Tag: Culture

Education by Experience

A removed section from the original Chapter 9: An Urgent Need for Research and Change.

IN THE COURSE of more than a year and a half of research and writing for this book, I conducted a large number of interviews. For obvious reasons, more than one of those was with Roger Cowan. Many of our discussions focused on the way things were done at Panthers.

On one occasion, I asked a very specific question. How did that little club evolve into the half billion dollar enterprise that is Panthers today? What made the difference, what did he see as the most important parts of the management philosophy during his 40 years at the helm?

It was an important question, and he wanted plenty of time to consider. Eventually, we decided that it would work better if Roger answered it in his own words.

It is difficult to answer this question because 40 years is such a long time. Many changes have occurred along the way — in knowledge, attitudes, technology, even the way the industry is regulated. In the earlier days  I used a calculator for payroll.

To multiply by seven, for example, we turned a handle seven times. Accounting and stock control were all done manually. The management tools available today demand a much different approach to the use of management time and the expectations of administrative productivity. In many ways, management change has been driven by the changing environment.

The other difficulty I have in answering the question is that I was always inclined to try something new if it looked good. Some things were effective for a while, and made a significant difference at the time, but failed to see the long distance. Some became permanent influences and some failed completely. Some seem too small to mention, yet they held a lot of significance for me.

Applying a very strong filter, I came up with what I considered to be the three most important influences. I am sure it would be an interest­ing debate if members of our management teams were asked the same question. But there is a common thread that runs through the three I have chosen. Each one has quite a lot to do with the need to manage evolu­tionary change rather than merely cope with it. We tend to cope with the results of evolution in our private lives, but business requires a different level of thinking.

Thinking in Outcomes. The success of the human race has depended on the ability to take in information and make rapid decisions. Imagine if our hunter and gatherer forefathers had held meetings to evaluate the knowledge they had gleaned from their observations and then debated what action should be taken. They would have died of starvation or been eaten, and we would not be here to write about it. The natural decision making process for humans is still the same. Our senses collect informa­tion, feed it into our brains in an amazingly short time, and this central processor quickly decides on the options and tells us what to do. Just as well we have that power. You see a car hurtling towards you, out of control, and there is no time to hold a brain storming session to work out how to survive.

Quick thinking is important to us as individuals. My theory, though, is that when it becomes the predominant thinking style used in business, it is often inappropriate and can be downright dangerous. Looking back, I think I harped and nagged about this principle more than anything else in management meetings and training sessions. I was never better than partially successful. It is actually quite difficult to break out of the natural thinking style. It requires discipline and technique. And as soon as you relax the discipline, the natural way of thinking takes over again.

The difference between quick thinking and thinking in outcomes is demonstrated in the following example. The Security Manager puts a proposal to a meeting: there has been an increase in behaviour problems in the club, and the security staff should be increased to deal with the situation. Others in the meeting, respecting the expertise of the Security Manager and seeing the logic of his suggestion, support the proposal. The Finance Manager agrees that the extra cost is affordable. A quick vote and it is all done.

But someone skilled in Outcome Thinking says, “Hold up there. Let’s first agree on what we are trying to achieve. Is it just to cope with increased behaviour problems, or is there more to it?”

The best way to answer that question is by imagining another meeting, some point in the future -say three months ahead. You sit in that meeting, and ask, “What evidence can we find today that proves we made a great decision three months ago? Not just a good decision, but a great one?”

One person might say there are more people visiting the club now than there were three months ago. That proves it was a good decision. Another might suggest that the cost of security has decreased. Others might add that there are fewer incidents of bad behaviour now, the people causing the problems three months ago have gone, there have been no negative stories in the newspapers, and so on.

The challenge is now much different. It is no longer about coping with increased behaviour problems by increasing costs. A great decision would achieve fewer problems, less cost and increased patronage.

The most important debate is about what outcomes the group is willing to support, and what it believes it can achieve. They will usually be much more challenging than expected. When there is an agreed set of outcomes, the next challenge is to find every possible idea for achieving them. That then brings out the creativity in management and usually achieves a better result.

The number -and quality-of ideas might be surprising. In this case it might mean changing the entertainment mix, increasing public relations, zero tolerance in some issues, a different marketing approach, or any number of bright ideas that would never be raised in the quick decision scenario.

The point is that the natural process of quick decision making is the killer of creativity, and often provides solutions to the wrong problems.

Thinking in outcomes ensures that the best goals are set and that they will be creatively pursued. It also encourages creative opposition, and avoids the dangers of ‘groupthink’, where people tend to go along with each other because of respect for expertise or position.

In this situation, you are able to manage the thinking processes, rather than going along with nature.

Values, Beliefs and Culture. Our deep-seated beliefs and values are mostly developed in the very early years. Culture develops from experi­ences, and dictates how people treat each other and expect to be treated. The behaviour in an organisation is a reflection of its culture. The combined beliefs and values of the staff, managers, board, and custom­ers form a rich cultural soup that has to meet the needs of everybody. We see examples every day, and in every part of the world, of the enormous problems caused by clashes of culture, most of which can be traced back to differences in beliefs and values.

Beliefs and values are not impossible to manage. We cannot ask people to change what they believe or how they feel, but we can structure an organisation around the differences. Being aware of the differences allows us to manage them, and achieve a positive culture without the clashes.

Recognition and understanding of values was one of the topics of man­agement training at Panthers. There are many ways of finding out what drives people. When there is better understanding, people work together more harmoniously. There are some good programs and tests available, and most of them are interesting and non-threatening.

One important advantage of setting agreed outcomes is that they define what the group wants to own and achieve in working together. Where there are opposite values, the list will be more limited, but there will still be common purpose.

There is another element in play in the club industry – one that is much less likely to affect other businesses of similar sizes. There is a much stronger board influence on culture, varying significantly from one club to another. Some directors in some clubs enjoy socialising with staff, talking to them during breaks and even – in ways ranging from very subtle to quite demanding – interfering in the way they work. The impact on culture can be profound. Even worse, the influence can be difficult to see until it is entrenched and starts to show up in behaviour.

That is one of the good reasons for clearly separating the responsibili­ties of management from those of directors. A good culture is built on consistency —what is said and done has to be within consistent patterns and plans, and everyone has to be singing the same tune. A good management plan can easily be undermined, quite unknowingly, by directors getting too close to staff and not knowing what the tune is.

