JONES WON'T BE BACK: EXPOSE & PREDICTIONS!

[Packgator]

Whatever the reason(s).......this last minute action says it was determined (without question) Jones is not capable of running the organization. What could have been discovered to make such a decision? It must be serious and without question.

[packinpatland]

Maybe we don't need to know. Maybe this needs to kept in-house. Maybe Jones needs to ride off into what is left of his sunset.

[Packgator]

Maybe we don't need to know.

Possibly. But by the way yesterday went down........they have created quite a mystery.

[Rastak]

good for Harlan!! from day one something irked me about Jones..

Ya know, I had the same feeling about the guy - from day 1 just like you. I kept thinking Major Frank Burns whenever I'd see him.

[pbmax]

It has been written before that Harlan had moved to be much more influential with the Executive Committee than previous executives. The implication was that as much as possible, and more than previous administrations, Harlan had great leeway.

If I am not mistaken, didn't Harlan concentrate more of Packer business into the Exec Committee where he had greater control than with the entire board? It was one of the things that let him split the GM and Coach duties despite the precedent of Lombardi doing both.

Wolf had said he couldn't have done the rebuild without Harlan. I always took that to mean Harlan did more than just hire him, Harlan made the promise of complete control come true.

Could it be that Jones allowed more interference with the GM than Harlan liked? Was Jones and his hires the source of all things Moss? Maybe Brett has Jones on speed dial?

Going back several months means this happened after Jones was officially elevated and had a new job title. It puts us in last summer/fall, likely post-heart attack. If true this rules out this year's draft, Favre' dalliance with retirement after the Bear game and the DL chosen with pick one.

Jones was the Packer representative at the league meetings several weeks ago. Perhaps something went awry then? Something that coincided with concerns on Lombardi Ave?

[TopHat]

INITIAL MARCH RUMOR: FAN'S INSIDE INFO

MARCH, 2007--FAN'S REMARKS: "There is a concern about JJ's interest level of being the face of the organization. The guy leading the organizing; shaking the hands of sponsors and other large stakeholders; politicians (which were needed to pass the large stadium initiative), etc. The concern is that he doesn't seem to want to be engaged in this activity, even though it is a big part of that job. Then, I think the health issues, which haven't been allowing him to travel, just make him more reclusive to the people that he needs to be impacting. I don't know him personally, so I can't add a personal twist. The person who told me this seemed to think that Jones won't be a long-termer like Harlan. He had another example or two but I don't recall them. It wasn't until I saw this post that I thought I'd add what I recalled.
I thought it was interesting that some "feelers" had been placed to see if Jones could get offered another job and then "encouraged" to take it....My sense of it was his focus is on running the operations of the business. This is not a bad thing of course. Kind of like being a COO as opposed to the CEO the team thought it was hiring. In the end, he'll be compared to Harlan, who is revered and fueled the resurgence. This situation is not that different than how unfair some will be to the successor to Favre. So maybe the situation is fair and maybe it's not....but the person I spoke with was the one that was asked to inquire about another prospective opening in sports management that might be available....to see if the graceful out was even possible".

[TopHat]

UPDATE

http://pu2006.typepad.com/packerupdate/

HARLAN STILL LEADER OF THE PACK

Bob Harlan wouldn't come right out and say it, but it’s a virtual certainty that John Jones won’t be the next chairman and CEO of the Green Bay Packers. The 55-year-old, who was expected to take over for Harlan next week, instead has agreed to a forced leave of absence. And while no specific reason was given for the surprising turn of events, the ambiguous phrase “management concerns” was mentioned a number of times during Saturday’s hastily called press conference. “I’m not sure the executive committee was ever 100% behind Jones,” opined a person familiar with the situation. “The Packers are being cryptic, but at the end of the day, I just don’t think the committee was ready to make him the new face of the franchise.” The 70-year-old Harlan will continue as chairman and CEO for the foreseeable future.
Assuming that Jones is out of the running, it’ll be quite interesting to see which names surface as potential candidates in the weeks and months to come. Andrew Brandt, the team’s vice president of player finance/general counsel, is held in very high regard by Harlan and GM Ted Thompson, but his age (46) and relative inexperience could be an issue. “He’d be a terrific choice, but I’m not sure the committee would be comfortable with such a young man running the organization,” added the source. "Then again, after today, who knows what to think?"

