Rumour Gary Pert to Hawthorn as CEO (Tom Browne7 talkingfooty)

[Saintly Viewed]

Here's an idea (regurgitated from me from say well over a year ago)

A full top to bottom review of the Club, everyone and everything, Geelong style.

No Eddie involvement, none.
No Pert involvement, none.

Won't happen but it should.

If nothing else, to freshen the place up, to throw the curtains open and let some sun in, might be time for Mr Pert to find a new adventure. Ed should think about things too.

I just don't know if Pert is good or not so good, but it's been a long time.
Same with Ed.

What I just can't work out at all, is there nobody alive out there that could take the reigns at Collingwood?
Would we suddenly fold?

But let's make it orderly.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

GC very lucky to have you in his corner.

You do have a good avatar name, very catchy.

GC agree with his CEO post, and I actually think he's one of our best posters.
At the very least he argues succinctly with logic, never personalises, and is clear in thoughts.

 

[soreplums]

Heard that Pert is brilliant when it comes to business strategy. Incredibly knowledgeable. Just prefer it if he stayed away from FD matters

 

[Maggie5]

GC very lucky to have you in his corner. Refer back a few pages to see my views on the CEO if you are interested. I agreed with the experienced doctor. Not quite playing the man as you suggest.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Sorry, not just you and not really in any corner but our forum seems to getting a bit like other forums where the poster is the point and not the post.

 

[Kappa]

Again not stuff I am aware of. Don't really buy merchandise, customer support for me has been fine, l like the VFL coverage and am happy to have a netball team. Either way I don't see any of those as big issues either way.

Happy with the VFL coverage today?

 

[ColinWood]

Nah I said "my guess is he is pretty good" because he has been in the job 10 years. Emphasis on guess cause as I said I don't know. Don't worry I enjoy the tête-à-tête nothing personal

Nice to see some discussion/banter that doesn't get personal.

I have experience as a CEO and on boards (not keen to get into the details of companies here) but my point in sharing this is that I have governance qualifications and also won a couple of awards as CEO.

Fact is 10 years borders on an unhealthy length of tenure no matter how successful you've been in the role. Best practice is a maximum of nine years for directors and about the same for CEO's. This is to keep future-focused and strategically high-impact. If you haven't accomplished what you set out to achieve in that timeframe you're unlikely to do so.

Collingwood has had the same President for 20 years and CEO for 10 years. Eddy has just been renewed again so it makes sense that a spotlight is shone on Pert as he needs to offer a clear ongoing value proposition to warrant ongoing tenure.

Usually there is more upside to what a new leader can offer after 10 years of one CEO.

Cheers!

 

[76woodenspooners]

I doubt very much there would be great interest from members for players functions back at the G after games unless it was offered as an extra package to a higher paying group.

I dunno GC, could be a hit ...

"Join the lads in the ice baths. Dress code: togs. BYO: Blow-up pink flamingos. Floating cash bar provided. Face painting for the kids"

 

[Anzacday]

I dunno GC, could be a hit ...

"Join the lads in the ice baths. Dress code: togs. BYO: Blow-up pink flamingos. Floating cash bar provided. Face painting for the kids"

You do realise he's talking about us; not Carlton?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Despite some folks objecting to Pert meddling in footy affairs, the football department is in his line of responsibility (Buckley reports to Walsh, Walsh reports to Pert), Footy is an important part of what the club does, so Pert does have a right / responsibility to hold the footy department to account. Of course he shouldn't be getting bogged down in the minutiae, but it's entirely appropriate that he observe processes in action, how decisions are made, how feedback is used, how the footy department is interfaciing with the rest of the organisation, culture within the footy department (is it working constructively?) etc, etc.

If you're concerned about Pert being involved in footy department matters ... be careful what you wish for ... would you prefer a CEO who says "Look, I've got NFI what's going on in the footy department ATM, they just kinda do their thing" ?

 

[left at home]

Despite some folks objecting to Pert meddling in footy affairs, the football department is in his line of responsibility (Buckley reports to Walsh, Walsh reports to Pert), Footy is an important part of what the club does, so Pert does have a right / responsibility to hold the footy department to account. Of course he shouldn't be getting bogged down in the minutiae, but it's entirely appropriate that he observe processes in action, how decisions are made, how feedback is used, how the footy department is interfaciing with the rest of the organisation, culture within the footy department (is it working constructively?) etc, etc.

