Steven Smith back on MFC Board?

[monoccular 17,409]

2 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Because of this (and the hits on Giles and McMullin, he should NOT have a statue at the MCG.

100%.    Should never ever be regarded as a legend of the game.  These days video review, MRO (yes even the current incompetent and biased one) Matthews would rarely get a game. 

[Adam The God 30,026]

1 minute ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Will he have the "fire in the belly"?

Maybe not...

[Docs Demons 1,778]

3 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

2024 the year that keeps on giving

You mean keeps on taking!!!

[Ollie fan 3,349]

3 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Perfect opportunity for Peter Lawrence to step up.

This is a joke, right?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,665]

12 hours ago, monoccular said:

100%.    Should never ever be regarded as a legend of the game.  These days video review, MRO (yes even the current incompetent and biased one) Matthews would rarely get a game. 

You're assuming, of course, that Matthews wouldn't have changed the way he played the game. Of course he would have.

[Dingo 1,048]

23 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Perfect opportunity for Peter Lawrence to step up.

Agree 

[pitmaster 3,512]

Caro has a big dip at the Steven Smith story in today's Age.

https://edition.theage.com.au/shortcode/THE965/edition/11a30a8e-0351-e58c-11b0-52c546338ad1?page=bb282502-9290-7927-2a22-b4f940f849b5

For those who cannot beat the paywall the essence is that he took the offer very seriously, sounded out AFL, MFC, MCC heavyweights, senior media figures as well, but ultimately decided against the gig for personal reasons we've already heard about but is basically needs a break after dual careers and leaving his 40-year legal practice.

HOWEVER, of interest to many here is that according to Caro he told Gary Pert it was inappropriate for him to be involved in the internal review, and both Green and Pert disagreed with him.

A further implication is that Kate Roffey's poor interview performance changed the landscape so much that Smith did not want to be seen to be coming in over the top of that disaster.

So three reasons, and it seems the review structure and Kate's shocker simply helped the personal reasons take precedence.

PS: If you want more and can't beat the paywall, heck, you could buy the paper! Me, I'm keeping an eye on the terrible Herald-Sun for every Michael Warner instalment.

Edited September 14 by pitmaster

[reynolds46 1,222]

its another article written in a way to present the MFC in a negative way without actually saying anything and it even included the following which is the crux of his decision.

"In truth, the decision seems largely personal with Smith seeking an extended break after decades of dual careers, first as a footballer and emerging young lawyer, and more recently as MCC chairman while continuing his full-time practice. He has told friends he wants a post-retirement break with his family. He has not ruled out standing for the board in 12 months."

… and then adds the usual points regarding, Roffey, Goodwin, Petracca et al, its more lazy' journalism' from someone who in my opinion was once a reasonable journalist but now is just competing with all the other attention seeking muck raking clowns in the industry

[Hawk the Demon 955]

37 minutes ago, reynolds46 said:

its another article written in a way to present the MFC in a negative way without actually saying anything and it even included the following which is the crux of his decision

"In truth, the decision seems largely personal with Smith seeking an extended break after decades of dual careers, first as a footballer and emerging young lawyer, and more recently as MCC chairman while continuing his full-time practice. He has told friends he wants a post-retirement break with his family. He has not ruled out standing for the board in 12 months."

and then adds the usual points regarding, Roffey, Goodwin, Petracca et al, its more lazy' journalism' from someone who in my opinion was once a reasonable journalist but now is just competing with all the other attention seeking muck raking clowns in the industry

 

Just before the paragraph you have lifted is this paragraph:

Notably Pert, with whom he discussed the review and telling Pert - and interim president Green - that it was inappropriate that the CEO was running an internal evaluation. Both men told Smith they disagreed.

If correct, a fairly substantial disagreement. This is the point that needs to be debated.

 

 

[Neil Crompton 5,428]

1 hour ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Just before the paragraph you have lifted is this paragraph:

Notably Pert, with whom he discussed the review and telling Pert - and interim president Green - that it was inappropriate that the CEO was running an internal evaluation. Both men told Smith they disagreed.

If correct, a fairly substantial disagreement. This is the point that needs to be debated.

 

 

I think most on here have already supported Smith's view on this. I think therefore we have already had the debate!

Haha, you aren't really Tom Morris are you Hawk?

