I've been saying this for a while...

[Vipercrunch 2,827]

... and some of you who have decided that PG is no good will find a way to [censored] and moan regardless.

[mo64 5,881]

GOF... how do YOU know how long things took to get to a point of 'breakdown" If you have insdie info..please illuminate.

It only takes the slightest differing in direction ( objectives ) and eventually a rift occurs.. It wouldnt have been obiosu to anyone ..until th epaths become distinclty different. Its very easy to judge in hindsight isn it ... P!ss easy !! As an "IDEAL" yes, it migh thave been better if some things never happened. But "thigs' often have a hbit of indeed happening.. Its what you do when they occur that separates some from others.

I dont think particularly PG is any golden child..I have some issues with a few things about the MFC. What I suggested was that give credit where its due.

The wolves of the 4th estate would have been circling the MFC they must have salivated at the prospect of blood.. and some nice juicy stories to go.. with even Juicier headlines to boot !! Try as they did ( the media) no such haemoraging happened. We awake today with , I think somethig of a coup , having appointed Paul Mac to the helm. The ship sails on.. it hit no rocks. Are there blue sky days ahead.. well; maybe some but I concede there are some big waves and swells to contend with.

I sense agreement that most likely Steve had to go ?? Might it been more appropriate at some early juncture.. maybe.. But who knows what constraints existed about this ? Maybe it wasnt quite so simple as to suggest ... 'mate..thers a door over there with your name on it !!" Little things like contracts etc.. maybe this WAS the earliest a split could be effected.

So its not good enough to learn from mistakes ?? lol.. what rot !! Who doesn take mistakes.?? You try to make as few as possible and you attempt to remedy those that happen or institute procedures to minimise future occurences!!

I'd rather deal in facts than rhetoric. The facts are that whilst we've had a 'lame duck' CEO in charge for the past 3 months, our membership figures are the worst in the AFL by any measures.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

... and some of you who have decided that PG is no good will find a way to [censored] and moan regardless.

Without coming up with a better solution.

I'd rather deal in facts than rhetoric. The facts are that whilst we've had a 'lame duck' CEO in charge for the past 3 months, our membership figures are the worst in the AFL by any measures.

You just failed your own standard.

[Brocky 4]

How can you applaud and give credit to the removal of a CEO who was reappointed 12 months prior?

He wasn't re-appointed. Steve Harris was appointed in June 2004. His contract was open ended, ie. was not a fixed term contract. It provided for a period of notice which either party could give to the other. He was not offered a new contract or a contract extension last November.

[Brocky 4]

I'd rather deal in facts than rhetoric.

Facts? No you don't. See my above post re: Harris' re-appointment.

[mo64 5,881]

He wasn't re-appointed. Steve Harris was appointed in June 2004. His contract was open ended, ie. was not a fixed term contract. It provided for a period of notice which either party could give to the other. He was not offered a new contract or a contract extension last November.

How many companies would retain a failed CEO in an interim role?

[Brocky 4]

How many companies would retain a failed CEO in an interim role?

Not going to acknowledge you were wrong hey?

So you would have preferred the club to be CEO-less going into the season? Good one.

[Damo 3,376]

How many companies would retain a failed CEO in an interim role?

George Bush.

[mo64 5,881]

Not going to acknowledge you were wrong hey?

So you would have preferred the club to be CEO-less going into the season? Good one.

No, you appoint an interim one, like Collingwood did when Swann jumped ship.

[Brocky 4]

No, you appoint an interim one, like Collingwood did when Swann jumped ship.

Interim CEO's are usually a waste of time. They don't have time to make any changes, better off hanging on to the guy who knows what is going on.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

He wasn't re-appointed. Steve Harris was appointed in June 2004. His contract was open ended, ie. was not a fixed term contract. It provided for a period of notice which either party could give to the other. He was not offered a new contract or a contract extension last November.

Correct. The 12 month extension of Harris's contract is a myth.

No, you appoint an interim one, like Collingwood did when Swann jumped ship.

Incorrect.

You can do either method depending on the situation at hand. Given there were existing projects that Harris had past knoweldge on at the time, which interim CEO did you have in mind that could ably fill the role for three months more appropriately than Steve Harris?

[Hards 2]

George Bush.

Interim CEOs are like interim Coaches, they are there to keep the seat warm and nothing else. I'm not sure if we would have benefited from one, but given Harris' problems with the Board and with his own staff I am surprised he agreed to/chose to stay on until now. Regardless he's done as of tomorrow and an unsuccesful chapter closes.

Re PG I think he's done an alright job. I wouldn't say he's done a great job, but certainly not a bad job either. The one thing he and the board have done which they must be given enourmous credit for is stopping the endless cycle of board coups and public slanging matches between "factions" within the footy club.

I don't think he has sold our club well publicly at times, but I think that is a general issue for the footy club, and not the domain of just him individually. Hopefully the appointment of Paul Mac will change that very serious problem. I see these facts about funding and about Harris not being re-appointed and its great that they are brought up here but why aren't they brought up by the club, published in the media, and those making accusations about the club that are incorrect challanged on their inaccuracies?

[Grand Old Fox 0]

I see these facts about funding and about Harris not being re-appointed and its great that they are brought up here but why aren't they brought up by the club, published in the media, and those making accusations about the club that are incorrect challanged on their inaccuracies?

Because they have been gagged by Rhino Richards.