Autopsy MFC Board Review completed

[Captain Jack]

Released today.

MELBOURNE has released the findings from its internal board review, citing a need for significant rejuvenation and genuine change within the board and overall football club.

The review was undertaken on behalf of the Melbourne Football Club Board by Board member and former managing partner of Deloitte, John Trotter.

The report said Melbourne’s “current financial position and on-field performance does not meet the expectations of members, key stakeholders and the AFL.” It added that “the AFL has offered support to address these issues, but this support is highly conditional”.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-07-31/melbourne-board-review-released

And here is the link to the Executive Summary document for those who want more detail.

Interesting quote from that, which seems to sum up the majority of the review:

A number of Board members joined the Board in mid 2008 when the MFC had limited management skills, lacked resources and had significant debt. This resulted in a blurring of roles of the Board and management, as Board members were immersed in “running the club” and eliminating the debt.

The review indicated that the effectiveness of the Board was being impacted by the:
I. lack of clarity of the roles and responsibilities of the Board and management;
II. issues around the strength of the working relationship with key management;
III. depth of experience of Board members with Corporate Governance frameworks, structures and processes;
IV. use and mix of skills of individual Board members;
V. time availability of certain Board members;
VI. clarity of Board member roles; and
VII. the depth of relationships with key stakeholders

The times they are a-changing.

 

[Tulip]

I, personally, have no clue what I just read. Nor do I have a clue what it means.

 

[Captain Jack]

Summary: members of the board since 2008 have done jobs that should have been left to the club's management because they had no idea about corporate structure or the standard separation between board and management.

 

[Dory_77]

I, personally, have no clue what I just read. Nor do I have a clue what it means.

From what I took out of those points, it seems the board didn't know what they were meant to be doing either.

 

[maxmustard]

Hopefully this review doesn't get fed to the shredding machine like the last one.

 

[tasmanlvr]

From what I took out of those points, it seems the board didn't know what they were meant to be doing either.

Reminds me of this...

 

[Devastating Boris]

So apparently action Jackson has had 25-30 nominations for president I'm guessing 95% of them are on this board. So who here is having a crack?