[FreedFromDesire 936]

2 hours ago, pitmaster said:

Caro has a big dip at the Steven Smith story in today's Age.

https://edition.theage.com.au/shortcode/THE965/edition/11a30a8e-0351-e58c-11b0-52c546338ad1?page=bb282502-9290-7927-2a22-b4f940f849b5

For those who cannot beat the paywall the essence is that he took the offer very seriously, sounded out AFL, MFC, MCC heavyweights, senior media figures as well, but ultimately decided against the gig for personal reasons we've already heard about but is basically needs a break after dual careers and leaving his 40-year legal practice.

HOWEVER, of interest to many here is that according to Caro he told Gary Pert it was inappropriate for him to be involved in the internal review, and both Green and Pert disagreed with him.

A further implication is that Kate Roffey's poor interview performance changed the landscape so much that Smith did not want to be seen to be coming in over the top of that disaster.

So three reasons, and it seems the review structure and Kate's shocker simply helped the personal reasons take precedence.

PS: If you want more and can't beat the paywall, heck, you could buy the paper! Me, I'm keeping an eye on the terrible Herald-Sun for every Michael Warner instalment.

Can you please clarify which section of the article explicitly states that? I've read it through twice now, and perhaps I've missed it somehow, but I read nothing in that article that gave that impression. It does imply that the Whateley interview was somewhat of a last straw that meant Smith's decision was needed to be more forthcoming though:

"The club has denied to this masthead that Melbourne directors met without Roffey’s knowledge on the Friday after the Whateley interview, but either way she stepped down the following week in a move that brought the Smith presidency decision to a head. It was a brutal undoing that disappointed the AFL Commission, which had hoped for an orderly succession."

Is there another section of the article where you interpreted it that Smith "did not want to be seen coming in over the top of that disaster"?

Also, you appear to be either misinterpreting or being miselading in the reasons you have quoted. Again, directly from the article:

"The 68-year-old’s decision to decline a board role did not come about primarily because of that key disagreement nor due to any discomfort over (redacted for Demonland purposes, but mentions current legal proceedings).

In truth, the decision seems largely personal with Smith seeking an extended break after decades of dual careers, first as a footballer and emerging young lawyer, and more recently as MCC chairman while continuing his full-time practice. He has told friends he wants a post-retirement break with his family. He has not ruled out standing for the board in 12 months."

It seems important to be careful about being entirely accurate when posting a paywalled article. I don't believe your comments to be truly reflective of the contents of it.

Edited September 14 by FreedFromDesire

[Skuit 10,027]

Hi Caro. May I suggest a way in which you could rephrase your article on Steven Smith declining an offer to sit on the MFC board which would better demonstrate unbiased reporting free from any perceptions of a personal agenda? You wrote:

“Smith had been doing his due diligence”

“Notably Pert, with whom he discussed the review and telling Pert – and interim president Green – that it was inappropriate that the CEO was running an internal evaluation.”

“The 68-year-old’s decision to decline a board role did not come about primarily because of that key disagreement.”

“In truth, the decision seems largely personal with Smith seeking an extended break after decades of dual careers.”

Okay, so if you find yourself in the future feeling it necessary to preempt a paragraph with the phrase ‘in truth’, it probably gives some indication that you may have your preferencing of the information out of the appropriate order.

As a quick example, next time you could try something like;

“The decision (to decline a seat on the MFC board) seems largely personal, with Smith seeking an extended break after decades of dual careers, although he also felt that it was inappropriate that the CEO Gary Pert was running an internal evaluation.”

Just another quick pointer. In the example above, I’ve maintained the word ‘seems’, which is always a bit fuzzy and should be avoided in a journalistic context. You did however go on to provide a direct source for your information, which is great - keep at it!.

So here, you could try;

“According to what Smith has told friends, he wants to take a post-retirement break with his family, so wouldn’t currently be available to accept a seat on the board. He did however discuss the matter with Garry Pert and Brad Green, and told them that, in his opinion, it was inappropriate that the CEO was running an internal evaluation.”

 

 

[whatwhat say what 22,552]

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

Hi Caro. May I suggest a way in which you could rephrase your article on Steven Smith declining an offer to sit on the MFC board which would better demonstrate unbiased reporting free from any perceptions of a personal agenda? You wrote:

“Smith had been doing his due diligence”

“Notably Pert, with whom he discussed the review and telling Pert – and interim president Green – that it was inappropriate that the CEO was running an internal evaluation.”

“The 68-year-old’s decision to decline a board role did not come about primarily because of that key disagreement.”

