Pert and Roffey - The Review Thread

[bing181 9,328]

11 hours ago, Demons11 said:

I started this thread purely based on the fact the club has been in disarray over the past 12-18 months

You're confusing correlation with causation.

The only facts are that a few players have gone off the rails/had incidents. That's it. 

[Demons11 7,046]

54 minutes ago, bing181 said:

You're confusing correlation with causation.

The only facts are that a few players have gone off the rails/had incidents. That's it. 

If you think it’s only limited to a few than I’d say you’re delusional.  The fact players like Viney and Trac were looking to get out tells you that everything is not right .  I would say what we hear is less than 25% than what potentially is going on

[Biffen 12,944]

On 03/09/2024 at 17:47, Satyriconhome said:

Similar to yours then SWYL any opportunity to kick the club.

Always remember saying you don't have a membership, have you bought one yet?

In all fairness,SWYL was never sprung pinching cutlery at the B&F.

[Demonstone 22,792]

34 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

The fact players like Viney and Trac were looking to get out

You seriously believe that North's interest in Viney means it was a FACT that he was looking to get out?

I've got a nice big bridge in Sydney Harbour you may be interested in buying from me.

[Biffen 12,944]

5 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

You seriously believe that North's interest in Viney means it was a FACT that he was looking to get out?

I've got a nice big bridge in Sydney Harbour you may be interested in buying from me.

I'll buy it.Hey wait-they're going to pull it down aren't they?

Is this a trick?

[chookrat 4,267]

1 hour ago, Demons11 said:

If you think it’s only limited to a few than I’d say you’re delusional.  The fact players like Viney and Trac were looking to get out tells you that everything is not right .  I would say what we hear is less than 25% than what potentially is going on

Viney looking to get out??

[Demons11 7,046]

1 hour ago, chookrat said:

Viney looking to get out??

Are you actually trying to tell me that you think there aren’t issues at our club?

[Demonstone 22,792]

You were challenged on your risible assertion that it is a fact that Viney wanted out.

 

[Demons11 7,046]

Just now, Demonstone said:

You were challenged on your risible assertion that it is a fact that Viney wanted out.

 

Probably a poor choice of words as I bundled it with Trac who definitely wanted out.  

[layzie 33,989]

Do an external review.

I'm going to say this here everyday until it happens. If any players do read this as has been suggested, please pass this message on to the head brass. Ta

[Demonsterative 3,020]

Change is needed but it could really blow up in the next 12 months. 
 

Roffey (touted)

Pert (if a review occurs)

Goodwin (rumour only)

Trac (wants out)

Clarry (rumoured)

McQualter (WCE)

Stafford (confirmed)

BBB (confirmed and a great leader)

ANB (confirmed and a great leader) 

 

Like em or not. It’s a lot of leadership and important cogs within the clubs wheel. Not all the named above will go but it could get ugly. 
 

 

[Whispering_Jack 30,575]

Every well run sporting organization is constantly conducting reviews of its activities. The scrutiny involved can only be good as long as such reviews are carried out in an honest and objective manner - if done in that way it can only lead to improvement and a better organization in the long run.

Assuming that such a review is to take place at Melbourne, what areas need to be covered by the review eg the President, Board, Administrative Staff, Football Staff, Playing Group - including performance and achievement and what period should it cover?

Should the review be internal as I understand would be taking place routinely in any event, or by way of an independent external review?

What information would such a review be based upon? I would expect verified facts and not hearsay removed three times, guesswork or supposition as we sometimes see in online discussions, the social media or even today’s professional media, some of which is more concerned wit garnering clicks than providing information or opinion.

Please keep the discussion respectful - remember, such a review involves real people, with reputations and livelihoods, not to mention the fact that, in this case, it’s about the club we support and this site is all about supporting this club and its players.

[Rednblueriseing 824]

42 minutes ago, Demonsterative said:

Change is needed but it could really blow up in the next 12 months. 
 

Roffey (touted)

Pert (if a review occurs)

Goodwin (rumour only)

Trac (wants out)

Clarry (rumoured)

McQualter (WCE)

Stafford (confirmed)

BBB (confirmed and a great leader)

ANB (confirmed and a great leader) 

 

Like em or not. It’s a lot of leadership and important cogs within the clubs wheel. Not all the named above will go but it could get ugly. 
 

