News Gubby Allen coming to the Pies

[TradeDraft]

Funny looking at this Footage Now about a Year Later with Gubby:

 

[Baltimore Jack]

What are the AFL illicit drug testing requirements? I assume similar to this requirement. But it has always been an AFL issue. Ings said as much the other day, there hasn't been a WADA breach here.

Yeah, kind of agree, particularly as ASADA have now handed the matter back to the AFL to deal with

 

[PieNSauce]

Yeah, kind of agree, particularly as ASADA have now handed the matter back to the AFL to deal with

The interesting question is whether the location advice rules are an ASADA thing or an AFL thing and I suspect that it maybe the intricacies of that separation that have the AFL seeking further legal advice. The point possibly being whether or not it is within the AFL's power to impose a sanction based on a rule which is in place for another purpose and imposed by another body. Of course that's just speculation but it may well be what everything hinges on at this point.

 

[Kirby]

ASADA removing themselves from the process effectively means there are no longer any 2-4 year bans on the cards now if they were found guilty?

It would now be up to the AFL. I think they will all get off and that at worst GWS will be fined for not having kept proper records of Whitfield's location.

 

[CFC2010]

ASADA removing themselves from the process effectively means there are no longer any 2-4 year bans on the cards now if they were found guilty?

It would now be up to the AFL. I think they will all get off and that at worst GWS will be fined for not having kept proper records of Whitfield's location.

The AFL fine GWS? The "Claytons Fine" ........the fine you get when your not getting a fine.

 

[Kirby]

The AFL fine GWS? The "Claytons Fine" ........the fine you get when your not getting a fine.

Yes I should have thought a bit harder about that one....!

The AFL will probably grant them a secret $20,000 and fine them $10,000.

 

[Scodog10]

The salty salty tears of those that have come out to denounce this appointment have only strengthened my view that its in the best interests of the club.

I'm not going to buy into the general theme of them being haters because I think it has a lot to do with the individuals involved rather than the club. However I think some view this as a step in the right direction for us because we've been a bit of a weak club over the past few years. This appointment moves us forward and with the vast majority of Collingwood posters behind it I'm wrapt with how its all unfolding should Gubby not be suspended and then sacked (which is looking increasingly unlikely).

 

[CFC2010]

Yes I should have thought a bit harder about that one....!

The AFL will probably grant them a secret $20,000 and fine them $10,000.

BINGO!

 

[Baltimore Jack]

ASADA removing themselves from the process effectively means there are no longer any 2-4 year bans on the cards now if they were found guilty?

It would now be up to the AFL. I think they will all get off and that at worst GWS will be fined for not having kept proper records of Whitfield's location.

Weren't there a couple of $5000 fines handed out to Richmond (?) and another club this year for similar offences?

 

[ClaytonM]

If Gubby is found guilty and rubbed out it would show appalling management by the club. This issue was known by the club and if they were not near on 100% sure Gubby would be cleared then the appointment should not have been made until an outcome of the investigation was known. It will prove enormously disruptive if this all goes wrong.

 

[Kirby]

Weren't there a couple of $5000 fines handed out to Richmond (?) and another club this year for similar offences?

We were fined last year too in regards to Abbott's whereabouts.

 

[good4footy]

If Gubby is found guilty and rubbed out it would show appalling management by the club. This issue was known by the club and if they were not near on 100% sure Gubby would be cleared then the appointment should not have been made until an outcome of the investigation was known. It will prove enormously disruptive if this all goes wrong.

Most successful organisations have made mistakes and taken risks. I doubt there would be any / many organisations that are successful without having taken informed risks. Not taking informed risks is actually a predictor of failure.

Just as valid as your 'appalling management' scenario it might just be that we weighed up the risks and thought we would go ahead anyway taking into account the upside compared to any negatives that may arise in a suspension.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Most successful organisations have made mistakes and taken risks. I doubt there would be any / many organisations that are successful without having taken informed risks. Not taking informed risks is actually a predictor of failure.

