Watson11

All true. Although conflict and disagreement is absolutely constructive in the right culture and extremely helpful. The blog below is a simple but powerful tool for teams. https://www.executiveagenda.com/resources/blog/five-dysfunctions-team The problem we have, is a complete breakdown in trust at all levels, amplified by the recent leaks.

But Tracc didn’t walk away. It seems he may have wanted out but that is unverified. And even if he did, it’s possible he initially had issues with the direction of the club which are legitimate, raised them, and said he would leave if he didn’t have a contract (initial Morris story). It’s also possible that Tracc was so aggrieved by that story leaking that it made everything worse and he suddenly entertained leaving more seriously. But no-one really knows as everything other than Tracc’s media statement is based on unverified sources and leaks. I’ll back Tracc. I’m usually pretty quiet at the footy but I’ll be as vocal as I can be when Tracc runs out for us next year.

He did an interview on AFL360 a couple of nights before that piece when he broke down on national TV when discussing the effect his injury had on his partner and family. He was clearly traumatised. And I don’t doubt that at that time Tracc was still coming to terms with all the events that happened. As he was when he sat down for his MFC video.

Because my belief is he raised serious issues in the club confidentially, issues that need to be addressed, and the initial leaks more than likely came from the club, just like the ANB leaks, Kozzie leaks, and several leaks related to Tracc. It’s a long piece of string for Tracc to state to insiders that he is unhappy and if he didn’t have a contract he would leave, to what ended up playing out in the media.

There are 2 takeaways from the Tracc debacle for me. The first is that Tracc’s reputation has been smashed. The second is that our club has at least 1 and probably more people that are totally happy to relay private conversations to the media. It seems to be generally accepted that Tracc or those close to him leaked the initial story to Tom Morris. Skuit stated “Things are said along these lines to people within his circle, which then filters into the media” How does anyone know that? It’s taken as fact but totally unsubstantiated. What about the leak of ANBs trade request. Or Kozzies? I listened to Barrett yesterday and he ranted about Brand Petracca wanting to go to a big club and going rogue etc. When challenged as to how he knew that, he said because that’s what Petracca said. When challenged further Tracc hadn’t spoken to Barrett and it was clarified that Tracc told people inside Melbourne who told Barrett. Who knows whether that message was skewed to try and make it look like Tracc was the problem. It’s also reported by the media that Tracc was telling MFC players Tracc is unhappy with the leadership, and telling the leadership he was unhappy with the players. I’m not sure about journo’s, but if an untrustworthy rat(s) is telling me about confidential conversations, I wouldn’t trust them. I would want to check with the original source. But it seems journos don’t do that. They trust the snakes that leak confidential stuff out. And once every 20 years someone takes legal action against them and it costs the newspaper dollars. But they don’t care because of all the other 1000 “stories” they source from dishonest people that create clicks and make money. But everyone knows that’s how the media work. So as a club, control what you can control and don’t talk to the media, and if stuff leaks take action so you get to a position where the club doesn’t leak. Remember when we never leaked. It wasn’t that long ago. Tracc, ANB, Kozzie’s confidential conversations have all been leaked and surely it’s not too hard to identify who by. Their exit interviews were not public events. Tracc’s stuff all broke when he came back to the club after his break. We have big issues to sort out urgently starting with who in the club are breaching their employment contracts by leaking confidential information to the media, contributing to dividing the players and damaging the club. This would be a start in uniting the players again. I’m probably one of the few supporters whose opinion of Tracc hasn’t been tarnished by this entire episode. My opinion of him has gone up.

It’s really shameful some of the stuff reported in the media and said by Barrett. Barrett had a massive tirade against Tracc and was then asked “where did this brand Petracca stuff come from”. Barrett says “from Tracc himself. People from inside Melbourne said Petracca raised it”. Shameful for the media to assassinate Traccs reputation without getting confirmation of accuracy, and shameful of our club to leak private conversations out of the club.

No. We need one. A bit like West Coast did in 2008. Because the noise around that club stank and it needed an independent review. https://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/club/history/2008 Hopefully, the outcome will be the same as West Coasts and it ticks off the leadership and steps they have taken to address our annus horribilus. The parents of our number 5 pick need to trust the leadership of our club.