If you're concerned about Pert being involved in footy department matters ... be careful what you wish for ... would you prefer a CEO who says "Look, I've got NFI what's going on in the footy department ATM, they just kinda do their thing" ?

Agree that as CEO it is in his operations and have to over see it, but also he has to let the football department do it's job without the CEO interfering to much.
How much he is involved l do not know.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Again no one has convinced me they are in a position to know whether Pert is good or not.

I reckon it's reasonable on a number of levels for folks to have an opinion about how well he does his job ...

Firstly, he's the bloke in charge, he's the person who has the authority and responsibility. If anything in the club is being done wrongly then he has the authority to make it right. Same goes for Buckley with on-field footy matters. Some folks like to say that Buckley isn't the one on the field kicking the footy (we wish!!!) but he is the key decision maker and person who is responsible and correspondingly the person who does / should get their backside kicked when things go wrong.

Secondly, he is (rightly) the person who is held responsible for off-field matters. If people are upset about being spammed by Magpie millions, or upset about our club's handling of Thomas/Keeffe, or upset about club getting revenue from pokies, or upset that it takes the club six months to send out a membership pack, or whatever ... who should the members blame for that? And it's not unreasonable that if the members find themselves with a lot to complain about, that they translate it to "Pert doesn't do a good job" eventhough nobody gets to see what he does behind closed doors.

Thirdly, he does have a bit of a profile and he's not totally inaccessible. I am by no means a club insider, but I've heard him speak on many occasions at club functions. I've heard him present at length about a bunch of topics, I've even spoken 1:1 with him a few times (as I'm sure many folks here have). FWIW, it's on that basis that I personally judge him to be a very capable CEO ... even if I do disagree with him about some things, although it's all very easy to judge from the sidelines.

Fourthly, I agree with ColinWood 's point that even if he was the best CEO in the world, it's healthy to turnover executives every once in a while to maintain relevance in an ever changing world.

 

[Collingwood 4 eternity]

Tony Sheahan just went with the comment on Sen just before, that a high profile CEO will be moving on , before/at the end of the season to look to soar higher than where his team currently is.

 

[Maggie5]

I reckon it's reasonable on a number of levels for folks to have an opinion about how well he does his job ...

Firstly, he's the bloke in charge, he's the person who has the authority and responsibility. If anything in the club is being done wrongly then he has the authority to make it right. Same goes for Buckley with on-field footy matters. Some folks like to say that Buckley isn't the one on the field kicking the footy (we wish!!!) but he is the key decision maker and person who is responsible and correspondingly the person who does / should get their backside kicked when things go wrong.

Secondly, he is (rightly) the person who is held responsible for off-field matters. If people are upset about being spammed by Magpie millions, or upset about our club's handling of Thomas/Keeffe, or upset about club getting revenue from pokies, or upset that it takes the club six months to send out a membership pack, or whatever ... who should the members blame for that? And it's not unreasonable that if the members find themselves with a lot to complain about, that they translate it to "Pert doesn't do a good job" eventhough nobody gets to see what he does behind closed doors.

Thirdly, he does have a bit of a profile and he's not totally inaccessible. I am by no means a club insider, but I've heard him speak on many occasions at club functions. I've heard him present at length about a bunch of topics, I've even spoken 1:1 with him a few times (as I'm sure many folks here have). FWIW, it's on that basis that I personally judge him to be a very capable CEO ... even if I do disagree with him about some things, although it's all very easy to judge from the sidelines.

Fourthly, I agree with ColinWood 's point that even if he was the best CEO in the world, it's healthy to turnover executives every once in a while to maintain relevance in an ever changing world.

Given the numerous complaints about membership, merchandise, communications to fans just to name a few, would Pert be responsible for the Managers of the respective departments? Assuming those managers would report to him, not sure he is doing that well.
If not, ignore this post.

 

[Gone Critical]

Unfortunately in essence you have explained why it makes no sense because any involvement in football matters is too much. That's the exact reason he employs people to do the recruiting, to develop the players, to negotiate contracts and effectively run that area of the club so that he can focus on other areas.

By sitting on the list management committee he is undermining the power of the football manager who he has employed to oversee that department. If he doesn't have the confidence in him doing the job that's fine just get rid of him that's what a good CEO would do. It might also be worth looking at the lack of growth in the clubs finances through his tenure.

