Pert overseeing Pert...   just Pertfect. 

Bound to report Pert doing just marvee... 

Seriously what a ridiculous fabrication of a whitewash is in store.

Roffey at least had the good grace to stand down. Pert should stand ASIDE ...at least.

If he thinks he's doing OK... let's another(s) be the unbiased judge of that.

Joke of a club.

10 hours ago, Skuit said:

I think you're a reasonable poster Adam, and I agree with you on many levels that the MFC board in some instances were stifling certain, reasonable democratic processes through their actions and by-laws.

I would personally guess they did it in an attempt to exclude disruptive elements to maintain cohesion when some big agenda issues were in play, exactly the same things everyone is complaining about elsewhere, but that they also stepped over the line on several occasions.

Still, my view is they did so in what they probably thought were the best interests of our club, rather than a blind attempt to hang onto power and an unpaid job, as is oft being portrayed. 

The thing is, they did ultimately agree to a number of revisions, but as far as my understanding goes, they didn't accept the most contentious challenge outside of the email list handover thing: that being the ability for board aspirants to make their case in the media and maybe disparage the club and incumbents while doing so. 

I think we can all agree that we're all pretty fed up with the media's current distortions: imagine that writ large with an all-out dirty-laundry fight. We are a small club, and can't easily withstand the negative press the same way that perhaps Collingwood or Carlton can.  

Some might agree and others might not, but that question also raises a whole bunch of other democratic issues, such as someone with the financial ability to wage a public campaign then having an upper-hand over others. What I'm getting at though: we have no clear idea if they went through the court process to defend against this one issue. 

The club may have agreed to some concessions pre-hearing, but were still forced to go court on that primary issue. Both parties ultimately painted the process as a win, and I think both bear some responsibility for the costs incurred by the club and not being able to sort it out through mitigation. 

I'm personally happier though that our constitution tries to prevent ugly public spats, but again, others may disagree. I take it you have met Lawrence and he has convinced you he is a great supporter of our club, but the white-anting isn't cool and he does have chips in the game beyond constitutional amendments.  

 

 

 

Very good considered post.

With the email about the reviews and the response already, it is completely clear what we can expect. Everyone who has been complaining will attack the outcome of the review unless it gives them exactly what they have been wanting. Otherwise it will be "sham "bias ", etc 
 

 

 

12 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Pert overseeing Pert...   just Pertfect. 

Bound to report Pert doing just marvee... 

Seriously what a ridiculous fabrication of a whitewash is in store.

Roffey at least had the good grace to stand down. Pert should stand ASIDE ...at least.

If he thinks he's doing OK... let's another(s) be the unbiased judge of that.

Joke of a club.

President and CEO doing their jobs and reviewing the operations of the club they manage, with external advice from selected experts in the field. Seems pretty reasonable to me. 
 

Alternatively don’t have a review at all, just ask you as you seem to know it all already.. 

Just now, Fromgotowoewodin said:

President and CEO doing their jobs and reviewing the operations of the club they manage, with external advice from selected experts in the field. Seems pretty reasonable to me. 
 

Alternatively don’t have a review at all, just ask you as you seem to know it all already.. 

Serious companies review EVERYTHING ... and EVERYONE .. 

If we built planes we'd be Boeing ( and a poor man's one at that )

You Need INDEPENDENT eyes...  it's not that hard to comprehend  ?? 

Some of the comments here show just how disconnected average football fans are from the reality of large, professional, elite-level sports clubs.

23 minutes ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

President and CEO doing their jobs and reviewing the operations of the club they manage, with external advice from selected experts in the field. Seems pretty reasonable to me. 
 

Alternatively don’t have a review at all, just ask you as you seem to know it all already.. 

You might say Essendon haven't benefited from it yet, but their recent review involved Brendan McCartney, Jordan Lewis with  EY coordinating it. So players and staff could respond openly in their interviews to respected external AFL folk. That's an external review.