“In truth, the decision seems largely personal with Smith seeking an extended break after decades of dual careers.”

Okay, so if you find yourself in the future feeling it necessary to preempt a paragraph with the phrase ‘in truth’, it probably gives some indication that you may have your preferencing of the information out of the appropriate order.

As a quick example, next time you could try something like;

“The decision (to decline a seat on the MFC board) seems largely personal, with Smith seeking an extended break after decades of dual careers, although he also felt that it was inappropriate that the CEO Gary Pert was running an internal evaluation.”

Just another quick pointer. In the example above, I’ve maintained the word ‘seems’, which is always a bit fuzzy and should be avoided in a journalistic context. You did however go on to provide a direct source for your information, which is great - keep at it!.

So here, you could try;

“According to what Smith has told friends, he wants to take a post-retirement break with his family, so wouldn’t currently be available to accept a seat on the board. He did however discuss the matter with Garry Pert and Brad Green, and told them that, in his opinion, it was inappropriate that the CEO was running an internal evaluation.”

 

 

chat-gp@Skuit working well

[Tim 3,413]

19 hours ago, FreedFromDesire said:

Can you please clarify which section of the article explicitly states that? I've read it through twice now, and perhaps I've missed it somehow, but I read nothing in that article that gave that impression. It does imply that the Whateley interview was somewhat of a last straw that meant Smith's decision was needed to be more forthcoming though:

"The club has denied to this masthead that Melbourne directors met without Roffey’s knowledge on the Friday after the Whateley interview, but either way she stepped down the following week in a move that brought the Smith presidency decision to a head. It was a brutal undoing that disappointed the AFL Commission, which had hoped for an orderly succession."

Is there another section of the article where you interpreted it that Smith "did not want to be seen coming in over the top of that disaster"?

Also, you appear to be either misinterpreting or being miselading in the reasons you have quoted. Again, directly from the article:

"The 68-year-old’s decision to decline a board role did not come about primarily because of that key disagreement nor due to any discomfort over (redacted for Demonland purposes, but mentions current legal proceedings).

In truth, the decision seems largely personal with Smith seeking an extended break after decades of dual careers, first as a footballer and emerging young lawyer, and more recently as MCC chairman while continuing his full-time practice. He has told friends he wants a post-retirement break with his family. He has not ruled out standing for the board in 12 months."

It seems important to be careful about being entirely accurate when posting a paywalled article. I don't believe your comments to be truly reflective of the contents of it.

I reckon @pitmaster’s summary did give the sense of it, although probably slightly overstated it. I see the article says Roffey’s interview “brought the Smith presidency decision to a head”, and “the result could have been so different had Roffey avoided her media judgement day or just performed better. That way Smith could have taken a less demanding board role before succession at the end of next year. Instead he backed away, and a year is a long time in football.”

And yes, the other factors you mentioned were in the mix. 

One intriguing piece in the article refers to Steven Smith having done his due diligence. According to Caro he had spoken to “key club powerbrokers” and club directors. Does anyone have any idea of who these worthies described as “key club powerbrokers” are? And they aren’t directors according to what she said.  

[daisycutter 29,596]

42 minutes ago, Tim said:

 

One intriguing piece in the article refers to Steven Smith having done his due diligence. According to Caro he had spoken to “key club powerbrokers” and club directors. Does anyone have any idea of who these worthies described s “key club powerbrokers” are? And they aren’t directors according to what she said.  

i think she was referring to the boot-studder and the doorman 😂

[Demonland 71,114]

Melbourne board candidate Steven Smith says he has plans to help reunite the club, address its cultural failings and capitalise on its three-year premiership window.

The highly-respected former MCC chairman and 203-game Demon on Thursday confirmed he would nominate for the club’s board and take over as president in 12 months, if elected. 

Smith last month knocked back the club’s advances but changed his mind after interim president Brad Green ticked off a pre-planned overseas family holiday from May – July.

The successful property lawyer said the club could re-enter the premiership mix next season, but only if it faced up to the errors that had contributed to the Demons’ poor year on and off the field, including the botched handling of superstar midfielders Christian Petracca and Clayton Oliver.

“I really want to be around to implement the review findings and basically provide some stability because the next six months is going to be so important to effectively reunite the club,” Smith told the Herald Sun.

“We need to include the groups which have been, to some extent, disengaged at the football club over a period of time, and make some changes from the reviews which will get us back to where we should be.

