Toast Presidency and The Board

[jathanas]

Thank you 76woodenspooners

One of BigFooty’s all-time-favourite posters, Reykjavik , was all across the board level stuff. He once posted a list of the responsibilities of a Not-For-Profit board like that of Collingwood …

abcdef.....ijklmnop

NFP board responsibilities
Specific responsibilities of a not-for-profit (NFP) board include:

• Driving the strategic direction of the organisation
• Working with the CEO to enable the organisation to obtain the resources, funds and personnel necessary to implement the organisation's strategic objectives
• Implementing, maintaining and (as necessary) refining a system of good governance that is appropriate for the organisation
• Reviewing reports and monitoring the performance of the organisation
• Regularly reviewing the board's structure and composition, so that these are appropriate for the organisation
• Appointing – and managing the performance of – a suitable CEO
• Succession planning for the CEO

While the above points are also applicable to for-profit boards, NFP boards also face a unique range of issues, such as:

• Difficulties in defining and measuring organisational effectiveness
• Transgression of role boundaries
• The negative impact of the structural compositions of some NFP boards, including those arising from representative models
• Funding dependencies and constraints

In practice, the role of the board is to supervise an organisation's business in two broad areas:

1. Overall business performance - ensuring the organisation develops and implements strategies and supporting policies to enable it to fulfill the objectives set out in the organisation's constitution. The board delegates the day to day management of the organisation but remains accountable to the shareholders for the organisation's performance. The board monitors and supports management in an on-going way.
2. Overall compliance performance - ensuring the organisation develops and implements systems to enable it to comply with its legal and policy obligations (complying with statutes such as the Corporations Act 2001, adhering to accounting standards) and ensure the organisation's assets are protected through appropriate risk management.

http://www.companydirectors.com.au/...ctor/NFP-governance/The-role-of-the-NFP-board

Link to original post …

Side by Side with Reykjavik - RIP (re-read Rey's message to us all #108, pg 5)

Reyk, I'm ridiculously happy to see you posting! :)

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Aussie pie]

Docklands isn't a huge deal if we're playing interstate teams.

My pet hate is playing home games at Marvel against tenants of the ground as we have in many years previously (i.e. North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and St Kilda). How do we benefit from that?

That’s true, our “home” games there should only be against interstate teams but the AFL want the biggest gate takings as possible. Anyway it’s better than playing in Tassie.

 

[barrackers]

Done as late as possible so not to endure too much scrutiny.

Yeah, makes me wonder if Browne would have outlined his agenda without an election contested by other strong candidates.

 

[barrackers]

That’s true, our “home” games there should only be against interstate teams but the AFL want the biggest gate takings as possible. Anyway it’s better than playing in Tassie.

I’d actually prefer interstate fixtures over hosting Marvel tenants on their home ground.

 

[Jen2310]

And maybe he couldn't campaign prior to him actually officially getting the tick of approval to apply for the board.

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

I think it's a little concerning that Browne said more about the Do Better report, AFLW and netball in the paywalled interview with Mick Warner rather than being publicly accessible on a website that is set up for his campaign.

I know a lot of people here just think Collingwood is just AFL and that's all it should be, but the truth is it's not, and won't ever be just AFL ever again, so someone seeking the Presidency of the club should be getting across those issues.

Fair points to raise concern about, but the actual statement about "supporting athletes" does not single out one part of the sporting program at the exclusion of the other programs at the club.

From Browne's website, one of the platforms states the following:

• "Supporting our athletes - not only with sporting best practice, but importantly through structured, curriculum-based mentoring, personal development and life skills programs, all within a culture of mutual respect and confidence, honesty and integrity. This will ensure high and enduring sporting achievement from well-rounded athletes, the ultimate measure of which is winning premierships in all the competitions in which we compete"

I don't see anything there excluding AFLW or netball specifically.

The reality is the focus will be primarily on the men's team for most members I suspect. In my case personally, I have very little interest in AFLW and Netball but understand they have a role to play in our broader growth as a club.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Why is a team of three board candidates talking about how they'll deliver prudent list management?