21 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Serious companies review EVERYTHING ... and EVERYONE .. 

Simply not true, and the larger the company the less true it becomes.

Reviews focusing on specific areas of an organisation's operations are not just more common, they're more effective.

33 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Serious companies review EVERYTHING ... and EVERYONE .. 

If we built planes we'd be Boeing ( and a poor man's one at that )

You Need INDEPENDENT eyes...  it's not that hard to comprehend  ?? 

There are independent eyes, but there are also people who are responsible and accountable for running the club. Complete independence is also complete lack of accountability. 
 

16 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

You might say Essendon haven't benefited from it yet, but their recent review involved Brendan McCartney, Jordan Lewis with  EY coordinating it. So players and staff could respond openly in their interviews to respected external AFL folk. That's an external review.

I do understand the word external. And hypothetically if the Bombers go another 20 years without winning a final what happens to McCartney, Lewis and EY? Zip. 

Green and Pert are responsible for running the club, the buck stops with them. If improvement doesn’t come they will be out.

15 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Simply not true, and the larger the company the less true it becomes.

Reviews focusing on specific areas of an organisation's operations are not just more common, they're more effective.

Common/Less Common...  is that the metric  ??  Might be a horse for another course ( apparently not Caulfield... )

A thorough audit will review everything... by your view that's less common. That's fine. These aren't everyday occurrences...  so let's do it properly. 

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Pert overseeing Pert...   just Pertfect. 

Bound to report Pert doing just marvee... 

Seriously what a ridiculous fabrication of a whitewash is in store.

Roffey at least had the good grace to stand down. Pert should stand ASIDE ...at least.

If he thinks he's doing OK... let's another(s) be the unbiased judge of that.

Joke of a club.

Shambles continues its like drawing teeth

So Reactive 

Zero leadership going nowhere

What about a third review into the reviewers

To the fan club it's going to get worse before it gets better

Gale lead the review of footy ops at the Tigers that preceded their golden era. 

I don’t see an issue with that, the disappointment is that the board is to be reviewed, and footy ops is to be reviewed, but not the exec ops and non-footy ops. 

It shouldn’t be about people losing jobs but identifying what we could be doing better.

I do see these two areas as the highest priorities however.

Edited September 10, 2024Sep 10 by rpfc

9 hours ago, He de mon said:

What I am talking about is that there are certain posters whose only contribution to this forum is to bag the board and extol the virtues of Lawrence. It often feels like a ham fisted influence campaign.

That's because the club has no effective leadership

35 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Common/Less Common...  is that the metric  ??  Might be a horse for another course ( apparently not Caulfield... )

A thorough audit will review everything... by your view that's less common. That's fine. These aren't everyday occurrences...  so let's do it properly. 

If it ain’t done properly 50% of the Members won’t resign. I am sure Brad Green is aware of that

The CEO is a different measurement, but if different sections don’t line up, then it is directly on his head. 
At this point we have to put some trust in Darren Shand. 
The All Blacks never accept anything but the best 

i wouldn’t mind Craig Belamy being involved as well, but he is a bit busy right now. The Storm are on top of The Ladder, 3 games clear of all opponents 

20 minutes ago, rpfc said:

don’t see an issue with that, the disappointment is that the board is to be reviewed, and footy ops is to be reviewed, but not the exec ops and non-footy ops. 

Just because there's nothing in the press that's not to say that those areas aren't being reviewed. All organisations undertake reviews, internal or with external input, and all of those areas have to report to the board.

15 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Just because there's nothing in the press that's not to say that those areas aren't being reviewed. All organisations undertake reviews, internal or with external input, and all of those areas have to report to the board.

I am just going off the press release/email from the club.

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Shambles continues its like drawing teeth

So Reactive 

Zero leadership going nowhere

What about a third review into the reviewers

To the fan club it's going to get worse before it gets better

That you won't affect you. You are the most non-fan imaginable. You have never posted a positive thing in this site.

 

AS for the idea of a "full external review", usually they either do whatever it has been hinted to them that they should do, or alternatively come up with c..p such as changing the logo or the mission statement, in order to justify the inevitably exorbitant bill.

 

 Despite what everyone wants to say at this whinging time of the year, until about two months ago with three serious injuries to our three best multiple AA players, we were generally going ok and in fact were the most successful club in the league over the last five years. We DON'T need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, look at the team and particularly the functioning of the forward line, check to see if there really is a"culture" problem (whatever that is) and if there is, work out strategies, but then can we get on with preparing to win the 25 flag, please??!!??

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Pert overseeing Pert...   just Pertfect. 

Bound to report Pert doing just marvee... 

Seriously what a ridiculous fabrication of a whitewash is in store.

Roffey at least had the good grace to stand down. Pert should stand ASIDE ...at least.

If he thinks he's doing OK... let's another(s) be the unbiased judge of that.

Joke of a club.

With a full Review of the Football Department, if there are any problems with the CEO, i am sure they will be mentioned. 
Remember the Club is not being liquidated here, we want it improved. 
I expect Brad Green to be asking Pert some tough questions…

1 hour ago, Kent said:

 

Edited September 10, 2024Sep 10 by waynewussell

3 hours ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

President and CEO doing their jobs and reviewing the operations of the club they manage, with external advice from selected experts in the field. Seems pretty reasonable to me. 
 

Alternatively don’t have a review at all, just ask you as you seem to know it all already.. 

You realise the President's gone....yeah ?? So....not doing her job.  Green, kinda , but knows he's saddled with a lame horse just atm ..

Pert ought to be confident in his efforts and encourage a complete evaluation.  I mean...what's to hide  ? 🤔

Are some above reproach ?

2 hours ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

There are independent eyes, but there are also people who are responsible and accountable for running the club. Complete independence is also complete lack of accountability. 
 

I do understand the word external. And hypothetically if the Bombers go another 20 years without winning a final what happens to McCartney, Lewis and EY? Zip. 

Green and Pert are responsible for running the club, the buck stops with them. If improvement doesn’t come they will be out.

Thank goodness we now have term limits (since 2022).

51 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

You realise the President's gone....yeah ?? So....not doing her job.  Green, kinda , but knows he's saddled with a lame horse just atm ..

Pert ought to be confident in his efforts and encourage a complete evaluation.  I mean...what's to hide  ? 🤔

Are some above reproach ?

You can be such a bore… yeah?

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

With a full Review of the Football Department, if there are any problems with the CEO, i am sure they will be mentioned. 
Remember the Club is not being liquidated here, we want it improved. 
I expect Brad Green to be asking Pert some tough questions…

Perhaps Brad did ask some tough questions about the Footy Department this year but was told by the CEO to stay away from that area - you're a Board member, not on the executive. But now he's the President....he has a bit more authority?

And re your first line let me just check how this works - a player from the senior leadership group enters a room and sits down with Mr Shand, Mr Green and Mr Pert and then declares that he has a problem with Mr Pert?

10 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Perhaps Brad did ask some tough questions about the Footy Department this year but was told by the CEO to stay away from that area - you're a Board member, not on the executive. But now he's the President....he has a bit more authority?

Perhaps you just made that fantasy up?

 

12 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

And re your first line let me just check how this works - a player from the senior leadership group enters a room and sits down with Mr Shand, Mr Green and Mr Pert and then declares that he has a problem with Mr Pert?

Don’t be obtuse, just because the 3 of them are doing the review doesn’t mean they are joined together like Siamese triplets for the whole time. 

19 minutes ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Perhaps you just made that fantasy up?

 

Don’t be obtuse, just because the 3 of them are doing the review doesn’t mean they are joined together like Siamese triplets for the whole time. 

OK, I'll try to be a little more perceptive - "I want to make a comment about the CEO, could he please leave the room?"