Its Time Again

Ethan apparently if you post it in triplicate (ie 3 times for you West Australians) he will believe you. Any idea when there will be an official announcement.

There's been no matching to date. Can't see a Club stopping a player who's out of contract from going home etc. If it was us they would get a better pick by letting it happen than trying to do a trade. I think they'll end up about 4th or 5th after finals. I would say their compensation will be a band 1 which would be the first pick after their first pick which if they finish 5th after finals would be pick 14. A better result than any deal they could do with us if they threatened to match. A pretty reasonable compensation for him.

I believe Curnow was 191 when drafted. He was therefore seen as a tall midfielder but too short to be a key forward. So at that stage he wasn't a direct comparison with Weid. We went Weid so we'd get a key forward. Since he was drafted Curnow grew 3 cm's and is now 194cm so has become a viable key forward with the added bonus of great athleticism. A lot of Clubs also didn't go for him after he lost his licence drink driving the week before the draft. He already had a bit of a dodgy behaviour reputation before that incident. Blues rolled the dice with another potential Fevola and so far the gamble has well and truly paid off. Of course in hindsight you'd now take Curnow over Weid but I don't think you can criticise the decision at the time. I have my concerns about Weid but I am also still hopeful he'll turn out ok. He has all the attributes just seems to have lost his ability to read where to be and to impact contests. He looked better 2 years ago. He's shown he's got the package hopefully he'll come on.

Priceless.

I guess we already know what type of fence you'd suggest.

I swear there's a bunch of recruiting assassins on here.

Yeh, well based on earlier rates of increase I picked 43,500 so I'm already happy. The last month has probably killed 45k off.

Finally cracked 44,000. On the basis of the increase in memberships last year up to the cutoff at the end of July we could crack 45,000. 44058

A horse is a horse, of course, of course, And no one can talk to a horse of course. That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous horse on the course of course.

You mean RMS or Gallia

Thank God for that. I was worried you were going to quote some unreliable source like a friend of a friend's friend or someone who knows someone who knows a family member.

Ha! Ha! I see what you did there even if I don't know how. I see it but I don't believe it. Andrew when you read this I just want you to know I didn't write that. You are only worth $500 and be grateful for playing for the team you grew up worshipping like all of us but we don't get the honour of playing for it like you will. Sooo lucky.

Thats the spirit.

Can you please edit your post to read $550k. I've heard it from a very unreliable source Gaff is an avid DL reader and we don't want him getting over inflated ideas.

I have it from a very reliable source is $650k. Well ok. Its a friend of a friend of a friend reliable source. But the source that gave it to me has been very reliable in the past.

Was this what it looked like inside?

I watch most Swans games up here. Hannebury is a shadow of his former self. I can only hope he's injured if he isn't then IMO the best way to describe him is "cooked". For some reason his running ability which was never fast but was elite endurance has vanished. He can't impact contests anymore. He's not playing in the guts and playing on the wing he's become non competitive. It is very sad to see. In any event his best position is as an in and under extractor exactly what we don't need. Don't understand why his name is even being raised. Gaff, on the other hand is exactly what we need.

Where do you get your information that Lever is on that?

Actually it does say it in the first sentence. "An Australian rules field the size of the MCG could be built at Royal Randwick racecourse....."

How do we know he wasn't involved in setting up the criteria for the candidates and just wasn't included in making the final decision. We don't and on the basis of her article either does she. There's a good reason he shouldn't have been involved in the final decision. He's completely compromised as already had his preferred candidates he'd groomed before the process was even started. He was never going to be able to make a proper independent decision. She doesn't know what due diligence was carried out. Balme, Walsh and the bloke who conducted the internal Collingwood investigation would all have been restricted by very tight non disclosure provisions in their contracts. They wouldn't have been able to comment even if they had been approached. Perty's experience in facilities and membership development would have been unmatched by a football dept with no commercial experience or evidently any of the other candidates. Having said that. What do I know. I have to admit a certain CS's CV looked unparalleled at the time as well. Say no more. My point is her article appears to be full of lots of assumptions and very little actual knowledge. Except for quoting Malthouse's criticism as a black mark. Most others in the footy world would see the opposite.

