Pert and Roffey - The Review Thread

[Neil Crompton 5,308]

1 minute ago, Hawk the Demon said:

 

 

1 minute ago, Hawk the Demon said:

I recall Whateley interviewing both Nankivell and Gowers when the Hawthorn election was on. The world didn't come to an end. I reckon members would welcome it.

Well i have a very different view of our members. Why don't you set up a Demonland Poll to test your theory?

[Sir Why You Little 36,585]

14 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

I recall Whateley interviewing both Nankivell and Gowers when the Hawthorn election was on. The world didn't come to an end. I reckon members would welcome it.

FFS Give it a Rest….

[Ollie fan 3,031]

36 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

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.

Exactly

[Skuit 9,925]

3 hours 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.

I do not want massive media organisations well-trained in swaying public opinion while potentially running their own shadow campaigns to be involved in the selection of who runs out football club. We've seen just a taste of it over past two weeks. 

[Dr. Gonzo 23,678]

2 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

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.

How do the members know what they're voting for if candidates can't publicly discuss their platform?

[Ollie fan 3,031]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

How do the members know what they're voting for if candidates can't publicly discuss their platform?

By their written material, as happens now.

[Adam The God 29,292]

Some ridiculous arguments on this thread.

As if having term limits aren't a good thing, which we wouldn't have without Peter Lawrence.

The board could have accepted a number of positions without dragging it through the courts, which they eventually accepted anyway.

Posters saying they don't want to hear from other candidates and therefore want a closed shop are truly staggering. 

This current board puts their mates in positions prior to elections when board vacancies come about and then lobby for them through official channels come election time. They've done it repeatedly. It's electioneering and is not only not best practice, it's not done by any other club in the league.

[FreedFromDesire 586]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

How do the members know what they're voting for if candidates can't publicly discuss their platform?

Someone else will know the full details I'm sure, but I believe there's a candidate statement written by each of them where they are all allocated the same amount of words and are shared on the same platform so all is fair in terms of communicating with members.

Perhaps there could be more in-depth communication allowed over all, but I think the last thing any football club, and especially ours currently, would want would be a public debate that could very well descend to the depths we see regularly with modern politics.

I do understand that it is an elected position, but I would hate to see our football club dragged through the mire of political point scoring. Not only would it be a destablising process, but having those who have attacked each other publicly then ending up sitting next to each other on our board would mean nothing would get achieved. 

Edited Saturday at 07:13 by FreedFromDesire

[FreedFromDesire 586]

5 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Some ridiculous arguments on this thread.

As if having term limits aren't a good thing, which we wouldn't have without Peter Lawrence.

The board could have accepted a number of positions without dragging it through the courts, which they eventually accepted anyway.

Posters saying they don't want to hear from other candidates and therefore want a closed shop are truly staggering. 

This current board puts their mates in positions prior to elections when board vacancies come about and then lobby for them through official channels come election time. They've done it repeatedly. It's electioneering and is not only not best practice, it's not done by any other club in the league.

A couple of points to raise here:

Definitely agree term limits has been a good addition, and it's one of the good things Mr Lawrence has managed to achieve.

As I understand it, the matter would have still ended up in the courts as the club did not adopt all of Mr Lawrence's demands. I don't think either side covered themselves in glory in that regard.

Perhaps I have missed it, but I don't believe anyone is saying we shouldn't hear from candidates, in fact I think most are saying quite the opposite? I think though that having firm and reasonable rules around how that is managed is appropriate as those with more means, more aggressive agendas, and perhaps more willingness to politick in an unbecoming manner could do harm to the club. As I mentioned above, I believe that should be extended on what currently exists, but I don't think public mudslinging is good for anyone.

I'm not 100% sure you are correct about no other clubs replacing board members in such a way. I believe Essendon are currently doing that very thing, and Carlton did similar in 2023 when they had a controversial exit of a board member. Those are two examples I can think of off the top of my head, so I don't agree with your statement.

[FreedFromDesire 586]

As a matter of interest, an article from March this year by the Governance Institute of Australia places us 3rd among AFL clubs in their rankings based on governance. It doesn't appear to be hugely in-depth, but it's definitely a different standing to what perhaps most of us would think:

3) Melbourne Demons

Melbourne Demons have a dedicated governance page on their website[19] and were able to articulate their nomination process and requirements to nominate for a board position and relevant contact details.[20] This process went over and above what most ASX listed entities do in relation to nominations for directors and didn’t require having to read through the constitution to understand the process. Four out of its eight directors are female and the president is also female, which is more than the fifth edition 40 per cent proposed recommendation.

Kicking the governance football – How does your AFL club compare?

[Hawk the Demon 738]

FFD, none of the other Victorian AFL clubs prohibit public discourse during a Board election in the manner we do. As mentioned elsewhere on DL the judge said Lawrence's position on this campaigning point was "not unreasonable" but it wasn't the judge's prerogative to overrule the Board on that point.

You need not worry about disparagement as this was not a material point of disagreement.

When we do finally see the Club's Election Rules for this year - still nothing on the website - they will likely contain a convoluted process where a member can ask questions of a candidate but the questions and answers are all to be chanelled through the Company Secretary.

[Hawk the Demon 738]

18 minutes ago, FreedFromDesire said:

As a matter of interest, an article from March this year by the Governance Institute of Australia places us 3rd among AFL clubs in their rankings based on governance. It doesn't appear to be hugely in-depth, but it's definitely a different standing to what perhaps most of us would think:

3) Melbourne Demons

Melbourne Demons have a dedicated governance page on their website[19] and were able to articulate their nomination process and requirements to nominate for a board position and relevant contact details.[20] This process went over and above what most ASX listed entities do in relation to nominations for directors and didn’t require having to read through the constitution to understand the process. Four out of its eight directors are female and the president is also female, which is more than the fifth edition 40 per cent proposed recommendation.