The cultures and sub-cultures throughout an organisation will affect the behaviour of people, their satisfaction and productivity. One important subculture is the relationship between board and management. It is the one most difficult to manage. Some of the chapters in this book spell out the type of problems that can arise when it is not well managed.

Panthers workshops involving both management and board always centred on strategic issues. If I had the time over, I would try to interest the directors in joining other workshops that focused on values and culture. In learning to recognise values and understand their impact, everyone could work together to build a shared vision about the cultural objectives of the business. It would not be an easy task, considering that directors often have many other commitments, and the difficulties in getting all the key players together for the time required, but it would be worthwhile.

Evolution and Revolution. Larry Greiner wrote of his theory in 1971, and it was almost 20 years before I discovered it. I wish I had studied it much earlier. It would have helped my understanding of periods of stag­nation and other difficulties.

When a business only has a few employees, the style of management is not as important. The entrepreneurial manager with one assistant and lots of subcontractors can be autocratic and successful. As a business grows and matures, it requires adjustment. Autocracy will not be as effec­tive in a business employing 3,000 people, where the best results come from communication, delegation, participation and good controls. That is not to deny that some successful larger companies are run in a very autocratic fashion. It simply says that Greiner’s research influenced his theory that growth should be handled differently.

There are several stages in the path from small to large, and from young to mature. The needs change through the range of creativity, direction, delegation,  co-ordination and collaboration, each one building on the previous phase. As the business evolves naturally through one stage, pressures start to build almost to bursting point. This causes its own crisis. It is a case of success creating its own problems.

Had I understood the principles much earlier, it would have allowed a smoother transition between the Club’s evolutionary phases. It would probably also have meant a quicker and more effective pathway to what I eventually hoped to achieve — on the democratic ideals of an organisation driven by principles of collaboration. In our case, it was probably more spectacularly noticeable because of the rapid growth of the business over a relatively short period.

Those three principles stand out in my mind because of the impact they had on my thinking. I was influenced about outcomes by reading a great little book on outcomes and performances in my first few years at the Club. I read a lot about culture and did some courses on values and beliefs. In everything you read, you will probably find some gem of wisdom that can improve how you do things. A chance meeting, a brief conversation, a quick word of advice – can plant the tiny seeds that grow into the ideas and concepts that become part of your life.

In my first year at the club I met a director of the City Tattersalls Club in Sydney. One of the things he said that struck a chord in me was that each of us is a totally different person in the eyes of every person who knows us. This had quite an impact on me. It changed not only the way I saw others, but also how I saw myself. We are many, many people living inside the same skin.

In my first year at the Club, I also received some advice from a man named Ken Charlton.

Ken had been a big name in rugby league in the 50s. Around the same time that I started with the Club, he was, if I remember correctly, working as a representative for one of the breweries. He seemed genuinely inter­ested in seeing me make a success of my radical move from teaching to club management. I came to respect him, and when we talked I listened carefully. He told me one day that it is much more effective to ask ques­tions than to make statements. It was simple advice that sounds no more than good common sense. I don’t think that either of us knew just how profound it was at the time. I had an amusing example of its power some years later.

The Club was in the middle of one if its extensions, and I was walking through the work area. We had employed a very clever air conditioning expert, and I wandered up and stood beside him – basically just for a chat. I had no idea at all of what he was doing. I have never been mechanically or technically intelligent. He was explaining some of the work, and I said, purely to show him that I was interested in what he was saying, “Why do we do it like that?”

He stopped for a minute, looked back at the job, and looked at me again. After a pause he said, “You know what? You’re right. That’s not the best way to do it. It would be better if I …

I had asked a dumb question, he mistakenly thought it was an intelligent observation and took it as a challenge to find a better way. Meanwhile, I stood there trying to look as if I really was intelligent. His final disillusionment might come if he reads this book.

But over the years I found that asking questions was important to culture as well as results. Imagine an assistant in the marketing depart­ment prepares a corporate design and presents it to the CEO for approval. The CEO could say, ‘No, I don’t like that. Change the red to purple and make the yellow stronger. Use upper case in the title.’ After the time and effort that has been put into that design, how does the assistant feel about that reaction?

What if the CEO asked questions instead? “Do YOU think the red sends out the message WE want? What if WE tried a bit of purple? How do YOU think that would go?” Plenty of YOU clarifies who still owns the project. Plenty of WE says we are here to work together and help each other.

Questions involving YOU and WE raise the odds in favour of a more motivated assistant, a higher degree of ownership of the design job – and a better design. It is the cultural difference between the organisation being driven autocratically from the top and people collaborating for a better result.

The three main issues I chose are closely linked. They are all about people. Setting outcomes before deciding what to do smooths out values and cultural differences. Some of the essential components of a good, productive culture are well constructed forward plans, logical decisions, and ownership of the plans by all who participated in their making. Outcomes thinking is an important tool.

In some ways the three concepts are a little idealistic. Despite the efforts of a committed management team, we never really reached our own measure of satisfactory. Some sections at Panthers were always closer than others, but we never stopped having to remind people to think in Outcomes. Culture was constantly on the agenda for testing, meas­uring and improvement. And having an organisation fully embrace the Greiner concept of Collaboration is a really challenging dream. Culture and decision-making work in a similar way to systems in a business. Without constant review and discipline, they gradually revert to chaos. What is certain, though, is that we were much closer to those ideals than we would have been had we not been conscious of them, and committed as a team to their pursuit.

Related Topics

Related Themes

Club Structure · Culture

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.

1991 — Shadows Behind the Story

The text [in Part 27 – From Left Field] simply says that Roger contacted his long-time friend Norm Bowers looking for two people who could help research management theory, distil complex ideas and assist with communicating organisational change. Norm suggested two tutors from his coaching college. One of them was me.

That summary is accurate enough, but it leaves out a much bigger story.

For as long as I can remember Roger held a firm principle that close family members should not work together at Panthers. Unlike many family businesses, he believed employment should never depend upon bloodlines. It protected the organisation from accusations of favouritism and, just as importantly, protected the family from the pressures and complications that inevitably arise when work and home become entangled.

My brothers and I experienced that principle long before employment was ever contemplated.

As children we watched children from families of Roger’s Panther colleagues enjoy privileges that were simply unavailable to us. The children and grandchilren of some Panthers’ officials could wander into dressing rooms. Other children became ball boys or travelled with teams. We remained outside those circles. At the time it felt unfair. Looking back, I understand that Roger was drawing a line he was determined not to cross.

So why did he cross it in 1991?

The simple answer is that he believed Panthers had reached a point unlike anything it had previously faced.

