I apologise then, I have only read a few pages on this thread, I'll take more notice next time. Just wish people would cut Agar and Radders a bit of slack.

well done captain radders

You only want stability if you are in a period of success.

Change is needed not stability in the club right now and i cant believe you dont see this.

Agreed, the problem was last season that the only time we looked like doing anything the ball had to be in Manu's hands. The opposition soon twigged and it appeared as thought Manu had gone missing as we desparately looked for a plan B which has yet to be thought of.

Exactly what I thought when I just read that post. We needed to stabilise after McRae's departure and the cup win, but we have instead gone downhill IMO.

Stability is the foundation for change. Total change inevitably leads to failure.

have you read much around changing organisations like Hull FC? Change Management textbooks etc?

You cannot learn change management from a textbook, it is an inate ability that you can develop via best practice and experience.

Stability of the core has to be achieved before change of the peripheral activity can be completed successfully, but stability of the core is not what FC need, we need [ichange at the core[/i.

I can write more, but my day rate will kick in

So you cant learn from what expert change managers write based on the best practice that they have adopted and their experience? Agree you learn better by then applying but to say you can learn from reading is rubbish to be honest mate!

I disagree too, we do need stability at the core and have a good squad needing some peripheral stars!!

My book isn't finished

Just imagine if Agar got hold of one of those books:

''Moving forward, we need greater synergy between forwards and backs, and some out of the box thinking from our halves to create a culture of success, an environment where any goal is achievable.''

I see you fit into the "theorist" bracket, BDT and I are more "practitioners"icon_wink.gif

Fook me youve quoted from the one Paul Cullen wrote

You cant apply Business theories to Sport IMO

Of course you can, team sport is collabaration of indivuals with complimentary skills and talents working to achieve a common goal.

You [idid[/i see us last season, right?

why not?

You could, but it'd be rubbish. It is of limited use in business IMO. Common sense dressed up with fancy jargon, has been undermined by subtle caricatures such as David Brent and Paul Cullen. If Agar tried it, I reckon Radford and Crocker would tell him to stick it and then go back to watching a video of their dogs ****ing [size=42(The Office, Series 1 iirc)[/size

Sorry to hang around on here, btw - I get lonely on the Rovers board.

You're wecome on here MR, I wasn't suggesting using the jargon (I never do, it's needledd) but the techniques and ideas are valid in every strand of life where you are reliant on a group of people communicating effectively.

Yeah, that is fair enough - it is just the jargon and overcomplication that annoy me. Do I really need a decision tree to help me make good choices? Should I worry about being too task-orientated and not focussed enough on my goals? Is my efficiency damaged by spending my days wondering whether a club I don't even support have been wise in extending the contract of their captain (I knew I could get back on topic!), and similar? The answer to only one of these questions is yes, IMO.

What efficiency?

Doubt it, it doesn't mention "winning the collision"

Or "exit sets".

See PM.