Ed, Collo and Conflict of Interest

[Magnus the Magpie]

Yet again, with the Pert announcement, Ed is copping plenty on the CoI front. Probably true to some extent, but two points:

1) It’s hard to believe it would’ve been allowed without the OK from Packer and the other PBL heavies.

2) He’s clearly placed the Club’s interests first. Contrast this with Collins and Carlton’s move to the Docklands: almost overnight, he eliminated their very significant home ground advantage – the only Melbourne-based club with this at that point (the last time I looked, Geelong was not part of Melbourne). And, all this just after they’d spent tens of millions on a new stand. We should all buy him a beer – and you could argue that he’s done them more harm than Black Jack!

p.s. Our move from Vic Park doesn’t count – we’d reached a point where the AFL wouldn’t let us play there (and, given our crowds and other factors, redevelopment was never a serious option).

[Frederlick]

Spot on mate. Eddie is the only AFL administrator to have a conflict of interest? Studio audience says..........bemp buuuuum! Technically if I was involved in a public buisness and I in any way sponsored a club of which I was a member, I would have a conflict of interest with my buisnes activities, as I let my personal feelings affect the way in which the money was spent. The AFL invented the term conflict of interest, and poor old tall poppy Eddie carries the can for the rest of them. :thumbsu:

[Hadders]

C'mon guys no one can deny that Eddie is the king of interest conflicts.

And I'm not really sure about this whole appointment of Pert thing as CEO. It smells a little to me.

If Pert was performing well as CEO of 9 Melbourne then surely Eddie's superiors would be pretty dirty that he's poached a good performer from their stable.

On the other hand if Eddie's superiors didn't mind that Pert left because he wasn't performing up to standard is he really the best man to be CEO of the CFC?

To me it looks like the second scenario is the one that is plausible and although I have a lot of faith in what Eddie does, it worries me just a little bit. :cool:

[yeah-nah]

..or PBL are winding up their interests in commercial TV (we know they are) in favour of other more lucrative and less fickle businesses (eg gambling) and Perts expertise (media/football) is no longer needed.

Truth will be known in the fullness of time.

[MarkT]

From a Collingwood perspective, which is all I care about, there is no COI. If there is an issue at 9 then I couldn’t care less. If Pert is the best man for job (may be, maybe not, I couldn’t really say) then that is all that matters. I would love to know who the last minute applicant was though.

[Nickelass]

It may also be that Eddie is winding up as 9 CEO and doesn't give a crap what his superiors think because he wont be there next year. Eddie's heart is and always will be Collingwood, notice he said he'd rather the Pies win a flag than 9 win the ratings....that is what you want to hear from your president.

[Nickelass]

Also imagine the stick he would have copped if he as 9 CEO stopped the hiring of Pert when he was considered the best man for the job. I think that would be more of a CoI than supporting the appointment.

[Hadders]

All good points and ones I have no answer to. Hopefully Pert can do a good job and all will be well.

but yeah-nah put it best i guess

"Truth will be known in the fullness of time"

[Timmy from Thomastown]

There is definitely a COI and Eddie should have stepped aside completely from the selection process. Eddie has an obligation to his employer (Nine) not to be a headhunter for his own staff. As Mark says, its more Nines problem than ours, but its also ours.

I just wish he'd stop sailing so close to the wind unneccessarily. It just brings unwanted bad publicity to the club, when we may have got the same result if Eddie had stepped out of the meeting for five minutes.

All that said, I'm happy with the appointment of Pert. He's probably the best man for the job.

[PiesUnited]

Who cares what everybody else "thinks".
Do you honestly believe that they have, or will ever have our interests at heart?
Everything we do would be a conflict to their interests.
This is Collingwood.
We will do it our way, and stuff everybody else!

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Who cares what everybody else "thinks".
Do you honestly believe that they have, or will ever have our interests at heart?
Everything we do would be a conflict to their interests.
This is Collingwood.
We will do it our way, and stuff everybody else!

Nice sentiment but the world does not work that way. Ask John Elliott about the consequenses of being too arrogant.

[Cyclops]

IF Eddie had a clear and equitable process in place, distanced himself fromn the GTV9 end of decision making, and has the paper trail to prove it, then there is no visible COI.

Hopefully there was a real look around for the right bloke. We don't want to hire the executive version of Tim Watson. I'm confident Pert is a good choice (in my total ignorance of course).

The process was obviously not completely satisfactory to Arocca or there wouldn't have been a hissy fit. However he's a very ambitious man and it may have been a phase in negotiations. Didn't Arocca start his career at Collingwood as the Rocca's manager? He may not be above leveraging situations for his own advantage, and may be a fella we need to be careful iof giving too much power to.

... I would love to know who the last minute applicant was though.

The names I've heard were a Mr R. Herring and S. Screen.

[Jabso]

I think Arocca started at Collingwood as our regular attorney in the tribunal.
Eddie is the CEO of nine and the president of Collingwood (a non-paying job). You'd be stupid to just place Pert in the job as CEO of Collingwood like that, Pert actually wanted the job and applied for it. If Eddie just 'placed' Pert from Nine to CFC as easy as it has been reported, Eddie might be sacked as the CEO of Nine. Then he has no paying job. Then what does he do? Sack Pert and become the CEO of Collingwood himself?

Pert wanted the job, I don't think he was too happy as the manager of 9 in Melbourne and I don't think channel 9 were certain that Pert's position was required. This is evident in the fact that they are not looking to replace Pert, and instead are increasing some other guys duties.

Despite the hissy fits of the Shareholders' Association no court in Australia will find that Eddie breached his duties as a director of either Nine or CFC.

[PiesUnited]

Nice sentiment but the world does not work that way. Ask John Elliott about the consequenses of being too arrogant.