[the_idle_threat]

I don't have an opinion on whether Brandt is a good candidate, but I don't buy the criticism of his age. Brandt is 46. If John Jones (55) was hired 8 years ago to be Harlan's successor, he was hired at age 47.

Of course, Jones was not expected to take over right away, but I think he would have been expected---being the designated and groomed successor and all---to take the job much earlier than this year if Harlan had decided to retire before the mandatory age, or if (perish the thought) Harlan's health had forced him to retire earlier.

In any case, if they want or expect a guy to stay in the job for a long time, then how old can he be when hired? I would think that if a guy shows he's capable of handling the nuts and bolts, and if he's got the right temperment to be the face of the franchise, then he shouldn't have to be 50 years old or more to qualify.

There are questions about Brandt's temperment, but I saw him speak at an informal panel discussion not that long ago and I thought he was fine. Certainly didn't raise any reservations in my mind about his ablilty to deal with people. Who knows what he's like behind closed doors, but I suspect he's not as bad as advertised here.

I might not be at my best either if I just found out somebody put a golf ball through my window, especially if I thought that person was being dismissive about it. On the other hand---like anybody else---I loathe lawyers who use their position to intimidate and cajole others based upon threatened litigation. I wonder what Brandt's side of that story is ... I suspect the two sides are very different.

The allegation that he couldn't get a law license seems pretty far-fetched considering he's the Packers' general counsel.

[RashanGary]

Once he hires the GM, he doesn't have imput in who to draft, who to go after in FA, that sort of thing?

If he wants to put pressure on the GM to do things "he" wants, he surely could. The GM does have a job at the Presidents disposal so he has a very real and inherant power over all personal decisions.

Bob McGinn said in one of his articals that there are lines of front office personall that are in line for Thompsons job becuase of the "hands off" ownership. Basically, the Packers are unlike many teams with meddleing owners in that they stay out of football opps.

I really hope the next guy keeps his nose out of football operations as much as the last guy did. Bad ownership or meddling upper management can mean doom and gloom. GM's need the support and trust to do in their way or things go bad IMO. That just goes for any job. You have to hire those who know and let them do it their way. NOt all teams do that and the Pres does have the power to do it a different way.

[Fritz]

My sense of this is that it has nothing to do with whether Jones liked Thompson or not. Jones was in the loop when TT came on board and had he fervently disliked TT it wouldn't have taken until the last minute to get rid of Jones or resolve the issue.

It appears to have something to do with his management style, or lack thereof. Working with Harlan, the two different personalities seemed to feed off one another; perhaps the team saw what Jones, without Harlan, would look like, and didn't like it.

[chewy-bacca]

I am happy Harlin did the right thing. it would have been easy to wash his hands of all this and go relax. he is a true leader, and had the best for the Pack in mind.

[TopHat]

BONUS: UPDATE

http://packerfansunited.blogspot.com/

"Health was not an issue," Harlan says

According to a report in today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel of a telephone interview with Packers' CEO, Bob Harlan, the mutually agreed upon leave of absence of incoming CEO John Jones did not have anything to do with health concerns. As Harlan is quoted as saying, speaking to questions about Jones' health, "Health was not an issue." Harlan reiterated, without really stating it as such, that there were increasing concerns over Jones' management ability. "We started hearing about management issues," Harlan is quoted as saying. According to the article, those concerns were raised by staff members who came to Harlan with their concerns. "In the last three weeks it became very prominent. More than one person brought this to my attention." The issues did not revolve around personal conduct or ethical issues, Harlan said. Details beyond that, however, are still sketchy.
What exactly was raising management concerns at this stage of the transition process from Harlan to Jones may not be known for some time. Or, in a flash of candor from someone in the know, we may also learn what was really going on. For now, it is enough to know that Bob Harlan will continue his capable command. He's earned a well-deserved retirement, no doubt. But first, some more work to be done...which seems to now include finding a new and capable successor.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=611257

