A removed section from the original Chapter 13: Amalgamations Not Takeovers. This section originally during the discussion of the growing disagreement over Panthers’ amalgamation strategy. It was removed from the main narrative because it moves beyond the events themselves into Roger Cowan’s interpretation of why he and Ron Mulock — and, more broadly, management and some directors — appeared to see the future of Panthers so differently.
It is retained here because that interpretation offers another perspective on a conflict that would become increasingly important in the chapters that followed.
Ron Mulock had been critical about Panthers getting ‘too big’ even before the amalgamations strategy surfaced. This was also the strongly held view of the Treasurer, Michael Egan, and many in the NSW Labor Party.
Cowan used a particularly vivid analogy to describe what he saw as Mulock’s inflexibility. When a shark swims into a net, it is unable to change direction or reverse out of it. It will keep swimming in the same direction; nose into the net, until it drowns.
A number of observations and experiences added to my feeling that Mulock suffered from a similar inflexibility in his thought processes. Once he had made up his mind to go in a certain direction, once he believed he was right, there was no turning. No amount of new information could convince him to reconsider his position. On one particular occasion, when the rugby league merger saga was at it nastiest, I arranged to meet Mulock to see if we could sort out our problems on a man-to-man basis. At the finish of that meeting, I was left with the impression that he had not heard a word I said.
Cowan believes that this type of inflexibility would be a fatal flaw in the CEO of an organisation with close to a thousand employees. But Mulock’s experience was in a law office and a seat in politics – places where inflexibility may even be advantageous.
Cowan saw an important difference between the pressures operating on business leaders and politicians. A CEO, in his view, had to respond continually to changing business data, technology, expert opinion, personnel and economic circumstances. A decision that worked yesterday might fail tomorrow. Flexibility was therefore essential.
The Panthers belief in teams, participation, flexibility, leadership, Twin Citizenship1, creativity and other management values was philosophically in conflict with what Cowan believes to be the narrow world view taken by Mulock.
But the argument of what is important to a politician has to be raised here too. Cowan thought in big pictures where there were no limits. His vision of Panthers was always bigger, better and more beautiful than it had achieved so far. He was thinking like that when he took over management of the tiny club with 26 poker machines and was still thinking the same way when he could see Panthers as a state-wide organisation with many successful branches – an organisation that now has such a solid backing of assets that it would be able to survive the worst downturns.
Supporting rugby league to Cowan was a long-term challenge that would be met by all round growth and success rather than an annual drive to outdo the extravagances of the previous year. His vision for Panthers was always long term rather than short term, looking at possibilities way into the future and always seeking ways of taking advantage.
That vision included rugby league supporters all over the state driving TV audiences when Panthers was competing. The possibility that one day supporters may have to pay to watch some rugby league games on television was a consideration in establishing Panther clubs in other areas. If it never happened, it would make no difference.
Politicians probably need to be more focused on tomorrow’s headlines and the elections next year. CEOs know that the decisions they make tomorrow can have an impact on outcomes years into the future.
It was little wonder the two were in conflict. From Cowan’s point of view:
I always had a strong feeling that the real conflict between Mulock and me was the conflict between the big picture view of a long-term future and a narrow short-term view centred on a football team. Perhaps my frustration with this narrow approach was shared by Neville Wran. Mulock briefly served as his deputy around 1984.
Graham Richardson, in his book Whatever it Takes, quotes the Labor elder describing Mulock in extremely disparaging terms. I choose not to repeat his words, but Wran’s description demonstrates very clearly that I am not the only person who was ever reduced to sheer frustration when dealing with Ron Mulock.
Mulock always seemed to me to be narrowly focused on Penrith and the here and now. His attitude as the Club grew seemed to indicate a belief that a medium sized club supporting the Penrith rugby league team was the be all and end all. The growth of the Club and its expansion into other parts of the state were way outside his range of vision, even had he the benefit of the world’s most powerful telescope. Of course, he would probably have never held himself accountable if he had been successful in influencing strategy that terminated growth to the point where the Club proved to be too small to be competitive in an increasingly professional rugby league competition.
Now I come to think of it, the shark analogy also fitted most of the Five. In hindsight, it occurs to me that my conflict with them might have had the same roots – and I failed to see it at the time. I was dealing with some directors holding a narrow and limited vision for Panthers. It seemed to me that most of the conflict in the boardroom was about strategy for elections. The long-term success of Panthers seemed a secondary consideration.2
Barrister Terrence Lynch has observed the opposition of two views when he attended the 2005 AGM.
Roger gave his address, and he was speaking of the club, its growth, its amenities and the new sites. Later, Ron Mulock and some others spoke, strongly criticising the amalgamations.
Each group had an entirely different perception. The Mulock group – was speaking of a Penrith identity. It was about geography and their football team. , and I don’t think that was Roger’s conception at all. Neither party ever seemed to recognise that they were proceeding from entirely different premises, so all they could do was snarl at each other.
They were early joiners, the club was small, Penrith was much more remote and they all knew each other. So there’s all the history and networks and personal associations.
It’s resistance to change, it’s hanging on to the past and what you know. It’s what many older people tend to do. They identify with the institutions that are part of their lives, be it the suburb, city, country where they live – or the customs and culture of their society, or their club. If you try to change that, it feels like an attack on them.
And though they’d never admit it, to an extent, his success in building the club and the brand outside Penrith fed their pride about the city, and in fact, even reinforced their sense of their special connection to it. To them, Penrith is a very discrete notion, and they could never conceive it in the way that Roger did.
Seen this way, the disagreement was about more than amalgamations. It reflected two different conceptions of Panthers itself. One began with Penrith — its history, its football team and its local identity. The other increasingly saw Panthers as an organisation capable of carrying that identity far beyond Penrith.
Neither perspective made conflict inevitable. But if Lynch was right that the two sides were arguing from different premises without fully recognising it, it helps explain why agreement became increasingly difficult to find.
Related Topics
- Part 46 — The Governance Model
- Major Player — Ron Mulock
- Beyond the Book — The Footy Five — The Name That Rewrote the Story
Related Themes
To receive new Parts and occasional project updates by email, you may subscribe below.
Readers who hold recollections, documents, or material relevant to this history are welcome to contribute via the Commentary & Contributions page.
Project Updates
Receive updates when new parts are published.
- The concept of “Twin Citizenship” comes Charles Handy’s book, The Empty Raincoat. This book had a powerful influence over the Panthers management team through the 1990s. The concept illustrated the fact that a team member can simultaneously hold strong loyalties, sense of belonging and responsibilities to multiple distinct groups. This was an extraordinarily important concept when it came to the amalgamation philosophies with venue management and staff having a strong sense of ownership of their local operational and strategic efforts while also understanding, supporting and owning the needs of the entire Panthers Group.
↩︎ - The reference to “the Five” reflects terminology used retrospectively in the original manuscript. The group later became publicly known as the “Footy Five”; that label and its effect on interpretation are discussed in Beyond the Book: The Footy Five — The Name That Rewrote the Story. ↩︎
Panthers, Passion & Politics - The Roger Cowan Years 