Pert and Roffey - The Review Thread

[Hawk the Demon 960]

Pretty sure he wasn't in the School Book Depository building 🙂

[Ollie fan 3,357]

All this shafting of Pert seems to be based on the allegation that he was hawking Clarry around. Is there any proof of that allegation, or is it just media-started rumours? 
 

And why isn't anyone paying attention to where Clarry said that he was not interested in Geelong (see p.27 of the Clarry thread)?

[Demonstone 22,215]

44 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

All this shafting of Pert seems to be based on the allegation that he was hawking Clarry around.

The plot thickens if Pert really was trying to Hawk the Demon.

[drysdale demon 4,825]

6 hours ago, daisycutter said:

so why not tell us who he is and his family and what his businesses are?

at the very least give us some generic hints

I will pm you in the next couple of days, am doing a lot of driving at the moment.

[drysdale demon 4,825]

5 hours ago, layzie said:

Or at very least, some smoke signals 

I am currently on my way to the USA to arrange that, keep your eyes open.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

3 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

I will pm you in the next couple of days, am doing a lot of driving at the moment.

PM me too please

[drysdale demon 4,825]

8 hours ago, Roost it far said:

Why don't you tell us then

I will pm you in next couple of days, don't think the mods would allow it to be shown.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

1 hour ago, Ollie fan said:

All this shafting of Pert seems to be based on the allegation that he was hawking Clarry around. Is there any proof of that allegation, or is it just media-started rumours? 
 

And why isn't anyone paying attention to where Clarry said that he was not interested in Geelong (see p.27 of the Clarry thread)?

The "shafting of Pert" is not solely down to the Clarry issue but that could be the final straw

[Dr Don Duffy 103]

On 29/09/2024 at 01:47, Demon Disciple said:

In what way 🤔.

i am in no way a Lawrence fan (the way he has gone about it……….wow), but equally the way the leaders of our club (coach, pres, ceo, heck even players) have gone about it talking about not becoming complacent, yet look what’s happened……..equally wow.

 

 

DD, I think the thing to consider to give some perspective here is your point about “the way he has gone about it”. 

It seems pretty clear that the board has taken the bully approach in dealing with Mr Lawrence. They have denied any requests at conciliation to alter their poor governance practices until forced to under the pressure of litigation. They have effectively thought they would make him blink by staring him down. That he has had the resources to call their bluff and actually achieve nearly all of his suggested changes is a massive indictment of the board and a big tick for Lawrence in getting better outcomes for the club.

I don’t like bullies, and I particularly don’t like bullies who use hundreds of thousands of dollars of my club’s funds on court cases that should not have got that far and that had little merit. 

To put it another way, @Demon Disciple, I actually applaud Lawrence for not just accepting the “Just nick off!” approach by the board. We need people who are prepared to stand up and see it through to getting good outcomes. That’s actually in the bailiwick of “good culture”. Heaven forbid that we should be wandering in to that territory!

I actually find it quite disheartening to see the vilification of Mr Lawrence by some posters. I’ve taken the trouble to engage with him on these matters, being able to access his phone number when he first stood for the board.

Do yourself a favour: PM me and I’ll give you his contact details, and engage with him personally to see the cut of his jib - it’s more than we get from most of the “cordon me off from the great unwashed” board members we’ve had over the journey. Don’t just pot him without engaging him. 

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,777]

Am I alone in seeing an analogy to 2011 ( after 186)when we sacked Bailey, when all the players wanted Schwabb to go, not him?

[Supreme_Demon 3,716]

I am neutral regarding Peter Lawrence.

But if he is calling for transparency from the Melbourne Football Club Board shouldn't that be a good thing?

Why couldn't Kate Roffey sit down with Peter Lawrence and reconcile things BEFORE they got to court? Or did they hate eachother's guts? Was there a huge personality clash between the two of them?

Anyway, I hope Brad Green can "break bread" with Peter Lawrence and sort out these issues with him.

I would be possibly open to supporting Peter Lawrence joining the Melbourne Board (if he gets enough votes and other Board members are willing to work with him).