Because it’s a lightning rod topic that many folks feel strongly about in light of the 2020 trade period.

(notwithstanding that the board shouldn’t go anywhere near the topic beyond governance and oversight)

 

[76woodenspooners]

Docklands isn't a huge deal if we're playing interstate teams.

My pet hate is playing home games at Marvel against tenants of the ground as we have in many years previously (i.e. North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and St Kilda). How do we benefit from that?

IMO, the solution is easy …

… play all 11 home games at the MCG (as Jeff Browne is proposing)

… and all 11 away games are fair game (although happy to play Geelong home games at the MCG). Having said that, I think it’d be good for us to play another away game or two interstate.

 

[Mike Olotripo]

jeffbrowne

We have what it takes to get the Pies back on top. Vote for me and my can-do leadership team. Together, we’ll roll up our sleeves and make footy’s greatest club, great again.

www.jeffbrowne.club

I like what Jeff has to say in here

"The Collingwood Football Club exists to make us - the members and supporters - happy by winning football matches and striving to win the ultimate prize each year, the AFL Premiership"

Spot on

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

jeffbrowne

We have what it takes to get the Pies back on top. Vote for me and my can-do leadership team. Together, we’ll roll up our sleeves and make footy’s greatest club, great again.

www.jeffbrowne.club

I like what Jeff has to say in here

"The Collingwood Football Club exists to make us - the members and supporters - happy by winning football matches and striving to win the ultimate prize each year, the AFL Premiership"

Spot on

It's not entirely spot on. That's fine to say about the club 30-40 years ago - it's a much bigger organisation now and needs to factor in a whole lot more than just the AFL team.

 

[sideswipe]

Under the "priorities"

• Prudent salary cap and List management for individual and team continuity, where tough decisions are taken with due consultation and respect, for the benefit of our overall Team building and performance.

Why are three board members seeking to be involved in list management?

I didn't read it that way, ie. the board members seeking involvement in list management. It reads like a club priority that they will aim to achieve - as a club. The previous point was

• Leading-edge coaching and medical knowledge, facilities and practices for optimal management of our athletes (missing full stop Jeff!)

Do you think that means they want to be involved in coaching and medical treatment?

 

[76woodenspooners]

For me, there are few things that Jeff Browne is saying that are promising …

For example:

- He has a focus on culture, something that I also think is important
- He is advocating we play all 11 home games at the MCG, something else I agree with.

… but most of his manefesto IMO are soaring popularist motherhood statements that are designed to appeal to voters, rather than provide a viable roadmap for the future.

For example, he doesn‘t acknowledge the strong forces of AFL equalisation, and what the board’s strategy would be to overcome those forces.

Consider a quote lIke this …

”We will build on the existing culture of the Club by learning from high performance clubs in other sports around Australia and around the world and then implementing the very best practises into everything we do at Collingwood.”

The quote sounds good, there are parts of it that IMO are good (owning ‘culture’, building on existing culture, providing a tangible tactic for improvement by looking around at what other sports do) …

… however …

… IMO somebody who has a clear strategy of what they planned to do would not have written the sentence that way:

- Will Collingwood‘s existing culture be extended to include a culture of learning from clubs in other sports? Or will Collingwood learn from clubs in other sports what its culture should be extended to?
- The learning from other sports thing is something the club has always done in recent times. Malthouse did it. Buckley did it. Clarkson very famously did it. What is Browne suggesting that’s different here?
- The mashup between ‘culture’ and ‘implementing … practises’ is muddled
- What exactly does “implementing the very best practises” mean in a non-standardised competitive pursuit?

 

[76woodenspooners]

I doubt they're suggesting that Christine Holgate will start making calls on our AFL mens team, or even our AFL netball team. It's just a promotion for best practice on every level (at least how it read it).

How do you define “best practice”?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Noted that amongst Browne’s priorities are constitutional changes for voting, but nothing on term limits?

