Most professional club in the NRL

[Guest]

Finally started reading my Xmas present "Big Artie Biography" book that the great man wrote with Ian Heads, in the intro by Artie, he states that the Sydney Roosters are the most professional club in the NRL, as he also refers to the 2003 GF as an indicator of how tough this game is and the book first being published in 2004, I believe the statement to have been made in early to mid 2004. Now this was a golden period for our great club, having won the GF in 2002, been the strongest team all season in 2003 & with another GF appearance to follow in 2004, everything was going along beautifully.

So my question is, are we still the most professional club in the NRL & what criteria do we judge a club's professionalism?

The Anderson/Fittler period surely could not be described as the most professional period in our history, if we'd got Bennett how different would our history be? Wherever Bennett goes he seems to be able to put in place the necessary systems to get the most out of his players. Bellamy's another one (whenever he's not involved in rorting the cap) who seems to run a very professional operation, Hasler could be referred to as a very professional coach (when he's not ripping the doors off dressing rooms), but no one could describe Manly as being very professional, what with all the infighting & rumours of being almost broke, but their record in the last few years is the best of any team, I suppose we'll see what he does at the Dogs with the supposed professional approach of Greenberg to support him.

So what was Artie referring to when he said that we were the most professional in the NRL? Does it all come down to the coach, the recruitment officer, the Board, the CEO a combination, or is it more to do with a club's proud history? Discuss.

[Cockadoodledoo]

Artie was still employed by the Roosters at that point too..

[novice chook]

I reckon the starting point is to differentiate between 'professional' and 'successful'. The two don't always go together and you can definitely have one without the other.

I would regard both Bellamy and Hasler as successful coaches, but would hesitate to call them professional. They are very good at what they do, but they do it by whatever means they can, which is not necessarily professional (it is more likely to be underhand). Same goes for Storm and Manly clubs.

Bennett is certainly successful and gives the appearance of being the ultra-professional, but that can be deceptive. Mind you I am biased by the fact he dudded the Roosters.

The Roosters back in 2002-2004 had one of the best administrators in the game running the Club in Bernie Gurr. Things went downhill after he left. He seems to have been the only one who could limit the interference of Nick P and his coherts. Nothing against Brian Canavan and Steve Noyce but they appear little more than Nick P's puppets.

There is little doubt the Stuart/Bennett/Anderson/Fittler fiasco would never have happened under Bernie Gurr's control. The club has lacked real professionalism since he left and success has also been hard to come by.

One of our main problems appears to be that the CEO and coach don't appear to have the final say on many matters - including recruitment and player behaviour. Yet they are the ones who stand or fall on the decisions made.

As far as I am concerned, we will struggle to be professional and successful until somehow manages to put Nick P and his cohorts back in their box and limit their influence over decisions that shouldn't concern them. And that is doubtful to happen whilst that bloke hires and fires those around him.

That's my two cents worth anyway (and probably about all its worth as well).

NC

[Guest]

Agree NC

The roles are blurred, accountability is blurred when one man has inteferes in what should be other peoples decisions so that things are done the way he wants them

Recruitment/retention is a big area

[Guest]

I reckon the starting point is to differentiate between 'professional' and 'successful'. The two don't always go together and you can definitely have one without the other.

I would regard both Bellamy and Hasler as successful coaches, but would hesitate to call them professional. They are very good at what they do, but they do it by whatever means they can, which is not necessarily professional (it is more likely to be underhand). Same goes for Storm and Manly clubs.

Bennett is certainly successful and gives the appearance of being the ultra-professional, but that can be deceptive. Mind you I am biased by the fact he dudded the Roosters.

The Roosters back in 2002-2004 had one of the best administrators in the game running the Club in Bernie Gurr. Things went downhill after he left. He seems to have been the only one who could limit the interference of Nick P and his coherts. Nothing against Brian Canavan and Steve Noyce but they appear little more than Nick P's puppets.

There is little doubt the Stuart/Bennett/Anderson/Fittler fiasco would never have happened under Bernie Gurr's control. The club has lacked real professionalism since he left and success has also been hard to come by.

One of our main problems appears to be that the CEO and coach don't appear to have the final say on many matters - including recruitment and player behaviour. Yet they are the ones who stand or fall on the decisions made.

As far as I am concerned, we will struggle to be professional and successful until somehow manages to put Nick P and his cohorts back in their box and limit their influence over decisions that shouldn't concern them. And that is doubtful to happen whilst that bloke hires and fires those around him.

That's my two cents worth anyway (and probably about all its worth as well).

NC

Brian Canavan was in charge in 2004.

I have heard things before about Nick that he interferes & makes the final decisions on football matters. Im not disputing what you have said, but how do know Nick gets involved to that degree?

