Gary Pert

[Soidee 1,496]

CEO so far a shadow of Peter Jackson.  2 years under Perts charge the club has stalled.  Could of done with Jackson’s smart leadership during this latest crisis.  Jackson inspired me as a supporter.  Pert is corporate speak but little else.

[pewpewpew 742]

8 minutes ago, Soidee said:

CEO so far a shadow of Peter Jackson.  2 years under Perts charge the club has stalled.  Could of done with Jackson’s smart leadership during this latest crisis.  Jackson inspired me as a supporter.  Pert is corporate speak but little else.

I would have thought bringing in two sponsors during COVID is quite impressive given the current mess the economy is in.

What in particular are you upset with? The fact that memberships are down during a time fans can't attend games? Financials will take a hit in a year we don't get dollars from attendances?

You can't just hit without giving specific examples.

[drysdale demon 4,837]

11 minutes ago, Soidee said:

2 years under Perts charge the club has stalled.

Yeah, hasn't been able to crack it for a game yet

[Half forward flank 1,022]

No progress they are prepared to confide supporters in with Home ground. Beyond that he is another gun for hire. Boring as.....

[pewpewpew 742]

20 minutes ago, Soidee said:

CEO so far a shadow of Peter Jackson.  2 years under Perts charge the club has stalled.  Could of done with Jackson’s smart leadership during this latest crisis.  Jackson inspired me as a supporter.  Pert is corporate speak but little else.

If you are just referring to the football department part of things then he's only been here for 1 season and 4 games. 2019 was theorised to be an aberration by the wider AFL community and internally the off-season surgeries were the reason for the impact.

So far we are 4 games into a season that is just [censored] up and can't be compared to any season in terms of the impact it has had on individuals and the club, on field and off field and the Dees have copped the brunt of it with the season getting canned prior to Rd 1, Rd 3 getting postponed. Rd 5 having match changed.

Yes the FD & the game plan appears to be in a mess and the footy part of the club has appeared to have stalled but it appears you are advocating that Pert do something 4 games into the season by sacking the coach in which the payment would [censored] the club up even more financially and then you'd cry that he [censored] the club up financially.

Edited July 8, 2020 by pewpewpew

[Half forward flank 1,022]

1 minute ago, pewpewpew said:

If you are just referring to the football department part of things then he's only been here for 1 season and 4 games. 2019 was theorised to be an aberration by the wider AFL community and internally the off-season surgeries were the reason for the impact.

So far we are 4 games into a season that is just [censored] up and can't be compared to any season in terms of the impact it has had on individuals and the club, on field and off field and the Dees have copped the brunt of it with the season getting canned prior to Rd 1, Rd 3 getting postponed. Rd 5 having match changed.

Yes the FD & the game plan appears to be in a mess and the footy part of the club has appeared to have stalled but it appears you are advocating that Pert do something 4 games into the season by sacking the coach in which the payment would [censored] the club up even more financially and then you'd cry that he [censored] the club up financially.

Lets turn it around. Why are you not prepared to scrutinise his leadership compared to the respected jackson? 

[The Jackson FIX 3,505]

Tad harsh. Inherited Goodwin’s contract extension so is limited in his capacity to impact football performance. Tick on new sponsors. Tick on a healthy(ish) balance sheet which will give us a fighting chance of avoiding AFL intervention. Too early to tell on finding a new home - certainly hasn’t succeeded on that front but that is a long range project so deserves more time. My biggest query on him is his role in endorsing the coaching changes (and bringing a failed coach in Richardson in to support a coach under pressure) but that really should sit on Mahoney’s shoulders first.

[Wrecker45 3,381]

2 minutes ago, The Jackson 6 said:

Tad harsh. Inherited Goodwin’s contract extension so is limited in his capacity to impact football performance. Tick on new sponsors. Tick on a healthy(ish) balance sheet which will give us a fighting chance of avoiding AFL intervention. Too early to tell on finding a new home - certainly hasn’t succeeded on that front but that is a long range project so deserves more time. My biggest query on him is his role in endorsing the coaching changes (and bringing a failed coach in Richardson in to support a coach under pressure) but that really should sit on Mahoney’s shoulders first.

One coach wins every 18 years. I'm not sure the other 17 are failures. Experience is important and Richardson brings that.

[Demonland 74,351]

I'll remind people to keep criticism constructive and not make it a personal attack. It's ok to be critical but please be prepared to back it up.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

41 minutes ago, Soidee said:

CEO so far a shadow of Peter Jackson.  2 years under Perts charge the club has stalled.  Could of done with Jackson’s smart leadership during this latest crisis.  Jackson inspired me as a supporter.  Pert is corporate speak but little else.

As far as I've heard, the problem isn't Pert.

Mahoney was being groomed for the CEO role and then didn't get it. He should have moved on at the time. Jackson was the one preparing Mahoney for that role but Bartlett decided to take a bit more control and make some decisions. I haven't heard anything negative about Pert, doesn't mean it's not there of course, but I've been hearing plenty of noise about Mahoney and Bartlett.

My opinion is that things weren't setup well enough when both PJ and Roos left (at different times) and we really needed PJ for longer. Seems like the culture has gone back to how it was previously already. Cliques and friction.

[Lucifers Hero 40,715]

53 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

One coach wins every 18 years. I'm not sure the other 17 are failures. Experience is important and Richardson brings that.

But does he have the right experience?  His 20 year AFL coaching career shows little success:  12-13 years as asst coach at bulldogs, collingwood, essendon, carlton and port but generally not during successful years.  Then 6-7 years at Saints wallowing around the middle or the bottom of the ladder.  Sure, he was a highly regarded assistant to Hinkley but that was 8 years ago.

