4 minutes ago, dino rover said:

apparently Branson explains his success as not be being the smartest guy in the room but consulting and convening the smartest

yep if you havent got a specific skill get someone who has

Can someone please explain to me the Garry Pert hate? Genuinely interested in the rationale.

Aren’t all our problems essentially with the footy department or is there something that I’m missing?

Will the results of the review be shared with members?

14 hours ago, Dr Don Duffy said:

A later report from Jay Clark says that Pert is going to be overseeing the review, along with Shand and Green.

After Pert’s running commentary on things expect a “nothing to see here” report. Either that or the boot-studders and water-bottle carriers are going to be in big trouble to carry the can. 

I suspect that both Roffey and Pert never wanted a full external review (and still would not assist its invocation) for perhaps, a variety of reasons - yet the fans speaking to fans seem to support such a move wholeheartedly. I would prefer such a review to take place under an external governance, not involving Pert in its agenda or governance/influence, so that it remains fully non-biased, or too close to incredibility or 'steered' when disappointments and unfavourable elements may arise. Bring it on, seek the truth, fly the flag, not the reputations. I have full support for the opinions and intents of Neita, Tracca and Green; independent reviews can thus cross into sacrosanct areas should there be a need; if not, let the truth and foci be explored. We want a healthy Club; not a Club of also-rans.

26 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

I suspect that both Roffey and Pert never wanted a full external review (and still would not assist its invocation) for perhaps, a variety of reasons - yet the fans speaking to fans seem to support such a move wholeheartedly. I would prefer such a review to take place under an external governance, not involving Pert in its agenda or governance/influence, so that it remains fully non-biased, or too close to incredibility or 'steered' when disappointments and unfavourable elements may arise. Bring it on, seek the truth, fly the flag, not the reputations. I have full support for the opinions and intents of Neita, Tracca and Green; independent reviews can thus cross into sacrosanct areas should there be a need; if not, let the truth and foci be explored. We want a healthy Club; not a Club of also-rans.

Nice post. According to Jay Clark, Darren Shand already spent a week at the Club earlier in the season (Kate referred to this in the her fateful interview), so one could say he is "already on the payroll". His hasty inclusion in the process allows the Club to use the word "external" when it patently isn't. Reminds me of the Candidate Assessment process the Board used where candidates were interviewed by a majority of existing directors, with an executive recruitment specialist rubber-stamping the conclusions. That's played out well as Brad said, re the Board, will "be honest with each other about where we have succeeded and where we could have done better".

43 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

His hasty inclusion in the process allows the Club to use the word "external" when it patently isn't. Reminds

Why? Because he spent a week at the club?

2 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

Will the results of the review be shared with members?

you must be kidding, right?

at best you'll get a very carefully curated overview

Jeez, the word ‘patently’ gets thrown around easily…

This seems a reasonable path by the Board. Brad has stated his interim understanding

 I do not know his administrative or governance experience but certainly if it is not extensive and exhaustive then having advice from an external (to the Board) analyst, with apparent high performance organisation experience can only help.

It is essential that the process be transparent and that any considerations are announced and not leaked. If the Board has not learnt from the existing situation that it is necessary to make a public statement sooner rather than being dragged in to make responses, then we will again be at the forefrnt of media speculation.

7 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

you must be kidding, right?

at best you'll get a very carefully curated overview

I would hope we get a carefully curated overview, Lack of that is why we are where we are.

Its fine for Pert to be the internal lead.

It doesn't mean he will participate in all the interviews and assessments especially if his own role is included.  Nor that he will have an input into the findings or recommendations at least not any part that involves him. 

He may be given a draft report to review but that is usually fact checking rather than influencing the outcomes. 

3 hours ago, At the break of Gawn said:

Can someone please explain to me the Garry Pert hate? Genuinely interested in the rationale.

Aren’t all our problems essentially with the footy department or is there something that I’m missing?

Hate's a strong word. Perhaps it comes across that way in some posts. 

No hate from me but definitely some disappointments. 

• Seemingly little progress with our home base project 
• Very little influence upon the media/ability to control a narrative
• The club leaks like a collander which has resulted in us getting roasted mercilessly by the media, over an over  
• Club communications possibly worst in the league 
• Spent a lot of time defending the culture/denying a culture problem - I am sure he's invested considerable time trying to improve the culture, thought it's not obvious how/where or if it's helped! 

4 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Its fine for Pert to be the internal lead.

It doesn't mean he will participate in all the interviews and assessments especially if his own role is included.  Nor that he will have an input into the findings or recommendations at least not any part that involves him. 

He may be given a draft report to review but that is usually fact checking rather than influencing the outcomes. 

Can't really see how you'd leave the CEO out of a review TBH. 
The governance structure would be interesting.

You'd think the CEO would be the sponsor and not an active participant. I can imagine these reviews can get sticky if the CEO tries to control the narrative to protect the horse called self interest. I'd hope Pert isn't that type of CEO. 

13 minutes ago, Dee*ceiving said:

Can't really see how you'd leave the CEO out of a review TBH. 
The governance structure would be interesting.

You'd think the CEO would be the sponsor and not an active participant. I can imagine these reviews can get sticky if the CEO tries to control the narrative to protect the horse called self interest. I'd hope Pert isn't that type of CEO. 

I think we are saying the same thing about level of CEO involvement... 🤔

Even if Pert is the type of CEO to control the findings and recommendations an experienced consultant will know how to deal with that without jeopardisng the outcomes.