I think the key difference in regards to these discussions we have on occasion you are given the respect you deserve when discussing medical matters. Not questioning that others challenge your views, but I don't think I've ever said almost everyone on here is ignorant about the state of our high performance group!

Overall I think I'm wasting my time given how you've dug your heels in on this thread so the last comment I'll make is perhaps your choice of words initially could have been different?

I hope I haven't dug my heels in over this issue, not my intention. I take your point that using the label ignorant for other posters may have been too inflammatory.

My best attempt to explain my position would be I consider myself largely ignorant when it comes to assessing the medical staff, conditioning staff, CEO and assistant coaches at the club. For myself I like to acknowledge my lack of expertise when assessing these people and try to do that by not being too definitive in my opinions. Essentially that's where I stand.

Thelack of knowledge I mention here is well illustrated by your post above because prior to reading that I wasn't aware the club CEO should have no involvement in football matters.

As to me receiving respect in regard to medical matters at the club I would not ask for any and would prefer other posters not to believe my opinions carry any extra weight. . I have no ability in this area and no knowledge of what the club is doing that allows me to give a more informed opinion than anyone else on the board. The only help my medical knowledge gives me is to make me more certain I am ignorant when it comes to knowing how well the club functions on the medical side of things.

 

[Gone Critical]

Happy with the VFL coverage today?

Was on the golf course so didn't catch it today. Was there any?

 

[Gone Critical]

Nice to see some discussion/banter that doesn't get personal.

I have experience as a CEO and on boards (not keen to get into the details of companies here) but my point in sharing this is that I have governance qualifications and also won a couple of awards as CEO.

Fact is 10 years borders on an unhealthy length of tenure no matter how successful you've been in the role. Best practice is a maximum of nine years for directors and about the same for CEO's. This is to keep future-focused and strategically high-impact. If you haven't accomplished what you set out to achieve in that timeframe you're unlikely to do so.

Collingwood has had the same President for 20 years and CEO for 10 years. Eddy has just been renewed again so it makes sense that a spotlight is shone on Pert as he needs to offer a clear ongoing value proposition to warrant ongoing tenure.

Usually there is more upside to what a new leader can offer after 10 years of one CEO.

Cheers!

Great post, seems to make a lot of sense.

Again want to emphasise I haven't wanted to specifically label anyone as ignorant and there are a number of posters with specialised information and expertise that is great to share. More wanted to temper the opinions for some who fall into the same ignorant group I belong to.

Possibly I am the only member of that group so maybe should confine my suggestions to myself. A joke, I think.

 

[Gone Critical]

I reckon it's reasonable on a number of levels for folks to have an opinion about how well he does his job ...

Firstly, he's the bloke in charge, he's the person who has the authority and responsibility. If anything in the club is being done wrongly then he has the authority to make it right. Same goes for Buckley with on-field footy matters. Some folks like to say that Buckley isn't the one on the field kicking the footy (we wish!!!) but he is the key decision maker and person who is responsible and correspondingly the person who does / should get their backside kicked when things go wrong.

Secondly, he is (rightly) the person who is held responsible for off-field matters. If people are upset about being spammed by Magpie millions, or upset about our club's handling of Thomas/Keeffe, or upset about club getting revenue from pokies, or upset that it takes the club six months to send out a membership pack, or whatever ... who should the members blame for that? And it's not unreasonable that if the members find themselves with a lot to complain about, that they translate it to "Pert doesn't do a good job" eventhough nobody gets to see what he does behind closed doors.

Thirdly, he does have a bit of a profile and he's not totally inaccessible. I am by no means a club insider, but I've heard him speak on many occasions at club functions. I've heard him present at length about a bunch of topics, I've even spoken 1:1 with him a few times (as I'm sure many folks here have). FWIW, it's on that basis that I personally judge him to be a very capable CEO ... even if I do disagree with him about some things, although it's all very easy to judge from the sidelines.

Fourthly, I agree with ColinWood 's point that even if he was the best CEO in the world, it's healthy to turnover executives every once in a while to maintain relevance in an ever changing world.

Yeah agree is reasonable to have those opinions. Again fo me, even in possession of some of the knowledge you detail above, I don't feel I have anything other than a superficial ability to judge Perts performance.

 

[TradeDraft]

Tony Sheahan just went with the comment on Sen just before, that a high profile CEO will be moving on , before/at the end of the season to look to soar higher than where his team currently is.

