Pert and Roffey - The Review Thread

[rpfc 28,763]

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.

[BangBnagBang 703]

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.

 

On 11/09/2024 at 13:37, Hawk the Demon said:

In the nicest possible way he was saying it was "debateable" as to whether  Pert should be involved in the Footy Department review......

Having Pert running the review will never work

As on-field performance declined in 2016, the Richmond Football Club Board instructed CEO Brendon Gale to undertake a full review of the Club’s football department.

 

https://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/328448/balme-joins-richmond-as-part-of-football-re-structure

[Ollie fan 3,468]

2 hours ago, pitmaster said:

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.

 

 

If you didn't hear this, you didn't listen. It was apparently the remaining issue in the case and Lawrence lost, thank goodness

[Harvey Wallbanger 1,029]

1 hour ago, Ollie fan said:

If you didn't hear this, you didn't listen. It was apparently the remaining issue in the case and Lawrence lost, thank goodness

When exactly should he have "quit while he was ahead". The Board was changing election rules in the middle of the hearing (the judge actually adjourned the proceeding to allow that to happen) and made another amendment after the case closed. I suggest you read the judgment Ollie.

The judge said: The hearing of the proceeding was somewhat of a “moveable feast”, because further amendments were made to the rules during, and after, the trial, which had the effect of further narrowing the matters about which Mr Lawrence complained. 

[Harvey Wallbanger 1,029]

2 hours ago, Ollie fan said:

If you didn't hear this, you didn't listen. It was apparently the remaining issue in the case and Lawrence lost, thank goodness

And while you are reading it Ollie take a look at para 143. The judge said: "He (Lawrence) says, for example, that candidates seeking election to the board should be free to give media interviews and use and have unrestricted access to websites and social media that can be viewed by the general public. And those views are not unreasonable. But, as the cases make clear, it is not the court’s role in oppression cases to be an arbiter of competing views about such matters."

So I reckon the judge quite likes free and open elections but he concluded that it wasn't his job to overrule the Club on this final point.

[pitmaster 3,578]

3 hours ago, Ollie fan said:

If you didn't hear this, you didn't listen. It was apparently the remaining issue in the case and Lawrence lost, thank goodness

And Speed's remarks amounted to, as I said, a slap on the wrist. No biggie in the scheme of things.

Indeed, all the to-ing and fro-ing could have been settled much earlier had the club moved its concessions months before they did.

[Ollie fan 3,468]

2 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

And while you are reading it Ollie take a look at para 143. The judge said: "He (Lawrence) says, for example, that candidates seeking election to the board should be free to give media interviews and use and have unrestricted access to websites and social media that can be viewed by the general public. And those views are not unreasonable. But, as the cases make clear, it is not the court’s role in oppression cases to be an arbiter of competing views about such matters."

So I reckon the judge quite likes free and open elections but he concluded that it wasn't his job to overrule the Club on this final point.

Paul Simon: "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.."  
 

As I understand it, this was the point on which Lawrence ended up running the actual trial and on which he lost. And thank goodness for that! Otherwise we would have had him marching around town when elections were approaching, telling us exactly how bad he thinks the Melbourne football club is, creating back page news every day: great for the club, eh? For whatever reason, Lawrence is apparently determined to get on to what Speed called a highly credentialed and competent Board (or similar words), where no doubt he would throw his perceived weight around until he has achieved his own ends or brought the whole club administration down. If you want that, good on you. I don't.

 

[Kent 2,914]

1 hour ago, Ollie fan said:

Paul Simon: "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.."  
 

As I understand it, this was the point on which Lawrence ended up running the actual trial and on which he lost. And thank goodness for that! Otherwise we would have had him marching around town when elections were approaching, telling us exactly how bad he thinks the Melbourne football club is, creating back page news every day: great for the club, eh? For whatever reason, Lawrence is apparently determined to get on to what Speed called a highly credentialed and competent Board (or similar words), where no doubt he would throw his perceived weight around until he has achieved his own ends or brought the whole club administration down. If you want that, good on you. I don't.