However, my only condition to supporting him is if he is willing to pay back the court costs that the Melbourne Football Club had to pay. Why? Because we as paying Melbourne members had to unwillingly endure that cost.

It may seem unfair, but I assume Peter Lawrence is a wealthy man, and that money wasted on court costs, could of been invested into Club facilities at Casey, looked to promote membership in young people at schools, or even gone into a fund for our (hopeful) new Home Base at Caulfield Racecourse.

Edited October 2 by Supreme_Demon

[Doug Reemer 1,194]

If Pert has gone Rogue and cost us Oliver. He has to [censored] go. I’m not the type to stop my membership. But I’ll be on SEN giving this arrogant FU ar King kerrnt and absolute earful. 
 

I go by Fog on SEN too.

[bing181 9,193]

Pert hasn’t gone rogue. This is club-wide, from the board down. There’s enough info out there. 

[whatwhat say what 22,590]

posted this yesterday on the oliver thread; true here too

people criticising pert for being a ceo involved in the football dept - that's literally a football club ceo's biggest portfolio 

that's why you get people like pert, kelly, hocking, gale etc. in there; they've got 30 plus years of footballing business understanding and experience

you actually DO want them having the direct conversations around pushing your second highest paid staff member out of the club

there's a reason why oliver was meeting hocking and not scott down at the cattery

The amount of effort it required to keep players like him in line, and yet always provide a bail out option, is enormous

there’s a line where it becomes a whole-club distraction and other staff members - players, off field, etc. - begin to get a bit over it

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

posted this yesterday on the oliver thread; true here too

people criticising pert for being a ceo involved in the football dept - that's literally a football club ceo's biggest portfolio 

that's why you get people like pert, kelly, hocking, gale etc. in there; they've got 30 plus years of footballing business understanding and experience

you actually DO want them having the direct conversations around pushing your second highest paid staff member out of the club

there's a reason why oliver was meeting hocking and not scott down at the cattery

The amount of effort it required to keep players like him in line, and yet always provide a bail out option, is enormous

there’s a line where it becomes a whole-club distraction and other staff members - players, off field, etc. - begin to get a bit over it

The merits or otherwise of wanting to move Oliver on is one thing. The manner in which it is being handled is another. Under this administration it is the MO of the club to not have direct discussions with their staff (players) and then leak to the media to undermine the player and try and elicit sympathy for their actions from the supporters. It is [censored] cowardly and pure snake oil salesman BS. None of these issues occurred under Peter Jackson....

Edited October 2 by Dr. Gonzo

[whatwhat say what 22,590]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The merits or otherwise of wanting to move Oliver on is one thing. The manner in which it is being handled is another. Under this administration it is the MO of the club to not have direct discussions with their staff (players) and then leak to the media to undermine the player and try and elicit sympathy for their actions from the supporters. It is [censored] cowardly and pure snake oil salesman BS. None of these issues occurred under Peter Jackson....

tell that to the peptides' supporters who remember pj as their ceo and you get a different story...

his role at the mfc was very, very different to that at the efc of course, just as pert's role as ceo is very different to pj's time as our ceo

[Dr Don Duffy 103]

Edit

Edited October 3 by Dr Don Duffy

[Dr Don Duffy 103]

14 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

Why couldn't Kate Roffey sit down with Peter Lawrence and reconcile things BEFORE they got to court? Or did they hate eachother's guts? Was there a huge personality clash between the two of them?

Anyway, I hope Brad Green can "break bread" with Peter Lawrence and sort out these issues with him.

SD, as I indicated in my previous post the only option for Lawrence was to institute the court proceedings that he did. The alternative was to do nothing and leave the bad practices in place. I understand that some senior people have sought to mediate between him and the board, but the board has not been open to such mitigation although Lawrence was happy to participate. 

Lawrence has been proven right by the outcomes in his decisions, but the board’s decision-making has been poor. They have essentially folded to most of his requests after the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of our dollars. 