It really is one of the worst articles I've read in the press. Absolutely no research into what the Club needs for its new CEO. Ie someone with experience to deal with the biggest facility decisions in the Clubs history and someone who can grow the lifeblood of the Club's future it's membership. Why didn't she bother to find out what the criterium were and why Pert was selected. She ends by saying she's not suggesting anyone else should have got the job. So what's the point of the article. There isn't one. Instead of that the only comment she has to make is that some people have been critical of the decision therefore it must be bad. One of the main ones being Malthouse. Come on Caro, even you are better than that. You know why Mick is the very last person to rely on a judgement on Pert. Besides that he was the person who recommended Neeld. Say no more. It is a very sad attempt at trying to make yourself relevant when you have nothing to say. So just write something negative. Jeez the footy Press are disappointing.

This was reported in The Age and I think elsewhere. He is understood to have beaten a field of internal candidates that included Demons football manager Josh Mahoney, chief financial officer David Chippindall and commercial operations manager George De Crespigny. Pert will start his new position in October. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/gary-pert-appointed-melbourne-ceo-20180614-p4zlk6.html

You are making a lot of assumptions here based on what. I have bumped into PJ a few times. He looks like he's hard as nails and ruthless. People wouldn't have stayed at MFC who weren't performing. s far as I'm concerned a CEO's single greatest asset is their judgement. I would hope that any CEO we have has a very healthy trust to back their own judgement over anyone else's. If you think that is ego and is a negative thing then so be it. I see it as critical self belief. Ego is something very different. We can't know how much of the negative decisions at the Pies were caused by Eddie Everywhere or Pert. The article above is an example of one of the biggest. What we do know is that under Pert their membership doubled and he is responsible for state of the art facilities. The main focuses for MFC in the next stage of its development. We also know he has a very solid commercial background outside football as well as a rolled gold football pedigree. No doubt there will be some turnover. It's to be expected when under PJ 3 internal candidates put up their hands. It's not Pert's fault if this is why they decide to leave.

Just so we can be clear about Eddie Everywhere and Perty's involvement in the footy dept at the Pies. Here's Eddie E's explanation and the url if you want to read the full article :- McGuire said the relationship between Malthouse and Pert at Collingwood became fractious, but praised them for their roles in the Magpies' 2010 premiership. He also said he fuelled some of the friction between them. "When you have a football department which is strong, sometimes you need to have an administration which is strong as well and Gary Pert being a champion footballer and a well-placed administrator was positioned into the football department at times to make sure everything was going the right way," McGuire told Triple M. "As the president of the club, you sometimes position people into situations. "Yeah, there was no doubt there was some friction there along the way and agreements made and falling out along the journey in the succession plan - that's been and gone. https://au.sports.yahoo.com/malthouse-rips-pert-over-afl-role-015621443--spt.html Hopefully this answers one of the biggest knocks against Pert. Eddie clearly states he positioned Pert into the football department. Of course that would have ruffled feathers. But don't forget the footy dept there was extremely dysfunctional and clearly by Eddie Everywhere's own admission he was responsible for the admin interference. I would imagine there can be a lot of deadwood in a footy Club that has to be continually sorted. This usually results in people being very negative. No surprises there. We may well lose 1 or all of the 3 internal candidates because they didn't get the job. But at least 2 would have felt the same way if one of them had been appointed. PJ set that up. You can't blame the Board or Pert if they leave. Of course I hope they don't leave. I would be very surprised if PJ didn't have any role in the process that was setup to select the next CEO. For instance identifying key issues for the club over the next 4-10 years and therefore the best skill set for those issues. That doesn't mean he would have been included in the final decision. He would most likely be seen as not being impartial as he had several candidates that he apparently has groomed for the role and therefore would have been compromised in making an independent unbiased decision. As far as culture is concerned. Roosy invested a lot of time into the Admin to make sure they were on the same page culturally as the footy team. Perty and Roosy go back a long way. I'd be very surprised if he wasn't consulted about Perty and his likely impact on the culture he had a lot to do with creating. If Roosy hadn't have backed him I'd be surprised if he was selected. I don't have any inside info but it makes sense.

The interesting thing about this situation is that everyone thought there was a PJ succession plan for an internal candidate. How come then there were 3 internal candidates not just one? So if an internal PJ candidate had got it there would have been 2 that missed out and be looking elsewhere anyway.