 

Yes and the current board has been really successfull in keeping us off the back page 

Amateurs 

[Harvey Wallbanger 1,029]

32 minutes ago, Kent said:

Yes and the current board has been really successfull in keeping us off the back page 

Amateurs 

Well said Kent and Speed said - "Gerard I took a look at the website last night and they seem like a very capable lot." A quick desk audit by Malcolm, knowing he was on air the next day. Let the members decide later this year (or earlier?) how they are doing as a collegiate body. Only one of them up for re-election unfortunately. But Robb and Roffey need to be replaced......will casual vacancies be filled before 1 October?

[Dingo 1,126]

1 hour ago, Ollie fan said:

Paul Simon: "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.."  
 

As I understand it, this was the point on which Lawrence ended up running the actual trial and on which he lost. And thank goodness for that! Otherwise we would have had him marching around town when elections were approaching, telling us exactly how bad he thinks the Melbourne football club is, creating back page news every day: great for the club, eh? For whatever reason, Lawrence is apparently determined to get on to what Speed called a highly credentialed and competent Board (or similar words), where no doubt he would throw his perceived weight around until he has achieved his own ends or brought the whole club administration down. If you want that, good on you. I don't.

 

How could “he throw his perceived weight around” to bring “the whole club administration down”?

This is an absurd comment.

If Lawrence was on the Board he would have one vote like the other members.As the Board did not want him , they would have ignored his comments and proposals.

I was on a local council committee as a community representative, much to the annoyance of the chairman.I was treated like a pariah.

My comments were ignored.

 

 

 

[Harvey Wallbanger 1,029]

5 hours ago, Ollie fan said:

Paul Simon: "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.."  
 

As I understand it, this was the point on which Lawrence ended up running the actual trial and on which he lost. And thank goodness for that! Otherwise we would have had him marching around town when elections were approaching, telling us exactly how bad he thinks the Melbourne football club is, creating back page news every day: great for the club, eh? For whatever reason, Lawrence is apparently determined to get on to what Speed called a highly credentialed and competent Board (or similar words), where no doubt he would throw his perceived weight around until he has achieved his own ends or brought the whole club administration down. If you want that, good on you. I don't.

 

Have you read the judgment Ollie? Didn't think so. Those members that attended (all four days) said they were ashamed of their Club

[whatwhat say what 22,932]

23 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Have you read the judgment Ollie? Didn't think so. Those members that attended (all four days) said they were ashamed of their Club

for god's sake man let it go

the judgement has been cast and the changes began being made even before that had happened

[Harvey Wallbanger 1,029]

11 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

for god's sake man let it go

the judgement has been cast and the changes began being made even before that had happened

So you haven't read it either? Your statement is plainly incorrect.

[whatwhat say what 22,932]

49 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

So you haven't read it either? Your statement is plainly incorrect.

oh good grief

[Skuit 10,031]

On 12/09/2024 at 09:18, Dr Don Duffy said:

Translation?

I’ll field this one. As it’s quite straightforward.

A poster pointed out there are several other posters on this forum who don’t contribute to any other topics other than this one, and only do so to bag the board and promote Peter Lawrence.

You would be one of those posters the OP was referring to.

You then thought a reversal of the statement would be a clever retort, but failed in your ‘flex’.

That’s because there are simply no posters on this forum who just bag Peter Lawrence and promote the board without also contributing to other topics.

It would be an easy statement to decipher for someone with a bit of self-awareness. 

[Skuit 10,031]

On 10/09/2024 at 00:37, Hawk the Demon said:

Not sure what sort of "chips" you are referring to Skuit. Deemocracy has been banging away on proper governance for four years. 