 

From that list... I'd wanna Keep Clarry Tracc and Goodwin the rest not fussed 

[Lucifers Hero 40,313]

49 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Every well run sporting organization is constantly conducting reviews of its activities. The scrutiny involved can only be good as long as such reviews are carried out in an honest and objective manner - if done in that way it can only lead to improvement and a better organization in the long run.

Assuming that such a review is to take place at Melbourne, what areas need to be covered by the review eg the President, Board, Administrative Staff, Football Staff, Playing Group - including performance and achievement and what period should it cover?

Should the review be internal as I understand would be taking place routinely in any event, or by way of an independent external review?

What information would such a review be based upon? I would expect verified facts and not hearsay removed three times, guesswork or supposition as we sometimes see in online discussions, the social media or even today’s professional media, some of which is more concerned wit garnering clicks than providing information or opinion.

Please keep the discussion respectful - remember, such a review involves real people, with reputations and livelihoods, not to mention the fact that, in this case, it’s about the club we support and this site is all about supporting this club and its players.

General Comments

• A review needs to be objective and stand up to scrutiny.
• Preferred review period: 2021 - 2024

Roles to Review

• CEO
• FD Management (incl Coaching)
• List Management
• Communications Management

Methodology - Measurable Stuff

• Locate existing KPI’s (ie goals) for each role
• Locate 3 year performance for each KPI
• Identify performance gaps for each KPI
• Identify objective causes for those gaps
• Is the org structure appropriate
• Are the reporting lines/structure being adhered to

There is a high probability the performance in most cases has met the KPI’s during those 3 years BUT the trend will be poor. eg Increased membership rose but has dropped off.  Ladder position was high but has gradually dropped off.  Perhaps similarly for sponsorships etc 

Methodology - Less/Non Measurable Stuff

It is much harder to assess the ‘soft’ stuff like decision, relationships, standards, discontent, etc and will need to be assessed by interviewing staff.  Hopefully, they are structured questionnaires that are tried and tested. 

An important area is 'external image' in the industry because that has such a critical affect on sponsorships, recruiting etc

It would take to long to list the type of questions for each role to be reviewed. 

BUT

• Are they the right KPI’s
• What should the KPI’s be
• How will those KPI’s be measuerd

Reviewer(s)?

The recent trend has been for a panel of ex-footballers (Freo and Adelaide) to undertake it.  I doubt they have the methodology for the above review.

When Pert reviewed the FD at the end of 2020 he engaged an external person.  I don't know if that was an AFL person or an outside consultant.

To be fair, I thought the 2020 FD review was very good.  It resulted in a more appropriate organisation structure and made some badly needed personnel changes.  imv the error was the choice of personnel replacements .

Edited September 5 by Lucifers Hero

[BDA 22,868]

1 minute ago, Lucifers Hero said:

General Comments

• A review needs to be objective and stand up to scrutiny.
• Preferred review period: 2021 - 2024

Roles to Review

• CEO
• FD Management (incl Coaching)
• List Management
• Communications Management

Methodology - Measurable Stuff

• Locate existing KPI’s (ie goals) for each role
• Locate 3 year performance for each KPI
• Identify performance gaps for each KPI

There is a high probability the performance in most cases has met the KPI’s during those 3 years BUT the trend will be poor. eg Increased membership rose but has dropped off.  Ladder position was high but has gradually dropped off.  Perhaps similarly for sponsorships etc 

Methodology - Less/Non Measurable Stuff

It is much harder to assess the ‘soft’ stuff like decision, relationships, standards and will need to be assessed by interviewing staff.  Hopefully, they are structured questionnaires that are tried and tested. 

It would take to long to list the type of questions for each role to be reviewed. 

BUT

• Are they the right KPI’s
• What should the KPI’s be
• How will those KPI’s be measuerd

Reviewer(s)?

The recent trend has been for a panel of ex-footballers (Freo and Adelaide) to undertake it.  I doubt they have the methodology for the above review.

When Pert did the review at the end of 2020 he engaged an external person.  I don't know if that was an AFL person or an outside consultant.