The move to Mulgoa Road had been spectacularly successful in one sense. Sales had exploded. The club had become one of the largest in the country. But behind those impressive numbers Roger could see problems that few others recognised. The organisation had outgrown the management systems that had served it so well in earlier years. The challenge was no longer simply managing a licensed club. It was understanding how organisations evolve, why they stall, and how they successfully reinvent themselves.

He needed people who could immerse themselves in ideas, research widely, challenge assumptions and then translate abstract concepts into practical language that managers throughout the organisation could understand and use. Club management experience was almost beside the point. In some respects, it was an advantage not to have it.

By 1991 Roger was carrying burdens — some were widely visible, others were not so obvious.

The public could see the club’s growth and football success. The long hours were seen by the Panthers staff — especially the management team who shared the search for answers to the dilemmas faced by the Club. This commitment was hidden from the wider public.

Hidden from all but those closest to him was the stress of discovering that he had serious underlying health issues. The most serious of these was polycythemia, an incurable blood disorder in which the bone marrow manufactures too many red blood cells.

The combined challenges of the Club’s financial stress and the newly diagnosed health issues are sufficient to drive unhealthy levels of stress. But, by mid-year 1991 a huge shadow was cast across this picture — Peter, the third of the four Cowan boys, was dying.

Through the second half of the eighties, Peter was diagnosed HIV/AIDS. Remember, by 1987 big budgets were directed towards advertising that elevated concerns about the spread of AIDS – lifting the feeling from concern to horror and fear.

Imagine being the parent of someone with the virus, imagine thinking about their future while watching their physique reduce to the skeletal, imagine seeing the grim reaper repeatedly visiting your living room.

By the early part of 1991, Peter’s withering physique made his destiny clear. Roger & Mum were regularly taking trips between Penrith and Sydney, spending time with Peter.

On July 15, we gathered at St Vincent’s Hospice for what we suspected would be his last hours. Our time with him was one-on-one, holding and stroking his skeletal hand, listening as he ranted against some imaginary barman who would not serve him a drink, or some incompetent cabbie taking the wrong route.

We laughed with him, crying inside at what we were about to lose.

He couldn’t hear us; he couldn’t see us; but I’m damned sure he felt us.

He left us just before the sun went down that day.

Three months later, Panthers took their first premiership lap. Peter would have loved that.

I started at Panthers a month after Peter left us.

Beneath this shadow and amidst all the turmoil and stress swirling around Roger’s worklife, his focus on the future health of Panthers didn’t falter – in fact his dedication and commitment to this ambition may well have increased.

It would be wrong to suggest these private events somehow caused my appointment. They did not.

But they formed part of the context in which Roger found himself confronting perhaps the greatest organisational challenge of his career while carrying some of the heaviest personal burdens of his life. For someone who had always preferred solving problems himself, this was one of the few occasions where he openly acknowledged that he needed help.

Even then, abandoning his principle about family employment was not a decision he made lightly. Before I joined Panthers he took the proposal to the Board. Approval was unanimous.

Looking back, I don’t think this episode says very much about me.

It says far more about Roger.

He had principles, and he took them seriously. They were not ornaments. They were not things to be put on display when convenient and packed away when awkward. But he also understood that a principle should serve a purpose. It should not become a cage.

In 1991, Panthers needed something different. Roger needed something different too.

I think he knew both things.

Related Material

Related Themes

Culture

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.

From Left Field

Part 27 of 70 — Original Chapter: Chapter 9: An Urgent Need for Research and Change

This article forms part of the serialised republication of Panthers, Passion & Politics – The Roger Cowan Years.

Start · Reader’s Guide · All Parts

Norm Bowers1 had been a close friend of Cowan’s for twenty years. He ran a small but extremely successful coaching school in Sydney. The results he has achieved for students in the Higher School Certificate have been extraordinary. He also coached university students.

Cowan phoned him.

Norm, I need help to put some concepts together, research the latest information on management and communicate it to all the key staff so that I can implement change. Do you have two tutors you could lend me for six months? I think I can finish it in that time and you can have them back again. They don’t need to know anything at all about club management. In fact, it would be an advantage if they didn’t. I want fresh minds and fresh approaches. But they have to be quick learners and good, logical thinkers who can analyse concepts.

Norm’s reply was that he had two very good tutors he was prepared to lend. One of his suggestions was Max Cowan, Roger’s son, who was coaching university students in statistics. Cowan had no doubt about Max’s ability to do the job but was reluctant. He had always avoided employing family in the club. But the need was greater than the principle and Max started2 with Joel Dehe, another tutor with academic research experience and a creative bent.

Behind this seemingly straightforward appointment lay a series of private events that profoundly shaped 1991 for Roger Cowan and his family. See: Reflections — Shadows Behind the Story.

The collation of information, theories and ideas propagated by the gurus of the day was one part of the job. Testing the best parts of them against what Cowan believed would fit into the Panthers environment was the more difficult part.

In 1991, he came across The E-Myth by Michael E Gerber. It was primarily aimed at small business, but as it turned out, it was what was needed.

W Edwards Deming, the author of Out of the Crisis, was another big influence on the developing picture. His major focus was on quality, change and the ability to embrace a new philosophy.

Long-term commitment to new learning and new philosophy is required of any management that seeks transformation. The timid and the fainthearted, and the people that expect quick results, are doomed to disappointment.

He said that a business must ‘cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality’. It must be built into the product in the first place. The system of production and service needs to be constantly improved to ensure quality.

Both books talked about systems, but from a different perspective. And both became a part of the Panthers ethos in the early 90s.

The theories of Charles Handy who wrote The Empty Raincoat seemed to be an excellent fit for the next stage of evolution according to Greiner and had a significant influence on modifications to the cultural objectives.

When interviewed, Bob Adamson was the CEO of Panthers ClubNova in Newcastle. In 1991, he arrived at Panthers – newly out of the military – in the midst of a period of great change. The frenzy for seeking change was in full swing, and Adamson says it was a very stimulating environment.

Adamson began with the club in a middle management role as maintenance manager. But he had skills and experience that would be needed in the transformation of the business, and his role would soon grow.

