Steven Smith Knocks Back Dees (for now)

[monoccular 17,305]

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 29,267]

1 minute ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Will he have the "fire in the belly"?

Maybe not...

[Docs Demons 1,748]

3 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

2024 the year that keeps on giving

You mean keeps on taking!!!

[Ollie fan 3,027]

3 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Perfect opportunity for Peter Lawrence to step up.

This is a joke, right?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,642]

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 1,008]

23 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Perfect opportunity for Peter Lawrence to step up.

Agree 

[pitmaster 3,440]

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 Saturday at 01:16 by pitmaster

[reynolds46 1,038]

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 731]

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 5,306]

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 574]

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 Saturday at 03:39 by FreedFromDesire

[Skuit 9,896]

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 22,050]

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 3,336]

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 29,265]

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 😂