This is all on Gary Pert…

Deciphering the media is an art, not a science. You just have to trust your gut and decide for yourself if it passes the sniff test. 

And people will have different opinions on certain stories because they aren't all created equal, some will be flat out doozies and some could be subjective and that's why we're all here, to discuss them.

The world is grey, enjoy the ride. And be nice to each other. 

2 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

As you’re the one asserting a mistruth, or claims of libel, the onus is actually on you to suggest otherwise. But given you’re essentially wanting to impart some obscure, reverse onus, I would suggest to you that there is enough on the balance of probabilities to indicate much of what is reported is accurate to the extent the information is available. 
 

Do you want to proceed with tendency examples? 
 

Show some critical thinking, it may hold you in good stead. Once again, your inability to critique the club says volumes. 

I have here, repeatedly.  They were wrong about Clarry being traded last year.  They were wrong about Petty. They were wrong about Kozzy (and if we're on the topic of misappropriation of the truth, one thing that was truthfully reported is that Kozzy, like he does every year in his exit meeting, states he is homesick, and works with the club to ensure he has constant engagement with his family, which Whelan does very well, I spoke to Kozzy's dad about that last year, and he is more than happy with the way the club works with the family.  but as soon as the media hears homesick, their instant response is "He wants to be traded interstate!").  They were wrong about Viney, they repeatedly get things wrong.  They extended the contracts or re-signed 17 players this year, and only 1 person has asked for a trade.  This is documented proof of things the media have gotten wrong.  Yesterday McClure couldn't even get Clarry's home town right, leading to his mum blasting on social media.  FFS, stop being chicken little!

41 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

t's not Barrett's call! I'll never accept that sports 'journalists' have the right to call for a club official to be removed (however they phrase it!), no matter how big the reputation (or ego, Whateley!). It's the Club's call, and the Review may point to that end (for Pert), however... butt-out Barrett!

definitely not his call, whether one thinks he's right or not

on top of this, this report is on the afl official web site and barrett is employed and writing for the afl

so what is the afl's responsibility in this? if i was the club i would be making a strong complaint to the afl

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

definitely not his call, whether one thinks he's right or not

on top of this, this report is on the afl official web site and barrett is employed and writing for the afl

so what is the afl's responsibility in this? if i was the club i would be making a strong complaint to the afl

Yes, I've been thinking that for a while.  I really don't think it looks good for the AFL to have a staff member constantly denigrating clubs in an impartial manner.  That is one I think the MFC can have a legitimate complaint over.

45 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

I for one won’t be fussed if Pert replaced.

For that to happen the Board might need some changes (it's doubtful that we'd get a whole new Board)

Pert & the Board are intertwined or at least it seems that way

The Pert phone calls would have to be backed by the Board mainly because there is so much money involved with Oliver's contact

People need to remember that the Board has to ratify contracts or vice-versa

And I'm not trying to let Pert off the hook either ... it's more of a procedural action with regards to chain of command

But if it was Pert alone his position is untenable

Just now, Macca said:

For that to happen the Board might need some changes (it's doubtful that we'd get a whole new Board)

Pert & the Board are intertwined or at least it seems that way

The Pert phone calls would have to be backed by the Board mainly because there is so much money involved with Oliver's contact

People need to remember that the Board has to ratify contracts or vice-versa

And I'm not trying to let Pert off the hook either ... it's more of a procedural action with regards to chain of command

But if it was Pert alone his position is untenable

That's a hell of a lot of speculation without proof there.  

1 minute ago, Macca said:

 

But if it was Pert alone his position is untenable

Initially Pert acted alone….

2 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Given the board vote about the Oliver trade happened well after the reports around Pert making calls this would seem to be correct. It's hard to dismiss the high possibility of misalignment currently at our club between the board, executive and football department.

The Board were definitely blindsided, now whether that was for 5 minutes or a week, that is up in the air 

it's a bit worrying how the media reporting seems to have shifted to reporting on what's happening  in club land to a position where they are increasingly trying to directly influence club decisions

it would be ok for barrett to report that there are rumblings about pert's future but for barrett to come out and unequivocally call for pert's dismissal on his advice is really overstepping the role of the press

we are increasingly seeing the media interfering in club management and decision making rather than just reporting on it

the blatant click whoring is just getting worse and worse

Edited October 10, 2024Oct 10 by daisycutter

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

definitely not his call, whether one thinks he's right or not

on top of this, this report is on the afl official web site and barrett is employed and writing for the afl

so what is the afl's responsibility in this? if i was the club i would be making a strong complaint to the afl

My concern is that the AFL has prodded Barrett to make this call. In other words, the AFL are looking to influence the decision to remove Pert.

19 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

Yeah, how dare parties disagree on a forum. Next you’ll bring out the timeless classic “supporters support” line. 

Thanks don’t have to now.