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond, as your impartial rhetoric is tiresome and you're clearly once again being disingenuous here. Peter Lawrence desperately wishes to be on the MFC board, as evidenced by his nominating to be on the board and perusing costly avenues for both himself and the club to further that cause. They are some decent-sized chips.

Please do not reply with some BS that all of us have chips in the game as members of the MFC, or make your case that those measures are for the betterment of the football club, or suggest that I should waste half my weekend reading a judge's report from an institution that I don't respect. All these responses would be beside the point. 

Nobody whatsoever believes that he is simply just some freedom-fighter championing the cause of democracy for the benefit of we the people. You would be better off dropping the nonsense and being transparent without all the character stuff about why you believe Peter would be a better administrator of the club than those presently performing the role. 

When posters sometime question whether you are Peter himself, it's not just some old 'Hi Peter' internet joke. I suspect many on here genuinely believe it to be a possibility, and I can understand how they might have that perception. I'm more confused by how you seem to be oblivious as to how they might have that perception. 

It's great that you have Peter's back - all the best to you and your mate. But I don't think you're doing any favours to his cause by coming on here and distorting events to suit your narrative, taking cheap shots, and using semantics to argue the same point over and over again like a politician. People don't like politicians. 

 

[He de mon 942]

3 hours ago, Skuit said:

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond, as your impartial rhetoric is tiresome and you're clearly once again being disingenuous here. Peter Lawrence desperately wishes to be on the MFC board, as evidenced by his nominating to be on the board and perusing costly avenues for both himself and the club to further that cause. They are some decent-sized chips.

Please do not reply with some BS that all of us have chips in the game as members of the MFC, or make your case that those measures are for the betterment of the football club, or suggest that I should waste half my weekend reading a judge's report from an institution that I don't respect. All these responses would be beside the point. 

Nobody whatsoever believes that he is simply just some freedom-fighter championing the cause of democracy for the benefit of we the people. You would be better off dropping the nonsense and being transparent without all the character stuff about why you believe Peter would be a better administrator of the club than those presently performing the role. 

When posters sometime question whether you are Peter himself, it's not just some old 'Hi Peter' internet joke. I suspect many on here genuinely believe it to be a possibility, and I can understand how they might have that perception. I'm more confused by how you seem to be oblivious as to how they might have that perception. 

It's great that you have Peter's back - all the best to you and your mate. But I don't think you're doing any favours to his cause by coming on here and distorting events to suit your narrative, taking cheap shots, and using semantics to argue the same point over and over again like a politician. People don't like politicians. 

 

Agree. Grifters gonna grift.

[rpfc 28,763]

4 hours ago, Skuit said:

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond, as your impartial rhetoric is tiresome and you're clearly once again being disingenuous here. Peter Lawrence desperately wishes to be on the MFC board, as evidenced by his nominating to be on the board and perusing costly avenues for both himself and the club to further that cause. They are some decent-sized chips.

Please do not reply with some BS that all of us have chips in the game as members of the MFC, or make your case that those measures are for the betterment of the football club, or suggest that I should waste half my weekend reading a judge's report from an institution that I don't respect. All these responses would be beside the point. 

Nobody whatsoever believes that he is simply just some freedom-fighter championing the cause of democracy for the benefit of we the people. You would be better off dropping the nonsense and being transparent without all the character stuff about why you believe Peter would be a better administrator of the club than those presently performing the role. 

When posters sometime question whether you are Peter himself, it's not just some old 'Hi Peter' internet joke. I suspect many on here genuinely believe it to be a possibility, and I can understand how they might have that perception. I'm more confused by how you seem to be oblivious as to how they might have that perception. 

It's great that you have Peter's back - all the best to you and your mate. But I don't think you're doing any favours to his cause by coming on here and distorting events to suit your narrative, taking cheap shots, and using semantics to argue the same point over and over again like a politician. People don't like politicians. 

 

I especially don’t like it when they reference the legal troubles wrought by a certain former leader on the club board.

Doesn’t he want to join that board? That club?