Kicking the governance football – How does your AFL club compare?

Apologies for weighing in again FFD but the MFC did not have a Governance page at all until Lawrence first nominated back in 2020.

[FreedFromDesire 586]

17 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Apologies for weighing in again FFD but the MFC did not have a Governance page at all until Lawrence first nominated back in 2020.

I'll absolutely add that to the good things he has achieved then. Thanks for the information.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,678]

3 hours ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Someone else will know the full details I'm sure, but I believe there's a candidate statement written by each of them where they are all allocated the same amount of words and are shared on the same platform so all is fair in terms of communicating with members.

Perhaps there could be more in-depth communication allowed over all, but I think the last thing any football club, and especially ours currently, would want would be a public debate that could very well descend to the depths we see regularly with modern politics.

I do understand that it is an elected position, but I would hate to see our football club dragged through the mire of political point scoring. Not only would it be a destablising process, but having those who have attacked each other publicly then ending up sitting next to each other on our board would mean nothing would get achieved. 

A candidate statement doesn't allow issues to be discussed/challenged etc

If you want member elected boards it has to be open, I rarely vote in these things because I wouldn't know one candidate from another. The more information the better.

[Ollie fan 3,031]

I see that this thread has turned into the Peter Lawrence sycophants' thread, by and large.

Luckily, it becomes clearer and clearer that he will never be elected. I doubt if many members at all are fooled by the "democracy" rubbish and his absolute wasting of the club's time and resources in his determination to further his own interest. 

[FreedFromDesire 586]

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

A candidate statement doesn't allow issues to be discussed/challenged etc

If you want member elected boards it has to be open, I rarely vote in these things because I wouldn't know one candidate from another. The more information the better.

That's a fair point, and possibly something that could fall under the extensions of communications that I mentioned I'd like to see. I do understand that such a thing is a delicate balance though - Having debates between candidates has the potential to get ugly if not administered well in my view. Definitely more information is needed overall, completely agree there. I guess for myself, I don't see AFL club football boards as being the same as political elections, and I would not like to see politics creep into the process more than it has already.

[rpfc 28,042]

17 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

How do the members know what they're voting for if candidates can't publicly discuss their platform?

You follow a club or a constituency? 

The vast majority of members would not know what proper corporate governance and balance should entail.

All the above would lead to is populist reactionary bullplop. 

[Hawk the Demon 738]

Not a very nice view of the members rpfc. Keep them in the dark - feed them a different type of "bullplop". It's The Melbourne Way of Board construction. Working brilliantly for us at the moment.

[bing181 8,894]

Is it not possible to shunt off all the Peter Lawrence discussion into its own thread?

Tedious.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,678]

7 hours ago, rpfc said:

You follow a club or a constituency? 

The vast majority of members would not know what proper corporate governance and balance should entail.

All the above would lead to is populist reactionary bullplop. 

I follow a member based club, with that entails a member elected board. Otherwise we may as well just become privately owned or a franchise operated by the AFL.

Edited Sunday at 07:10 by Dr. Gonzo

[Ollie fan 3,031]

31 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I follow a member based club, with that entails a member elected board. Otherwise we may as well just become privately owned or a franchise operated by the AFL.

I suspect that most supporters wouldn't care; they (and I) follow the team, not the administration. Look at the NFL  - people still passionately support their team. But they are all privately owned.

That's what Lawrence doesn't get: he might want "deemocracy" (ie getting himself elected) but we just want the team to win.

[Biffen 12,805]

Does anyone know what she did or didn't do?

Are we allowed to discuss such lofty matters?

Is there evidence Pert is not performing ?

Personally if he gets the Caulfield deal up I think he's done a good job.

Are there other matters we should know about besides Goodwin not being the greatest match day coach ever?

 

[layzie 32,725]

Let's get our club back.

[Pates 9,624]

1 hour ago, Biffen said:

Does anyone know what she did or didn't do?

Are we allowed to discuss such lofty matters?

Is there evidence Pert is not performing ?

Personally if he gets the Caulfield deal up I think he's done a good job.

Are there other matters we should know about besides Goodwin not being the greatest match day coach ever?

 

For me my issues with Roffey around there being very little movement (until recently with Caulfield) on a home base, and this feeling that when the team was at the top of their game and top 4 contenders she was a prominent figure, but when things haven't been as good for the last 12 months she's been a bit MIA. Now I agree that the President shouldn't be doing all the talking, but it felt like they were putting too much of the burden on Goodwin and Gawn. Her interview with Whateley unfortunately signed her papers.

Pert for me I have concerns about how our culture is being managed. He was CEO at the Pies when their culture wasn't great, and lately our culture feels like it's been average at best and in reality much closer to poor. I don't feel like he's progressed the club in any way and in fact we have regressed. Does that mean an immediate change is required? Maybe not. But I do feel like we can and should be doing better as a club at an administrative level.

If Caulfield happens then Pert and Roffey should be given a lot of credit.

[H_T 3,032]

On 09/09/2024 at 11:22, FreedFromDesire said:

I'm not 100% sure on that. He does seem to talk about culture and how it applies to high performance in a business perspective. I don't think it will be just football related.

The below is an interesting read:

“I sat on the executive of the organisation because a lot of decisions that were made commercially, financially, and legally, impacted the team and performance. So I needed to be part of that conversation and provide an All Blacks perspective to everything within New Zealand Rugby."

Darren Shand on what he learned from 20 years of managing the All Blacks – Money Talks

Well perhaps he can form a solid view via the review on the lack of work done on finding the club a home. Because this after-all, this can impact on the team and its performance. And we know Pert has been in the CEO job now for over 5 years and his portfolio includes this priority.