“For the actual playing group itself, I think the premiership window is another two or three years, and I’m excited about the phase beyond that. 

“In ‘22, we had bad luck and injuries to Max (Gawn) and Jake Lever and then in ‘23 we just kicked badly, but this year has been different and some of those issues have been forced upon us, like Angus’ (Brayshaw’s) retirement, and, J Smith with his drug issues.

“And some of the others, like Christian and Clayton, were badly handled.”

Smith, who has strong connections in the top offices of Australian sport after a 21-year stint at the Melbourne Cricket Club, said he had a lifelong passion for Melbourne, and was excited about the changes the twin reviews into the football department and board would bring.

Club great Nathan Jones and former Port Adelaide assistant Nathan Bassett are expected to join the coaching staff, with a strong focus on bedding down an effective game plan, and setting clear expectations for players. 

Smith said the trade period had shown the Dees had to repair its culture and restore its reputation as a destination club.

“I love the place, it has been very important in my life,” Smith said.

“This year has been a really hard year for the footy club and that really hurts me.

“But footy clubs aren’t perfect, they make mistakes, and it can be a complex dynamic dealing with 40 young men who don’t always get it right either.

“So, we have got to learn from those mistakes, and I think the review will help us do that. The recommendations will make sure the mistakes don’t happen again.

“What was clear from the trade period was that no one really wanted to come to us.

“We have to get back to being a destination club and that comes with restoring the culture. We are definitely still in the premiership window.

“At board level, we need to make sure we have the right people in the right positions to create that environment so the players and staff feel happy, safe and secure coming into work every day.”

Melbourne will endorse Smith, who previously served as a Melbourne director between 1990-1992, and 7-Eleven director Chris Barlow for its two board vacancies.

Smith said he would come back from the holiday feeling rejuvenated after a busy work period and was grateful for Green’s understanding and commitment as interim president during a tough time.

“I need the break,” he said. “I need to come back fired up because, if I am elected, the difference between being a director and being president is significant. 

“Being president is almost a full-time job, and I want to come back refreshed.”

[Lucifers Hero 39,320]

That is the most inspiring interview I've read in a very long time.  He will make sure all in the FD lift their game.  Feeling quite optimistic again.

Kudos to Green for getting Smith back on board and the way he has handled the first month as President. 

[Supreme_Demon 3,715]

I am happy with this result.

Glad to hear Steven Smith has changed his mind.

Time to unify everyone behind the Melbourne Football Club to strive for more Premiership success and get our Home Base built at the Caulfield Racecourse.

[Palace Dees 2,266]

5 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

That is the most inspiring interview I've read in a very long time.  He will make sure all in the FD lift their game.  Feeling quite optimistic again.

Kudos to Green for getting Smith back on board and the way he has handled the first month as President. 

Agree 100% 

[Lucifers Hero 39,320]

While DL's can decry the way the media has reported the issues at the club they can no longer deny them now that Smith has addressed them.  In particular:

• “We need to include the groups which have been, to some extent, disengaged at the football club over a period of time, and make some changes from the reviews which will get us back to where we should be.
• “In ‘22, we had bad luck and injuries to Max (Gawn) and Jake Lever and then in ‘23 we just kicked badly, but this year has been different and some of those issues have been forced upon us, like Angus’ (Brayshaw’s) retirement, and, J Smith with his drug issues.
• “And some of the others, like Christian and Clayton, were badly handled.”
• “What was clear from the trade period was that no one really wanted to come to us.
• “We have to get back to being a destination club and that comes with restoring the culture. We are definitely still in the premiership window.
• “At board level, we need to make sure we have the right people in the right positions to create that environment so the players and staff feel happy, safe and secure coming into work every day.”

 

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 5,030]

I can't get a handle on whether his views about the Club have been formed from the outside looking in or, somehow, looking from the inside.

Clark has 'quoted' Smith extensively, as 'told the Herald Sun'. That feels vague, but I must assume he said what is attributed to him. He thus seems strong on the clarity that, '...from the trade period...no one really wanted to come to us.' Do we assume that was a view held by the Club (SS 'inside looking') - and, if so, I'd be expecting the review/s to be clear on that - or was it formed from the media 'analysis' (SS 'outside looking')?

[Lucifers Hero 39,320]

6 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

I can't get a handle on whether his views about the Club have been formed from the outside looking in or, somehow, looking from the inside.

