19 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

Absolutely agree with you. But how does clarry walk back from yesterday's cats meeting.

 

Is his license still suspended?

16 minutes ago, demoniac said:

Its fairly obvious that the Melbourne Football Club has devoted substantial resources in assisting Oliver with his non football issues in 2023 and likely before. Sometimes patience runs out and a clean start with a clean slate may be best option. Will the clean start work? Time will tell.

Yep, get that. But given he is absolutely at his lowest market value, I think we need to suck it up and keep assisting him. He's clearly made progress, and while it might be something that needs managing going forward, I think the upside is worth it

5 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

If you are not extremely concerned that this club is seemingly being run by a bunch of blind monkeys flinging poo at the wall to see what sticks, then you should be.

Leaving the Clarry trade aside, you've had Green take over as caretaker president, and since then he's had his pants pulled down by Gutnick, he's got Pert running a review when he should be reviewed instead, all the while this sinking ship is leaking worse than the Titanic.

I am going to give Pert the benefit of the doubt here, and say that he isn't sitting in Noosa and ringing clubs around without the backing of the board. So if the board is letting Pert run the show, because they have lost faith in the FD, be it Goody, Lamb or Richo, then forget trading Clarry and get on with replacing the people in the FD and let their replacements make the list management calls!

One thing is certain, a bunch of doctors, lawyers and ex footballers sitting on a board, have 0 credentials to make list management calls. And having the CEO act as a proxy for them, is even worse! 

Why on earth is it an issue for pert investigating if clubs are interested in Oliver? It’s not the role of either goody or richo and probably requires more nuance than leaving it to lamb. 

Not sure if this scenario has already been mentioned. Perhaps Clayton has fallen short of behaviours and targets set previously. Perhaps it was decided that he needs another reality check. Perhaps it was decided, internally, that the football department should remain vocal in their commitment to keeping Clayton (so as no fracture is created when he remains at MFC). Perhaps this is the reason that Pert is the selected 'negotiator'.

4 minutes ago, Oxdee said:

Why on earth is it an issue for pert investigating if clubs are interested in Oliver? It’s not the role of either goody or richo and probably requires more nuance than leaving it to lamb. 

Not a bad point, it’s not unreasonable to think that Clarry’s issues and whether other clubs are willing to take them on could be CEO to CEO level discussions.  

32 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

Absolutely agree with you. But how does clarry walk back from yesterday's cats meeting.

Just waiting for the spin that"... I was never really going to leave etc etc..."

I went for a job interview/meeting with another company, not necessarily to go for the job, but to find out what they are like, how they work, whos who ,and just to see if there is something there. There wasnt. Clarry is more than entitled to do that if Geelong have said come for a chat we may be a club you could be interested in if something were to happen.

 

I dont think there is any harm at all in that. 

32 minutes ago, greenwaves said:

Geelong must think they can get Smith and Oliver for one first rounder each

Of course they do. They’ll say we’re doing you a favour and the only way you’ll get a single first rounder is if you agree to pay some of that contract you gave him.

8 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

Not sure if this scenario has already been mentioned. Perhaps Clayton has fallen short of behaviours and targets set previously. Perhaps it was decided that he needs another reality check. Perhaps it was decided, internally, that the football department should remain vocal in their commitment to keeping Clayton (so as no fracture is created when he remains at MFC). Perhaps this is the reason that Pert is the selected 'negotiator'.

Would be laughable if this is how the club is being run.

Pretty obvious that threatening to trade Oliver last year didn't work as we would have hoped. Trying the same thing again would only prove that it's an empty threat.

13 minutes ago, Oxdee said:

Why on earth is it an issue for pert investigating if clubs are interested in Oliver? It’s not the role of either goody or richo and probably requires more nuance than leaving it to lamb. 

If the Board and Pert have decided that its time for Oliver to go they need to get in touch with Richo, Lamb and Goodwin and explain that this is the direction the club is taking and they are instructed to find the best offer for him. Basic chain of command. It's terrible to have the footy dept blindsided by the CEO going over their heads.

U watch if we get rid of Oliver to the cats we will prob take future 1sr plus some Other minor pics cause we are pushing him out. 

It’s the Melb way🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

29 minutes ago, Oxdee said:

Why on earth is it an issue for pert investigating if clubs are interested in Oliver? It’s not the role of either goody or richo and probably requires more nuance than leaving it to lamb. 