We were doing a lot of work on the evolution, revolution thinking at the time, and what came out of that was that we were not one big business. We were a collection of small businesses, and we had a hierarchical structure that may not have been working for us. It had become too bureaucratic and had lost that fast moving dynamism of small businesses with just a few employees. Greiner talked about finding the solutions to each of those revolutions, and we began to start thinking about having someone to lead each of those sections. The emphasis was on leadership and the leaders would be responsible for their own small business – say, a bar or a restaurant. They would be like a number of little shops in one big shopping centre

Such a dramatic restructure meant the elimination of whole levels of middle management, including Adamson’s own position. He says that this group was largely redeployed into other areas.

Steve Van Zwieten is another Panthers CEO who came up through the ranks. He started in 1988 as what was then a ‘bouncer’, but he came with some innovative ideas about what the role of security personnel should be. Within the nurturing Panthers environment he was quickly able to move into the position of security manager. He is now the chief executive of the Penrith site.3 He recalls the restructuring period:

It was a shock to some people. We certainly had a hierarchy there, and there were too many layers of management. I think that one of Roger’s strengths is that he can see things before others see them. So he was always out in front, looking at the business and saying, “now’s the time for change“.

Panthers Group General Manager, Glenn Matthews, agrees.4 He started as an assistant accountant in 1984 and says that some people thrived under the new flattened structure, while others did not.

Matthews came to Penrith Rugby League Club with a personal belief that an employee shouldn’t stay in the one place for more than five years. ‘That belief hasn’t changed,’ he says. ‘But every time I thought about that, there was another opportunity.’

I’ve been really lucky over the years, seeing the organisation grow, and having the opportunity to venture anywhere that you wanted to have a go at. While I was financial controller, I also managed the ski park for a period. I spent a year in marketing at another time. All this gave me an opportunity to see all the facets of the business. So while I’ve been here a long time, it doesn’t seem that long because the role changed and evolved so much.

The period in marketing was typical of the entrepreneurial spirit in the club at that time. Roger wanted a strong focus on creativity and he selected a team to work together closely and do whatever they thought appropriate to come up with ideas and strategies to grow the business and to make recommendations to the full management team. The team had a good balance. I came from the financial side, Peter Morath had a catering background, and Tony Lackey was a creative thinker.  Max Cowan was a good mathematician and had been involved in all the research for restructure of the business and change implementation. We worked really well together.

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.

  1. Norm Bowers passed away in 2013, aged 84. He was a unique character – he and Roger were very close. Norm is the father of Steve Bowers who plays a critical role in this history. ↩︎
  2. This engagement was considerably more complex than appears here. One of the complexities came from Cowan’s principle about not employing relations. In an unusual step for an unusual circumstance he sought Board approval for Max’s appointment – approval was unanimous. For more on the events surrounding this move see Beyond the Book — Reflections — Shadows Behind the Story. ↩︎
  3. Steve Van Zwieten left Panthers in 2006. He is now Managing Director of Exact Security, a successful security services company started by him and Roger Cowan in 2009. ↩︎
  4. Glenn Matthews left Panthers in 2010. He is now CEO of the Australian Racing Drivers’ Club. ↩︎

← Part 26 · All Parts · Part 28→

Commentary and Contributions

Evolution Then Revolution … And Repeat.

Part 26 of 70 — Original Chapter: Chapter 9: An Urgent Need for Research and Change

This article forms part of the serialised republication of Panthers, Passion & Politics – The Roger Cowan Years.

Start · Reader’s Guide · All Parts

Growth is not always smooth. There are so many roads that must be paved and most of them start as rough tracks. A good management team seeks improvements continually, every day. Some aspects of the business are given priority; others are set aside until there is time. It is never finished, and it is never perfect. 

One of the biggest milestones in the history of the Penrith Leagues Club was the relocation to its new site on Mulgoa Road in 1984. In the years immediately following the move, the club experienced phenomenal growth.

The growth rate had been consistent from the time that Cowan started as manager in 1965. There were some flat spots, and a few years of concern about lower-than-expected profit levels, but they had always been able to overcome them.

In the years after the purchase of the property in 1971, they had spent vast amounts of time planning the transfer from Station St to Mulgoa Rd. When they left the old Station Street premises in April 1984, Panthers had about 200 employees and annual sales income of around $12 million.

The success of the intensive preparation for the move was certainly reflected in the sales. In the first year, sales increased to $16 million, and staff numbers jumped to 300. Most of the systems that had been in place in Station Street
were easily transferred. Despite the issues raised due to Mulgoa Rd being a much bigger building, by and large, the transfer went smoothly.

What they had not anticipated in all the forward planning was the rate of growth.

Within four years, annual sales more than quadrupled, to $65 million. The Club now had 850 staff. Cowan remembers it was an exciting time.

Everyone was highly motivated. It was one of the most enjoyable periods I remember. The new location was successful beyond our hopes. For years we had listened to the knockers saying what a bad move it was, and that our Station Street customers would not follow us that far out of town. 1984 was also a year of significant personal satisfaction. It was the first year of a new administration system for rugby league.1 We narrowly missed the final series that year but made it in ‘85.

Amidst the euphoria there were problems behind the scenes. Apart from a split in the Board and the stress of the misguided police investigation, there was something the matter with the business.

The fact was that while sales were going up, profit was going down. So, something was wrong. It should have been basic maths. Increasing sales, if managed properly, should lead to more profit, but that was just not happening. For more than twenty years we had been managing growth successfully, so what was different now?

In 1990, a chance discussion, a painful back and the Panther’s first grand final combined in a way that would lead to a dramatic change in the management style at Panthers. It would also lay the foundations that have allowed the company to move well beyond what most people ever envisaged.

David O’Keeffe was CEO of the Penrith Lakes Development and a very experienced administrator. He and Cowan were attending a function and their conversation got around to the club. O’Keeffe talked about its growth and asked about the number of employees. When told the staff had grown to 850, he said to Cowan, ‘I’ll bet you are having trouble keeping your thumbs on all of that.’ ‘Unbelievable difficulty’, was Cowan’s response.

‘I’ll send you something that will explain why you are having difficulties’, O’Keeffe promised.

The next day Cowan received an article entitled Evolution and Revolution as Organisations Grow, published by Harvard University and written by Larry E Greiner in 1972.

1990 was our first year in a rugby league grand final. We were to play Canberra on the Sunday afternoon, and coach Phil Gould decided to take the players to Sydney on Saturday and stay overnight. It was one of the times when I was CEO of both organisations and Phil asked me to join them.

For several weeks I had been suffering from a back problem that was giving me pain right down one arm. I had been having physiotherapy, but nothing was working. On Saturday afternoon the pain was driving me crazy. Instead of joining the players for dinner, I decided to go to bed and see if rest would help. I had brought a copy of the Greiner article with me and it was a good chance to read it carefully.