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

For me, there are few things that Jeff Browne is saying that are promising …

For example:

- He has a focus on culture, something that I also think is important
- He is advocating we play all 11 home games at the MCG, something else I agree with.

… but most of his manefesto IMO are soaring popularist motherhood statements that are designed to appeal to voters, rather than provide a viable roadmap for the future.

For example, he doesn‘t acknowledge the strong forces of AFL equalisation, and what the board’s strategy would be to overcome those forces.

Consider a quote lIke this …

”We will build on the existing culture of the Club by learning from high performance clubs in other sports around Australia and around the world and then implementing the very best practises into everything we do at Collingwood.”

The quote sounds good, there are parts of it that IMO are good (owning ‘culture’, building on existing culture, providing a tangible tactic for improvement by looking around at what other sports do) …

… however …

… IMO somebody who has a clear strategy of what they planned to do would not have written the sentence that way:

- Will Collingwood‘s existing culture be extended to include a culture of learning from clubs in other sports? Or will Collingwood learn from clubs in other sports what its culture should be extended to?
- The learning from other sports thing is something the club has always done in recent times. Malthouse did it. Buckley did it. Clarkson very famously did it. What is Browne suggesting that’s different here?
- The mashup between ‘culture’ and ‘implementing … practises’ is muddled
- What exactly does “implementing the very best practises” mean in a non-standardised competitive pursuit?

Perhaps to be expected from campaign material, but so much of what he wrote had me thinking "what does this actually mean?"

 

[76woodenspooners]

SEN interview with Sean Callanan …

The members need to know they have a voice - Sean Callanan

Collingwood board nominee Sean Callanan joined the boys

player.whooshkaa.com

 

[MyManLynch]

MCGA
Make Collingwood Great Again.
Original slogan.

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

Noted that amongst Browne’s priorities are constitutional changes for voting, but nothing on term limits?

Might be in a minority, but I think term limits are a more pressing issue than changing voting rights.

 

[Mike Olotripo]

It's not entirely spot on. That's fine to say about the club 30-40 years ago - it's a much bigger organisation now and needs to factor in a whole lot more than just the AFL team.

I'm not sure the club exists to feed homeless people, the Salvation Army already do a terrific job in that area.

Football and netball (as we have a netball team) is our core business. Focus on your core business.

 

[FIGJAM]

How do you define “best practice”?

Relative to the point that you are quoting, it might involve not slashing and burning the recruiting department as we have over recent years, leaving Dekka with too much on his plate.

Or hiring Ned Guy who'd never done any list management ever to be list manager.

Whilst it's hard to objectively detail a qualitative problem, there's a fair ******* difference between the practice and diligence in selecting the ineligible Board members and the process in selecting McRae. We need the latter every time!

Obviously it's not just a matter of throwing money at each problem, because you might end up with some bloated mess that will lead to entropy over positive evolution. But there would surely be happy medium in every facet. I'd be sitting down with each of the stakeholders to hear what works best for them and what other clubs are doing that they perceive as being best practice.

FWIW, I'd love to know why we had to slash our recruiting department so heavily (this happened both before and after COVID).

 

[76woodenspooners]

I'm not sure the club exists to feed homeless people, the Salvation Army already do a terrific job in that area.

Football and netball (as we have a netball team) is our core business. Focus on your core business.

When we look down the other end of Alexandra Parade at our Carlton Cousins, and we see that they’re not like us. And we don’t want to be like them. What is it we’re talking about?

Carlton have the same core business we do. So if we both focus purely on our core business of winning footy games, then what is it that sets us apart?

Identity is important. It’s what makes somebody buy Nike sneakers instead of Asics sneakers (or vice versa). It’s what makes somebody proud of living in Melbourne rather than Sydney (or vice versa). It’s what makes somebody proud to be a Collingwood supporter and thankful they’re not Carlton (or heaven forbid, vice versa).

