Gary Pert named as Melbourne’s new CEO

[inxs88]

Typical classless reveal by “money bags Malthouse”. Forgets Pert gave him a $1,000,000 X 3 year Director of Coaching position that he narcissistically resigned from 5 minutes after the 2011 Grand Final.

[K]

[HAL]

What does suggest professionalism ?

[K]

Well, bot, I can give many examples of unprofessionalism if you want.

[HAL]

I will mention that to my , K.

[Mugwump]

Meh, that just sounds to me like the sometimes slightly messy way that organisations operate. I have worked for some very large and professional organisations, and the type of stuff described in your link is part of life. Stremski’s book describes an utterly different, and quite abnormal, level of political poison through the 1960s and 70s. While he may have been actor in it, there are plenty of corroborating stories, not least our wild on-field and financial swings in that period.

[K]

Stremski was biased and became part of the problem for the other side (the next batch of supposed White Knights).* And that was in the era when that nonsense happened. The whole game was amateur then.

It does not make sense to keep comparing with bygone chaotic eras. Not even (real) political parties can do that. They can sweep into power on anti-government sentiment. They may even be able to win the next election, three years later, by still referring to the previous government. They cannot do that for 25 years!

As for finances, none of the then-struggling Victorian clubs since that era have been on the brink of bankruptcy. Not Melbourne, or the Hawks, or North, or Footscray... We're just in a different era, in which avoiding bankruptcy is really not a great achievement.


*From the same source:

"However, the board members didn't go quietly...

The following night, after some angst, the revolution was accepted. ... Stremski was the hold-out duing the twenty-four hours, needing the guarantee of a new position as the club's general manager, created following Graeme Allan's departure to Brisbane, in order to agree."

[Mugwump]

Well, I made a comparison between the institutional stability of the McGuire years and the past. Most people would feel that this is a valid comparison within the same organisation engaged in the same essential activity.

You feel that the past does not matter because it is not comparable given the degree of change in context. That’s really a philosophical belief about the relevance of history to the present day, given the level of contextual change. We’re not likely to resolve that.

In any event, I think it is clear that McGuire’s solid position and the relative lack of political pest infestation helped us to avoid the amnesiac pitfall of sacking the coach (or indeed the President, as some fans wanted) last year. We thereby reinforced continuity, experience, and affiliation, and success has grown with it thus far.

That would not have happened at a less well-run club (see Carlton, inter alia).

[RudeBoy]

[Member 7167]

From what I have been told Pert was a micro manager. If that is the case it will set Melbourne back further. It is bad for moral, it does not get the best out of the staff and good, free thinking, imagative and confident staff have a tendency to walk.

[RudeBoy]

I was very reliably informed that Pert's exit was a breath of fresh air through the whole club.

[K]

Would you agree then, since your reliable information matches what has been publicly reported, that his entrance was a mistake?