It is not arrogance, because, when has it become our responsibility to cater to the interests of other clubs or the media? Whether it is a good appointment or not only time will tell, but a Collingwood appointment is only there to represent the interests of Collingwood members and supporters, no one else. Channel nine was quite happy for Pert to move, as they are restructuring. You haven't heard any complaints from PBL who are actually Eddie's bosses and who own and run Channel 9.
So again I re-iterate, Where is the conflict of interest?

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It is not arrogance, because, when has it become our responsibility to cater to the interests of other clubs or the media? ?

Its the law.

For example, If a person is sitting on two boards of two different companies, and is involved in a financial transaction that concerns BOTH companies, he is legally obliged to absent himself from the decision making process in regards to that transaction.

This is a similar situation. McuGuire as head of Collingwood is directly involved in recruiting one of Nine's senior executives. There could be a case to say that he has a conflict of interest, because as Collingwoood head he wants to recruit Pert, and as Nine head he'd be required to try and retain Pert.

I'm not saying he broke the law, but when things are a bit grey, its wise to step out of the process and keep yourself sqeaky clean. Not doing so is inviting scrutiny, and dare I say it, its a bit arrogant.

[MarkT]

All that said, I'm happy with the appointment of Pert. He's probably the best man for the job.For us all that is relevant. Only time will tell if he is any good of curse but that would be the case with anyone we hired that hadn’t done the job at another club.

[MarkT]

The names I've heard were a Mr R. Herring and S. Screen.Nice call and possibly accurate.

[PiesUnited]

Its the law.

For example, If a person is sitting on two boards of two different companies, and is involved in a financial transaction that concerns BOTH companies, he is legally obliged to absent himself from the decision making process in regards to that transaction.

This is a similar situation. McuGuire as head of Collingwood is directly involved in recruiting one of Nine's senior executives. There could be a case to say that he has a conflict of interest, because as Collingwoood head he wants to recruit Pert, and as Nine head he'd be required to try and retain Pert.

I'm not saying he broke the law, but when things are a bit grey, its wise to step out of the process and keep yourself sqeaky clean. Not doing so is inviting scrutiny, and dare I say it, its a bit arrogant.

I am sure I heard Eddie in his interview say that he did step aside from the process. He has followed the process you have laid out.
Obviously you are making a point of not believing him.
That in itself is arrogant.

[yeah-nah]

It just brings unwanted bad publicity to the club, when we may have got the same result if Eddie had stepped out of the meeting for five minutes.

I'd suggest the publicity the club has received out of this has been sensational. I mean Carlton pulled off a massive poach with the signing of Swann. I reckon it got a 1/4 of the publicity this has got.

West Coast publicity is bad publicity. This is just loads of people talking about collingwood.

Zohnder got massive exposure out of it too. Think other potential sponsors might be thinking they wouldnt mind a bit of riding the collingwood coat tails action.

Its all good. Just hope Pert is the right man for the job.

[anzacs]

He put Collingwood first... where's the conflict of interest :p

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I am sure I heard Eddie in his interview say that he did step aside from the process. He has followed the process you have laid out.
Obviously you are making a point of not believing him.
That in itself is arrogant.


Fair enough, I didnt hear him say that. I heard him say that he strongly supported Pert, which is not the talk of a person who stood aside in the discussions.

[PiesUnited]

Fair enough, I didnt hear him say that. I heard him say that he strongly supported Pert, which is not the talk of a person who stood aside in the discussions.

You obviously don't like Eddie, as you are always looking for a fault.
At the end of the day all it was, was a Collingwood board member applying for the CEO's job and getting it.
Nothing more nothing less.

[Magnus the Magpie]

Eddie's heart is and always will be Collingwood, notice he said he'd rather the Pies win a flag than 9 win the ratings....that is what you want to hear from your president.

This is closest to the point I was trying to make. As opposed to the Carlton Docklands fiasco, there is no way I could see Ed putting his own interests before that of the Club - and I doubt you could say that about too many football administrators (and board members) these days. Just look at Greg Swann's recent effort - I was irresistably reminded of the devious CEO, Gerry, in David Williamson's play (The Club).

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You obviously don't like Eddie, as you are always looking for a fault..

Bollocks. I love Eddie and I dont recall looking for faults in the past. I call it as I see it.

[PiesUnited]

Bollocks. I love Eddie and I dont recall looking for faultsin the past. I call it as I see it.

Yep you really love him don't you? But the boot keeps going in.

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I call it as I see it. If I think he's in the right I'll defend him (or anybody) to the hilt. If I think he (or anybody) is in the wrong, I'll say so.

I'm sorry thats a bit hard for you to understand.

[PiesUnited]

I call it as I see it. If I think he's in the right I'll defend him (or anybody) to the hilt. If I think he (or anybody) is in the wrong, I'll say so.

I'm sorry thats a bit hard for you to understand.

So we resort to trying to be condescending do we?
Don't like being contradicted, do we?
You really hate not having the last word, don't you?

[PieLebo87]

So we resort to trying to be condescending do we?
Don't like being contradicted, do we?
You really hate not having the last word, don't you?

Shut up and stop being a hypocrit.

Lets drop it.

I think we should start a group.

The 'Bring Eddie back to Melb' group.

[PiesUnited]

When one goes out the other comes in.

[PieLebo87]

When one goes out the other comes in.

You know your nickname is a real contradiction in comparison to your behaviour on this thread?

Says you are a newbie, how about showing respect to others until you understand the type environment you've just entered.

[anzacs]

So we resort to trying to be condescending do we?
Don't like being contradicted, do we?
You really hate not having the last word, don't you?I'm always amazed at the number of people unaware of the theory of psychological projection