Clark has 'quoted' Smith extensively, as 'told the Herald Sun'. That feels vague, but I must assume he said what is attributed to him. He thus seems strong on the clarity that, '...from the trade period...no one really wanted to come to us.' Do we assume that was a view held by the Club (SS 'inside looking') - and, if so, I'd be expecting the review/s to be clear on that - or was it formed from the media 'analysis' (SS 'outside looking')?

I'd be surprised if SS hasn't done his due diligence and seen the findings of the reviews so he would have some real insight into what the issues.

[Pennant St Dee 13,031]

There’s a lesson in firing off early in this for many (generally the usual suspects)

Plenty potting Green very early as interim president, for Gutnik and the Oliver speculation without knowing exactly facts not media spin(yes I know where there’s smoke there’s fire - but not intricate fact)

Now he may be good or may not be but give him time and consideration to the environment he entered.

 

Edited Thursday at 10:20 by Pennant St Dee

[Lucifers Hero 39,320]

A tip to posters:  referring to our board nominee by his last name will most likely result in the post being held up and reviewed by mods.  I suggest referring to him as SS and the player with the same last name as JS.  It will save the mods a lot of work. 

[Davos 836]

45 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Melbourne board candidate Steven Smith says he has plans to help reunite the club, address its cultural failings and capitalise on its three-year premiership window.

The highly-respected former MCC chairman and 203-game Demon on Thursday confirmed he would nominate for the club’s board and take over as president in 12 months, if elected. 

Smith last month knocked back the club’s advances but changed his mind after interim president Brad Green ticked off a pre-planned overseas family holiday from May – July.

The successful property lawyer said the club could re-enter the premiership mix next season, but only if it faced up to the errors that had contributed to the Demons’ poor year on and off the field, including the botched handling of superstar midfielders Christian Petracca and Clayton Oliver.

“I really want to be around to implement the review findings and basically provide some stability because the next six months is going to be so important to effectively reunite the club,” Smith told the Herald Sun.

“We need to include the groups which have been, to some extent, disengaged at the football club over a period of time, and make some changes from the reviews which will get us back to where we should be.

“For the actual playing group itself, I think the premiership window is another two or three years, and I’m excited about the phase beyond that. 

“In ‘22, we had bad luck and injuries to Max (Gawn) and Jake Lever and then in ‘23 we just kicked badly, but this year has been different and some of those issues have been forced upon us, like Angus’ (Brayshaw’s) retirement, and, J Smith with his drug issues.

“And some of the others, like Christian and Clayton, were badly handled.”

Smith, who has strong connections in the top offices of Australian sport after a 21-year stint at the Melbourne Cricket Club, said he had a lifelong passion for Melbourne, and was excited about the changes the twin reviews into the football department and board would bring.

Club great Nathan Jones and former Port Adelaide assistant Nathan Bassett are expected to join the coaching staff, with a strong focus on bedding down an effective game plan, and setting clear expectations for players. 

Smith said the trade period had shown the Dees had to repair its culture and restore its reputation as a destination club.

“I love the place, it has been very important in my life,” Smith said.

“This year has been a really hard year for the footy club and that really hurts me.

“But footy clubs aren’t perfect, they make mistakes, and it can be a complex dynamic dealing with 40 young men who don’t always get it right either.

“So, we have got to learn from those mistakes, and I think the review will help us do that. The recommendations will make sure the mistakes don’t happen again.

“What was clear from the trade period was that no one really wanted to come to us.

“We have to get back to being a destination club and that comes with restoring the culture. We are definitely still in the premiership window.

“At board level, we need to make sure we have the right people in the right positions to create that environment so the players and staff feel happy, safe and secure coming into work every day.”

Melbourne will endorse Smith, who previously served as a Melbourne director between 1990-1992, and 7-Eleven director Chris Barlow for its two board vacancies.

Smith said he would come back from the holiday feeling rejuvenated after a busy work period and was grateful for Green’s understanding and commitment as interim president during a tough time.

“I need the break,” he said. “I need to come back fired up because, if I am elected, the difference between being a director and being president is significant. 

“Being president is almost a full-time job, and I want to come back refreshed.”

Green has surpassed my expectations as President so far - seemingly doing a commendable job in a role he isn't really qualified for. 

Think it's important that we, as members, make an effort to acknowledge his hard work when he steps aside next year - even if it's a quick thank you if you run into him in person.