I reckon you should do the review Luci 

[Lucifers Hero 40,313]

16 minutes ago, BDA said:

I reckon you should do the review Luci 

Crikey!!!  That floored me 😊

Too much politics in Boards and Clubs for my liking !!!

 

Message to self: stop making 'sensible comments' !!! 

[BDA 22,868]

5 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Crikey!!!  That floored me 😊

Too much politics in Boards and Clubs for my liking !!!

 

Message to self: stop making 'sensible comments' !!! 

I got roped into sitting on the board of a member based organisation for 3 years. 500 members so small but it was a pain in the [censored]. there's was always someone complaining.

[chookrat 4,267]

On 05/09/2024 at 00:21, waynewussell said:

It has been inferred that CP5 is ‘disgruntled’ over the way the Clayton Oliver issue has been handled by the club. Considering that Clayton was on the brink during the second half of 2023, the fact that he played 21 games in 2024, and led the club for average disposals, is a minor miracle! I applaud the coach, his assistants, player leaders and officials for the transformation they bought about in Clayton’s health and wellbeing, and ultimately, in his output in 2024. He is now well positioned to start 2025 at the height of his powers. It’s up to him! I think too much has been made of Petracca’s concerns on this issue. Are they not great mates! Wouldn’t Christian be pleased to see a slow but steady redemption for Clayton. I would have thought that Christian would play a role in getting Clayton back on track (no pun intended) rather than using him as a catalyst for enquiring about possible trade options!

The media have no idea most of the time. They pretty much hear a rumour and then throw some speculation out there to generate a reaction.

[picket fence 17,478]

9 hours ago, layzie said:

Do an external review.

I'm going to say this here everyday until it happens. If any players do read this as has been suggested, please pass this message on to the head brass. Ta

THEY WONT DO AN EXTERNAL REVIEW coz you know why! I'll say it again Roffey, Pert, Richardson and Goodwin should be shown the door, been an extremely poor 3 years and in particular 2024!

[Dee*ceiving 1,690]

3 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

General Comments

• A review needs to be objective and stand up to scrutiny.
• Preferred review period: 2021 - 2024

Roles to Review

• CEO
• FD Management (incl Coaching)
• List Management
• Communications Management

Methodology - Measurable Stuff

• Locate existing KPI’s (ie goals) for each role
• Locate 3 year performance for each KPI
• Identify performance gaps for each KPI
• Identify objective causes for those gaps
• Is the org structure appropriate
• Are the reporting lines/structure being adhered to

There is a high probability the performance in most cases has met the KPI’s during those 3 years BUT the trend will be poor. eg Increased membership rose but has dropped off.  Ladder position was high but has gradually dropped off.  Perhaps similarly for sponsorships etc 

Methodology - Less/Non Measurable Stuff

It is much harder to assess the ‘soft’ stuff like decision, relationships, standards, discontent, etc and will need to be assessed by interviewing staff.  Hopefully, they are structured questionnaires that are tried and tested. 

An important area is 'external image' in the industry because that has such a critical affect on sponsorships, recruiting etc

It would take to long to list the type of questions for each role to be reviewed. 

BUT

• Are they the right KPI’s
• What should the KPI’s be
• How will those KPI’s be measuerd

Reviewer(s)?

The recent trend has been for a panel of ex-footballers (Freo and Adelaide) to undertake it.  I doubt they have the methodology for the above review.

When Pert reviewed the FD at the end of 2020 he engaged an external person.  I don't know if that was an AFL person or an outside consultant.

To be fair, I thought the 2020 FD review was very good.  It resulted in a more appropriate organisation structure and made some badly needed personnel changes.  imv the error was the choice of personnel replacements .

Nice, some additional scope items

• Governance, board and operations 
• Delivery of home base  
• Media relations & leaks (verbal/written, not toileting)

[Adam The God 30,403]

7 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

General Comments

• A review needs to be objective and stand up to scrutiny.
• Preferred review period: 2021 - 2024

Roles to Review

• CEO
• FD Management (incl Coaching)
• List Management
• Communications Management

Methodology - Measurable Stuff

• Locate existing KPI’s (ie goals) for each role
• Locate 3 year performance for each KPI
• Identify performance gaps for each KPI
• Identify objective causes for those gaps
• Is the org structure appropriate
• Are the reporting lines/structure being adhered to

There is a high probability the performance in most cases has met the KPI’s during those 3 years BUT the trend will be poor. eg Increased membership rose but has dropped off.  Ladder position was high but has gradually dropped off.  Perhaps similarly for sponsorships etc 

Methodology - Less/Non Measurable Stuff

It is much harder to assess the ‘soft’ stuff like decision, relationships, standards, discontent, etc and will need to be assessed by interviewing staff.  Hopefully, they are structured questionnaires that are tried and tested. 

