Kennett must go now

[Easy Slips Catch]

We’d rather have something more concrete than ‘feels’

Do you really believe there were no suitable candidates? Maybe we need to switch to it being a paid position or something then

Why did you quote me and not refer to the only point I made - that being Scott's independence?

 

[BobHawk]

LOL. So they went through 20 candidates but none were suitable and fell on Jeff Kennett's 2IC. This is just a Kennett political maneuver where he maintains control of the club. King of the hill. He isn't alone because he has strong support within and outside the club. My bet is that there is an all powerful group behind Kennett and they will not let go of control of the club. Is it that they are basing their right to run the club based on its recent success? The resistance to change and control of the club really is quite alarming. This is how organisations fail. It has become all about individuals clinging to power. This is so bad.

 

[Flukey!]

I'm surprised that Hawks for Change have not released anything so far.
Positive, negative or neutral, I feel like we would normally have heard something by now.

Especially if they are "seething" as Sam Edmond is reporting.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Some truly weird and simplistic takes here.

Why does Silk owe us any explanation? He ran for the board he got voted onto the board. His candidacy and subsequent withdrawal of candidacy for president are his business not ours. If Silk felt he had work commitments or family commitments or any kind of life commitment that precluded him from being a candidate for the presidency then that is his decision and he owes us nothing more than good service at the board position we elected him to.

And Peter Nankivell is an experienced, well credentialed and respected lawyer. To suggest he is just some puppet of Kennett's because he happens to be his 2IC and a Kennett appointee in the past is an insult to the fact that he is an accomplished adult. Many 2ICs in history have quite different ideologies and approaches to their predecessor.

 

[Brishawk]

My reading of Kennett’s email is not that the committee gave him unanimous support, but that the board later did.

If the board did, that would include silk. So I guess that would rule him out if challenging. Not sure hawks 4 change can put up an alternative better than silk unless they lured in Jason dunstall (not likely, I’m guessing).

 

[Ned Ryerson]

If the board did, that would include silk. So I guess that would rule him out if challenging. Not sure hawks 4 change can put up an alternative better than silk unless they lured in Jason dunstall (not likely, I’m guessing).

Peter Hudson or Owen Wilson would be compelling candidates also but I don't see either of them challenging. Huddo has never shown interest and Wilson is on the board already.

 

[Rhayader]

I'm surprised that Hawks for Change have not released anything so far.
Positive, negative or neutral, I feel like we would normally have heard something by now.

Especially if they are "seething" as Sam Edmond is reporting.

If they are seething, it is probably the worst time to say something publicly.

 

[Pessimistic]

Some truly weird and simplistic takes here.

Why does Silk owe us any explanation? He ran for the board he got voted onto the board. His candidacy and subsequent withdrawal of candidacy for president are his business not ours. If Silk felt he had work commitments or family commitments or any kind of life commitment that precluded him from being a candidate for the presidency then that is his decision and he owes us nothing more than good service at the board position we elected him to.

And Peter Nankivell is an experienced, well credentialed and respected lawyer. To suggest he is just some puppet of Kennett's because he happens to be his 2IC and a Kennett appointee in the past is an insult to the fact that he is an accomplished adult. Many 2ICs in history have quite different ideologies and approaches to their predecessor.

I’m just asking why if he’s so able why he wasn’t asked to take it on when Jeff returned for his second stint?

And telling us no one else is suitable, that’s just gaslighting us

 

[Pessimistic]

Also if the new president is supportive or a 19th Tassie licence and Jeff is not, how does the club vote on the AFL presidents vote on Tassie?

 

[flinchfree]

Some truly weird and simplistic takes here.

Why does Silk owe us any explanation? He ran for the board he got voted onto the board. His candidacy and subsequent withdrawal of candidacy for president are his business not ours. If Silk felt he had work commitments or family commitments or any kind of life commitment that precluded him from being a candidate for the presidency then that is his decision and he owes us nothing more than good service at the board position we elected him to.

And Peter Nankivell is an experienced, well credentialed and respected lawyer. To suggest he is just some puppet of Kennett's because he happens to be his 2IC and a Kennett appointee in the past is an insult to the fact that he is an accomplished adult. Many 2ICs in history have quite different ideologies and approaches to their predecessor.

Don't think 'owe' us an explanation is quite right.....more that it would be nice - in the name of bringing together the fan base into the sunlight and us all feeling unified behind a new direction - to provide a synopsis on how we got to this point and why we should be encouraged by the decision making.

Considering the wrath of H4C for how JK had been handling recent events including Clarko's handover, the Rioli fiasco, JK's political caterwauling and friction based relationship with AFL governance, waffling on when exactly he would consider giving up the reigns, and then H4C widely disseminating that dissatisfaction to the Hawk membership and enlisting its support to effect change........
To now so meekly and quietly and foggily just lump along with the current news, feels uninspired.

I'd like some inspiration please. Some well explained story of why we are going this new route, that it has the support of the vast majority of interested parties, that leadership believes everyone is and will now pull in the same direction, and that there is a sense of belief that we have gotten this process right.

No?

 

[Mercy Seat]

Some truly weird and simplistic takes here.

Why does Silk owe us any explanation? He ran for the board he got voted onto the board. His candidacy and subsequent withdrawal of candidacy for president are his business not ours. If Silk felt he had work commitments or family commitments or any kind of life commitment that precluded him from being a candidate for the presidency then that is his decision and he owes us nothing more than good service at the board position we elected him to.

