Lucifers Hero

They are making sure they get full value for him if he leaves as an FA. A first round comp pick from the AFL will be around 16 to 20. A forced trade will net a much better result especially if he wins or comes close to winning the Brownlow. A six year deal will be quite an offer for other clubs to top. Hard to see him leaving. If he were to come to us he will be expensive in both contract and trade terms.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't read HS so was going on this thread...clearly, I missed something in the reading...

Thanks CBDees. When you say the 'site mooted' do you mean the area I mentioned earlier that is on the city side of the Jolimont station or another part of the rail? (So far most people have been talking about the area over the station itself). Agree, it would be a shame to do anything to the station and its charm.

Thanks dc. As I thought - it is effectively a subterranean station. I have checked the heritage listing and Jolimont station is not listed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heritage_listed_buildings_in_Melbourne#Railway_stations I can see various options with subways and/or overpassess for cars, rail and pedestrians. But I guess it will be up to the engineers, architects and lobby groups. For now, I am simply rapt with the potential of this site.

True, I have no idea about engineering. I guess I took the dialogue so far to mean literally over the Jolimont station. Given the limitations you mention, is it feasible to build over the tracks to the city end of Jolimont station (and leave it intact)? Again, in a way that reduces a building's street mass and landscaped into its surrounds.

Jolimont tracks and station are already sunken well below street/park level. It is effectively underground as it runs under Wellington Pde to the East. With clever design (and maybe lowering tracks a bit further) only 3/4 stories of the proposed 6 would not be visible above ground level. Furthermore, with the increasingly popular 'green roofs' architecture the building could easily be camouflaged from the street and to blend into its parkland surrounds. And for those worried about losing trees, a replanting program should cover it. Lobby groups will lobby. But there is a lot more for the community to gain from this than to lose. Just needs to be worked through with them. A Red and Blue colour scheme on the externals of the building would work very well don't you think...

There is already a precedent for this. Esternwick station was redeveloped along these lines about 20 years ago.

Yarra Park is within the Melbourne City Council boundaries. But I believe Yarra Park is Crown Land so owned by the Vic Gov. Not sure if they need Council permits to change the use of Crown Land but the Gov would need to deal with managing public lobby groups etc.

What a sensational prospect. A real 'Home'. Can we ever thank Peter Jackson enough.

Agree 100%. He is too professional to crack the sads. I was referring to the external noise ('fugazi') about him being unhappy with the process than thinking he actually is.

Talk of PJ being ‘shut out’ of, or unhappy with the process might be ‘fugazi’ or there may be some substance. I don't know. But before we get hung up about it, it is worth looking at a typical Executive Search process - Bartlett/Board engages Russell Reynolds who use their network to identify, interview and profile candidates from which a short list is compiled to give to Barlett. He (and nominees eg another Board member, AFL rep) choose which to interview and who to recommend to the Board. The process happens at RR premises or other neutral venues. RR would have strict confidentiality protocols precluding them from discussing candidates/short list with anyone outside this process (and certainly not with the boss or referee of a candidate). So on a rational level I can see how the process by its nature, excludes an incumbent CEO/boss of multiple candidates ie PJ, from the loop. I can also see all sorts of things that may displease a candidate or PJ during that process but I would only be speculating to write them here. However, on an emotional level, if I was in PJ’s shoes I would desperately want to have a say in who takes over the care of my ‘foster child’ and push for ‘my guy’ or 'guys' to carry on my work. Which of course is exactly why independent executive search firms are engaged. It would be a very sad day, if PJ was to leave us on a downer as he deserves to go in a blaze of glory. So I will assume the talk of him not being happy is just 'fugazi'.

Just found these tweets. It seems Tom Browne has backtracked a bit on his comment about our President 'thumbing his nose' at Jackson: And So last night's media ooh, aah stuff was probably just a knee jerk reaction to give themselves something to write about as they missed the scoop. Today, wiser heads prevail

Short answer: No. But it is common to have succession planning in place. Long answer: Ultimately it is still the responsibility of a Board to find the best candidate. Bartlett drove the search process having engaged head hunters: Russell Reynolds. In our case it is our Board and the AFL (who still pull the strings as we are not entirely out of the woods). Caroline Wilson reported a few weeks ago that MFC wanted Mahoney but the AFL had other ideas. No idea if that is true. However, we do know the AFL is not beyond using Machiavellian methods to get its way. If the AFL did lean on our Board to appoint Pert I understand why. It is highly probable they will chip in land and or $ for our new facilities and they want to make sure the CEO can deliver. Pert has a track record of achievement in that area which is our next and critical phase of development. He is definitely the low risk option.

I'm not worried about the three internal candidates who missed out. Two of them would be disappointed regardless of who got the gig. Hopefully, good practice and good sense has prevailed and they were told where their experiences fell short of the requirements. If its all done with goodwill there is no reason for someone to spit the dummy and just leave. After all, to be CEO of an AFL club, or senior staffer in AFL HQ a person needs AFL 'endorsement'. So they need to gain the AFL's confidence and the required experience which may be at the Dees or elsewhere. The person I am more worried about losing is Jason Taylor. Hopefully, he and Pert were good mates at the Pies as I would hate for Taylor to start looking elsewhere. He is a real 'must keep' for mine.