[Guest]

Finally started reading my Xmas present "Big Artie Biography" book that the great man wrote with Ian Heads, in the intro by Artie, he states that the Sydney Roosters are the most professional club in the NRL, as he also refers to the 2003 GF as an indicator of how tough this game is and the book first being published in 2004, I believe the statement to have been made in early to mid 2004. Now this was a golden period for our great club, having won the GF in 2002, been the strongest team all season in 2003 & with another GF appearance to follow in 2004, everything was going along beautifully.

So my question is, are we still the most professional club in the NRL & what criteria do we judge a club's professionalism?

The Anderson/Fittler period surely could not be described as the most professional period in our history, if we'd got Bennett how different would our history be? Wherever Bennett goes he seems to be able to put in place the necessary systems to get the most out of his players. Bellamy's another one (whenever he's not involved in rorting the cap) who seems to run a very professional operation, Hasler could be referred to as a very professional coach (when he's not ripping the doors off dressing rooms), but no one could describe Manly as being very professional, what with all the infighting & rumours of being almost broke, but their record in the last few years is the best of any team, I suppose we'll see what he does at the Dogs with the supposed professional approach of Greenberg to support him.

So what was Artie referring to when he said that we were the most professional in the NRL? Does it all come down to the coach, the recruitment officer, the Board, the CEO a combination, or is it more to do with a club's proud history? Discuss.

Who knows? It's not as if Artie went around to all the other clubs to compare. He probably was comparing it to how things were when he played to how thing's are know?

[Guest]

Who knows? It's not as if Artie went around to all the other clubs to compare. He probably was comparing it to how things were when he played to how thing's are know?

Well apparently there were quite a few recruitment officers for other clubs that would frequently talk with Artie about this player or that, I actually think Artie would've had a very good idea about what happened at other clubs. There seemed to be a notion that Artie was stuck in the '70's but I don't think anything could be further from the truth.

[Guest]

Well apparently there were quite a few recruitment officers for other clubs that would frequently talk with Artie about this player or that, I actually think Artie would've had a very good idea about what happened at other clubs. There seemed to be a notion that Artie was stuck in the '70's but I don't think anything could be further from the truth.

Was that in the book?

But like i said who knows.

[Headless Chook]

Well apparently there were quite a few recruitment officers for other clubs that would frequently talk with Artie about this player or that, I actually think Artie would've had a very good idea about what happened at other clubs. There seemed to be a notion that Artie was stuck in the '70's but I don't think anything could be further from the truth.

Artie.....mmmm as a talent scout lets look at his track record....

Sam Obst was the next Allan Langer
Adam Hayden was better than Darren Lockyer
Danny Williams was going to be an origin player

He was more miss then hit if you ask me.

[Guest]

Artie.....mmmm as a talent scout lets look at his track record....

Sam Obst was the next Allan Langer
Adam Hayden was better than Darren Lockyer
Danny Williams was going to be an origin player

He was more miss then hit if you ask me.

Well it was Ron Coote who said it in the book, effectively he said that without the salary cap Artie would have recruited the best young players in the game, I'll dig out the exact quote, but I'm pretty sure that was the jist of it!

[Guest]

Was that in the book?

But like i said who knows.

Mate it was Ron Coote who said it in his Forward for the book.

[Guest]

finally started reading my xmas present "big artie biography" book that the great man wrote with ian heads, in the intro by artie, he states that the sydney roosters are the most professional club in the nrl, as he also refers to the 2003 gf as an indicator of how tough this game is and the book first being published in 2004, i believe the statement to have been made in early to mid 2004. Now this was a golden period for our great club, having won the gf in 2002, been the strongest team all season in 2003 & with another gf appearance to follow in 2004, everything was going along beautifully.

So my question is, are we still the most professional club in the nrl & what criteria do we judge a club's professionalism?

The anderson/fittler period surely could not be described as the most professional period in our history, if we'd got bennett how different would our history be? Wherever bennett goes he seems to be able to put in place the necessary systems to get the most out of his players. Bellamy's another one (whenever he's not involved in rorting the cap) who seems to run a very professional operation, hasler could be referred to as a very professional coach (when he's not ripping the doors off dressing rooms), but no one could describe manly as being very professional, what with all the infighting & rumours of being almost broke, but their record in the last few years is the best of any team, i suppose we'll see what he does at the dogs with the supposed professional approach of greenberg to support him.

So what was artie referring to when he said that we were the most professional in the nrl? Does it all come down to the coach, the recruitment officer, the board, the ceo a combination, or is it more to do with a club's proud history? Discuss.

headsy is a roosters tragic from way back.

[Guest]

Most professional club now is Cowboys. How Thurston's shenanigans up there have been kept quiet points to this.

[Guest]

headsy is a roosters tragic from way back.

Didn't know that, thanks for the info, I have a massive amount of time for Ian Head's work, moreso now that I know he's a Rooster tragic!