And Peter Nankivell is an experienced, well credentialed and respected lawyer. To suggest he is just some puppet of Kennett's because he happens to be his 2IC and a Kennett appointee in the past is an insult to the fact that he is an accomplished adult. Many 2ICs in history have quite different ideologies and approaches to their predecessor.

I feel like almost all the takes here are operating off very little information at all, and like all things political, there is surely a heap that has gone on behind the scenes that very few of us are privy too.

Like most here, I have to defer in good faith to the club and look positively at what the future holds and that due process as been successfully followed. But I’m not too naive to think that there could be a mess below the surface. Heaps of these appointments end up being disasters, in footy and in corporate, and power does corrupt. Given the rumblings and whispers, people have every right to be skeptical. That all being said, unless we learn more, they’ll have my full support.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

And telling us no one else is suitable, that’s just gaslighting us

Joke gifs aside - what you think is gaslighting is not what gaslighting is. It also kind of trivialises what gaslighting actually is so maybe hit the thesaurus and find a new word.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Don't think 'owe' us an explanation is quite right.....more that it would be nice - in the name of bringing together the fan base into the sunlight and us all feeling unified behind a new direction - to provide a synopsis on how we got to this point and why we should be encouraged by the decision making.

Considering the wrath of H4C for how JK had been handling recent events including Clarko's handover, the Rioli fiasco, JK's political caterwauling and friction based relationship with AFL governance, waffling on when exactly he would consider giving up the reigns, and then H4C widely disseminating that dissatisfaction to the Hawk membership and enlisting its support to effect change........
To now so meekly and quietly and foggily just lump along with the current news, feels uninspired.

I'd like some inspiration please. Some well explained story of why we are going this new route, that it has the support of the vast majority of interested parties, that leadership believes everyone is and will now pull in the same direction, and that there is a sense of belief that we have gotten this process right.

No?

The latter - no. The board is never going to come out and give you the entrails of the search and detail why other candidates were not suitable. Silk isn't going to go into the personal and private reasons as to why he pulled his candidacy. Expecting this kind of stuff is unrealistic and fairly pointless. Unless H4C have another candidate and want to get into a messy and costly election then the deal is done. Let's see what the Nank can do.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I feel like almost all the takes here are operating off very little information at all, and like all things political, there is surely a heap that has gone on behind the scenes that very few of us are privy too.

Like most here, I have to defer in good faith to the club and look positively at what the future holds and that due process as been successfully followed. But I’m not too naive to think that there could be a mess below the surface. Heaps of these appointments end up being disasters, in footy and in corporate, and power does corrupt. Given the rumblings and whispers, people have every right to be skeptical. That all being said, unless we learn more, they’ll have my full support.

Being sceptical is fine - stating you want the club to present to the public things that are commercially sensitive and privacy related is just silly. Expecting the club to detail the reasons why numerous or so people were not worthy of being president beyond the blanket statement in yesterday's release is literally never going to happen.

 

[Mercy Seat]

Being sceptical is fine - stating you want the club to present to the public things that are commercially sensitive and privacy related is just silly. Expecting the club to detail the reasons why numerous or so people were not worthy of being president beyond the blanket statement in yesterday's release is literally never going to happen.

Are people asking for any of those things?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Are people asking for any of those things?

People in this thread are, yes.

 

[CHUBBSS]

we could all just wait to see how he goes?

Commercial lawyer and negotiating is a strength, knows the club and understands current strategy with dingley, can’t see how this a bad appointment, if he was the best of very few candidates.

 

[Steven Tyler]

Also if the new president is supportive or a 19th Tassie licence and Jeff is not, how does the club vote on the AFL presidents vote on Tassie?

This from Jeff’s last email :



To date we have said to the Tasmanian Government, after 20 years as its partner in Tasmania, that, if the decision goes their way, we at Hawthorn will do whatever we can to assist them achieve their goal.

 

[hawk65]

Will his term be a full term or will it be for the 1 year remainder of JK's term before he is up for re election

 

[TylerDurden]

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

 

[streetspirit]

Fuse is lit… again

 

[Pessimistic]

Joke gifs aside - what you think is gaslighting is not what gaslighting is. It also kind of trivialises what gaslighting actually is so maybe hit the thesaurus and find a new word.

‘Pi55ing in our pockets and saying it’s raining’ if you like

When garvey was asked to leave (for crimes which seem quite trivial now) we were told no one other than Jeff could pu things right YET THE NEW PRESIDENT was on the board and available at that time. So he wasn’t offering or suitable - or didn’t want to challenge Jeff.

But if it was the former, he wasn’t suitable - why is he suitable now

Someone suggested the perception that to challenge Jeff would mean a political struggle has maybe limited the volunteers
Youll recall Jeff’s comments he came back to manage the transition
If that’s the case, back when hjeff came back for his second stint, that mere fact limited the pool of willing presidential candidates

Mathew the new president will be OK, but the control of the club is becoming a clique with echos of 1993-96.

 

[streetspirit]

 

[Topiary]

We’d rather have something more concrete than ‘feels’

Do you really believe there were no suitable candidates? Maybe we need to switch to it being a paid position or something then

An explanation is on the way. Sounds like Ned Ryerson knows everything and is the man for the job.