Harlan's change of heart leaves unanswered questions

Seven years ago, Bob Harlan was the face of the Green Bay Packers as he lobbied and argued passionately that Lambeau Field, the home of the organization he had devoted much of his life to, needed a major makeover. At Harlan's side much of that time was John Jones, whom Harlan had brought to Green Bay in February 1999 as his successor. As the two lobbied state legislators and local politicians, the two often worked out an effective good cop-bad cop routine. Harlan, always the public relations professional, tried to stay above the politics and the back-biting over the thorny issue of public financing of sports stadiums. Jones, on the other hand, was the guy who made his points to the movers and shakers behind closed doors, often in a very up-front way. The two different styles worked. The Legislature approved a bill giving Brown County voters an opportunity to vote on a sales tax that was a key part of the financing package. And Brown County voters ultimately approved the measure.
The renovation of Lambeau Field was the crowning moment of Harlan's career and helped ensure financial success for the Packers. At the same time, Harlan often credited Jones for his work and street smarts in getting the Packers to their goal. But as Harlan was getting ready to retire this month and turn the Packers over to Jones after years of grooming him for the top job, something went awry. At a hastily called news conference Saturday, both Harlan and Peter Platten, secretary of the team's Executive Committee, used the cryptic phrases "management issues" or "management concerns" to describe what caused the Executive Committee to put the brakes on Jones' ascension to the top job. The two provided few details but the result is that Jones, the team's president, won't be taking over as the team's chairman and chief executive officer, as he was scheduled to do on Wednesday. He is now on a mutually agreed upon leave of absence, a year after he became team president.
In his place stands Harlan, who has agreed at the age of 70 to remain in charge until the Executive Committee decides what to do next. The stunning turn of events leaves the Packers looking like a franchise in disarray. At a time when fans have openly questioned the work general manager Ted Thompson has done to rebuild the football team, and the furor over quarterback Brett Favre's desire for the Packers to sign wide receiver Randy Moss put the team on the defensive, there are plenty of questions about the direction of the front office.
When will it be resolved? It could be a year, team officials said. In a telephone interview Sunday afternoon, a glum-sounding Harlan chose his words carefully as he tried to explain why the shakeup had to happen. He also dismissed any notion that Jones, 55, who had open-heart surgery in June 2006, had to step aside for health reasons. The franchise's refusal to discuss in any detail the circumstances surrounding Jones' illness had raised speculation about Jones' ability to handle the pressures of running a storied franchise. "Health was not an issue," Harlan said.
According to Platten, the management issues came to light several months ago. Harlan said he was informed by staff at the Packers - he said it was more than one person - who raised "management issues' involving Jones. "We started hearing about management issues," Harlan said. "In the last three weeks it became very prominent. More than one person brought this to my attention." Harlan said the problems did not revolve around personal conduct or ethical issues, but declined to provide further detail.
However, an NFL source familiar with the situation said Harlan kept hearing concerns from employees who questioned Jones' ability to manage. Harlan then went to members of the team's Executive Committee, to which he reports, and reported what people were saying, the NFL source said. The committee, a powerful and influential body of CEOs and other professionals, met with Jones last week and discussed the problems. The committee then made the decision to put Jones on an indefinite leave of absence and study the matter further. Jones agreed to the leave, team officials said. "It's been very difficult," Harlan admitted Sunday. "Out of respect for John and his family, I don't want to say much more." Asked about his own relationship with Jones, Harlan said he and Jones "worked well together. "We agreed on most everything," Harlan added. "I felt comfortable with him."
In his new book, "Green and Golden Moments," written with former Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Dale Hofmann, Harlan says very little about the man he groomed to take over the franchise. "John is very capable, and I know he'll do a good job for us," Harlan writes. "He's surrounded by an excellent administrative staff and good football people. He just has to move forward and protect a very sacred franchise. And he'll do it." Harlan, notes, however, that Jones "understands that the most important thing we do is on Sunday afternoons."
Meanwhile, the status of Jones' future with the franchise and in what capacity is not known. Platten made reference to the fact that Jones was on a leave of absence, and was not dismissed, which could be interpreted that he might return someday. Harlan said Sunday that it was possible Jones could return to the franchise and assume control. "Yes, we could bring 'JJ' back at some point," Harlan said. But until the matter is fully resolved, Jones will be on leave, and will have no decision-making responsibility with the club, Harlan said. Jones did not return a phone call for comment. Should Jones not return in the same capacity, other possibilities include Mike Reinfeldt, a former Packers employee and now general manager of the Tennessee Titans, and Andrew Brandt, the Packers' vice president of finance.
Paul Jadin, who was mayor of Green Bay during the debate over the stadium sales tax, said Sunday that Jones was as responsible for the success of the new Lambeau Field as Harlan was. But he said that, while he was shocked that the news that Jones was out came so fast, he was not shocked that it was going to happen. "My perception is that there was a culture shock there," said Jadin, who is CEO of the Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce. "The change from Bob to John was stark. I just don't think that anyone there was prepared to go from Bob to John in terms of personality. That was apparent to me." Asked how the two differed in style and personality, Jadin said he would only speak about Harlan. "Bob was nurturing," Jadin said. "He saw the Packers as an extension of his family. John, a little less so." Jadin also gave credit to Harlan for acting over the weekend....

