Lucifers Hero

Various organisations would be aware of options. Any one of them could have leaked it. You might have missed it CBD, Bartlett commented on the report in his interview last week. "...the Demons' plan to build a new training base and headquarters, with an area next to the MCG and Yarra Park being considered..."We're really keen and have been working with the AFL and state government to look at all options in that area," Bartlett said...We're working really hard behind the scenes … and making sure we set up the club for the next 30 to 50 years..."It's early days, but it's exciting as well." Hope that fills in the gaps. There are various options out there. My view is nothing will happen at least till after the next election so commentary by the club or others won't mean much.

I hadn't picked on posts saying the lack of a Home Facility is the major reason we can't beat top sides. It looks like faulty logic... ...we all know there are lots of reasons we struggle to beat teams around us on the ladder.

Maybe, maybe not. I would propose that if we had had the facilities of some other clubs and the attractions of other clubs then there is every chance we would be in a better position on and off the field. At some stage we need to give our club a solid future foundation and a facility like Yarra Park/Jolimont rail is the way to go. Making it happen isn't distracting anyone from their day job.

There are many benefits beyond marketing and branding: It is ineffective to have management in two separate locations (MCG and AAMI) which are themselves shared with other sports. Time wasting and inefficient communications result. More time wasting with FD staff to transport training gear to/from AAMI to Gosch's paddock Have decent player recovery, meeting room and training facilities to compete with Vic clubs to attract FA's and OOC players. Train on an MCG sized oval. It is no coincidence clubs have built or are building such training ovals at their facilities. Avoid being totally left behind by AFL clubs - look at Ess, Coll, and the future Hawthorn facilities. Bulldogs have upgraded Western Oval and have new grounds in Ballarat. Carlton will get mega $$ for Princes Park, Geelong has and will do more at Kardinia Park. StKilda is doing same at Moorabbin and North are now fund raising to upgrade Arden St. We don't even have a patch of dirt to dream of such things. In fact, even when we have a new facility in X years we still won't have what Vic clubs have now or are now building. Opportunity to consolidate our revenue base for decades into the future. Potentially easier access for fans to buy merchandise Club rooms to display our fine history and memorabilia. Some of these will directly affect our footballing abilities. Others will help the club's identity and standing in the AFL community. There is no real benefit to supporters nor should that be a motivator to mfc. For mine, walking past the Yellow and Black to get to the G will be a little bit more bearable if I know there is a mini Red and Blue version of it on the other side of Yarra Park.

Tom Morris has 'leaked' quite a few things from mfc in recent months and he was dropped from hosting the club podcast. But in this case I doubt it was a leak. I think the club would be happy to have this out there to counterbalance the negative commentary around Pert's appointment. With all the staff involved, the meeting would not have stayed quiet for long. A good move by the club to get everyone together. And, Pert's comments about not coming in to change what Jackson, Roos and Mahoney have achieved would go some way towards soothing worried staff. I like that the club had the staff 'meet and greet' prior to any press conference. It would also be reassuring to staff that Jackson will see out his contract.

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.

I saw that and thought: not for us. He is 31 in a few weeks and had a plantar fascia injury a few months ago. Came back early and immediately did more damage and now out for at least 2-3 weeks. It sounds similar to our own JV situation so MM could be out a lot longer. At least Jack has time and youth on his side. With Murphy one is never too sure how many he games he would get to play before he retires.

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.