Jump to content

Featured Replies

24 minutes ago, old dee said:

I don’t like silent chairman and CEO.  That is what we have, you never hear from them.

What do you want them to say, OD?  What are you missing out on?

 
9 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Some strong sentiments there, Doc.  I'll address each one as best I can.

As for the first paragraph.  If there are problems, and we have no idea if there are, then of course we should know about it.  The last thing we want is for things to go belly up at board level.  However, there is no indication of this at all, and people are merely trying to connect dots but doing nothing more than putting rumours out there that can't be supported.  The only thing I dislike around posting things they've heard is that it is super easy to do - I can say I've got contacts within the club who tell me that everyone is on the same page and that they are determined to turn things around on field and continue to be stable financially off it.  I can just say that I can't share who I got the info off and boom, I'm covered.  It's not necessarily as harmful if it occurs during trade time - people post all sorts of wacky rumours then - but trying to almost stir up a bit of trouble within the supporter group seems disingenuous.  Of course, there are enough people here who take the info with a grain of salt, but it only takes a few others to start referencing them in other threads all the time and the rumour has legs.

As to the last point, what do you want Bartlett and Pert to do right now?  How are they both treating us with contempt?  That seems such a strong, and strange, comment to me.  I'd much rather they continue to work their backside off behind the scenes to ensure the financial security of our club moving forward.  That is their job.  The job of Mahoney, Goodwin and the players is they are seen far more, talk about the on field stuff, while we might get an update here and there from the others.  I'm just not totally sure what you expect to hear from them on a regular basis.  I feel as though the club have stepped things up, especially during all the COVID stuff, and are giving us as much access as possible.

Let's be honest though, and I feel like SWYL for typing this and it makes me feel dirty, but wins are the thing we should be focusing on.  Right now, we don't have them, and the pressure is beginning to mount.  I'd like to see Goodwin and the team lift their game over the coming weeks, while I'd like Pert and Bartlett to continue to focus their time on ensuring the long term future of our club, especially during such a difficult time.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said - my opinion is that it is the job of Bartlett and Pert to be the public spruikers of the club and the face of the club for the members. Of course wins will fix everything but when the supporters are feeling as they have been this week I think it is the duty of the Pres and/or CEO to get on the front foot and assure them that things are on the right track or if not, they have strategies in place to rectify things if they do not improve.

It might be platitudes and it might be immature for lack of a better word but when things are all quiet on the western front when supporters have been up in arms and we are copping scrutiny in the media I'd like them to be the frontline communicators as well as shielding the footy department from that scrutiny to an extent.

Of course they need to work behind the scenes to work on financial stability and all the other off field stuff. But they need to be the public face of the club too, there is no reason they can't do both.

With regards to the first issue, I disagree but thats fine. I can see your point as to why you don't like it but I don't agree that those kinds of posts should be censored. Most people on here are smart enough to recognise a troll when they see one, most long term posters have nothing to gain by making up rumours to stir the pot.

Edited by Dr. Gonzo

I was under the impression that the concern with Pert was that he would try to micromanage the FD (apparently he did that at Collingwood?) and mess with things he shouldn't.  He doesn't seem to be doing anything like that.  I don't mind him working behind the scenes to try to keep the club functioning. 

 
9 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I was under the impression that the concern with Pert was that he would try to micromanage the FD (apparently he did that at Collingwood?) and mess with things he shouldn't.  He doesn't seem to be doing anything like that.  I don't mind him working behind the scenes to try to keep the club functioning. 

I agree Pert appears to be playing the role I’d expect of a CEO, although I don’t know the detail of his goals and whether he is achieving them. If the strategy requires, or the Board has directed Pert, to be a public mouthpiece for the club and in the press all the time then Pert is failing, but I doubt that’s the ask.

You wouldn’t want the standard “Yeah, nah” former players who wind up in footy departments to get their hands on key decisions and appointments around finances, facilities, lobbying governments and the like. It’s precisely why you need the non footy department parts of a footy club, so they can focus on all that stuff and the footy department can focus on winning games and ultimately winning premierships.

