rpfc

7 hours ago, GM11 said:

Out of interest, who could we have got?

I can’t answer that counter factual only that it contributed to us not getting to prelims.

9 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Rubbish, our list was easily good enough to win at least one more flag over recent years. We have underachieved by not taking advantage of our position and the relative weakness of the rest of the comp.

I agree, but both ideas can be right. We should have made prelims in 22 and 23 (that’s my measure - anything happens from there) and we didn’t, but we definitely should have cashed all chips to get a forward after 21. I love Ben Brown but he was never going to be what we needed.

From a very high level - we couldn’t convert our dominance and it in part led to our failure in those years.

1 hour ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Goodwin is 0-4 in finals since 21.

Oh is he?

I was completely unaware…

3 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

A balanced and capable Board? This is a Board that spent $650,000 "winning" a case which adopted pretty much all of the sensible changes to election rules and processes that were proposed in October last year. And in their triumph, they told members - don't worry we'll chase the bloke to recover costs. What did they get? Zero. Don't think there will be any flashy announcements about that development.

You’re excellent at creating a straw man to argue with. 

21 minutes ago, binman said:

I haven't read a single post in.this thread, so apologies if it's been covered.

Is goody a verb?

If so, what does it mean?

I'm thinking perhaps it's a typo, and thread title is actually

Time to go giddy?

Or perhaps goody is a euphemism?

For what, I'm shudder to think.

[Entering into ChatGPT] Dees fan having a stroke during a post on Demonland…

These long contracts are either a master stroke or a bane of flexibility and opportunity. I was a fan but now I am not so sure I would go past 5 years for stars of the game…

Other than that, I wish we were better at finding players from other clubs. This ‘pro-scouting’ was a strength when we got Lever and May and Melksham and Hibberd. But now we are not getting those players, and one could argue it played a part in a unsuccessful last 3 years.

On 16/09/2024 at 18:59, Hawk the Demon said:

Gee you don't think much of our poor old voting members do you? That elitist approach you have just outlined has led to how many Court cases recently? - just finished one (how much did that cost?) to make changes to election processes that were obvious, continued  just to stop Board candidates being interviewed by Gerard Whateley. And three cases on the go at the moment - one against 4 Board members, a second against 7 Board members and a single one against the current Vice President. Not to mention the worst facilities in the AFL. A Board that has jettisoned two Presidents in three years. I can see the AFL looking over proceedings at Melbourne and saying "everything's just fine!".

I am comfortable with my opinion of ‘low information group’ that some are trying to entrust with electing a balanced and capable corporate board, and I have a lower opinion of those that would utilise for their own ends the incidence of dubious court cases against certain individuals.

I would not crow about the AFL’s opinion of the club leadership, any intervention from here will dramatically decrease the likelihood of your mate Lawrence getting on the board.

You may continue your crusade.

18 hours ago, Adam The God said:

Ironically, things have gone downhill since the AFL handed back the reigns...

Quite. But also, when was the hand back, exactly? Calling this ‘revisionist history’ is a compliment, we are so ignorant of circumstance. 

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Maybe we should change the constitution then.

I have an issue with the board "replenishing itself" which I take to mean the old boys club running things without any sense of accountability.

That's what got us into the [censored] pre-2013 and it's what has got us back into the [censored] now.

Again, when was the ‘hand back’ and you ‘take to mean’ the steady string of AFL-approved board approached people as ‘the old boys club’? What do you think Democracy of the membership will get you?! We seek ‘approval’ from the AFL for those that we wish to keep and bring onto the board because it is the best way we can ensure that HQ are vested and happy with the skills we have to provide governance of the club - to continue to bleed the constitution to ensure more ‘freedom’ for individuals to encumber that is foolhardy. Democracy is for societal bodies and governmental representation, and something to be sought for and vociferously demanded - but not at footy clubs - let’s have some perspective.

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I follow a member based club, with that entails a member elected board. Otherwise we may as well just become privately owned or a franchise operated by the AFL.

We were a ‘franchise operated by the AFL’ at the end of 2013…

Most on here look back fondly on the time of Peter Jackson and the ‘AFL approved’ board. 

We have the necessary mechanisms to remove an admin that is wholly incompetent or corrupt but save for that - the board should replenish itself and get on with it in conjunction with what the head office wants to see.

Thats my view, it’s also current reality.

17 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

How do the members know what they're voting for if candidates can't publicly discuss their platform?

You follow a club or a constituency? 

The vast majority of members would not know what proper corporate governance and balance should entail.

All the above would lead to is populist reactionary bullplop. 

4 hours ago, Skuit said:

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond, as your impartial rhetoric is tiresome and you're clearly once again being disingenuous here. Peter Lawrence desperately wishes to be on the MFC board, as evidenced by his nominating to be on the board and perusing costly avenues for both himself and the club to further that cause. They are some decent-sized chips.

Please do not reply with some BS that all of us have chips in the game as members of the MFC, or make your case that those measures are for the betterment of the football club, or suggest that I should waste half my weekend reading a judge's report from an institution that I don't respect. All these responses would be beside the point. 

Nobody whatsoever believes that he is simply just some freedom-fighter championing the cause of democracy for the benefit of we the people. You would be better off dropping the nonsense and being transparent without all the character stuff about why you believe Peter would be a better administrator of the club than those presently performing the role. 