Just as valid as your 'appalling management' scenario it might just be that we weighed up the risks and thought we would go ahead anyway taking into account the upside compared to any negatives that may arise in a suspension.

Plus there is a QC's investigation that says Gubby did nothing wrong

 

[ClaytonM]

Most successful organisations have made mistakes and taken risks. I doubt there would be any / many organisations that are successful without having taken informed risks. Not taking informed risks is actually a predictor of failure.

Just as valid as your 'appalling management' scenario it might just be that we weighed up the risks and thought we would go ahead anyway taking into account the upside compared to any negatives that may arise in a suspension.

Risk 1.0 is likelihood versus consequences. As I inferred in my original comment if it was at all likely that he would be rubbed out then the potential damage, particularly if Balme and Hine walk out before trade and draft period could be catastrophic for the club. The potential risk would outweigh the potential benefit.

 

[RupetFan]

If Gubby is found guilty and rubbed out it would show appalling management by the club. This issue was known by the club and if they were not near on 100% sure Gubby would be cleared then the appointment should not have been made until an outcome of the investigation was known. It will prove enormously disruptive if this all goes wrong.

He's not getting rubbed out ffs.

 

[Bad Horse]

The salty salty tears of those that have come out to denounce this appointment have only strengthened my view that its in the best interests of the club.

I'm not going to buy into the general theme of them being haters because I think it has a lot to do with the individuals involved rather than the club. However I think some view this as a step in the right direction for us because we've been a bit of a weak club over the past few years. This appointment moves us forward and with the vast majority of Collingwood posters behind it I'm wrapt with how its all unfolding should Gubby not be suspended and then sacked (which is looking increasingly unlikely).

Yep. One measure of success is the identity of the people throwing rocks at you. With this lineup we know we must be doing something right.

 

[76woodenspooners]

How long has Pert had the job?

Made lots of horrible decisions under his tenure.

Membership and attendances are down

Pert joined circa 2007 ... Membership would most definitely be up since then.

Our coaching has gotten worse

Yeah

Club merchandise is the shittest in memory

That's changing

Consistent poor on-field performances

Not really, we've had some pretty good onfield performances since 2007?

Club leaving Vic Park

Club left Vic Park long before Pert became CEO of Collingwood

At what point does the heat come on Pert?

Fair question

 

[76woodenspooners]

does anyone really know pert on here or are we guessing to who he is as a person he is

No.

I've chatted to him a few times and no doubt he's an impressive and capable person.

I did ask him once whether the club would be interested in using some of its new fangled media capability to stream and put up videos of VFL games. He asked me "Who would be interested in that?" I was gobsmacked at the time, but I gotta admit he was probably right. The club did start streaming and posting VFL games on their website but then stopped ... Presumably because not many people were watching them.

 

[Quicky]

Now Robert Walls has joined the media frenzy, albeit from a new angle. I am not sure whether Balme has been successful in his role, and I have never liked Walls, but even we knew that Allan was going to be overseeing more than the establishment of a women's football team. I hope Collingwood have got this one right, because the transition is looking a bit messy from where I sit. Decent people like Neil Balme deserve fair treatment. Offering a demotion by way of compensation doesn't seem like something to which Balme would or should readily agree.

If the media weren't making a big deal out of it, would it still seem messy?

There have been many mistakes made in the football department in the past 5 years. And those mistakes are decisions made by the football manager. Now we appear to have been impacted by turn over, Walsh to Eade to Balme, but those mistakes haven't been addressed in Balmes time in the role.

There is still no head of development. No ruck coach. No changes to the coaching group. Davoren survived another year. No extra resources for the recruiting team. Balme was sticking with a formula that clearly wasn't working and had obvious flaws in it. I'd say offering Balme a senior role within the footy department was a pretty tactful way of going about it.

Personally I'm just glad the club has made a bold decision on it, in spite of the media feeding frenzy that was always going to happen with Collingwood. Hopefully this is the time we can look back on and say was when we turned it around.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

If the media weren't making a big deal out of it, would it still seem messy?