Why side with those that wish to demean them, that you don’t know much about?

In my view, it provide a clarity to the objectives here, and ‘Democracy’ is a cudgel, a red herring to motive.

I have worn this argument out the last few years but footy boards these days cannot afford to be run ‘purely through the members best judgement’ - we don’t know. The elections should be a failsafe in case of gross incompetence or fraudulent behaviour. Otherwise, the board renews itself with the balanced capable people that it needs to govern and achieve its objectives.

[He de mon 942]

41 minutes ago, rpfc said:

I especially don’t like it when they reference the legal troubles wrought by a certain former leader on the club board.

Doesn’t he want to join that board? That club?

Why side with those that wish to demean them, that you don’t know much about?

In my view, it provide a clarity to the objectives here, and ‘Democracy’ is a cudgel, a red herring to motive.

I have worn this argument out the last few years but footy boards these days cannot afford to be run ‘purely through the members best judgement’ - we don’t know. The elections should be a failsafe in case of gross incompetence or fraudulent behaviour. Otherwise, the board renews itself with the balanced capable people that it needs to govern and achieve its objectives.

I support a review of the board, and the club in general. I may have even been receptive to Deemocracy's ideas, but the actions of Lawrence and his proxies on DL has cemented my belief that he has no interest in what is best for our club. 

[Skuit 10,031]

As Malcom Speed stated, the club, or current governance board, didn't want the "richest person with the loudest voice" to be the one who simply got elected. 

It's worthwhile arguing the balance of measures adopted to protect that standpoint, but a lot of people would believe that position is in fact a fundamental democratic ideal. 

Others may disagree with the philosophy, and that's fine. Argue that point. But I imagine they would be some of the same people who complain about political donations etc. buying influence from the big end of town. 

[Superunknown 4,223]

32 minutes ago, Skuit said:

As Malcom Speed stated, the club, or current governance board, didn't want the "richest person with the loudest voice" to be the one who simply got elected. 

It's worthwhile arguing the balance of measures adopted to protect that standpoint, but a lot of people would believe that position is in fact a fundamental democratic ideal. 

Others may disagree with the philosophy, and that's fine. Argue that point. But I imagine they would be some of the same people who complain about political donations etc. buying influence from the big end of town. 

Your arguments have been well-articulated, well-weighted and cogently reasoned whilst being good to read. Well written and chapeau. 

[biggestred 5,137]

One might suggest that the problem with this club over the last 60 odd years has been egos in and around the boardroom.

[Kent 2,914]

5 minutes ago, biggestred said:

One might suggest that the problem with this club over the last 60 odd years has been egos in and around the boardroom.

Smith not taking the opportunity tells me everything I need to know about the board and its behavior.

we still haven't heard from our president. Is he or isn't he interim I must have missed it  if it has been announced?

[Harvey Wallbanger 1,029]

3 hours ago, Skuit said:

As Malcom Speed stated, the club, or current governance board, didn't want the "richest person with the loudest voice" to be the one who simply got elected. 

It's worthwhile arguing the balance of measures adopted to protect that standpoint, but a lot of people would believe that position is in fact a fundamental democratic ideal. 

Others may disagree with the philosophy, and that's fine. Argue that point. But I imagine they would be some of the same people who complain about political donations etc. buying influence from the big end of town. 

It certainly is worth that debate. But where the Club has landed on the campaigning point is that candidates for the MFC Board election later in the year would not be able to be interviewed by Gerard Whateley about their platform for a better Club. A public interview like that would be against the rules.

[Neil Crompton 5,613]

1 hour ago, Hawk the Demon said:

It certainly is worth that debate. But where the Club has landed on the campaigning point is that candidates for the MFC Board election later in the year would not be able to be interviewed by Gerard Whateley about their platform for a better Club. A public interview like that would be against the rules.

as i believe it very much should be. Why would we want Whateley or any other media person publicly interviewing candidates for our club? Its none of their [censored] business.