The article explains five evolutionary phases in the growth of an organisation. Greiner says that moving from one phase into the next is never smooth. Each transition is a revolutionary stage with periods of crisis that must be managed and overcome.

Cowan realised that Panthers had already been through some of those evolutionary phases, and had been able to solve some of the revolution crises as they arose. He found himself remembering periods when growth seemed to stall, followed by a struggle to find solutions. Then the feeling that there was a sudden breaking of the chains that were holding the club down, followed by another period of smooth growth.

Somehow the management team had made the right cultural and structural adjustments to get over each hurdle.

Greiner advises that the critical task for management in each revolutionary period is to find a new set of practices. They must then become the basis for managing the next period of evolutionary growth. He warns that many companies fail during the periods of crisis. Companies that are unable to abandon past practices and effect major organisational changes will either level off in their growth rates, or fold.

Reading the article was one of those ‘Aha!’ experiences for Cowan. He was now understanding things that he had never even considered before.

Readers interested in the management theory that produced this moment of insight can explore it further in the accompanying Beyond the Book article, The Article That Changed Panthers’ Thinking.

I suddenly began to see that the Panthers business employing 850 people with sales of $65 million was not a bigger business than the Panthers with 300 employees and sales of $16 million. It was a different business. Systems and management styles that worked for one would not necessarily work for the other. We had to change. We were in one of Greiner’s periods of crisis. Methodologies that had achieved growth in the past had to be re-examined, to see if they would continue to be effective.

That article had more effect on my attitudes towards management than anything else I ever read. It made me realise that I did not know enough to get Panthers through its crisis. I had been operating on the false premise that what we had done in the past would be suitable for the future. It set me off on a discovery path. I read voraciously until I had a picture in my mind of the new direction.

Introducing change is difficult and takes a long time. It causes tension in the organisation. Some find it difficult, even impossible, to adapt. But from that point we were a different organisation, constantly looking for change. We became students of authors on management, and devoted students of a few of them.

It all started with a rugby league grand final and that casual conversation. Strange to say, there was a medical lesson in it for me, too.

We returned to Panthers as losers of our first grand final, but to a heroes’ welcome. The club was packed to the rafters.  The celebrations continued right through the night and I probably had a bit too much to drink. By the time I got to bed, the sun was way up and the pain in my arm and shoulder was gone. It did not return. It seems that I was tensing my back to compensate for the pain, which just made it worse. The total relaxation of that celebration let muscles, tendons, and everything else slip into their rightful places and I was cured. That’s my theory anyway! Had I listened to earlier advice to take painkillers, I might have been fixed much sooner.

The Greiner theory placed Panthers in the revolutionary stage he called “Red Tape”, when bureaucratic needs start to take precedence, dominating decision making and slowing down progress. The next evolutionary stage should be growth through collaboration requiring a high level of democratic management, combining teams across functions, flexibility of teams, frequent conferences of key personnel, educational programs, and more. Moving from one stage to the next was the challenge.

The Greiner article was just the tip of the iceberg for Cowan. Now he was on a mission of discovery.

He had always been a reader of books and articles on management theory, but it was done as an interest without any pressure other than to absorb any good ideas he found. Now he felt it was a matter of urgency. He was missing something, and he had to find it.

At that time, he was President of the Registered Clubs of NSW and Chairman of the Licensed Clubs of Australia. Once a month he had to attend meetings on the mornings of three consecutive days and stayed in a self-contained unit in Sydney. He remembers having books spread all over the floor of the living room, cross referencing notes on what might be applicable in a restructure of Panthers.

As the big picture started to take shape, Cowan saw another obstacle. The ideas had to be compiled into a coherent form, communicated to managers, and then filtered through the staff. Implementing change was no small order, even if the changes themselves had been simple. And the big picture in Cowan’s mind was far from simple. He needed help of an unusual kind.

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.

  1. The change to rugby league management structure is covered in Part 21 — The Right Structure. Finally! ↩︎

← Part 25 · All Parts · Part 27→

Commentary and Contributions

Major Player: Tim Sheens

Tim Sheens
Image Source: The Panthers: Men in Black

Tim Sheens

Player, Coach, Administrator.

Tim Sheens occupies a unique place in Panthers history.

Many people remember him as the coach who guided Penrith to its first finals appearance. Yet his most important contribution may have come before a ball was kicked in 1984.

At a time when questions were being asked about Penrith’s future in first grade, Sheens chose to stay and help rebuild the club.

Unlike many coaches who arrive from elsewhere, Sheens understood Penrith from the inside. He had played more than a decade of first-grade football for the club and his family’s involvement in district rugby league stretched back generations.

Role in the Narrative

Although Sheens’ appearance in Panthers, Passion & Politics is brief, it acknowledges him as one of the key figures in the football club’s revival following the introduction of the unified “One Board, One CEO” structure in 1980.

By 1983 the football club faced significant challenges. Player retention had become a major problem, results remained poor, and concerns existed both within Penrith and within the NSWRL about the club’s long-term competitiveness.

Following a series of community workshops organised to identify a path forward, Sheens emerged as a central figure in the proposed football rebuilding program.

His appointment as coach in 1984 represented one of the most important football decisions made during the Roger Cowan era.

The Risk

When Penrith approached Sheens about coaching the club, his future appeared to lie elsewhere.

Sheens had already accepted a player-coach position in Queensland and was preparing to leave Sydney when Panthers approached him. The opportunity offered greater certainty than a struggling Penrith side that had won only six matches in 1983 and faced serious questions about its future.

Before making a decision on the Panthers role, Sheens spent several days discussing the decision with his wife Rhonda – whose family were in Queensland. Remaining at Penrith meant abandoning established plans and taking responsibility for rebuilding one of the competition’s most troubled football clubs.

From a football perspective, accepting the Penrith role carried considerable risk.

The Panthers had won only six matches in 1983. Experienced players were leaving. Recruiting power was limited. Media commentary frequently questioned Penrith’s ability to compete with the stronger Sydney clubs.

For an aspiring young coach, failure at Penrith could easily have damaged future opportunities.

Roger Cowan later recalled being impressed by Sheens’ contribution during the community workshops and believed he possessed both the football knowledge and commitment needed to help implement the club’s new direction.

Sheens agreed to stay.

Building From Within

Rather than rely heavily on expensive recruitment, Sheens embraced the philosophy emerging from the workshops.

The focus shifted towards local talent, player development and creating stronger pathways from junior football to first grade.

This approach aligned with the club’s Five by Five objective: producing five representative players from Penrith’s junior system within five years.

Under Sheens, young local players were given opportunities and expectations began to change. For the first time, many within the club started to believe that Penrith’s greatest resource was not money but its own district.

Sheens did more than advocate for local development. He actively worked to retain and recruit players he believed could form the nucleus of the club’s future, including Mark Geyer, Greg Alexander, Colin Van Der Voort and future champion Brad Fittler. His approach reflected a belief that Penrith’s long-term success would be built from within the district rather than purchased from outside it.

Intermediate Results

The improvement was rapid.

In his first season as coach, Penrith narrowly missed the finals and recorded its best performance since entering first grade.

The turnaround was so significant that Sheens was awarded Coach of the Year by his fellow Sydney first-grade coaches.

The following season Penrith qualified for its first finals series.

The achievement provided tangible evidence that the governance reforms, strategic planning and renewed focus on junior development were working.

Background

Born: 30 October 1950

Playing Career
• Penrith Panthers Player #62 (1970-1982)
• Club record-holder for most first grade appearances at time of retirment (174).

Coaching Career
• Penrith Panthers (1984-1987)
• Canberra Raiders (1988-1996)
• North Queensland Cowboys (1997-2001)
• Australian Kangaroos
• NSW — State of Origin
• NSW — Super League Tri-Series

Recognition by Panthers
• Life Membership, Penrith Panthers (1990)
• Inducted into the Panthers Hall of Fame (2026)

Relevance to Events Described

The significance of Tim Sheens within this story extends beyond coaching results.

The introduction of a unified governance structure provided Penrith with a framework for success. Sheens helped translate that framework into football outcomes.

His willingness to remain at Penrith during one of the club’s most uncertain periods, and his commitment to developing local talent, played a major role in establishing the pathway that eventually led to the club’s emergence as a genuine first-grade force.

For Panthers, Tim Sheens was not simply a successful coach. He was one of the people prepared to stake his future on the club when many others doubted it had one. In helping to change the club’s future, he changed the course of his own.

Related Topics

Related Themes:

Football Club · Culture

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.

Editorial Note

This profile is presented as contextual background.
Additional material may be introduced as the narrative progresses.

Major Player: Don Ellks

Don Ellks
Image Source: PRLC Annual Report 1976

Donald Stanley Ellks

Senior Manager/General Manager 1980s–1992

Donald (Don) Ellks was one of the most significant operational managers in Panthers’ history.Beginning as a casual barman carrying a drinks tray, he progressed through the ranks over more than twenty-five years to become General Manager, helping guide the club through its relocation to Mulgoa Road and the rapid growth that followed.

His association with Penrith Rugby League Club began through rugby league, including playing for St Marys and Penrith A Grade and serving as a committeeman.

Role in the Narrative

Don was an Assistant Manager then General Manager for the planning, establishment and ongoing operation of the club’s relocation to Mulgoa Rd and the addition of the hotel and Cables Ski Park.

He was also instrumental in supporting the unified governance model that ultimately transformed the management of Panthers.

Background

Born: 1940
Died: 2025

Recognition by Panthers
• Life Membership, Penrith Panthers (1994)

Relevance to Events Described

Panthers was early to recognise the importance of providing pathways for talent, effort and results to progress through the ranks instead of seniority. Don was a case in point, starting as a bar attendant and progressing to General Manager.

Don’s operational management skills and experience complemented Roger’s leadership. In the first few years after the relocation to Mulgoa Road, the club achieved strong double-digit year-on-year sales growth but remained under significant financial pressure. High interest rates, construction cost overruns and the operational demands of rapid expansion meant that increased turnover did not immediately translate into financial security. Don’s experience working in departments, managing departments and managing managers led to the development of the systems and procedures needed for the effective and efficient operation of all departments and the ultimate success of the relocation.

Don’s long history with rugby league and operations also provided Roger with valuable support in the boardroom and dealing with politics.

Don Ellks’ career reflected many of the qualities that underpinned Panthers’ growth during the Cowan era: loyalty, practical experience, operational discipline and a willingness to take responsibility.

While others often occupied the public spotlight, Don was a key figure responsible for turning vision into day-to-day reality.

Related Topics

Related Themes:

Licensed Club · Culture

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.

Editorial Note

This profile is presented as contextual background.
Additional material may be introduced as the narrative progresses.

How Penrith P Panther Was Born

Beyond the Book — Commentary & Contributions

Contributor: Phil Morehead

Phil Morehead was a partner in Thomas Marsden Advertising the advertising agency and design studio that supported Panthers for many years. Phil also was a long-time active member and President of the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce. In this contribution he recalls how Penrith P Panther came into existence and became a recognisable community figure.

All images courtesy of Phil Morehead and Thomas Marsden Advertising.

I believe Penrith P. Panther was one of the first mascots to represent a rugby league team in Australia.

I am not sure of the exact year, but I think it was probably in the late 1970s. Ron Workman was the football manager at the time, and he was a little difficult to convince that a mascot would be a good promotional tool.

Years later, at a function, Ron took full credit for Penrith P.’s creation, saying it was an idea he picked up when they went to America on an excursion looking at promotional ideas. I think the cheer girls may have been one idea adapted from America, but Penrith P. was home birthed.

The idea came to me from watching Humphrey B. Bear with my young son

Certificate of Registration of Design for Penrith P. Panther — click to enlarge.

At the time I was doing Max Wright’s Kingswood advertising — new Holdens, used cars and later Viscount Caravans. Max financed the project as part of his advertising.

I negotiated with Stafford Bullen to supply free kids’ passes to Bullen’s Animal World and Warragamba African Lion Safari, which Penrith P. would distribute at home games. Panthers’ contribution was to allow Penrith P. to parade at half-time and give out the tickets.

At the first game, we had Penrith P. distributing the passes from the back of a Max Wright sign-written ute, driving around the inside perimeter of the ground.

It turned into a nightmare.

We also brought 2KA into the partnership and did various pranks at games, with Frank Ley calling them live and promoting Max Wright, Bullens and the others involved.

Most of it was contra. Effectively, all parties were building community goodwill while getting promotional value at the same time.

When Max Wright passed away, 2KA took over ownership of Penrith P., which I think soon came under the control of the football club.