When posters sometime question whether you are Peter himself, it's not just some old 'Hi Peter' internet joke. I suspect many on here genuinely believe it to be a possibility, and I can understand how they might have that perception. I'm more confused by how you seem to be oblivious as to how they might have that perception. 

It's great that you have Peter's back - all the best to you and your mate. But I don't think you're doing any favours to his cause by coming on here and distorting events to suit your narrative, taking cheap shots, and using semantics to argue the same point over and over again like a politician. People don't like politicians. 

 

I especially don’t like it when they reference the legal troubles wrought by a certain former leader on the club board.

Doesn’t he want to join that board? That club?

Why side with those that wish to demean them, that you don’t know much about?

In my view, it provide a clarity to the objectives here, and ‘Democracy’ is a cudgel, a red herring to motive.

I have worn this argument out the last few years but footy boards these days cannot afford to be run ‘purely through the members best judgement’ - we don’t know. The elections should be a failsafe in case of gross incompetence or fraudulent behaviour. Otherwise, the board renews itself with the balanced capable people that it needs to govern and achieve its objectives.

44 minutes ago, deanox said:

My take on this (rightly or wrongly is):

- the board is the ultimate authority, very hard to truly review them, however boards can appoint someone to assist with independent review and make changes. You need strong leadership for that change to be pushed through though.

- the Board appoint a CEO to manage the business for them.

- if the Board is under review, it isn't a good time to replace the CEO. It is probably better to review and refresh the Board then the new Board reviews the CEO

- the CEO at a football club is responsible for the commercial/administration operations and the football operations. These might be two different departments but ultimately the CEO is responsible for both (via staff appointments)

- So a football department review is in effect a review of the CEO. If there are lots of failings in the football department, the CEO is ultimately the person responsible for those failings

- Ultimately we review/refresh the board, and then the new board will assess is Pert is still the right person going forward, and they will have the results of the recent football department review to help inform that decision.

My only addendum is around the review of footy ops being squarely focussed on Pert but with Richardson in the gun. Thats the disappointing thing for me with being so equivocal with what you are reviewing - it makes it very easy to know who the blame will fall with.

There is no inherent problem with Pert being on the review of footy ops; he isn’t in footy ops.

The disappointment is that there seems to be a review of the board, a review of footy ops but not of the non-footy ops and exec of the club.

But the CEO will have to enact the changes at the behest of the board so he or she leading the review is probably essential IF they are seen to be around for enough time to enact the reforms of the footy ops area.

Maybe we can’t afford a new CEO right now so it is pointless to remove or review the role or diminish his involvement in the review. We have to live in reality here. But we will see what public pressure will steer us toward…

Err, ok, then.

As Kamala would say - “we’re not going back.”

50 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

OK, I'll try to be a little more perceptive - "I want to make a comment about the CEO, could he please leave the room?"

Why is everything so personal? 

Everyone is trying to do a good job with their roles and responsibilities and a review would look at more than just the specific opinions of staff of other employees of the club…

Structure, roles and responsibilities, support, training, environmental factors, et al. 

These are the more valuable aspects of a review, not the opportunity to give people a chance to [censored] on others. While I would prefer a broader review, it is not a reason to require a broader review.

15 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Just because there's nothing in the press that's not to say that those areas aren't being reviewed. All organisations undertake reviews, internal or with external input, and all of those areas have to report to the board.

I am just going off the press release/email from the club.

Gale lead the review of footy ops at the Tigers that preceded their golden era. 

I don’t see an issue with that, the disappointment is that the board is to be reviewed, and footy ops is to be reviewed, but not the exec ops and non-footy ops. 

It shouldn’t be about people losing jobs but identifying what we could be doing better.

I do see these two areas as the highest priorities however.

He’s been told. Players don’t go public with a request with so many years left 

…

Yes I am aware.

Even Caro was unsure where this would lead if anywhere and I think it was just another opportunity offered to CP to talk through his issues and the family to lodge their misgivings once again. 

The AFLPA should take a look as their prerogative but can Marsh have people with half an idea so when he goes on leave the world doesn’t stop at the AFLPA. Maybe Geoff should review that too.

Jeez, the word ‘patently’ gets thrown around easily…

2 hours ago, mo64 said:

If that is the case then I'd want a cleanout of senior positions from top to bottom. Roffey has gone, and Pert and Richardson should be next.

All actions need a catalyst. If you are inferring that acting because of the actions of one person is incompetent, then I can’t agree; sometimes things are revealed that are larger than the individual actions of someone. I just can’t stand the ‘reputation washing’ that goes on in any narrative that is pushed.

Things are not black and white, the beauty is in the grey.

29 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Are you implying that Petracca created the troubles? or just noting that his public stance on them has created a lot of necessary movement. 

Isn’t it just the fact that CP5’s actions to overtly look to leave is the catalyst to all this? I am sympathetic to his stance, I even understand to the point of comprehension, but can we just let the facts stand without making them arguable because they don’t fit the clean narrative we want for a certain person?

10 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

If there is a review it has to be "top to bottom" as Whateley suggested to Kate. Nothing official from the Club yet. If it's happening, kudos to Deemocracy I reckon.

Nah, I have been calling for it for a few weeks now.

Im happy to take the credit.

33 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Well that’s quick. Perceived pressure was enough to get an external review…

How hard is it to just get a consultant and a couple of old footy players and admins?

Its not cheap but you’re saving money in  PR clean up and you might actually get something from it.