I agree. I wonder who seriously believes Hawthorn had a better 2018 season than us. Finals changes everything. I agree also that the Hawks highly successful era finished in 2015. The 2016 and 2018 seasons were not successful seasons for them. They went out in straight sets twice.

I dont know. Ask Pert. He was at the Pies when they did theirs in 2017. Since that review, in the 7 seasons since, they have made 4 prelims (2 they lost were 1 point and 2 points), 2 GFs (one they lost was 2 points), and 1 flag. They missed finals 4 season prior. I’d take that in our next 7 seasons.

I think CEOs are actually the main driver of culture. They manage every department. They need an aligned board. If you get a great playing group and everything goes right you can win a flag, but without an aligned board and CEO who are strong on culture success is inevitably fleeting. Brian Cook is the best CEO in the business. This is a really long watch but really great video about his thoughts, culture, and alignment. He totally sorted out West Coast from 1990-1998. Geelong's current era started with him becoming the CEO in 1999. He had a lot of issues to deal with during that time with a rebuild, player behaviour, coaches etc but stuck to his philosophy around culture. Geelong's outstanding culture over the past 20+ years was not driven by Bomber Thompson! I'm a bit worried about Carlton now that he is there. I preferred the 8 years prior when they never played finals.

Stumbled across this on the Melbourne site when I did a Tracc search. From about 3min 15s is a very interesting listen. Especially for those who believe the President has no right to talk to the players. https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/933178/on-the-radio-christian-petracca?videoId=933178&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1620621291001

I am not sure how you could interpret the line about acting in good faith to be about the MFCs conduct broadly. The Judge specifically stated in para 130"The result is that the only remaining issue necessary for me to determine is whether the affairs of the MFC have been conducted in a manner contrary to the interests of members as a whole or oppressively to Mr Lawrence and other non-preferred candidates by reason of the restrictions, as they now exist in the current version of the election rules, on “electioneering”. Then paras 131-140 are a lot of legal case history as to what "oppressive" means. Para 141 is MFCs view on why the rule re electioneering is required. Para 141 is the statement from the judge that the directors acted in good faith and the para specifically refers to the election rules "In my view, the directors of the club acted bona fide, without collateral motive. They had regard to relevant considerations, and they balanced the interests of the members of the club as a whole as against the interests of a particular member (here, Mr Lawrence). In my view, the reasons given by the board in respect of the electioneering rules are founded upon matters which permitted it reasonably to adopt the electioneering rules in their current form....." The Judge could not have been more clear that he was only referring to the clubs conduct in relation to the final rule that was in dispute.

Titan, that was a reasonably fair summary but I think you have misinterpreted a couple of things. I also think the election rules would not have changed without Peter’s case, so in this circumstance the ends might justify the means. Your first point, also being what Kate wrote, was that the Judge stated the club had acted “bona fide and without collateral motive, balancing the club's interests against Peter's”. This is misleading without context. The Judge clearly stated that he was only commenting on the very final minor outstanding point of dispute. Not behaviour of the club before the case or during it. Several other rules had been changed on the fly by MFC after the claim was filed. So on the very final point regarding “electioneering” remained. On the final day of the trial the Judge asked the parties to try and agree this rule, the club amended the rule, Peter proposed an alternative rule, the club changed the rule to what they amended and filed an affidavit informing the Judge. It was only this that the Judge considered in his Judgement and stated the club acted without collateral motive, not anything else. Kate’s letter to members is embarrassingly disingenuous. Your second point is that Peter persisted with the litigation because he wanted to be able to disparage the board. If you read the judgement, this was the final outstanding point by the last day of the trial and the exchange made it clear that Peter wanted the ability to provide “constructive criticism”. The board agreed and added this to the rule but left disparage in. Peter believed “disparage” was too broad and open to including “constructive criticism”. I suspect Peter would be OK with the final result, but as this negotiation happened after the trial while the Judge was preparing his judgement, it just ran out of time to finish and MFC adopted their proposal. So MFC also changed this rule (after the trial). Your claim that Peter persisted because he wants to disparage the club is factually incorrect. I don’t have an axe to grind either way. I’ve never met Peter. But there is no doubt our election rules are now a lot better because of him. He probably desperately wants to get on the board, and I don’t care if he never gets on, but there is no doubt in my mind that at some stage members will be thankful for what Peter has done. That time will be when we have a board that is not performing, is hanging on because of egos, and everyone except them can see change is needed. A bit like what happened at Collingwood in 2021-22. These new rules make change possible. Considering what Kate wrote in her letter, it’s 100% understandable Peter would want to also send a letter to members to explain what has happened. If Kate had written a letter fairly explaining the case then Peter probably wouldn’t feel the need to defend his actions.