We’re very likely to be having a rough ride on field in the coming years. Making Collingwood fraternity strong and passionate and engaged during this period will be important, because there’s not likely to be much onfield success with our men‘s teams.

When Koch became President of Port Adelaide he really focused on that stuff. The dispute over the prison bars guernsey has little to do with honouring heritage or any of that rubbish. It’s all about uniting the Port supporters behind a cause. The worst thing Ed could have done for Port’s cause is simply say “yeah, sure, have whatever jumper you want, we don’t care”

If Browne becomes President, how is he going to drive Collingwood’s identity?

(IMO, that stuff is a more important task for the board, than any meddling in salary cap or list management is)

 

[76woodenspooners]

Relative to the point that you are quoting, it might involve not slashing and burning the recruiting department as we have over recent years, leaving Dekka with too much on his plate.

Hypothetical: Let’s say in the year 2026 we finish 4th on the ladder. And out of the $8m FD cap, we had spent (to keep the numbers simple) $5.5m on coaching activities and $2.5m on recruitment activities.

What would you do for the 2027 season? Would you increase coaching expenditure to $6.5m to give us the best chance to take the next step? (thus reducing recruiting budget down to $1.5 million). Or would you increase recruiting budget to $3.5 million (reducing the coaching budget to $4.5m) to allow us to better scout the 14 to 17 year olds who will make us better for when the next rebuild comes in a few years and we draft kids en mass? Or would you keep the budgets fixed and not respond at all to where we are in our Premiership window cycle?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Or hiring Ned Guy who'd never done any list management ever to be list manager.

Dekka was a fireman before he came to Collingwood, how was that relevant?

Ned Guy was a player manager, which wasn’t a million miles away from the skill set of a list manager.

Besides, going out and hiring the most experienced people in every field doesn’t work when there is the constraint of the soft cap.

Clarkson perfected at Hawthorn the process of moneyballing FD staff. He moved away from having ex-footy players as assistants, people who had been on $$$ and now we’re adjusting to the new life of a modest salary. Instead he got decent PE teachers who had a strong credentials in the art and science of pedagogy, and he gave them a big payday they were grateful for. It’s that kind of out-of-the-box thinking that brings competitive advantage and success.

If we’re going to become successful we’re going to need to make strategic decisions like giving a player manager a crack at being a list manager. And IMO I don’t think Ned Guy was a failure … remember it was him who (quite reasonably) had the shits with us rather than the other way around.

 

[sr36]

Hypothetical: Let’s say in the year 2026 we finish 4th on the ladder. And out of the $8m FD cap, we had spent (to keep the numbers simple) $5.5m on coaching activities and $2.5m on recruitment activities.

What would you do for the 2027 season? Would you increase coaching expenditure to $6.5m to give us the best chance to take the next step? (thus reducing recruiting budget down to $1.5 million). Or would you increase recruiting budget to $3.5 million (reducing the coaching budget to $4.5m) to allow us to better scout the 14 to 17 year olds who will make us better for when the next rebuild comes in a few years and we draft kids en mass? Or would you keep the budgets fixed and not respond at all to where we are in our Premiership window cycle?

It's a very good question. Personally I wouldn't be changing the allocations based on ladder position, as I think you always need to be looking to improve your list for the future, regardless of whether the window is open. Salary cap is the only lever I'd fiddle with in terms of believing you're in the win now window.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Obviously it's not just a matter of throwing money at each problem, because you might end up with some bloated mess that will lead to entropy over positive evolution. But there would surely be happy medium in every facet. I'd be sitting down with each of the stakeholders to hear what works best for them and what other clubs are doing that they perceive as being best practice.

‘Like’ for “bloated mess that will lead to entropy over positive evolution”

How is what you’ve described above any different to what we’ve done before?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Whilst it's hard to objectively detail a qualitative problem, there's a fair ******* difference between the practice and diligence in selecting the ineligible Board members and the process in selecting McRae. We need the latter every time!

Are you supporting the candidate who was the chairwoman of the process that lead to the selection of board members under article 25(b) earlier in the year?