Later, Penrith P. was discarded due to the intellectual property disputes between the ARL and Super League. During the Super League year (1997), Super League came up with Penelope Panther but the suit was too difficult for the person wearing it. When the NRL formed they financed the development of club mascots and Paws and Claws. Claws are still active.

But the O.G. was Penrith P. Panther.

Max’s Note: Reggie Rabbit, with help from TV star Don Lane, debuted for South Sydney at the 1968 Grand Final. Despite Reggie preceding Penrith P. by some years, Penrith P was still one of the first mascots to take the field in Australian Rugbu League.

Related Topics

Related Themes

Culture · Innovation

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.

Charlie Gibson and the Culture Clash

Part 20 of 70 — Original Chapter: Chapter 7: The 16 Year Struggle to Streamline Rugby League

This article forms part of the serialised republication of Panthers, Passion & Politics – The Roger Cowan Years.

Start · Reader’s Guide · All Parts

Although the new structure fell short of the model Cowan had long advocated, it was seen at the time as a significant step forward.

Both Cowan and the board were pleased with the appointment of Charlie Gibson. He was part of rugby league’s inner circle1, a close friend of Kevin Humphreys, and the man recommended by Mackie and the Super Six for the role of rugby league secretary at Penrith.

The ad appearing in the SMH in August 1980 produced a large number of applicants and resulted in the appointment of Charlie Gibson.

Gibson came with excellent credentials. He had been secretary of the South Sydney club for ten years and was there during the club’s winning streak of four premierships between 1967 and 1971. While the structure fell far short of the ultimate solution Cowan had been fighting to achieve for more than ten years, it was a huge step in the right direction. The Board and Cowan made an agreement that he would concentrate on the licensed club and take no further part in rugby league management. Cowan recalls;

We all thought – great! Charlie really knows his way around the rugby league world and that is what we need. We thought it could be the turning point in our rugby league fortunes.

I thought the board was making a mistake by having him report direct to the board, but I was willing to give it a go. I even agreed to have my contract changed to reflect that rugby league was no longer part of my responsibilities.

Charlie’s role was going to involve a lot of co-operation with the licensed club management in areas of accounting, ground maintenance, and in football-related marketing and promotions.

My vision for the club had always been a structure that united all the expertise available. For example, the club’s catering manager was far better qualified to manage rugby league functions than honorary committees or a rugby league manager. The club’s maintenance and cleaning managers could look after the ground. Financial management could come under the club’s finance manager.  Making rugby league successful would require a united effort and a high degree of co-operation.

Problems began to emerge quite early.. They were used to working as a team with overlapping needs, and they felt there was a lack of co-operation that was making their jobs difficult.

The fact is that we were not ready for such a radical departure from the way football was managed in those days.

Although no one realised it at the time, we were again seeing culture at work. This time it was a clash of cultures. Charlie was new to the organisation and we probably should have done more to talk through the tensions that were building. Culture can be a building force but it can also be destructive.

Keith Rhind says that Charlie Gibson was very much a part of the old rugby league ethos. Penrith was developing a culture that was unique, and Gibson often found it hard to adapt. It started out well enough, but eventually the cracks began to appear as the management culture developing at Penrith came into conflict with the rugby league culture that had helped Gibson achieve success at South Sydney.

Tension between the club and rugby league was growing. But that was only the tip of the iceberg. The Gibson appointment would also create a bitter division within the board and ultimately destroy a long-standing friendship between the chairman and Cowan. It would also light the slow-burning fuse that culminated in Detective Sergeant Mick Howe’s raid on the club a few years later.

When the election was held in 1980 for the first joint board, John Hewett became chairman. He had held that position on the licensed club board for the previous ten years, and he and Cowan had become good friends and built a strong working relationship.

Rhind says that Gibson also developed a close relationship with Hewett, taking him to events and functions to meet the high-profile people in his rugby league circles. Hewett was enjoying the attention. Another director from those days describes him as ‘basking in the reflected glory’.

When a Kangaroo tour was coming up, Hewett told others on the board that Gibson was going to use his influence to take him on the tour. It seems likely that Hewett was pushing for this favour and Gibson was doing his best to accommodate him. But there was disquiet among other members of the board, and Gibson himself also appeared unhappy about it.

Looking back, it was a relatively minor issue. Yet it became one of those moments where personality, disappointment and misunderstanding combined to produce consequences far beyond the original dispute.

Hewett believed that he was about to be invited to join league heavyweights on a Kangaroo Tour2, but that belief was against the designs of the heavyweights themselves. When it didn’t happen, Hewett was devastated and the conflict within the Board intensified. His disappointment, and the atmosphere of conflict on the board, caused him to resign as chairman in 1982. But his bitterness remained.

Deputy chairman Barry Hubbard, who was Hewett’s close friend, also resigned, leaving two vacancies on the board executive. Both men remained on the board. Keith Rhind, then deputy chairman, moved into the chairman’s role, which he held until the following AGM. At that meeting, Leo Armstrong was elected unopposed, and would become the club’s longest serving chairman.

Few could have known it at the time, but Armstrong would go on to become the longest-serving chairman in Panthers history and preside over some of the most significant years in the Club’s development.

Nevertheless the tensions that had been building were far from resolved — and the consequences were only just beginning to emerge.

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.

  1. For more on Cowan’s experiences within the NSW Rugby League hierarchy, Removed Section in Beyond the Book – Rugby League’s Inner Circle. ↩︎
  2. A Kangaroo Tour was regarded as a high honour and a prestigious experience for rugby league administrators during this era. ↩︎

← Part 19 · All Parts · Part 21 →

Commentary and Contributions

Why One Board, One CEO?

Readers of Parts 19–21 may wonder why Roger Cowan spent more than sixteen years arguing for what appeared to be a relatively simple administrative reform. Why did the issue matter so much to him? Why did he keep returning to it despite repeated setbacks, opposition and criticism?

The answer lies in a question that had troubled Panthers almost from the beginning:

How could the Club pursue a unified direction when rugby league and the licensed club were governed separately?

The issue was not new.

Readers familiar with the events of 1971 may recognise some familiar themes. The removal of football club secretary Merv Cartwright and treasurer Ron Partridge arose from concerns about the administration of rugby league affairs and accountability for financial decisions. Although the circumstances were different, the disputes that emerged again in the late 1970s centred on many of the same questions. Who should make decisions? Who should be accountable for those decisions? And what happened when agreements were not honoured?

From the time Penrith entered first grade rugby league in 1967, the football club and licensed club operated under separate governance structures. The arrangement was common in rugby league, but Roger increasingly came to believe it created problems that could never be fully resolved.