Bloody better be Pert

 

[76woodenspooners]

Yeah agree is reasonable to have those opinions. Again fo me, even in possession of some of the knowledge you detail above, I don't feel I have anything other than a superficial ability to judge Perts performance.

Using a medical analogy because you raised it: You could judge a medico's performance by

(1) Having peer such as yourself conduct a detailed review of case notes, patient EMR's, treatment plans, etc, etc

Or

(2) If you (or a non clinician like me) had the opportunity to chat with all that doctor's patients and found that they were all very happy with their treatment ... whilst not as conclusive nor technical as (1), it still has a degree of validity?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Tony Sheahan just went with the comment on Sen just before, that a high profile CEO will be moving on , before/at the end of the season to look to soar higher than where his team currently is.

Well, that quashes the rumour that Pert is going to Hawthorn then

 

[Kappa]

Was on the golf course so didn't catch it today. Was there any?

Nope.. no coverage apart from a few tweets? That's the coverage of our games you think is fine in 2017.

Pert was probably at the golf course too, because I doubt he gives a s**t about the VFL

 

[Gone Critical]

Nope.. no coverage apart from a few tweets? That's the coverage of our games you think is fine in 2017.

Pert was probably at the golf course too, because I doubt he gives a s**t about the VFL

For me it's an added extra. If the club were able to provide a telecast of each match fantastic. Still I don't see it as something I would see as a non negotiable. It's a small ticket item, of interest to a reasonably small market of the more fanatical fans such as we on BF.

 

[Gone Critical]

Using a medical analogy because you raised it: You could judge a medico's performance by

(1) Having peer such as yourself conduct a detailed review of case notes, patient EMR's, treatment plans, etc, etc

Or

(2) If you (or a non clinician like me) had the opportunity to chat with all that doctor's patients and found that they were all very happy with their treatment ... whilst not as conclusive nor technical as (1), it still has a degree of validity?

Not sure where you are going with that one. We on BF are not the equivalent of the doctors patients if that's where you are going. Maybe if we could go and interview different staff at the club we could form a reasonable opinion re Pert. That for me would be the closest equivalent of being able to interview a doctors patients.

Still I have probably gone too far on this tangent already. Suffice to say I see myself still unable to give an individual assessment but likes ColinWood view that 10 years in a CEO position is probably too long for anyone and our organisation needs change. Saintly Viewed idea of a full independent sweeping review of the club has merit.

 

[Kappa]

For me it's an added extra. If the club were able to provide a telecast of each match fantastic. Still I don't see it as something I would see as a non negotiable. It's a small ticket item, of interest to a reasonably small market of the more fanatical fans such as we on BF.

Maybe not many people are interested in it because there's no coverage or advertising of it?

 

[Gone Critical]

Using a medical analogy because you raised it: You could judge a medico's performance by

(1) Having peer such as yourself conduct a detailed review of case notes, patient EMR's, treatment plans, etc, etc

Or

(2) If you (or a non clinician like me) had the opportunity to chat with all that doctor's patients and found that they were all very happy with their treatment ... whilst not as conclusive nor technical as (1), it still has a degree of validity?

You have got me thinking with the medical apology and probably the best way I can explain myself is from the way the medical field looks for an evidence based approach. Anecdotal and poorly researched treatments have caused massive problems with poor success and adverse outcomes over the ages and through to the current time. We constantly look to the quality of the evidence at hand to assess the benefit risks of any management. The evidence is graded and assessed before any conclusion is reached. Often conclusions are that the evidence raises some concerns but is of too poor a quality to reach any firm conclusions. Acting on such conclusions in that instance would be likely as not to lead to poor outcomes as good ones. The verdict would be we need some better quality trials as a matter of urgency to reach a conclusion

As such , if I were to assess Perts performance in our lingo I would go as follows. The evidence we have so far is off poor quality mainly based on retrospective poorly controlled observational studies. While some concerns are raised and there are also some positive outcomes seen also, neither can be relied on as the evidence is of too poor a quality. We urgently need some better evidence , optimally doubled blinded controlled trials ( Saintly Viewed club review). As a general point some independent experts ColinWood have pointed out in general terms that if similar treatments used in the past haven't reached their desired outcome in the current time frame they probably should be replaced, even if their quality was good in the first place. So it's probably time for change anyway

Sorry to bore everyone.