14 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

However, my only condition to supporting him is if he is willing to pay back the court costs that the Melbourne Football Club had to pay. Why? Because we as paying Melbourne members had to unwillingly endure that cost..

My understanding is that Lawrence offered to pay the court costs for the Supreme Court case that he won in 2022 (another case that totally shouldn’t have been contested by the club, given the clear state of the law on the issue that was contested). However the club rejected that offer, and soon after that Pert told Lawrence that the club would not accept any more donations from him. Shameful behaviour, and nicely done on our behalf by them. More poor decision-making. 

For heaven’s sake, a good board would take control of the situation, manage it and use Lawrence’s energy and commitment rather than continually punching on with him.

[Supreme_Demon 3,716]

1 hour ago, Dr Don Duffy said:

SD, as I indicated in my previous post the only option for Lawrence was to institute the court proceedings that he did. The alternative was to do nothing and leave the bad practices in place. I understand that some senior people have sought to mediate between him and the board, but the board has not been open to such mitigation although Lawrence was happy to participate. 

Lawrence has been proven right by the outcomes in his decisions, but the board’s decision-making has been poor. They have essentially folded to most of his requests after the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of our dollars. 

My understanding is that Lawrence offered to pay the court costs for the Supreme Court case that he won in 2022 (another case that totally shouldn’t have been contested by the club, given the clear state of the law on the issue that was contested). However the club rejected that offer, and soon after that Pert told Lawrence that the club would not accept any more donations from him. Shameful behaviour, and nicely done on our behalf by them. More poor decision-making. 

For heaven’s sake, a good board would take control of the situation, manage it and use Lawrence’s energy and commitment rather than continually punching on with him.

That's a damning indictment on the Melbourne Football Club Board, if true.

Why wouldn't you try and resolve this peacefully? It sounds like there is a lot of bad blood between the Board and Peter Lawrence.

I just hope Brad Green can speak to Peter Lawrence and sort this out otherwise this issue will continue to fester and may even cause more expensive court cases to eventuate!

My only question to Peter Lawrence (if he reads this discussion forum?) is does he support the building of a Home Base for the Melbourne Football Club at the Caulfield Racecourse? This is a paramount issue that we all need to support and make sure gets completed in our lifetimes.

 

[Dr Don Duffy 103]

27 minutes ago, Supreme_Demon said:

That's a damning indictment on the Melbourne Football Club Board, if true.

Why wouldn't you try and resolve this peacefully? It sounds like there is a lot of bad blood between the Board and Peter Lawrence.

I just hope Brad Green can speak to Peter Lawrence and sort this out otherwise this issue will continue to fester and may even cause more expensive court cases to eventuate!

My only question to Peter Lawrence (if he reads this discussion forum?) is does he support the building of a Home Base for the Melbourne Football Club at the Caulfield Racecourse? This is a paramount issue that we all need to support and make sure gets completed in our lifetimes.

 

SD, as I said in a previous post I was able to access his phone number when he first ran for the board. Feel free to PM me for the details if you want to make contact with him.  

[Supreme_Demon 3,716]

12 minutes ago, Dr Don Duffy said:

SD, as I said in a previous post I was able to access his phone number when he first ran for the board. Feel free to PM me for the details if you want to make contact with him.  

All good.

I found his contact details in an old email.

 

In any case, I hope that Brad Green makes the effort to reconcile with Peter Lawrence for the sake of unity and shared love of the Melbourne Demons.

[beelzebub 23,312]

Taken recently  at a MFC "strategy" meeting.......

[Hawk the Demon 960]

I notice the "now famous" former MFC member Ricky Dunn is getting a petition together to ensure the Pert review is in fact an independent review - via Reddit.

[Foopy on the telly 529]

I just don’t understand how it’s got to the point that the board has apparently been making all of these ‘bad’ decisions. 
 

They have a governance code to go by, which by all reports was overhauled with the involvement of the AFL 11 years ago. Has this changed? And if not, why are they going against their governance code if they are in fact performing poorly?

[Demonland 71,131]