the difference between males and females. Previous Bulldogs CEO's have been strong men like Greenberg and Bullforg. The article is very good, it describes how Castle (a woman) has been out Ceo'd in every aspect of her male predecessors. I hope the next CEO will be like GreenBerg.

Or, it could be used as a example of how Scott Foreman (a man) isn't a very good writer.

Castle pretty much lost me with the way we handled bad friday, but its got nothing to do with gender.

 

[GrogDog]

The truth may never be known or atleast to us unimportant people. My guess is that to a certain degree she never stood a chance. I would say the business part and feel good stuff she was allowed to do but can't imagine her having any real say about anything football. My guess is the wanna be gangsta in Dib is the real fool behind the poor state of football affairs and how truly crap we play. I would agree in the assumption that we are weaker now then when she came in but don't know if that's her fault.

 

[_G-Dog_]

The only way is up

 

[Mr Invisible]

@dogluva you've personally experienced Castle "passing the buck" as well haven't you?

 

[Izzy Forreal]

Nice input. I don't disagree with your point of view as it is written because it is in no way a disrespectful one . It is honest and shows that you are just someone who wants the best for the club. What I am not a fan of is the comments that pretty much say just because a woman has been in charge that is why we are in such a mess. Club DNA needs to be returned to where it once was that much is certain. Who will eventually be the new CEO is anyone's guess and if it is an ex player so be it.

Thanks for your feedback dogluva, I really appreciated it. To have clarified my point of view perhaps I should have used the words "at this point in time": "But to be honest, at this point in time I would prefer the Bulldogs next CEO to be a man. My reason is that I want a CEO who played for the Bulldogs and "lives and breathes" the Bulldogs culture. IMO that's the only way our club can be lifted from the downward spiral it has fallen into".

On a different tangent the same type of thing happened to me at work. There was an upheaval transferring our branch into a call centre. From time to time we had our calls monitored by a low ranking supervisor and when my turn came up the monitor was a young gay fella. I was gobsmacked when he asked me if I had any problems with him being my monitor due to his "lifestyle". My answer to that was: "With supervisors, I don't have any problem with age, gender or sexuality as long we're on the same page and they give an honest appraisal".

So basically for me its horses for courses.

 

[Bob dog]

Maybe Greenberg didn't fully brief her on the politics of the place? CEO is not an office clerks job.

 

[froggy]

This article was surely written by a student who wants to be a journalist. What a poor article.

Castle, in my opinion was hired because she was a woman. At the time we were still transitioning as a club and hiring a woman was going to make a statement on how far we have come. I am convinced of that.

Her main failing lies with the fact that she never had the football knowledge required to "successfully" run a football club. Her definition of "success" and the fans definition are worlds apart. The fans are obviously happy when the club makes money and can survive financially, however the real definition of success is on the football field. We aren't a mining company or a bank where success is defined by the dollar figure at the bottom. We are, in my opinion, defined by how we play on the field and how we plant the seeds for future players so that success is maintained. This is where she failed. She has no grasp of how to plan a football club or even delegate that responsibility. The next CEO needs to have a hands on role in recruitment so they can shape the future of the club and not just appease the community by helping out refugees and planting trees.

A good CEO would never allow the chairman to undermine their authority. The next CEO needs to put Dib in his place and make sure he/she is able to do their job without interference.

 

[belmore_utd]

Thanks for your feedback dogluva, I really appreciated it. To have clarified my point of view perhaps I should have used the words "at this point in time": "But to be honest, at this point in time I would prefer the Bulldogs next CEO to be a man. My reason is that I want a CEO who played for the Bulldogs and "lives and breathes" the Bulldogs culture. IMO that's the only way our club can be lifted from the downward spiral it has fallen into".

On a different tangent the same type of thing happened to me at work. There was an upheaval transferring our branch into a call centre. From time to time we had our calls monitored by a low ranking supervisor and when my turn came up the monitor was a young gay fella. I was gobsmacked when he asked me if I had any problems with him being my monitor due to his "lifestyle". My answer to that was: "With supervisors, I don't have any problem with age, gender or sexuality as long we're on the same page and they give an honest appraisal".

So basically for me its horses for courses.

Just love the way the LGBT community throw their lifestyle in your face and try and provoke a reaction. Get over yourselves *****. We don't give a fuck!

We the straight community of straya care no less about a gay **** let alone who the gay ***** are. Cant we just go back to judging everyone by what car they drive? [emoji23]

 

[CroydonDog]

Stopped reading at "the family club". Another who doesn't know what it means.

 

[Oatley Dog]

This article was surely written by a student who wants to be a journalist. What a poor article.