It would be easy to assume the conflict was simply about money. Certainly finances played a part. Rugby league required increasing investment, while the licensed club was trying to strengthen its financial position and pursue long-term development projects. Yet Roger’s frustration was not that football sought resources. In his view, the licensed club had repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to support rugby league and invest heavily in its future.

The real problem arose after decisions had been made.

Budgets would be negotiated. Agreements would be reached. Plans would be approved. Yet time and again, football expenditure exceeded agreed limits or new commitments were entered into without the knowledge or approval of those responsible for managing the Club’s overall finances.

From Roger’s perspective, this was not simply a financial problem. It made long-term planning almost impossible.

A licensed club board could approve a football budget, commit to major development projects and make decisions based upon expected cash flows. If those assumptions later proved incorrect because spending commitments had changed, the consequences extended well beyond rugby league. The entire organisation could be affected.

By the late 1970s, these tensions had become increasingly public. In December 1979, the Sydney Morning Herald reported on financial difficulties and disagreements between the football and licensed club administrations. Around the same time, Panthers was preparing for the enormous financial challenge of constructing its new Mulgoa Road complex.

SMH 1979 Dec 9 – click image for full article.

Reports to members in 1980 revealed the extent of the concern. Directors reported that the football club had exceeded an agreed annual budget of $485,000 by more than $100,000 during 1979, while additional commitments had already been entered into for the following season. To the licensed club board, the issue was not simply the amount involved. It was that decisions affecting the future of the entire organisation had been made outside the framework that had previously been agreed.

These events helped bring the governance debate to a head, but they do not fully explain Roger’s determination.

For him, the issue was ultimately one of organisational unity.

He believed Panthers would never achieve its potential while parts of the organisation operated according to different priorities, different assumptions and different lines of accountability. A football club and licensed club could share the same colours, the same members and the same ambitions, yet still find themselves working against each other.

His solution was straightforward.

One board would determine policy and direction for the entire organisation. Management would then be responsible for implementing those decisions. Everyone would work towards the same agreed objectives and everyone would be accountable to the same governing body.

Not everyone agreed.

Some viewed Roger’s campaign as an attempt to centralise power. The perception is understandable. After all, he was advocating a structure that would eventually place responsibility for football and licensed club operations under a single administration. His persistence over sixteen years inevitably raised questions about motive.

Yet there is another interpretation.

Roger was not arguing that football should receive less support. Nor was he arguing that rugby league was less important than the licensed club. Rather, he believed the entire organisation should operate according to a common plan and that all parts of Panthers should be accountable to that plan.

Many years later, Panthers would use concepts such as “twin citizenship” to describe the idea that people belonged not only to their immediate team but also to the wider organisation. While that language did not exist in the 1970s, the philosophy behind it helps explain Roger’s thinking. He wanted rugby league, club management, directors and staff to see themselves as contributors to a single enterprise rather than separate interests competing for influence.

The first major breakthrough came in 1980 when a single board was finally established. Yet even then, the model remained incomplete. Rugby league and the licensed club continued under separate chief executives. As described in Parts 20 and 21, the compromise produced its own difficulties and did not resolve the underlying tensions.

It was not until the end of 1983 that the structure Roger had advocated for so long was fully implemented. One board and one chief executive became responsible for the entire organisation.

Whether that decision alone explains the improvements that followed is impossible to know. Organisations are rarely transformed by a single reform. Nevertheless, the years that followed saw a stronger emphasis on cooperation, planning and shared ownership. The workshops that led to the Five by Five program, closer relationships throughout the rugby league district and a more integrated approach to football and club operations all emerged during this period.

Reasonable people may still disagree about whether Roger was right. They may also disagree about the extent to which later successes flowed from the governance reforms he championed.

What is difficult to dispute is that he regarded the issue as fundamental. For more than sixteen years he returned to the same argument, often in the face of resistance and disappointment.

Ironically, that persistence contributed to one of the enduring myths about Roger Cowan — that he was somehow anti-rugby league.

The evidence suggests a more complex reality.

His long campaign for “One Board, One CEO” was not driven by a desire to diminish rugby league, but by a belief that Panthers could only achieve lasting success when every part of the organisation was working towards the same goals and operating under the same commitments.

Whether one agrees with that belief or not, it became one of the defining ideas in the history of Panthers.

Source Material*

The following documents are extracts of the relevant sections of larger reports:

Related Topics

Related Themes

Financial Management · Governance · Board Decisions · Culture · Club Structure

* Resource material courtesy of The Ausburn Collection

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 Iconic Panthers Scoreboard

The Panthers scoreboard became one of the most distinctive features of Penrith Stadium — or any rugby league ground at the time. Its origins can be traced to the club’s early think-tank culture.

In the early days of Penrith Rugby League Club, Roger Cowan used think-tanks to encourage participation and generate ideas for the club’s development.

According to Kevin McGrath, the unique scoreboard installed at Penrith Park in 1979-80 had its origins in one of those sessions.

An idea for creating a Luna Park style feature for the club entry was eventually re-imagined as a football scoreboard. The concept was developed further by the architects Dick-Smith Leffler & Gill, who drafted the concept.

Early concept drawing of the Panther Scoreboard. Image from Les Street

Finally, that original idea was brought to life at the southern end of Penrith Park as an innovative scoreboard.

The scoreboard displayed the score of the Panthers game, as well as progress scores from other matches being played on the day. A score by the home team triggered a response from the structure — flashing eyes and a Panther’s roar marking the moment.

Over time, modifications were made as the structure aged and operational demands changed.

The original scoreboard on the left showing scores for 3 grades plus other games. Photo: unknown source.
The later version on the right showed only 1 game and the clock — this photo (circa 2012) from the blog: James Smith Reckons

The iconic scoreboard had its operational flaws, as it aged there were many breakdowns and failures and eventually could not deliver what was required at a modern sporting stadium … but still it was loved by Panthers fans and visitors alike.

In 2013 it met a fate unbefitting of a trusted, if unreliable, friend:

This Facebook post is dated 4 March 2014, the photo (source unknown) was taken in 2013.

In 2013, the scoreboard was removed.

At the time, it was suggested that the structure had been carefully dismantled and placed into storage, with the possibility of future restoration. Other accounts indicated that it had instead been destroyed during the removal process.

Regardless of the circumstances, its disappearance marked the end of one of the most recognisable symbols of the Panthers experience.

Related Topics

Related Themes

Culture · Innovation

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.