Derek Beaumont's Programme Notes

[Tabby]

1 hour ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

So what's he doing to motivate them next week?

Not about motivation. It’s about making employees accountable for underperforming. Let’s face it you wouldn’t last long in any job these days for poor performance.

[whatmichaelsays]

12 minutes ago, Tabby said:

Not about motivation. It’s about making employees accountable for underperforming. Let’s face it you wouldn’t last long in any job these days for poor performance.

Of course it's about motivation. Beaumont and the club leadership, if they want to be successful, have a responsibility to ensure that the players are motivated and are working in an environment that allows and encourages them to perform to their best. We can all feel an obligation to "work professionally" but at the same time, nobody feels motivated to work in an unrewarding environment where we don't feel appreciated and where there are few prospects. 

If you value people, you communicate with them and are empathetic to their concerns. You don't chastise them in public because things aren't going your way. 

Beaumont can run the club how he likes, but he can't expect to be free from the consequences of those decisions. 

 

[Dunbar]

26 minutes ago, Tabby said:

Not about motivation. It’s about making employees accountable for underperforming. Let’s face it you wouldn’t last long in any job these days for poor performance.

In this context you are mixing up leadership and management.

The manager of the individuals in question should challenge performance and expect more - as well as providing guidance support and opportunities to deliver.  Here, the manager is the coach and this all happens behind closed doors.

The leader sets out the vision for the business/organisation and it is all about direction and culture.  The leader typically provides positivity and motivation.

What these programme notes do is undermine the entire culture of the club and set a precedent for blaming others.  It is appalling leadership.

[RigbyLuger]

Who signs the players at Leigh?

[Tabby]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Of course it's about motivation. Beaumont and the club leadership, if they want to be successful, have a responsibility to ensure that the players are motivated and are working in an environment that allows and encourages them to perform to their best. We can all feel an obligation to "work professionally" but at the same time, nobody feels motivated to work in an unrewarding environment where we don't feel appreciated and where there are few prospects. 

If you value people, you communicate with them and are empathetic to their concerns. You don't chastise them in public because things aren't going your way. 

Beaumont can run the club how he likes, but he can't expect to be free from the consequences of those decisions. 

 

How can it be down to motivation when the majority of the squad will be either moving on or contracts are up?  These are facts not opinions.

[Tabby]

45 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Who signs the players at Leigh?

Not who signs them it’s who pays their wages.

 

 

[Tabby]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

In this context you are mixing up leadership and management.

The manager of the individuals in question should challenge performance and expect more - as well as providing guidance support and opportunities to deliver.  Here, the manager is the coach and this all happens behind closed doors.

The leader sets out the vision for the business/organisation and it is all about direction and culture.  The leader typically provides positivity and motivation.

What these programme notes do is undermine the entire culture of the club and set a precedent for blaming others.  It is appalling leadership.

This thread is mixing up leadership with management. All are having a pop at Mr Beaumont’s cost. Yet nothing around management. Motivation is out of the question for the reasons above.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Tabby said:

This thread is mixing up leadership with management. All are having a pop at Mr Beaumont’s cost. Yet nothing around management. Motivation is out of the question for the reasons above.

I am happy for us to disagree on this.  If you see this as good leadership and a suitable way for the owner to operate then fine.

Personally, if I were a potential employee, I would go nowhere near a business or organisation that demonstrated this type of leadership. 

[Nate90]

6 minutes ago, Tabby said:

This thread is mixing up leadership with management. All are having a pop at Mr Beaumont’s cost. Yet nothing around management. Motivation is out of the question for the reasons above.

You are Derek Beaumont and I claim my five pounds

[Tabby]

11 minutes ago, Nate90 said:

You are Derek Beaumont and I claim my five pounds

If I was DB you would claiming more than a fiver.

[Tabby]

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am happy for us to disagree on this.  If you see this as good leadership and a suitable way for the owner to operate then fine.

Personally, if I were a potential employee, I would go nowhere near a business or organisation that demonstrated this type of leadership. 

Money talks.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Tabby said:

Money talks.

Yeah, I still wouldn't join.

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am happy for us to disagree on this.  If you see this as good leadership and a suitable way for the owner to operate then fine.

Personally, if I were a potential employee, I would go nowhere near a business or organisation that demonstrated this type of leadership. 

Yes you would if there was no other club who wanted you at the same rate of pay that you were being offered.

There is an old saying which states "Principles don't pay bills" only those comfortably off can pick and choose.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes you would if there was no other club who wanted you at the same rate of pay that you were being offered.

