Neither review needs public airing. Some changes will be obvious to see. Others not so. No point giving Barrett etc more ammo.

So keep the members in the dark? 

7 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

So keep the members in the dark? 

What do we need to know other than the reviews have been received and the club will be implementing the findings? 

16 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

So keep the members in the dark? 

Keep other Clubs in the dark 

Im sure the changes personnel-wise will become apparent as time goes on. So long as leadership indicates that changes have/will be made, that's all we need to know. No need to air specifics to all and sundry.

1 hour ago, Clintosaurus said:

What do we need to know other than the reviews have been received and the club will be implementing the findings? 

Sounds like an unwavering faith in the "great and the good" to work out what has been wrong with the "great and the good", make some changes, and we will be "great and good" again at some time. Mmmmm.
 

1 hour ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Sounds like an unwavering faith in the "great and the good" to work out what has been wrong with the "great and the good", make some changes, and we will be "great and good" again at some time. Mmmmm.
 

Since when are Company reviews made public, You can hate the Club as much as you want, but the Reviews are not going to be Public 

9 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Since when are Company reviews made public, You can hate the Club as much as you want, but the Reviews are not going to be Public 

Well seeing as many of us as Melbourne members and supporters wish to see more transparency at the Club we should at least expect some kind of report given.

Hopefully, a report of the review, as well as a Strategic Plan at the next Melbourne Football Club Annual General Meeting. If Gary Pert cannot do both these things then as CEO he should be shown the door.

You have to wonder in a system controlled at almost every level by the non-elected AFL what the role of a Club Board is.

When you split out what they actually have control over it's probably less than a country council.

One way of comparison is to rank the MFC Board performance against that of other AFL clubs based on agreed criteria. My suspicion is that in the AFL era we would usually sit in the lower thirty percentile

On 15/10/2024 at 12:20, Supreme_Demon said:

Well seeing as many of us as Melbourne members and supporters wish to see more transparency at the Club we should at least expect some kind of report given.

Hopefully, a report of the review, as well as a Strategic Plan at the next Melbourne Football Club Annual General Meeting. If Gary Pert cannot do both these things then as CEO he should be shown the door.

The only thing we will notice. Is if certain people are moved on or not. 
the Reviews will not be made public 

On 15/10/2024 at 09:47, Hawk the Demon said:

So keep the members in the dark? 

Yes, and particularly you, so you can't use the slightest bit of criticism in the findings as a platform for your ceaseless Lawrence campaign.

On 15/10/2024 at 09:47, Hawk the Demon said:

So keep the members in the dark? 

It’s actually pretty standard practice not to release the report to the public. Mainly due to the impact it may have on the reputation and careers of those named in it, as Malcolm Speed alluded to in that interview.

Edited October 16, 2024Oct 16 by Foopy on the telly

48 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

Yes, and particularly you, so you can't use the slightest bit of criticism in the findings as a platform for your ceaseless Lawrence campaign.

I can't wait for the reaction by some on here when Freeman invites PL onto the new board

 

4 hours ago, Kent said:

I can't wait for the reaction by some on here when Freeman invites PL onto the new board

 

‘Invites him onto the board?’

Well that isn’t Democracy is it now?

So no big names left, now to sort out the rest!!

11 hours ago, rpfc said:

‘Invites him onto the board?’

Well that isn’t Democracy is it now?

Just playing by the existing rules isnt it?

12 hours ago, rpfc said:

‘Invites him onto the board?’

Well that isn’t Democracy is it now?

No, it's DEEmocracy 😉😂

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Just playing by the existing rules isnt it?

On 14/10/2024 at 20:30, drysdale demon said:

Under his watch we sacked Norm Smith and began the downward trend for the next 50 plus years.

2021 was certainly a blip in this downward trend.

Transparency is a wonderful thing but brand protection is what it's all about in the real world.

The present EPL imbroglio threatening man City with relegation is being fought behind firmly closed doors. The key question its examining is whether the money paid to the club by Abu Dhabi goes beyond an arms length sponsorship deal.

Probably the biggest case in sporting history but.... crickets

The key is that it's being decided by arbitration and not in the Courts.

This will be the first test of a required communication process.

Transparency with confidentiality. You could call it spin but it can be expressed with explanation that some matters cannot be divulged to retain personal or corporate privacy. Other matters that will be publicly observed will then be explained. WE will be on the front foot and controlling the narrative.

The important outcome is consistency of the message and that there are no leaks. Any speculation by reporters or others must be quickly responded to. 

 

Boards dont work without cohesion. You can't have lone wolfs on the Board disrupting things

That said boards need to be accountable and I am not sure ours has been

 

Seriously, does anyone on here think that whatever comes of the Review, the press will give us a fair go?

Have a look at the [censored] being said about Brad Greens tweet, the media complained Roffey said nothing to defend the club, Green does exactly that, they say he should keep quiet and mind his own business. 

Granted he has a lot to deal with but personally, i want a president that goes into bat for one of the clubs players no matter who it is or what the media will say.

59 minutes ago, Deestinga2 said:

Seriously, does anyone on here think that whatever comes of the Review, the press will give us a fair go?

Have a look at the [censored] being said about Brad Greens tweet, the media complained Roffey said nothing to defend the club, Green does exactly that, they say he should keep quiet and mind his own business. 

Granted he has a lot to deal with but personally, i want a president that goes into bat for one of the clubs players no matter who it is or what the media will say.

Nah the narrative will continue until all our good players have left and we are 1:10 every Sunday.

Unless the MFC roll out the Eddie McGuire model that worked so well for the Pies, come out firing against anything that is untrue or unsubstantiated stay a bit angry and a bit Cranky Franky a bit edgy and predictable, Club first rhetoric. Show no mercy to the Media lightweights and give them a pat on the back when they say something positive. Go after specific dung throwers and put them off their game, the supporters will enjoy it and the AFL will take notice that we are no longer the Lambs to the Slaughter.