New CEO - Gary Pert

[Dr. Gonzo 24,444]

41 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Talk of PJ being ‘shut out’ of, or unhappy with the process might be ‘fugazi’ or there may be some substance.  I don't know. 

But before we get hung up about it, it is worth looking at a typical Executive Search process - Bartlett/Board engages Russell Reynolds who use their network to identify, interview and profile candidates from which a short list is compiled to give to Barlett.  He (and nominees eg another Board member, AFL rep) choose which to interview and who to recommend to the Board.  The process happens at RR premises or other neutral venues.

RR would have strict confidentiality protocols precluding them from discussing candidates/short list with anyone outside this process (and certainly not with the boss or referee of a candidate). 

So on a rational level I can see how the process by its nature, excludes an incumbent CEO/boss of multiple candidates ie PJ, from the loop. 

I can also see all sorts of things that may displease a candidate or PJ during that process but I would only be speculating to write them here.

However, on an emotional level, if I was in PJ’s shoes I would desperately want to have a say in who takes over the care of my ‘foster child’ and push for ‘my guy’ or 'guys' to carry on my work.   Which of course is exactly why independent executive search firms are engaged.

It would be a very sad day,  if PJ was to leave us on a downer as he deserves to go in a blaze of glory.   So I will assume the talk of him not being happy is just 'fugazi'. 

It was PJs choice to leave, once he's made that decision it is up to those who will still be here to determine the best candidate for the position. PJ had the option to stay, I doubt he was pushed so it would be pretty petty of him to crack the sads on the way out.

[Lucifers Hero 40,519]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It was PJs choice to leave, once he's made that decision it is up to those who will still be here to determine the best candidate for the position. PJ had the option to stay, I doubt he was pushed so it would be pretty petty of him to crack the sads on the way out.

Agree 100%.  He is too professional to crack the sads. 

I was referring to the external noise ('fugazi') about him being unhappy with the process than thinking he actually is. 

[Bonkers 994]

9 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

We have a huge dormant supporter base.Stop thinking we are a small club forever. This is great timing, My respect for Bartlett has just risen substantially. He has had a long term since he arrived  (New York Yankees) I have wondered whether phase 2 would happen. 

I'm not so sure of this huge dormant supporter base that you speak of. Our club punches above its weight with supporter to membership conversion. However Roy Morgan research has the MFC as the lowest supported club outside of GC and GWS in the AFL. 

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7345-roy-morgan-afl-supporter-ladder-2017-201709210118

[Demonland 73,493]

19 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

I'm not so sure of this huge dormant supporter base that you speak of. Our club punches above its weight with supporter to membership conversion. However Roy Morgan research has the MFC as the lowest supported club outside of GC and GWS in the AFL. 

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7345-roy-morgan-afl-supporter-ladder-2017-201709210118

We're also quite low on the Facebook Likes ladder which obviously isn't scientific but telling considering it is free. 

Collingwood - 350k

Essendon - 350k

Hawthorn - 337K

West Coast - 294K

Sydney - 277K

Adelaide - 282K

Carlton - 270K

Richmond - 268K

Fremantle - 214K

Geelong - 196K

Port Adelaide - 188K

Bulldogs - 168K

St Kilda - 159K

North Melbourne - 150K

Brisbane - 135K

Melbourne - 135K

GWS - 102K

Gold Coast - 101K

 

 

 

[sue 9,195]

Could be because the average MFC supporter is smart enough to avoid the evil that is Facebook.  At least I'd hope so.

[Mach5 4,768]

1 hour ago, Bonkers said:

I'm not so sure of this huge dormant supporter base that you speak of. Our club punches above its weight with supporter to membership conversion. However Roy Morgan research has the MFC as the lowest supported club outside of GC and GWS in the AFL. 

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7345-roy-morgan-afl-supporter-ladder-2017-201709210118

 

Yes. Roy Morgan might not be infallible, but I wonder what credible source WYL is using as a base for his theory?

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

1 hour ago, Bonkers said:

I'm not so sure of this huge dormant supporter base that you speak of. Our club punches above its weight with supporter to membership conversion. However Roy Morgan research has the MFC as the lowest supported club outside of GC and GWS in the AFL. 

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7345-roy-morgan-afl-supporter-ladder-2017-201709210118

Many years ago i worked for a market research company whilst at Uni. 

I take no notice of their figures for that reason, so much was fudged blatantly. 

My point is, i think we have a huge dormant supporter base who do not even admit they are demons. We have been crap for to long!

[DeleteUser 638]

33 minutes ago, sue said:

Could be because the average MFC supporter is smart enough to avoid the evil that is Facebook.  At least I'd hope so.

Evil? ?

[Undeeterred 3,127]

26 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Many years ago i worked for a market research company whilst at Uni. 

I take no notice of their figures for that reason, so much was fudged blatantly. 

My point is, i think we have a huge dormant supporter base who do not even admit they are demons. We have been crap for to long!

I definitely trust your gut instinct based on a shift job 30 years ago over multiple contemporary official and unofficial sources.

[sue 9,195]

13 minutes ago, timbo said:

Evil? ?

