rpfc

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

[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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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…

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.

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?

Nah, I have been calling for it for a few weeks now. Im happy to take the credit.

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.

I know that a ‘ruthless’ club would not give a (censored)…

Further to this - this club is on a 5 year hiding to nothing if we can’t move past the past few months. Are we to boo him? Are we to call him out on the street? Are we to make it certain his departure through our actions? Really? Goodwin is obviously trying to salvage what’s best for the club. Can we give the space to do that or are we to take on the persona of the club to ensure any slight remains personal and any disloyalty is punished into infinitum?

Maybe you shouldn’t. Petracca may be an arrogant [censored], I don’t know, but that is the world of elite sportsmen and women who are celebrities and have high pressure and physically demanding jobs but also have a requirement to be a humble servant of the club and those on the periphery at all times. We have got to ask less of these people - I demand respectful behaviour, professionalism, and performance and will forgive indiscretions.