[TopHat]

BONUS: UPDATE

http://www.railbirdcentral.blogspot.com/

We deserve some answers

You've probably heard the big news over the past couple days. John Jones has been forced into a leave of absence by the Green Bay Packer organization. He was to take over as chief executive officer for Bob Harlan, who presumably will hold that position within the organization despite the his mandatory retirement that was to happen by the end of May. But why are the Packers being so secretive about the situation? Why not just come out and say what the problem is? For being a publicly owned team, why so cryptic? The fans and, more importantly, the shareholders of the team deserve some answers.
Many people's first instinct was that John Jones's health issues were the root cause. Jones had recently undergone open heart surgery. But an article in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel confirms the health problems are a non-issue. Don Walker reports, "(Harlan) also dismissed any notion that Jones, 55, who had open-heart surgery in June 2006, had to step aside for health reasons. The franchise's refusal to discuss in any detail the circumstances surrounding Jones' illness had raised speculation about Jones' ability to handle the pressures of running a storied franchise."
A hastily called together Saturday news conference raises some eyebrows. If health isn't the issue, then the Packer brass must not want Jones to take over the leadership of the team. But why? Many, many people trust the judgement of Bob Harlan. They just deserve some answers. Why aren't they being given?
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________

JSONLINE SPORTS POLL OF THE DAY:

Do you think John Jones will eventually return to become CEO of the Packers?

No (96.7%)
Yes (3.3%)

[Patler]

No, we WANT detailed answers. We don't necessarily DESERVE the details.

[RashanGary]

My sense of this is that it has nothing to do with whether Jones liked Thompson or not. Jones was in the loop when TT came on board and had he fervently disliked TT it wouldn't have taken until the last minute to get rid of Jones or resolve the issue.

It appears to have something to do with his management style, or lack thereof. Working with Harlan, the two different personalities seemed to feed off one another; perhaps the team saw what Jones, without Harlan, would look like, and didn't like it.

Right, I'm just hoping whoever takes over after Harlan stays out of football opps. Has nothing to do with why Jones got fired, but just a worry of mine.