A little bit underwhelmed, Bb?

A few points on overseeing a footy department. 1. Sometimes the CEO and the Board must get involved in list management eg when a player decision will bring much media scrutiny eg Grimes, Trengove, Watts, Lever. Or selection of Captains etc. It s essential everyone sings from the same song book when the media comes calling. 2. Chris Judd recently said on FC that Bolton is rock solid as their coach and they had just extended his contract. Judd's explanation was that the Board had signed off on the List Management strategy and the Game Plan. Bolton was delivering to the Board's KPI's. 3. I would expect the CEO and Board to sign off on any 'outside the parameters' player contracts. etc It is about good governance, so the CEO and the Board must be involved in the football matters but at a strategic level and not a day to day management level. The key is to get the balance right between the Eddie show; the CS/CC level interference and letting the football department do their own thing. Only time will tell if Pert can do that. (I doubt he would have survived for 10 years as a CEO anywhere if he wasn't a very good juggler).

Last year Collingwood was a shambles: Gubby was suspended, Eddie was under pressure on many fronts and nearly cost CFC major sponsors. Pert fell on his sword. There are no secrets in the AFL. Any dirty laundry Pert had would have been well aired and the club would have quizzed him as they did Goodwin when he came from Ess. We have come too far and too much work still to do for our Board to take the chance with someone who can't deliver and keep the solid culture PJ et al have created. Trust Jackson. Trust the Board. They haven't let us down yet. I don't think they have this time.

Quotes from the article: "He was endorsed by the Demons board on Wednesday after being described as the standout candidate from a short-list of five. Pert, who comes with the blessing of the AFL, will replace Peter Jackson, who is contracted until the end of October". "The Demons considered Pert the perfect fit for a club on the rise, as well as his expertise in new facilities as Melbourne is set to announce plans for a new training and administration base away from their current set-up at the MCG and adjacent AAMI Park". For mine, he fits the bill of having a breadth of experience in clubs and the industry, knows his way around the halls of AFL HQ and is our Board's choice. The more I think about it the more I like it. He is a very good operator. No leaks! Well done MFC for keeping it quiet!

To my mind, failing the NDH test means someone does DH type things from time to time but it doesn't mean they are a DH as a person so no I didn't call him such. The last sentence of your post suggests he doesn't fit Goodwin's mantra of players having the right behaviours.

I guess it wouldn't surprise to know that 2016 was his last OOC year. I have little confidence that he will do the hard work consistently. Seems to like flashy, cameos too much.

Yes, check my post above - I named the more important OOC players to retain: Bugg, Balic, Keilty, Harmes, Johnstone. We shopped Kent around last year. No takers so it isn't a matter of being 'squeezed' out this year as he is probably a better player than most of those I've named. Simply, there is no place for DH's on our list or most AFL lists.

Thanks for giving the gist of the article, Wb. Kent fails the NDH test and is not a team player. There were no takers for him last year. His manager (correctly) is canvassing the options early, this year. Given how Freo and Eagles are playing he would struggle to get a trade to back 'home'. But GCS might take him, maybe even Carlton or StKilda. But I think he has limited options. When it comes down to other players who are OOC this year, I would rather we keep the likes of Bugg, Balic, Keilty, Harmes, Johnstone. We may see more of these articles if players have had a 'mid-season review'. Edit @poitaI'm guessing the 'midfield minutes' is the saving face pitch his manager is putting out there.

Once it was decided to play Tom Mc forward Lewis' job during the preseason was to tutor Lever. Early this year Lewis said "One of the gaps was a little bit of leadership down back...That's not to say that I'll play there next year but certainly throughout the pre-season, I think I'll train the majority of the time in the backline." Once the season started, Lever was marshalling the backs under Lewis' wise eye - watching but not interfering (and I'm guessing there was a bit of post game debriefing). Now that Lever is out the marshalling role has reverted to Lewis and he did a fine job of it yesterday. Very obvious at the ground not sure if so obvious on tv. Yes, Lewis' weaknesses will be exposed but every player has some and every opp coach will work to exploit them. Lewis has more positives than negatives so for me he stays until Lever returns. @DeeSpenceryou are a fine reporter of training sessions and they are much appreciated. From what you've seen if Lewis is dropped who takes over the marshalling role?

When he was drafted Taylor seemed a bit surprised Petty had fallen through to pick 37 and said something like "we have a fair bit of talent in our defence but he is so good we just had to take him".? Clearly our recruiters were impressed with him and I bet everyone is now very pleased that we took him! Given the training and Casey reports he has done everything asked of him. He isn't Jake Lever but he can certainly come in and play a role. He won't be gifted games (no one does anymore, thank goodness) so when he comes in he will be deemed to be ready. Edit: Just saw this in a Team Selection article: Petty modelled his game on Lever before the Demons plucked him with Pick 37 last November". What a game to debut in, if selected this week!

The AFL has lost the hearing to just have failed in their attempt to just have a 'preliminary hearing' (mini trial). It means that McLachlan and Fitzpatrick end up facing trial and could end up giving evidence in court. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/court-ruling-on-essendon-drugs-saga-edges-afl-boss-nearer-to-trial-20180606-p4zjr8.html They may finally learn that the AFL is not a law unto itself. But the cynic in me thinks they will wheel and deal their way out of it.