An important area is 'external image' in the industry because that has such a critical affect on sponsorships, recruiting etc

It would take to long to list the type of questions for each role to be reviewed. 

BUT

• Are they the right KPI’s
• What should the KPI’s be
• How will those KPI’s be measuerd

Reviewer(s)?

The recent trend has been for a panel of ex-footballers (Freo and Adelaide) to undertake it.  I doubt they have the methodology for the above review.

When Pert reviewed the FD at the end of 2020 he engaged an external person.  I don't know if that was an AFL person or an outside consultant.

To be fair, I thought the 2020 FD review was very good.  It resulted in a more appropriate organisation structure and made some badly needed personnel changes.  imv the error was the choice of personnel replacements .

Great post mate. Is there a reason you've left the board's performance off the list of areas to review?

Also, vis a vis the 2020 review and the choice of personnel replacements, I do think we were hamstrung by existing contracts and the soft cap, which itself was being squeezed at the time, with lots of uncertainty moving forward as to how that would rise or fall.

[Lucifers Hero 40,313]

4 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Great post mate. Is there a reason you've left the board's performance off the list of areas to review?

Also, vis a vis the 2020 review and the choice of personnel replacements, I do think we were hamstrung by existing contracts and the soft cap, which itself was being squeezed at the time, with lots of uncertainty moving forward as to how that would rise or fall.

There has been a fair bit of change in Constitution, election processes etc at Board level and on the basis of 'one can't review onself' a Board review would need to be driven by AFL House which I doubt would happen.

Sure there was a need to honour existing contracts.  There were other ways of doing it without putting them in charge of departments.  Those contracts would have expired sometime in the last four years which was the time to change personnel if there was a will to do so.

[Adam The God 30,403]

1 minute ago, Lucifers Hero said:

There has been a fair bit of change in Constitution, election processes etc at Board level and on the basis of 'one can't review onself' a Board review would need to be driven by AFL House which I doubt would happen.

Sure there was a need to honour existing contracts.  There were other ways of doing it without putting them in charge of departments.  Those contracts would have expired sometime in the last four years which was the time to change personnel if there was a will to do so.

Agreed, it's just unfortunate that most of the constitutional change has been pushed from the outside. The board wanted the status quo and electioneering to remain, hence us as members being told who to vote for 3 years in a row.

[Watson11 2,241]

8 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Roles to Review

• CEO
• FD Management (incl Coaching)
• List Management
• Communications Management

I would add:

High Performance Management/Medical Management

Our fitness this year has not been as good as prior years.  In my opinion, our fitness/medical management in 2022 cost us the flag that year.  No one could get near us in the first half of games.  

This is not a personal indictment on our Chief Medical Officer, as I am sure she is a very good doctor and will be an even better one as she gets more experience.  But she was appointed Chief Medical Officer of MFC in 2020, and at that time had not finished sportsmed training (From her bio - "she commenced her specialty training in Sports Medicine in 2016 and completed it in 2021").  I think a lot of the poor decisions that have been made re injuries are not helped by the issues/manner of dealing with the previous doctor, the AFL culture around playing injured, and the relative inexperience of the replacement.  

[Hawk the Demon 1,028]

54 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Agreed, it's just unfortunate that most of the constitutional change has been pushed from the outside. The board wanted the status quo and electioneering to remain, hence us as members being told who to vote for 3 years in a row.

Exactly Adam. A review from "top to bottom" echoing Whateley's question. Top starts with the Board. First question - consider the decision-making within the Board that has led to protracted, costly legal cases in 2022, 2023 and 2024. Could they have been shortened or mediated. One won, one lost so far, and where did we end up? Were good decisions made? Were all Board members involved or was it delegated to one or two?