The things in the Board’s strategy, and what the CEO tries to drive to deliver the strategy, should definitely enable and support the footy department to win premierships as that’s what the club is all about at the end of the day.

If a footy club CEO is meddling in the footy department that’s a problem, and IF that’s what Pert did at Collingwood but isn’t doing at MFC that is a good sign of self development and being able to stick to his brief. It’s for this reason at footy clubs you see Boards appoint head coaches, even though the head coach is one, maybe two levels below the CEO on the organisation chart, and the head coach appears to be realistically more accountable directly to the Board. That’s very different to other corporate governance structures.

If Pert is delivering on what the Board wants and Pert is happy, and he’s letting the footy department live and die by their own decisions and actions, he should stay. If not, he should go, but it is also easier said than done to find better replacements.

10 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

What do you want them to say, OD?  What are you missing out on?

I will say it again wiseblood I don’t like silent leaders, just me it always feels like nothing is happening. 


This week the fan and media storm is akin to that we rightly got after the shellacking by Hawthorn in early 2018. 

Jackson got on the front foot and said (among other things) 'the players trashed our brand'.   He understood that it is important to control the narrative.

Everyone knew a lot of it was coaching decisions/lack thereof (played no wingmen, players played out of position, let Shiels run amok, a bewildered coaches box) but Jackson's talk put everyone on notice to lift.  We did.  We went on to play in the Prelim.  And it quietened the media somewhat.

Sometimes a carefully worded public 'put-down' or wise words can go a long way to placating fans and settling the media a bit.  Silence can also give a message, often the wrong message such as the performance status quo is acceptable, that mfc bashing is ok, that Oliver bashing is ok, lights on but no-one home etc  

At the moment we are fair game in the media because no one stands up to them.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

35 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

This week the fan and media storm is akin to that we rightly got after the shellacking by Hawthorn in early 2018. 

Jackson got on the front foot and said (among other things) 'the players trashed our brand'.   He understood that it is important to control the narrative.

Everyone knew a lot of it was coaching decisions/lack thereof (played no wingmen, players played out of position, let Shiels run amok, a bewildered coaches box) but Jackson's talk put everyone on notice to lift.  We did.  We went on to play in the Prelim.  And it quietened the media somewhat.

Sometimes a carefully worded public 'put-down' or wise words can go a long way to placating fans and settling the media a bit.  Silence can also give a message, often the wrong message such as the performance status quo is acceptable, that mfc bashing is ok, that Oliver bashing is ok, lights on but no-one home etc  

At the moment we are fair game in the media because no one stands up to them.

Spot on LH that covers my thoughts exactly. Silence is not always golden. 

20 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Fair point, although you can see why they might have shifted him there.

I've seen others mentioned as well, but outside of Harmes and Gus, I don't think they are valid  Hunt, for example, lost the plot across half back (in fact he has never been the same player since he got knocked out against the Crows) and they have tried to resurrect his career as a forward.  You could argue that the club are trying different things there to see what might work.   

Salem is a strange one - does he have the capacity to play as a mid?  I feel like we haven't found his best position yet.  He doesn't strike me as a wingman, and you can't blame them for wanting his kicking skills to be used across half back.  Not convinced he is a forward either.

Having said that, I'm with @binman - players should always put the team first.  If they coach needs them in a certain position, then they roll with it (unless they stick Max in the back pocket and have Nev rucking).

Or Nev minding a 200cm forward like McKay of Carlton

 

Pert was asked to do a PD review at Collingwood at the request of the Collingwood board that is how the changes began even Eddie acknowledged this on air at MMM and said at the time because of this he left shortly afterwards so lets get this notion of him going rouge out of the discussion. 

16 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I was under the impression that the concern with Pert was that he would try to micromanage the FD (apparently he did that at Collingwood?) and mess with things he shouldn't.  He doesn't seem to be doing anything like that.  I don't mind him working behind the scenes to try to keep the club functioning. 

well far be it for any senior management at the filth to micromanage the fd  ?

 


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • Like
    • 720 replies
  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Haha
      • Like
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies