Pert and Roffey - The Review Thread

[Foopy on the telly 527]

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Probably the difference is that Gale hadn't been there that long and so therefore was not essentially 'part of the problem'

From memory he was appointed in Dec 2015, the club performed poorly in 2016 and the review was commissioned. They won a flag in 2017.

And interestingly from the terrific interview Speed said all the copies of the review were retrieved and shredded. Ho one was allowed to leave the room with a copy. It was definitely not a document for public consumption and nothing from the report was leaked into the media.

Seems textbook to me.

I don't have any faith in Pert from personal dealings in days gone by and he to me seems 'part of the problem'. His presence in an 'external' review would seem to undermine the process. I hope not and hope the Dees can get back on track.

 

 

 

FWIW, Gale was appointed at the end of 2009.

[drysdale demon 4,752]

Far too much BS on this thread now.

[drysdale demon 4,752]

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

From memory he was appointed in Dec 2015, the club performed poorly in 2016 and the review was commissioned. They won a flag in 2017.

Just wrong completely.

[dees189227 12,319]

5 hours ago, YearOfTheDees said:

The story in the Hun today about the culture at Melbourne Storm is a great read. Go and get who ever is in charge at Storm and bring them over. 

Been saying it for years now. We train right with them , we should be watching there habits & goody should be soaking up anything Bellamy tells him.

[Queanbeyan Demon 6,751]

I found the Speed interview insightful. He was particularly diplomatic he was in his approach. Reflecting on my experience with boards, most of the ones I’ve been involved with are heavily focused on risk management. At each board meeting, the CEO typically provides a report on various risk areas being monitored, with a particular emphasis on high and catastrophic risks. Nowadays, in most organisations, these risks always include finance, WHS, cybersecurity, legal matters, the health of key contracts, and, especially in a high-profile industry like the AFL, public relations.

Given this context, I’m astonished by the apparent laissez-faire attitude the Melbourne Football Club seems to have towards the Petracca saga. This issue impacts several critical risk areas—finance, WHS, key contracts, and PR—yet the response has been surprisingly complacent - until recently.

When Speed mentioned that the Melbourne board seemed competent, it made me wonder: do they receive a risk report each month? It would be concerning if they didn’t, considering how this saga is affecting the club’s overall stability and reputation. Regular risk reports would ensure that the board members are fully informed and able to address these challenges proactively, rather than just reacting when things escalate.

[mo64 5,767]

`Malcolm Speed was able to shed light on the legal proceedings the club has been involved with. Since neither parties are allowed to comment on proceedings, there has been a lot of misinformation and guesswork by some on Demonland. It was nice to get a clear picture.

[Ollie fan 3,228]

Finally had the chance to listen to the Speed interview. Very interesting to hear from a highly intelligent, respected and experienced administrator with no axe to grind. 
 

Key takeaways: as we all knew, Kate should have stepped up sooner, she didn't, she has paid the price. The board is highly competent. Lawrence wanted to have the opportunity to add to the media garbage by public bashing of the club and his perceptions of its failings, creating a media s...storm; he wasn't allowed to, thank goodness. The reviews should be kept private: cue Hawk the Demon et al screaming in a few months about the club trying to hide its failings, despite Speed giving excellent reasons why the findings should NOT be publicly released. And finally, maybe Pert should be part of the review team, maybe he shouldn't, there is no clear answer.

 

 Will the whinging stop? No way!!!!!!

 

[Hawk the Demon 861]

10 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

I found the Speed interview insightful. He was particularly diplomatic he was in his approach. Reflecting on my experience with boards, most of the ones I’ve been involved with are heavily focused on risk management. At each board meeting, the CEO typically provides a report on various risk areas being monitored, with a particular emphasis on high and catastrophic risks. Nowadays, in most organisations, these risks always include finance, WHS, cybersecurity, legal matters, the health of key contracts, and, especially in a high-profile industry like the AFL, public relations.

Given this context, I’m astonished by the apparent laissez-faire attitude the Melbourne Football Club seems to have towards the Petracca saga. This issue impacts several critical risk areas—finance, WHS, key contracts, and PR—yet the response has been surprisingly complacent - until recently.

When Speed mentioned that the Melbourne board seemed competent, it made me wonder: do they receive a risk report each month? It would be concerning if they didn’t, considering how this saga is affecting the club’s overall stability and reputation. Regular risk reports would ensure that the board members are fully informed and able to address these challenges proactively, rather than just reacting when things escalate.

The Chair of the Audit, Risk and Integrity Committee is up for re-election this year.

[Hawk the Demon 861]

4 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

Finally had the chance to listen to the Speed interview. Very interesting to hear from a highly intelligent, respected and experienced administrator with no axe to grind. 
 

Key takeaways: as we all knew, Kate should have stepped up sooner, she didn't, she has paid the price. The board is highly competent. Lawrence wanted to have the opportunity to add to the media garbage by public bashing of the club and his perceptions of its failings, creating a media s...storm; he wasn't allowed to, thank goodness. The reviews should be kept private: cue Hawk the Demon et al screaming in a few months about the club trying to hide its failings, despite Speed giving excellent reasons why the findings should NOT be publicly released. And finally, maybe Pert should be part of the review team, maybe he shouldn't, there is no clear answer.

 

 Will the whinging stop? No way!!!!!!

 

I reckon you listened to a different interview to the rest of us....(on cue?)

[whatwhat say what 22,427]

speed interview was a very good listen but i doubt very much he would have spoken about the tigs quite like that - stating that the review was a “last resort to reset the club” was overly dramatic

it'll be interesting to see how public the club make any findings from it - clearly speed is of the belief that it should be kept entirely under wraps and not publicised

but you know the medja is going to be baying for blood over it

[rpfc 28,150]

There is no inherent problem with Pert being on the review of footy ops; he isn’t in footy ops.

The disappointment is that there seems to be a review of the board, a review of footy ops but not of the non-footy ops and exec of the club.

But the CEO will have to enact the changes at the behest of the board so he or she leading the review is probably essential IF they are seen to be around for enough time to enact the reforms of the footy ops area.

Maybe we can’t afford a new CEO right now so it is pointless to remove or review the role or diminish his involvement in the review. We have to live in reality here. But we will see what public pressure will steer us toward…

[Ollie fan 3,228]

2 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

I reckon you listened to a different interview to the rest of us....(on cue?)

No. I just listened to it properly.

[Watson11 2,229]

4 hours ago, Ollie fan said:

Finally had the chance to listen to the Speed interview. Very interesting to hear from a highly intelligent, respected and experienced administrator with no axe to grind. 
 

Key takeaways: as we all knew, Kate should have stepped up sooner, she didn't, she has paid the price. The board is highly competent. Lawrence wanted to have the opportunity to add to the media garbage by public bashing of the club and his perceptions of its failings, creating a media s...storm; he wasn't allowed to, thank goodness. The reviews should be kept private: cue Hawk the Demon et al screaming in a few months about the club trying to hide its failings, despite Speed giving excellent reasons why the findings should NOT be publicly released. And finally, maybe Pert should be part of the review team, maybe he shouldn't, there is no clear answer.

 

 Will the whinging stop? No way!!!!!!

 

Quote from Speed in the interview about the review. “Whether Gary Pert should be involved in this, there will be debate about that. I would prefer in those circumstances, in a year where there has been such turmoil there, that the chief executive not being involved in the review”

[Ollie fan 3,228]

1 minute ago, Watson11 said:

Quote from Speed in the interview about the review. “Whether Gary Pert should be involved in this, there will be debate about that. I would prefer in those circumstances, in a year where there has been such turmoil there, that the chief executive not being involved in the review”

"There will be debate about that" - exactly. It is not clearcut.

[Dr Don Duffy 102]

On 10/09/2024 at 09:30, 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 Peter Lawrence and extol the virtues of Lawrence the board. It often feels like a ham fisted influence campaign.

“Mirror mirror, on the wall….”

Agree with the edited version, particularly the last sentence.

[He de mon 914]

9 minutes ago, Dr Don Duffy said:

“Mirror mirror, on the wall….”

Agree with the edited version, particularly the last sentence.

Given that every thing you have posted since joining, that aint the flex you think it is.

[Dr Don Duffy 102]

1 minute ago, He de mon said:

Given that every thing you have posted since joining, that aint the flex you think it is.

Translation?

[Clintosaurus 7,748]

Question for those who want Pert, Goofy and the entire board sacked - who are you replacing them with? No doubt you will enjoy the 3+ years being like Norf. The rest of us won't.

[Watson11 2,229]

32 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Question for those who want Pert, Goofy and the entire board sacked - who are you replacing them with? No doubt you will enjoy the 3+ years being like Norf. The rest of us won't.

I’m not one that wants everything changed unless it’s needed.  Let the review do its job.  But if it’s needed no club has had more changes than Collingwood since the end of 2021.  3 CEOs, entirely new board, new coach.  1 flag, 2 prelims, one missed finals.  A bit better than Norf.

[Ollie fan 3,228]

26 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

I’m not one that wants everything changed unless it’s needed.  Let the review do its job.  But if it’s needed no club has had more changes than Collingwood since the end of 2021.  3 CEOs, entirely new board, new coach.  1 flag, 2 prelims, one missed finals.  A bit better than Norf.

You mean, one of the 4 out of the last 5 premiers that didn't make the finals the following year? As opposed to the one club that did make the finals?

[Watson11 2,229]

6 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

You mean, one of the 4 out of the last 5 premiers that didn't make the finals the following year? As opposed to the one club that did make the finals?

The point was that changes don't necessarily mean 3 years of wooden spoons and ending up like Norf. 

Would you rather Geelongs record the last 3 years or ours.  Chris Scott is on the record as saying he would rather miss finals than hit September in poor form. 

[Mach5 4,766]

On 11/09/2024 at 12:07, ignition. said:

Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere, but HOW and WHY is Gary Pert a part of conducting the review of the men's football program?

"This review is being conducted by President Brad Green, CEO Gary Pert and external consultant Darren Shand." - MFC website.

Gary Pert should very much be under review. He is at the top, he needs to be investigated, and should come into question regarding his polarizing statements around club culture. In his position he was primed to identify any early signs to ensure the right environment was set. It clearly spiraled out of control.

I imagine Pert’s review could in itself be reviewed.

[pitmaster 3,497]

On 12/09/2024 at 08:25, Ollie fan said:

Finally had the chance to listen to the Speed interview. Very interesting to hear from a highly intelligent, respected and experienced administrator with no axe to grind. 
 

Key takeaways: as we all knew, Kate should have stepped up sooner, she didn't, she has paid the price. The board is highly competent. Lawrence wanted to have the opportunity to add to the media garbage by public bashing of the club and his perceptions of its failings, creating a media s...storm; he wasn't allowed to, thank goodness. The reviews should be kept private: cue Hawk the Demon et al screaming in a few months about the club trying to hide its failings, despite Speed giving excellent reasons why the findings should NOT be publicly released. And finally, maybe Pert should be part of the review team, maybe he shouldn't, there is no clear answer.

 

 Will the whinging stop? No way!!!!!!

 

Did not hear this as a takeaway at all. I heard a disinterested and accurate account of the background, including a clear report of the board's concession that on many points it was in the wrong, as claimed by Lawrence. There was a slight wrist slap when Speed indicated Lawrence should have quit when he was ahead, but not anything like what you suggest.

 

 

[deanox 9,845]

23 hours ago, rpfc said:

There is no inherent problem with Pert being on the review of footy ops; he isn’t in footy ops.

The disappointment is that there seems to be a review of the board, a review of footy ops but not of the non-footy ops and exec of the club.

But the CEO will have to enact the changes at the behest of the board so he or she leading the review is probably essential IF they are seen to be around for enough time to enact the reforms of the footy ops area.

Maybe we can’t afford a new CEO right now so it is pointless to remove or review the role or diminish his involvement in the review. We have to live in reality here. But we will see what public pressure will steer us toward…

My take on this (rightly or wrongly is):

- the board is the ultimate authority, very hard to truly review them, however boards can appoint someone to assist with independent review and make changes. You need strong leadership for that change to be pushed through though.

- the Board appoint a CEO to manage the business for them.

- if the Board is under review, it isn't a good time to replace the CEO. It is probably better to review and refresh the Board then the new Board reviews the CEO

- the CEO at a football club is responsible for the commercial/administration operations and the football operations. These might be two different departments but ultimately the CEO is responsible for both (via staff appointments)

- So a football department review is in effect a review of the CEO. If there are lots of failings in the football department, the CEO is ultimately the person responsible for those failings

- Ultimately we review/refresh the board, and then the new board will assess is Pert is still the right person going forward, and they will have the results of the recent football department review to help inform that decision.

[rpfc 28,150]

44 minutes ago, deanox said:

My take on this (rightly or wrongly is):

- the board is the ultimate authority, very hard to truly review them, however boards can appoint someone to assist with independent review and make changes. You need strong leadership for that change to be pushed through though.

- the Board appoint a CEO to manage the business for them.

- if the Board is under review, it isn't a good time to replace the CEO. It is probably better to review and refresh the Board then the new Board reviews the CEO

- the CEO at a football club is responsible for the commercial/administration operations and the football operations. These might be two different departments but ultimately the CEO is responsible for both (via staff appointments)

- So a football department review is in effect a review of the CEO. If there are lots of failings in the football department, the CEO is ultimately the person responsible for those failings

- Ultimately we review/refresh the board, and then the new board will assess is Pert is still the right person going forward, and they will have the results of the recent football department review to help inform that decision.

My only addendum is around the review of footy ops being squarely focussed on Pert but with Richardson in the gun. Thats the disappointing thing for me with being so equivocal with what you are reviewing - it makes it very easy to know who the blame will fall with.