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Lucifers Hero

1 hour ago, FreedFromDesire said:

I understand the contextual background to which you post and why you feel this way, but I think this is pretty insulting to Darren Shand who is by all reports a fantastic leader whose responsibility was wide-ranging with the All Blacks as he lead them through a hugely successful era.

To think someone with the background and respect he has in the sport and business communities is merely a 'rubber stamp' seems not based in truth but based in the narrative you wish to push - hence the reference to the board candidate process when it's not relevant whatsoever.

Having someone of Darren's caliber come in to lead a review is a fantastic outcome in my view, and so far it seems those complaining about it would have done so no matter what the club had chosen to do. It does no one any favours being so negative and agitated about this before there are outcomes, let alone before it's even begun.

Fair comments, but if Darren was of such a high calibre, and had spent a week at the Club, why is it only now that his involvement emerges - was Kate the impediment to an external review, as per the Whateley interview? (BTW still no confirmation of anything from our Club about it?). Are they just flying a kite?

5 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Fair comments, but if Darren was of such a high calibre, and had spent a week at the Club, why is it only now that his involvement emerges - was Kate the impediment to an external review, as per the Whateley interview? (BTW still no confirmation of anything from our Club about it?). Are they just flying a kite?

FFS. Are you ever satisfied Peter?

1 hour ago, FreedFromDesire said:

I understand the contextual background to which you post and why you feel this way, but I think this is pretty insulting to Darren Shand who is by all reports a fantastic leader whose responsibility was wide-ranging with the All Blacks as he lead them through a hugely successful era.

To think someone with the background and respect he has in the sport and business communities is merely a 'rubber stamp' seems not based in truth but based in the narrative you wish to push - hence the reference to the board candidate process when it's not relevant whatsoever.

Having someone of Darren's caliber come in to lead a review is a fantastic outcome in my view, and so far it seems those complaining about it would have done so no matter what the club had chosen to do. It does no one any favours being so negative and agitated about this before there are outcomes, let alone before it's even begun.

I found that a real wishy washy part of the interview saying that we didn't need an external review but that we get external advice all the time, including "one of the all blacks we had down recently". Then low and behold we're having an external review with a former All Blacks advisor.

What does this all mean? The coincidence is annoying.

The comms and PR coming out of the club has been complete garbage for a while now and we're constantly left to connect the dots. 

15 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

You would think given the quick turnaround between Kate's comments about not needing an external review, her departing, and then an external review being announced it would be pretty fair to say she would have been a big part of the prevention of one.

I'm not totally sure what you mean about Shand's involvement only now emerging? My understanding is football clubs do these kinds of things - external visits to other sporting organisations, internal guest speakers/consultants - incredibly often, so it wouldn't have been a huge story in terms of mentioning it previously in my view. Now that there's an external review, particularly after the initial refusal, it's definitely more newsworthy.

Definitely agree that (so far) the lack of communication from the club about it has been disappointing, but to be fair, this news may have broken earlier than expected and they might not have the full details about it to announce it as yet. It is the very first Monday under a new president after all. I will hold fire until we see if the club is forthcoming, although communication to members and supporters has been such a weakness for a long time that I perhaps shouldn't hold my breath.

Hawk the Demon is a fervant Lawrence fan so unless it is all the Lawrence way it is meaningless.

2 hours ago, FreedFromDesire said:

I understand the contextual background to which you post and why you feel this way, but I think this is pretty insulting to Darren Shand who is by all reports a fantastic leader whose responsibility was wide-ranging with the All Blacks as he lead them through a hugely successful era.

To think someone with the background and respect he has in the sport and business communities is merely a 'rubber stamp' seems not based in truth but based in the narrative you wish to push - hence the reference to the board candidate process when it's not relevant whatsoever.

Having someone of Darren's caliber come in to lead a review is a fantastic outcome in my view, and so far it seems those complaining about it would have done so no matter what the club had chosen to do. It does no one any favours being so negative and agitated about this before there are outcomes, let alone before it's even begun.

God help us

Steven Smith has decided not to nominate for the Board.

Needs a break after just retiring from his legal career.

May consider it in 12 months.

 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Its Time for Another

8 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

I'm a bit ambivalent to the whole Lawrence saga. I can see that some things he has forced the club to now do have been good changes, but I also don't like the disruption, cost and apparent ego involved as well. I'm very much on the fence there and also wary that it's becoming more and more clear how much of a mess we are internally.

The problem is that the Lawrence advocates rarely participate in any other discussion apart from matters concerning the board. It feels like they are campaigning rather than being on Demonland because they love the club, and enjoy talking and reading about the footy. 

1 minute ago, Its Time for Another said:

Steven Smith has decided not to nominate for the Board

 

That’s unfortunate. He had a great cv and looked like the perfect candidate 

Just now, BDA said:

That’s unfortunate. He had a great cv and looked like the perfect candidate 

meja jumped the gun and got another thing wrong

20 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

If there is a review it has to be "top to bottom" as Whateley suggested to Kate. Nothing official from the Club yet. If it's happening, kudos to Deemocracy I reckon.

Sorry Hawk the kudos should go to those elected members that have initiated the Review, credit where credit is due.

8 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

Steven Smith has decided not to nominate for the Board.

Needs a break after just retiring from his legal career.

May consider it in 12 months.

 

Ouch.