Castle, in my opinion was hired because she was a woman. At the time we were still transitioning as a club and hiring a woman was going to make a statement on how far we have come. I am convinced of that.

Her main failing lies with the fact that she never had the football knowledge required to "successfully" run a football club. Her definition of "success" and the fans definition are worlds apart. The fans are obviously happy when the club makes money and can survive financially, however the real definition of success is on the football field. We aren't a mining company or a bank where success is defined by the dollar figure at the bottom. We are, in my opinion, defined by how we play on the field and how we plant the seeds for future players so that success is maintained. This is where she failed. She has no grasp of how to plan a football club or even delegate that responsibility. The next CEO needs to have a hands on role in recruitment so they can shape the future of the club and not just appease the community by helping out refugees and planting trees.

A good CEO would never allow the chairman to undermine their authority. The next CEO needs to put Dib in his place and make sure he/she is able to do their job without interference.

CEO's don't have a hands on role in recruitment. It's not their job. It's the job of the recruitment/retention committee, coach and board. The CEO's role is to negotiate the most favourable outcomes once it has been decided who the coach wants as a player. Having another person with "football knowledge" will only make things more complicated as they offer their two cents worth. Like it or not Castle has done a good job with the things she has responsibility for. The front office is scandal free, we have a hugely successful sponsorship base, our memberships have increased and she delivered a strategic plan. The bit that everyone focusses on with the strategic plan is not in her area of responsibility, it's with Des and the board. She demonstrated at the forum she clearly has a high level of knowledge around finance, the cap and host of other things that relate to the CEO's role. By all means rip into Des and the Board for the performances on field but it has not a lot to do with her role in a direct sense. I hope we get someone better than her next time around not because she did a bad job but because to stay the same means your club goes backwards. Sadly, I have a feeling though that after a honeymoon period we will be going on about the next CEO the same way.

 

[gibbobulldog]

Who are you calling a moron ??? I didn't write the f*cking article!!!

Not you bro I ment the person that wrote the artice

 

[Delta]

I'll apologize for my comments. I was just a little mad.

 

[froggy]

CEO's don't have a hands on role in recruitment. It's not their job. It's the job of the recruitment/retention committee, coach and board. The CEO's role is to negotiate the most favourable outcomes once it has been decided who the coach wants as a player. Having another person with "football knowledge" will only make things more complicated as they offer their two cents worth. Like it or not Castle has done a good job with the things she has responsibility for. The front office is scandal free, we have a hugely successful sponsorship base, our memberships have increased and she delivered a strategic plan. The bit that everyone focusses on with the strategic plan is not in her area of responsibility, it's with Des and the board. She demonstrated at the forum she clearly has a high level of knowledge around finance, the cap and host of other things that relate to the CEO's role. By all means rip into Des and the Board for the performances on field but it has not a lot to do with her role in a direct sense. I hope we get someone better than her next time around not because she did a bad job but because to stay the same means your club goes backwards. Sadly, I have a feeling though that after a honeymoon period we will be going on about the next CEO the same way.

It might have changed a bit over the years but the Bullfrog Peter Moore was a ceo that did all the recruitment and was great at it. I know he is a chairman but Politis has a fair bit to do with recruitment also. The good ceo's know everything about the running of the football club. At the end of the day its a football club. To run it you need to know something about your product. Castle had no idea.

 

[Trafford10]

Who wrote this article, some kid in year 9?

Crowds are down because the team is not performing and playing boring unattractive football.

We have alll been told now by Did that the CEO doesn't sign player contracts and there is in fact a retention committee that makes that decision. According to Did for big name players new to the club, he is the main man.

What the KIA sponsorship is only a success if their logo is blue?

As time has moved on, it now seems she has been tapped on the shoulder for the ARU role. That is the reason she is leaving, lets not kid ourselves.

Hopefully the next CEO sees the Canterbury role as their ultimate ambition.

 

[Oatley Dog]

It might have changed a bit over the years but the Bullfrog Peter Moore was a ceo that did all the recruitment and was great at it. I know he is a chairman but Politis has a fair bit to do with recruitment also. The good ceo's know everything about the running of the football club. At the end of the day its a football club. To run it you need to know something about your product. Castle had no idea.

He was never the CEO, he was the Secretary/Manager and part of their role was recruitment and retention. They didn't have recruitment committees in those days. The Board was made up of old footballers, grave diggers and blokes who came up through the various district clubs. the Leagues club gave them a grant, they ran chook raffles and there was no cap to worry about. For decades there was a residency rule (had to live in the district) and then we went to a $2000 sign on $200 a win limit for every player. It's one of the reasons why clubs like us, Parra and the regionals flourished during the 80's/90's. We all had good junior bases that kept new talent coming through. It's why Brisbane/Storm as so good now. They have most of Qld as their local district. The bottom line is that the systems are fundamentally different today compared with Bullfrogs/Arkos/Quayles/Facers day.

 

[vegny]

Greenberg was great imo and his effort is hard to emulate. I am not sure who is worse tho for the fans btwn noad and castle.
Under noad no one wanted to talk footy with us. They avoided us like we had rabies. Now all the other fans want to talk footy with us cos they can laugh at us. Like the way we used to treat tigers and south fans.

 

[froggy]

He was never the CEO, he was the Secretary/Manager and part of their role was recruitment and retention. They didn't have recruitment committees in those days. The Board was made up of old footballers, grave diggers and blokes who came up through the various district clubs. the Leagues club gave them a grant, they ran chook raffles and there was no cap to worry about. For decades there was a residency rule (had to live in the district) and then we went to a $2000 sign on $200 a win limit for every player. It's one of the reasons why clubs like us, Parra and the regionals flourished during the 80's/90's. We all had good junior bases that kept new talent coming through. It's why Brisbane/Storm as so good now. They have most of Qld as their local district. The bottom line is that the systems are fundamentally different today compared with Bullfrogs/Arkos/Quayles/Facers day.

He was the CEO. The title might not have been that but he definitely run the club. Barry Nelson was the Chairman but stayed out of most decisions and left them to Bullfrog.

 

[Oatley Dog]

He was the CEO. The title might not have been that but he definitely run the club. Barry Nelson was the Chairman but stayed out of most decisions and left them to Bullfrog.

But that is my point. He had pretty much complete control over the entire club. The modern CEO doesn't have anything like that. Don't kid yourself, Bullfrog wouldn't even get a job in the NRL these days and if he did he would have been just as ineffective as the current CEO's are. In his day the S/M's were rusted on to each of the clubs and almost never changed. Today the Tigers, Panthers, Eels, Roosters, Eagles, Rabbits, Sharks have all had multiple CEO's in the past few years. It's not because they weren't good operators. It's because the role is so very different and every time a problem occurs they sack the CEO. Why? Well they can't dump the coach due to cost and the board is elected so they can't be sacked. Only leaves the CEO. Football clubs are just so very different now to when Bullfrog & co ruled the world.

 

[Realist90]

For what it is worth, I shall have my two cents in all of this, and not because I myself am a woman. Whatever I say will probably be interpreted as making excuses and being a feminist pushing the barrow for women everywhere; but I reckon that had she been a he there would not have been the same amount of discontent and non acceptance by many. Gender should not be a principal consideration in either congratulating or castigating a person, that is what I believe anyway. I throw myself to the mercy of the kennel knowing my comments may not be well received but hoping it is still okay to voice an opinion.


She was the CEO of the club...just what is that?? Apply it to a footy club situation which is far different to say that of the CEO of a bank or a Telecommunications company and as far as I can see she did pretty much the job she was paid to do. The board of directors of our club have a great deal of clout and showed this with the way they conducted themselves in various situations and the coach did what some would say was "as he liked".

A chief executive officer (CEO) may be the highest-ranking executive in a company, with certain responsibilities that include making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and corporate operations. From reports from various sources was she truly allowed to fulfill her role in that exact way? Does not mean she is weak or inept, but many would see it that way. She tried to engage the fans with ( okay not everyone's cup of tea) blogging with the boss, giant jersey reveal etc. and garnered some very good sponsorship deals for the club in her time here. Nothing is perfect in this world, would be lovely if it was but I thought she did okay.

What are the women bashers going to do now she is leaving at the end of the year? Will be back to the boys club so everything should be real sweet there I imagine. Those comments are probably pretty controversial but it is the way I am looking at it at the moment.

Was she the deciding vote in keeping the coach at the club for another two? Heard it was more so the deciding vote of one R Dib that did that.


Who was it that invited Des to be our coach? Hasler joined the Bulldogs on 14 November 2011 as head coach for the 2012 year. Castle joined in July 2013.

Did she create the tactics and encourage the players to follow them? Thought that was the coach and his assistants.

Did she sign Foran? I suppose if that goes pear shaped she will be held accountable for it as well, even though indicators were that she had nothing to do with getting him to the club and was made to look a fool when she told the Warriors boss Doyle that we had not looked at signing Foran. The reason for that... she was kept out of the loop and the head honcho of the board Dib negotiated instead.

So many things not working well at Belmore but really is she to blame for it all???

Well she is gone and will not be there next year..let's see what happens shall we before we solely remember her as being the only one in our great club to have had a detrimental effect.

Ummmmmm if she was a male she would have been forced to resign much earlier. She only got to stay longer because
Of her gender. Don't get it confused