I still find it hard to see what he brings and why we recruited him especially after the bad rap from his own captain at the saints.

But I agree with @The Jackson 6responsibility for recruiting Richardson rests with Mahoney, not Pert.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Lucifer's Hero

[Deemania since 56 6,804]

41 minutes ago, pewpewpew said:

I would have thought bringing in two sponsors during COVID is quite impressive given the current mess the economy is in.

What in particular are you upset with? The fact that memberships are down during a time fans can't attend games? Financials will take a hit in a year we don't get dollars from attendances?

You can't just hit without giving specific examples.

Here is an example: Pert is all corporate speak, but almost nothing else as a CEO. Howzat?

[dazzledavey36 56,283]

Didn't realise it was Pert was the one missing targets into our forward entries.

Glad I know who the culprit is for dropping the last two games.

[whatwhat say what 23,838]

people really hate pert

both from the demons side and the filth side

i personally have no issues with him and can't quite understand the hate, although some of the stories re his times at the pies are...interesting

he's part of the wide afl 'boy's club' that is part of ned kelly's management stable

[Demon3 2,541]

People have a set against Pert for some reason.. the y way he finsihed at teh Pies probably teh main reason.

Facts are he was a very successful CEO at teh biggest club in Australia, and he has haelped reduce debt, managed to attract sponsors, been largely head down bottom up approach.

If you think Pert is teh problem then your head is in teh sand, teh problem comes from teh coached box. thast teh place you look first.

[frankie_d 1,471]

I have a positive view of Pert - he's got a tough job for a couple of reasons:

- Not PJ's choice - this is the one that worries me. PJ saved this club, and not following his advice (or even including him in part of the selection process for his successor) was a big mistake and speaks to the ego of the Board
- $hytty on field performance
- COVID blows up the world
- Has to pivot from focussing of new facilities to bringing the FD back from the brink. 

I think he will be OK

[ManDee 7,394]

18 minutes ago, Demon3 said:

People have a set against Pert for some reason.. the y way he finsihed at teh Pies probably teh main reason.

Facts are he was a very successful CEO at teh biggest club in Australia, and he has haelped reduce debt, managed to attract sponsors, been largely head down bottom up approach.

If you think Pert is teh problem then your head is in teh sand, teh problem comes from teh coached box. thast teh place you look first.

teh?

Edited July 9, 2020 by ManDee

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,136]

1 hour ago, Half forward flank said:

No progress they are prepared to confide supporters in with Home ground. Beyond that he is another gun for hire. Boring as.....

From the context, I assume you use the expression "gun for hire" as a negative expression. But wasn't Peter Jackson the perfect example of a "gun for hire"? It's not like Jackson applied for the job or took it to further his AFL administrative ambitions. 

I'm also not sure why "Boring as" is mentioned. Being "boring", or the opposite, would seem irrelevant to the role. 

[trout 385]

1 hour ago, The Jackson 6 said:

Tad harsh. Inherited Goodwin’s contract extension so is limited in his capacity to impact football performance. Tick on new sponsors. Tick on a healthy(ish) balance sheet which will give us a fighting chance of avoiding AFL intervention. Too early to tell on finding a new home - certainly hasn’t succeeded on that front but that is a long range project so deserves more time. My biggest query on him is his role in endorsing the coaching changes (and bringing a failed coach in Richardson in to support a coach under pressure) but that really should sit on Mahoney’s shoulders first.

Pretty sure Pert was CEO when Goodwin got his contract extension.

[Diamond_Jim 12,772]

If performance is sub par at the end of the year Bartlett and Mahoney should go simply because they locked us into the contract with Goodwin.Squarely their responsibility. Pert's future should be reviewed by the new Chairman. Seems to have done little wrong but from the outside it's hard to tell if the non football side of things is working well. One assumes he has KPI's which are measured against other clubs with due regard to size and on field success.

The new training ground in the MCG precinct is a Board decision which has made pursuit of that goal very difficult.

[Laughing Goat 308]

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

As far as I've heard, the problem isn't Pert.

Mahoney was being groomed for the CEO role and then didn't get it. He should have moved on at the time. Jackson was the one preparing Mahoney for that role but Bartlett decided to take a bit more control and make some decisions. I haven't heard anything negative about Pert, doesn't mean it's not there of course, but I've been hearing plenty of noise about Mahoney and Bartlett.

My opinion is that things weren't setup well enough when both PJ and Roos left (at different times) and we really needed PJ for longer. Seems like the culture has gone back to how it was previously already. Cliques and friction.

Spot on Nev......

[Lord Nev 13,512]

13 minutes ago, trout said:

Pretty sure Pert was CEO when Goodwin got his contract extension.

He was, but to be fair he'd only been there a few months, a big part of which Goodwin wouldn't have even been there for. It was very much a Mahoney and board decision.

[DeeSpencer 26,667]

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

He was, but to be fair he'd only been there a few months, a big part of which Goodwin wouldn't have even been there for. It was very much a Mahoney and board decision.

I don’t think any new CEO in the world wouldn’t have extended Goodwin.

The measure of the CEO’s value will he if the contract has out clauses for the last 1-2 years. A 4 year deal and a pay rise deserves to have some protection on the back end of the deal. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

3 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I don’t think any new CEO in the world wouldn’t have extended Goodwin.

The measure of the CEO’s value will he if the contract has out clauses for the last 1-2 years. A 4 year deal and a pay rise deserves to have some protection on the back end of the deal. 

100%. On the available evidence an extension was the right call, but you're right in that it's the parameters that matter.

My point was more about whose call it was at the time for all the above.

[Sir Why You Little 37,450]

I am not concerned with Pert

There are many others who come into the firing line before him

You may not like him, but he is a smooth operator