The judgement was an interesting read. My only conclusion is that we are currently in season 3 of “War of the Worlds”, and Kate’s letter to members was written in one world, and the Court case happened in an alternate reality.

Pretty sure clubs do internal reviews every year, so that would just be more of the same if that is the path Roffey follows. Interesting graphic below of the Pies performance leading up to their external review. Maybe they waited too long to do it. The cultural issue at the Pies were masked over by the flag in 2010, but appear to have peaked in the years after. Cultural issues make high performance unsustainable (re Pies 2010, re West Coast 2006 etc). Our only hope to not slide into irrelevancy is to have a thorough and independent review, and if we have absolutely zero issues it would still be money well spent.

The Pies 2017 review was fraught with danger for Gary Pert but not Collingwood. They bounced back immediately and were within a fluky wind gust of winning the flag in 2018. I think it’s best to find out what is festering by those that could never have created/contributed to the problems. Ie an independent group.

We made a lot of changes mid season in 2019 before the 2020 cuts. From memory Chaplin went from forwards coach to backline, Rawlings was promoted from Casey to forward coach, and McCartney went from backline to development coach.

And we didn’t sub him off? What’s the sub for?

I personally think the review should be a Collingwood 2017 style review but that will never happen with Pert. Goody won't be going anywhere, and he can't be solely blamed for areas we have been deficient in like our poor list management since 2021, medical/fitness issues where we are fading every season and playing injured players, off-field distractions at the board level etc. But he and the coaches need to be reviewed as well. After winning a flag coaches often get an extended run at it for 5 or 6 years minimum. Goody deserves the same. But coaches almost never win a second flag at the same club if there is a 5 or 6+ year gap. I think Sheedy and Chris Scott are the only ones to do it in the history of the game, and they both contended by making prelims during that 5 or 6 year period so were not far away. So if a rebuild is needed Goody may not be the best person to do it. I have no idea why it is so hard to rebuild. Maybe coaches are too loyal to the original players that won the flag. Maybe other coaches focus on your gameplan and so if you don't adapt you get passed. Who knows.

Kate Roffey celebrating the opening of our new home base.

It was a great effort overall against Port. I thought Port would be too good but we really made them earn it. A few things in the last qtr were frustrating. When Narkle tied the scores, was Clarry our best matchup for Rozee at the next CB. It was like the GWS game on repeat. Then they ran down the clock too easily at the end. We played a zone like we were 30 points up, not 1 or 2 points down. They had 9 marks in the last 90 seconds. Last night Kane Cornes claimed we are a poorly drilled side on The Round so Far in relation to this. We are 1W and 4L this year in close games, and this follows on from the horrendous final against Carlton last year. Does Cornes have a point?

The Hawks must be very bad at tanking. They were right in the battle for Harley Reid at round 9 or 10 last year. Then they purposely smashed West Coast by 100 points and won 6 of their last 12 or so games. And last year was their worst end of year ladder position.

Tracc’s injury was bad luck. But the rest wasn’t. And Geelong had just as much misfortune with Hawkins carrying a foot injury, Cameron doing a hamstring on the eve of the finals etc. Our 2022 issues were all self inflicted.

Your quoting 2023 not 2022 like I was referring to.

How did we have horrible luck in 2022. Games lost to injury that year are below. It is more that we blew the season by not using our depth with Casey only losing a single game that year. That is not bad luck.