Yes - what rock have you been sleeping under?  And I'm not just referring to their playing fast and loose with personal data in pursuit of the $.    

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

1 minute ago, Undeeterred said:

I definitely trust your gut instinct based on a shift job 30 years ago over multiple contemporary official and unofficial sources.

I don’t care what you wish to believe

there are 4-5 generations of supporters who have walked away from supporting the club, because we have been so bad for so long. Some jumped ship and are lost, others just don’t support. Some of them returned 30 years ago in ‘87 briefly, but it was a false dawn and they retreated. 

60 years ago we were THE big club, we can get back there. But if supporters keep tthinking small it will be a lot harder

[SFebes 4,884]

Every club has dormant supporters when they’re going not so good, however I don’t think we have many, we punch well above our weight 

Edited June 16, 2018 by SFebey

[Blinkybill 276]

9 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I don’t care what you wish to believe

there are 4-5 generations of supporters who have walked away from supporting the club, because we have been so bad for so long. Some jumped ship and are lost, others just don’t support. Some of them returned 30 years ago in ‘87 briefly, but it was a false dawn and they retreated. 

60 years ago we were THE big club, we can get back there. But if supporters keep tthinking small it will be a lot harder

Dwelling on the past, as this post seems to do, is not going to win new members. The club needs to show a vision which appeals to the massive number of young inner urban dwellers with no or weak alliegences. 

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

1 minute ago, Blinkybill said:

Dwelling on the past, as this post seems to do, is not going to win new members. The club needs to show a vision which appeals to the massive number of young inner urban dwellers with no or weak alliegences. 

We do, and i hope Pert can do just that, i am just saying there are a lot of dormant supporters out there who are off the radar at this point

[Mach5 4,768]

26 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I don’t care what you wish to believe

there are 4-5 generations of supporters who have walked away from supporting the club, because we have been so bad for so long. Some jumped ship and are lost, others just don’t support. Some of them returned 30 years ago in ‘87 briefly, but it was a false dawn and they retreated. 

60 years ago we were THE big club, we can get back there. But if supporters keep tthinking small it will be a lot harder

FWIW I kinda agree with your sentiment, but the way you make the argument is poor

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

1 minute ago, Mach5 said:

FWIW I kinda agree with your sentiment, but the way you make the argument is poor

No big deal, i made a point i have always believed and still do. 

We are also in a unique position whereby we are not part of a suburb, we are part of a city...

Pert should be excited about those prospects of growth. 

Melbourne is growing by over 1000 people a week and has been for 2-3 years now. 

Possibilities 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, sue said:

Yes - what rock have you been sleeping under?  And I'm not just referring to their playing fast and loose with personal data in pursuit of the $.    

I just finished reading Brave New World. The parallels of that society's need to never be lonely and what has come to be with the rise of the SNS age has a lot of resonance.

[Bonkers 994]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Many years ago i worked for a market research company whilst at Uni. 

I take no notice of their figures for that reason, so much was fudged blatantly. 

My point is, i think we have a huge dormant supporter base who do not even admit they are demons. We have been crap for to long!

I don't know if we have a dormant supporter base or not, research and numbers alone seem to indicate that we don't. I think what we do agree on is that our supporter base is not big enough and something needs to be done about it. 

[DeleteUser 638]

26 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

No big deal, i made a point i have always believed and still do. 

We are also in a unique position whereby we are not part of a suburb, we are part of a city...

Pert should be excited about those prospects of growth. 

Melbourne is growing by over 1000 people a week and has been for 2-3 years now. 

Possibilities 

How engaged is the migration with football

ie what is their cultural sensitivity to AFL

[DeleteUser 638]

9 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

I just finished reading Brave New World. The parallels of that society's need to never be lonely and what has come to be with the rise of the SNS age has a lot of resonance.

Whilst that's an interesting discussion, it's very different from the proposition that FB is evil. Anyway, that's discussion for another thread.

[Sir Why You Little 37,308]

6 minutes ago, timbo said:

How engaged is the migration with football

ie what is their cultural sensitivity to AFL

A diverse answer i suspect, but we should be targetting these people right now

[Big Carl 333]

18 hours ago, Biffen said:

After getting Harry O and Mark Neeld from Collingwood what could possibly go wrong.

The trifecta!

[Undeeterred 3,127]

12 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

 

"I think" vs a professional research company.

Did you vote for Trump too?

Lol. Apologies for basically repeating your post.

[Big Carl 333]

On 6/15/2018 at 9:28 AM, Wiseblood said:

You've got to love a bitter Mick Malthouse taking pot shots at Pert already, claiming they never really 'got along', although you would believe that Pert wouldn't be the first or the last person not to get along with angry Mick.  

Look up the word “bitter” in the dictionary and you will find a photo of Mick!

[Demon17 5,227]

4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It was PJs choice to leave, once he's made that decision it is up to those who will still be here to determine the best candidate for the position. PJ had the option to stay, I doubt he was pushed so it would be pretty petty of him to crack the sads on the way out.

Really good post.

The fugazi will be coming from media and others who have no experience and or idea how CEO's are appointed under these circumstances, and the probity issues required.

FUGAZI !!!!!!!!!!!!!   Move on .