Have you ever heard it happen before?

5 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

If you are not extremely concerned that this club is seemingly being run by a bunch of blind monkeys flinging poo at the wall to see what sticks, then you should be.

Leaving the Clarry trade aside, you've had Green take over as caretaker president, and since then he's had his pants pulled down by Gutnick, he's got Pert running a review when he should be reviewed instead, all the while this sinking ship is leaking worse than the Titanic.

I am going to give Pert the benefit of the doubt here, and say that he isn't sitting in Noosa and ringing clubs around without the backing of the board. So if the board is letting Pert run the show, because they have lost faith in the FD, be it Goody, Lamb or Richo, then forget trading Clarry and get on with replacing the people in the FD and let their replacements make the list management calls!

One thing is certain, a bunch of doctors, lawyers and ex footballers sitting on a board, have 0 credentials to make list management calls. And having the CEO act as a proxy for them, is even worse! 

Pert must go immediately.

11 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

U watch if we get rid of Oliver to the cats we will prob take future 1sr plus some Other minor pics cause we are pushing him out. 

Yes, other clubs know we want him out so they have the advantage, so it will probably be one first rounder

Edited October 2, 20241 yr by greenwaves

4 hours ago, mo64 said:

This.

If Oliver has transgressed again as being reported, that's on the player first, then the Football Dept. 

If the CEO and the Board believe that there are cultural problems within the playing group, and the Football Dept. won't act upon them, then the CEO and Board have no other option.

And it's little wonder that Goodwin and the Football Dept want to keep Oliver. After recent failed seasons, their jobs are on the line.

What cultural problems? We have the best culture Pert's seen in 40 years in the game 🙄

4 hours ago, ChaserJ said:

It’s starting to grate how much negative information about players (be it Oliver, Petracca, etc.) gets leaked once the club starts to look bad in a PR sense. 

Questioning our culture due to ‘recreational behaviours’ is something, but so easily backgrounding against your own players when the narrative runs against you screams terrible culture and weak leadership. We’ve seen this in political parties of all persuasions and usually ends badly. 

It’s corrosive and toxic.

Bang on the money @ChaserJ, it is despicable of the club to leak this [censored] into the media just to save their own reputations amongst the supporters to save their own hides.

It won't be Pert going.  If Barrett is correct, and the review has uncovered player concerns about Oliver and his preferential treatment, on top of more behavioural concerns, Goodwin's position becomes almost untenable.  The CEO, no doubt with board authority, is acting against the reported wishes of the Footy Department and the Head Coach.  I don't see how that situation gets resolved. Or alternatively, most of what we are hearing is rubbish and it all goes away in a couple of weeks! 

38 minutes ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Not a bad point, it’s not unreasonable to think that Clarry’s issues and whether other clubs are willing to take them on could be CEO to CEO level discussions.  

I have no idea what these issues are. Anyone care to give a hint?

1 hour ago, layzie said:

There's no doubt Clarry would love to give up the silver service from Max for the might of Rhys Stanley. 

Danger goes orright just sayin

1 hour ago, Demon17 said:

Absolutely agree with you. But how does clarry walk back from yesterday's cats meeting.

Just waiting for the spin that"... I was never really going to leave etc etc..."

The same way Jack Viney did & probably Petracca did

7 minutes ago, Billy said:

The same way Jack Viney did...

You haven't really thought this through, have you!

 

4 hours ago, mo64 said:

And it's little wonder that Goodwin and the Football Dept want to keep Oliver. After recent failed seasons, their jobs are on the line.

Across the AFL all coaches’ jobs are always on the line but yes. 
 

And this is why you don’t give your head coach too much say in List Management. Short term vs long term/big picture goals. Clarkson spoke about it re his time at Hawthorn, that he was only one voice on the List Management Committee. 

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

 

Unless Goodwin isn't part of the List Management Committee, Pert didn't go behind the back of the Football Department.

If BP5 and Clarry have no issue with Goody and Goody doesn't want them traded then what chance he walks as well?

11 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Unless Goodwin isn't part of the List Management Committee, Pert didn't go behind the back of the Football Department.

Hard to say. There are conflicting reports. I still find it bizarre that Pert is making those calls and not Lamb even if the above is correct.

I feel like there's a bit of backpedaling going on.