43 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

I have here, repeatedly.  They were wrong about Clarry being traded last year.  They were wrong about Petty. They were wrong about Kozzy (and if we're on the topic of misappropriation of the truth, one thing that was truthfully reported is that Kozzy, like he does every year in his exit meeting, states he is homesick, and works with the club to ensure he has constant engagement with his family, which Whelan does very well, I spoke to Kozzy's dad about that last year, and he is more than happy with the way the club works with the family.  but as soon as the media hears homesick, their instant response is "He wants to be traded interstate!").  They were wrong about Viney, they repeatedly get things wrong.  They extended the contracts or re-signed 17 players this year, and only 1 person has asked for a trade.  This is documented proof of things the media have gotten wrong.  Yesterday McClure couldn't even get Clarry's home town right, leading to his mum blasting on social media.  FFS, stop being chicken little!

You’re absolutely playing semantics, and I note that the end result doesn’t indicate a ‘lie’ or ‘misrepresentation’. 

A reported ‘intention’ can be accurate, without a corresponding result ensuring. I may have a desire and intent to go to the movies today, not completing that action does not take away from either the intention or desire. That’s simply output dependency; a change to an input can absolutely result in a change in output. 

As I said earlier, your binary outlook lacks any analytical value at all, and is an extremely sheltered and naive way to treat information. It has no real world application. 

Feel free to keep living in the post truth world though, it’s scary out there. 

Edited October 11, 2024Oct 11 by BLWNBA

1 minute ago, BLWNBA said:

You’re absolutely playing semantics, and I note that the end result doesn’t indicate a ‘lie’ or ‘misrepresentation’. 

A reported ‘intention’ can be accurate, without a corresponding result ensuring. I may have a desire and intent to go to the movies today, not completing that action does not take away from either the intention and desire. That’s simply output dependency; a change to an input can absolutely result in a change in output. 

As I said earlier, your binary outlook lacks any analytical value at all, and is an extremely sheltered and naive way to treat information. It has no real world application. 

Feel free to keep living in the post truth world though, it’s scary out there. 

I wish you would go to the movies today, instead of harassing a poster that has a different view than your own.

1 minute ago, BLWNBA said:

You’re absolutely playing semantics, and I note that the end result doesn’t indicate a ‘lie’ or ‘misrepresentation’. 

A reported ‘intention’ can be accurate, without a corresponding result ensuring. I may have a desire and intent to go to the movies today, not completing that action does not take away from either the intention and desire. That’s simply output dependency; a change to an input can absolutely result in a change in output. 

As I said earlier, your binary outlook lacks any analytical value at all, and is an extremely sheltered and naive way to treat information. It has no real world application. 

Feel free to keep living in the post truth world though, it’s scary out there. 

Just wondering, who in the club have you spoken to about this?  Because personally I've spoken to many, including Pert.  So I'm just wondering what other information are you relying on other than the media's, because it seems to me you take far too much from them at face value.

 

Just now, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Just wondering, who in the club have you spoken to about this?  Because personally I've spoken to many, including Pert.  So I'm just wondering what other information are you relying on other than the media's, because it seems to me you take far too much from them at face value.

Once again, can you actually acknowledge and refute anything I’ve said, rather than continuing to deflect? 
 

But yes, the beacon of truth is a what a club employee says to a random supporter at a Best and Fairest or family day. 

 

18 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

As you’re the one asserting a mistruth, or claims of libel, the onus is actually on you to suggest otherwise. But given you’re essentially wanting to impart some obscure, reverse onus, I would suggest to you that there is enough on the balance of probabilities to indicate much of what is reported is accurate to the extent the information is available. 
 

Do you want to proceed with tendency examples? 
 

Show some critical thinking, it may hold you in good stead. Once again, your inability to critique the club says volumes. 

Ask our Captain and Brayshaw what they think of the Media and then when you pick yourself up say to yourself these blokes who have worked pretty dam close to the snake's nest, really despise them.

And by the way, there are a lot of loyal people on here that aren't blind and their philosophy has always been trust but verify.

2 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

My concern is that the AFL has prodded Barrett to make this call. In other words, the AFL are looking to influence the decision to remove Pert.

one could easily draw that inference, wr

if true it would be a very poor direction to take. if the afl want pert out they could talk to the board and other senior club stakeholders, or even directly to pert, but to use a sleazy cutout like barrett is a bit odious (even by afl standards)

i can't see a brad green directly standing up to the afl over this though, especially being a stand-in pres

This is Matthew Lloyd, not Sam McClure for once.

19 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Initially Pert acted alone….

You don't know that for sure

6 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Just wondering, who in the club have you spoken to about this?  Because personally I've spoken to many, including Pert.  So I'm just wondering what other information are you relying on other than the media's, because it seems to me you take far too much from them at face value.

Pert will tell you what you want to believe and you'll take the bait like any other gullible fan does.

He's not going to tell cheer squad member the true depths of what's happening behind the scenes.

Just now, dazzledavey36 said:

Pert will tell you what you want to believe and you'll take the bait like any other gullible fan does.

He's not going to tell cheer squad member the true depths of what's happening behind the scenes.

Probably not. Ditto for the press you'd think.

2 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

This is Matthew Lloyd, not Sam McClure for once.

Honestly, just be done with it and trade him. Grab a future first rounder and a 2nd round draft pick and move on. 

Cannot put up another 12 months of Oliver distraction and noise on top of his ongoing behaviour that we still have to manage.

1 hour ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Are you really sure you want to run with that?  It's been reported in the media.  Please.  Morris is notoriously way off the mark majority of the time.

Examples?

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

You don't know that for sure

I will back my source in…