General AUTEX Ownership - The New Chapter

How do you feel about our new owners?

  • Excellent

    Votes: 24 17.3%
  • Good

    Votes: 50 36.0%
  • On the fence

    Votes: 52 37.4%
  • Bad

    Votes: 9 6.5%
  • Tar and feather them!

    Votes: 4 2.9%

  • Total voters
    139

wizards rage

Warriors 1st Grader
Apr 18, 2016
5,064
Tauranga
Shame that by the time we fail and SK is fired the deep pool of off contract players will have been reduced to shallow waters, hampering whoever we replace him with.
In business you would have a business plan of what your business is trying to achieve and what you need to do to get there

I believe Watson’s plan was to be entertainers - we were never seriously set up to win the comp. Our recruitment was tilted to X factor and marketable players. Our game plan was dazzle dazzle warrior ball. Watson achieved his goal across multiple coaches and implemented his strategy perfectly, unbeknown to us fans.

What I am saying is the owners decide the direction and implement it through embedding their plan throughout the organisation (off field funding, game style, approving the key signings, etc). The ceo and the coach should be actioning the owners plan, not their own ideas.

I believe B Smith has been tasked with developing the plan and the coach should be working towards his plan.

To much credit is given to the coach. They are there to motivate the players, etc but the playing style and players recruitment should be driven by the owners as part of the ‘big picture’ strategy of the entire organisation.

Clubs that significantly change direction with a new coach (unless it’s a Bellamy or Bennet) are doomed to never have the time to reach their potential.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ja_weez

JaggedJ

1st Grade Fringe
Apr 19, 2018
3,130
In business you would have a business plan of what your business is trying to achieve and what you need to do to get there

I believe Watson’s plan was to be entertainers - we were never seriously set up to win the comp. Our recruitment was tilted to X factor and marketable players. Our game plan was dazzle dazzle warrior ball. Watson achieved his goal across multiple coaches and implemented his strategy perfectly, unbeknown to us fans.

What I am saying is the owners decide the direction and implement it through embedding their plan throughout the organisation (off field funding, game style, approving the key signings, etc). The ceo and the coach should be actioning the owners plan, not their own ideas.

I believe B Smith has been tasked with developing the plan and the coach should be working towards his plan.

To much credit is given to the coach. They are there to motivate the players, etc but the playing style and players recruitment should be driven by the owners as part of the ‘big picture’ strategy of the entire organisation.

Clubs that significantly change direction with a new coach (unless it’s a Bellamy or Bennet) are doomed to never have the time to reach their potential.

Sorry, you've lost me.

Name the X-factor razzle dazzle players we recruited during Watson's time purely for that reason? The majority of our signings were grafters, journeymen or "culture changing" vets.

There was very little about our recruitment that was built around x-factor or marketability.

So your argument breaks down immediately for me there.

Your last paragraph makes no sense either. It just reads as "If it's failing, then keep failing until it stops failing". I really can't see what point you're attempting to make there.
 

tajhay

Negative Nancy
Mar 30, 2012
10,533
Sydney
Thank fuck that he is saying that people are accountable. Words are just words at the end of the day though. Lets see if he actually means what he says.

But i dont like this statement:
"He's slowly getting the players he want, he's got most of the ones…there's a couple more he'd like for next season, then it's up to him because it is his team. At the moment it's a team he was given."

No its not. I cant think of any player that was on a 4+ year deal before he came here..so its pretty much ALL his team. Its HIS players that he overpaid for that he chooses not to drop because it doesnt look good to management when you fork out way overs and then put them in reserve grade and have them replaced with minimum salary players.

Good on Autex. One owner hopefully going forward with this club. History has shown that this club cannot have multiple owners, and history has shown that ARL should never be given an opportunity to jeopardise Auckland rugby league scene by buying a professional entity.
 

wizards rage

Warriors 1st Grader
Apr 18, 2016
5,064
Tauranga
Name the X-factor razzle dazzle players we recruited during Watson's time purely for that reason? The majority of our signings were grafters, journeymen or "culture changing" vets.

There was very little about our recruitment that was built around x-factor or marketability.
Inu and Mateo... Razzle, dazzle, lose more games than they win but at least they were entertaining.

Tomkins, Tate, Seymour... bought for their name - paid for their marketability

All the big name players at the end of their career we pay overs because of their name (Luke, Blair, Green, just in the current team)

The likes of Manu, Shaun Johnson, Hurrell etc we kept at a premium due to their marketability when it cost the team overall to have them there.

The team has always been one of the most successful profit wise and built a brand around high risk, low reward warrior ball! If you dont know that then I see why my post lost you 😉
 

JaggedJ

1st Grade Fringe
Apr 19, 2018
3,130
Inu and Mateo... Razzle, dazzle, lose more games than they win but at least they were entertaining.

Tomkins, Tate, Seymour... bought for their name - paid for their marketability

All the big name players at the end of their career we pay overs because of their name (Luke, Blair, Green, just in the current team)

The likes of Manu, Shaun Johnson, Hurrell etc we kept at a premium due to their marketability when it cost the team overall to have them there.

The team has always been one of the most successful profit wise and built a brand around high risk, low reward warrior ball! If you dont know that then I see why my post lost you 😉

Mateo and Inu were purchased during an already successful period. Cleary recognised a need for more strike seeing as we had none with a pack consisting of Luck, Mannering, Lillyman etc. On top of that Mateo was a very good signing who won more games than he lost here until Cleary left so that doesn't fit your narrative.

Tomkins was a splashy move granted.

Tate came because Price helped get him over the line and he was a decent player. X-factor and marketability - no.

Seymour was a bargain buy because of off field issues. Marketability no, X-factor - no.

Luke was because of Doyle's pre-existing relationship.

Green, Blair are "change of culture" vets, just like Lowrie, Price, Wiki, Hoffman, Nielsen, Campion were supposed to be. They also don't fit the profile.

So yeah, not buying what you're putting down. We could list all our recruitment during the Watson era and I would bet that it would overwhelmingly not fit the narrative you're pushing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zegy and bruce

wizards rage

Warriors 1st Grader
Apr 18, 2016
5,064
Tauranga
Mateo and Inu were purchased during an already successful period. Cleary recognised a need for more strike seeing as we had none with a pack consisting of Luck, Mannering, Lillyman etc. On top of that Mateo was a very good signing who won more games than he lost here until Cleary left so that doesn't fit your narrative.

Tomkins was a splashy move granted.

Tate came because Price helped get him over the line and he was a decent player. X-factor and marketability - no.

Seymour was a bargain buy because of off field issues. Marketability no, X-factor - no.

Luke was because of Doyle's pre-existing relationship.

Green, Blair are "change of culture" vets, just like Lowrie, Price, Wiki, Hoffman, Nielsen, Campion were supposed to be. They also don't fit the profile.

So yeah, not buying what you're putting down. We could list all our recruitment during the Watson era and I would bet that it would overwhelmingly not fit the narrative you're pushing.
All good mate, agree to disagree on recruits.

But you must admit the game plan was to play a brand of footy that was attack based, good to watch, generally high risk, low reward -Marketable game plans not winning ones (and If you try to argue it was a winning style then I just give up!)
 

JaggedJ

1st Grade Fringe
Apr 19, 2018
3,130
All good mate, agree to disagree on recruits.

But you must admit the game plan was to play a brand of footy that was attack based, good to watch, generally high risk, low reward -Marketable game plans not winning ones (and If you try to argue it was a winning style then I just give up!)

Different coaches had different game plans and different players to execute it. I don't associate our game plan to the owner or marketing at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeastMode

wizards rage

Warriors 1st Grader
Apr 18, 2016
5,064
Tauranga
Different coaches had different game plans and different players to execute it. I don't associate our game plan to the owner or marketing at all.
Do you own a business? I hope not... your staff would all be going in different directions with no plan of where you are going 😂
 

BeastMode

Warriors 1st Grader
Mar 7, 2015
9,265
All good mate, agree to disagree on recruits.

But you must admit the game plan was to play a brand of footy that was attack based, good to watch, generally high risk, low reward -Marketable game plans not winning ones (and If you try to argue it was a winning style then I just give up!)

Why do you believe you cannot win playing an attractive brand of football???

I find this mindset bizarre given the 80s & 90’s was all about razzle dazzle. Broncos & Raiders were brilliant at it.

Just because the Storm play a dull yet successful brand of footy doesn’t mean that’s the only way to success.

We have a bee a terrible club at executing razzle dazzle because he didn’t have coaches that believed in it - Cleary, Elliott, Cappy, Kearney... all believe in the %

Andersen was the only coach that tried playing to our strengths and look at the results...
 

wizards rage

Warriors 1st Grader
Apr 18, 2016
5,064
Tauranga
Why do you believe you cannot win playing an attractive brand of football???

I find this mindset bizarre given the 80s & 90’s was all about razzle dazzle. Broncos & Raiders were brilliant at it.

Just because the Storm play a dull yet successful brand of footy doesn’t mean that’s the only way to success.
I’m arguing that our style was driven by Watson as a style that would appeal to fans. Not only attacking but high risk low reward. Highest offload team in the comp.

We played like that across multiple coaches until probably Cappy and we even had a name for our brand of footy... warrior ball!
 

Tim burgess

1st Grade Fringe
May 20, 2012
1,388
Given that Autux have paid significant monies for full control of the club, including the promise of additional investment I think accountability may become very important within the club.

They won't want find a club that is continually under performing.
 

WA supporter

1st Grade Fringe
Contributor
Mar 18, 2017
501
Perth
Good to hear Robinson state his views - instead of a journalist's recorded view.
Like what I'm hearing so far & wish Autex all the best going forward.
Is it too early to get excited about 2020-2021 ?
As much as I feel the warm sensation of someone pissing on my leg,I feel that as long as the head coach and his merry band of cohorts are left at the helm. I’m afraid in answer to your statement my answer is an emphatic NO. Autex,yes,the rest less so
 

Last Game

27 Aug

16 - 28
5.6 Total Avg Rating
0.0 Your Avg Rating

Highest Rated Player

Lowest Rated Player

Compiled from 5 ratings