There is an old saying which states "Principles don't pay bills" only those comfortably off can pick and choose.

Again, if you want the club to be a last resort then I am ok with that.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Tabby said:

Money talks.

Evidently not, given the lack of top quality signings.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Again, if you want the club to be a last resort then I am ok with that.

See Tommy's answer below.

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Evidently not, given the lack of top quality signings.

As daft as it sounds, after the best have all been signed there is a market for the "also rans" who have not secured a contract.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

See Tommy's answer below.

As daft as it sounds, after the best have all been signed there is a market for the "also rans" who have not secured a contract.

But surely that is why Leigh are at the foot of the table and have had the season why they have. Being content with also rans is all well and good but its pretty hard to stay in SL if you cant attract quality too.

[Tabby]

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Evidently not, given the lack of top quality signings.

Hence Mr Beaumont’s interview on radio Manchester were he states the reasons why that is the case. Who ever is promoted will face the same consequences. 
 

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As daft as it sounds, after the best have all been signed there is a market for the "also rans" who have not secured a contract.

I just don't really understand this attitude.

Yes, you would expect the teams at the top of the league to have the first choice of players by providing opportunity to win things alongside the cap spend etc.  But there is (as you say) a market for the players who may be 'also ran's' .  It just feels to me that if you don't have the biggest budget so why hinder yourself any further by also portraying a culture within the business that appears unattractive.  It is self defeating.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Tabby said:

How can it be down to motivation when the majority of the squad will be either moving on or contracts are up?  These are facts not opinions.

Leigh came into Super League with a handicap, but there's no reason to say that if the players had been motivated, if they had felt valued and that if there was a vision or prospects that they can buy into, their performances wouldn't have been better than they have been. They still might not have been good enough to overcome those handicaps and stay up, but they may well have been better than they have been.

When people feel valued, they go the extra mile, they buy into the ethos of the environment they're in, they're more likely to join and they're more likely to stay if you want to keep them. Demotivated staff will only ever give you just enough so as not to get fired. If you want more from them, you have to offer them something and unfortunately, the threat of a lambasting in the press isn't going to cut it. 

Again, I'm sympathetic to the situation Leigh found themselves in this year but if Beaumont wants to build a rag-tag bunch of players who couldn't get contracts elsewhere into a competitive team, he has to work an awful lot harder at making them feel valued. If he wants to treat them like dirt and lambast them in public, then he has no right to complain when the players respond in kind, and see their time in Leigh as a contract where they'll put up with him for a year for the sake of a decent pay day. As @Dunbar rightly says, if you're already at a disadvantage, why entrench that further with a toxic culture? 

Again, it's a culture that Beaumont seems happy to build at Leigh and one he seems happy to revel in. He's free to do that, but he isn't free of the consequences of doing so. 

[JohnM]

37 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

See Tommy's answer below.

As daft as it sounds, after the best have all been signed there is a market for the "also rans" who have not secured a contract.

It may be of course that there are a number of players not signed elsewhere for reasons other than quality. Even so, I believe that newly promoted teams need protection from immediate relegation, despite their owners best efforts to alienate everyone. There must be  some decent idea out there. Maybe it's time to consider some sort of draft system, for example. A decent sensible cool calm and collected discussion within the game would not go amiss, but those adjectives might rule out at least  one owner from the discussion.

[Tommygilf]

34 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As daft as it sounds, after the best have all been signed there is a market for the "also rans" who have not secured a contract.

Tbf though, that is what Salford have done, and they have reached 2 finals in the past 3 seasons (including this one).

There has been a dearth of quality at Leigh this year, from the squad to the coaching and from the programme notes stunt evidently from the management too. Plenty of sides have to "do it tough" either through financials, injuries, facilities, squad quality etc. But that means that everything else has to be pushed to the ultimate to be the best. That has not been the practice I have seen from Leigh this year.

[Tommygilf]

29 minutes ago, Tabby said:

Hence Mr Beaumont’s interview on radio Manchester were he states the reasons why that is the case. Who ever is promoted will face the same consequences. 

That makes the decision to apply for promotion only seem more stupid to be fair then you'll appreciate?

[Tommygilf]

Double post

[Harry Stottle]

33 minutes ago, Damien said:

But surely that is why Leigh are at the foot of the table and have had the season why they have. Being content with also rans is all well and good but its pretty hard to stay in SL if you cant attract quality too.

But the team was assembled to play in the Championship and the theory was the roster would be improved as the season went on, but Covid reasoned that would not happen.