There have been many mistakes made in the football department in the past 5 years. And those mistakes are decisions made by the football manager. Now we appear to have been impacted by turn over, Walsh to Eade to Balme, but those mistakes haven't been addressed in Balmes time in the role.

There is still no head of development. No ruck coach. No changes to the coaching group. Davoren survived another year. No extra resources for the recruiting team. Balme was sticking with a formula that clearly wasn't working at had obvious flaws in it. I'd say offerring him a senior role within the footy department was a pretty tactful way of going about it.

Personally I'm just glad the club has made a bold decision on it, in spite of the media feeding frenzy that was always going to happen with Collingwood. Hopefully this is the time we can look back on and say was when the turn around began.

I actually agree with you and I did qualify my comment by saying I did not how successful Balme had been in the role. As you say, if the buck stops with Balme for what has and has not occurred in the football department, then replacing him is a necessity. I would like to have seen the club be more up front when Allan was initially appointed, and would have preferred the Whitfield scandal to have not occurred just as we decide to announce the changeover.

 

[Quicky]

I actually agree with you and I did qualify my comment by saying I did not how successful Balme had been in the role. As you say, if the buck stops with Balme for what has and has not occurred in the football department, then replacing him is a necessity. I would like to have seen the club be more up front when Allan was initially appointed, and would have preferred the Whitfield scandal to have not occurred just as we decide to announce the changeover.

Yeah I saw those responses after I replied to you!

It is an interesting question about where the responsibility lies. Rightly or wrongly I always got the impression (and that's all it is) that Pert had a bigger hand in football department decisions than his role as CEO should have (which should be more strategic you'd think). Balme failed to make any changes, and I wonder if he was too much of a nice guy to step on peoples toes.

Gubby I think has a strength of personality that will mean he can stand up to Pert, Eddie, Bucks or others if it's in the best interests of the club. We need that.

 

[good4footy]

Risk 1.0 is likelihood versus consequences. As I inferred in my original comment if it was at all likely that he would be rubbed out then the potential damage, particularly if Balme and Hine walk out before trade and draft period could be catastrophic for the club. The potential risk would outweigh the potential benefit.

Yes hence the people with the information are the ones best place to make an informed decision on that risk. Neither you or I know enough to say whether the risk outweighed the benefit. I was just providing an alternative to 'unmitigated disaster' view.

Whether what you fear happens or not the assessment of the risk is what matters, otherwise organisations are running on a culture of fear.

 

[good4footy]

Plus there is a QC's investigation that says Gubby did nothing wrong

I think information like that is what gets taken into account. For me it would be a pain if he did get suspended but the issue is more about the process that we went through to make that decision.

Just because he is suspended does not mean the club did the wrong thing. It is more about process to taking those informed risk. If we were headless did no investigating of our own then crap decision and poor management. If we did what needed to be done and we assessed it as a worthy risk then so be it.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I think information like that is what gets taken into account. For me it would be a pain if he did get suspended but the issue is more about the process that we went through to make that decision.

Just because he is suspended does not mean the club did the wrong thing. It is more about process to taking those informed risk. If we were headless did no investigating of our own then crap decision and poor management. If we did what needed to be done and we assessed it as a worthy risk then so be it.

Pretty much this. We can always sack him down the track if he proves to have lied or be more culpable than he was originally letting on.

Club has done a review, reassessed the risks, and remain happy to proceed.

 

[FuManchu]

The interesting question is whether the location advice rules are an ASADA thing or an AFL thing and I suspect that it maybe the intricacies of that separation that have the AFL seeking further legal advice. The point possibly being whether or not it is within the AFL's power to impose a sanction based on a rule which is in place for another purpose and imposed by another body. Of course that's just speculation but it may well be what everything hinges on at this point.

You would assume the AFL would duplicate the logistical requirements contained within the ASADA/WADA provisions.