Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham

Remove this Banner Ad

 
Last edited:
What's clear is there are certainly some people rushing to talk about inclusiveness and respecting others beliefs and lifestyle while not being inclusive or respecting others beliefs or lifestyle.

"Everyone should be free to think, believe or practice whatever they like so long as it doesn't affect others."

"No not those thoughts, beliefs or practices."
 
Everyone's tolerant until something affects them
So we've pretty much reached this stage of proceedings (depending on exactly where his Church's views actually lie)
1*TnDoAk0BjC7x4OuBISbYCw.jpeg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

How so? When he was CEO of NAB, NAB lobbied the AFL to create a pride round;






Oh so it's just optics, nothing about what he's said, or done. Optics. Let's be clear here about what people are worked up about, because if it was based off what he's said or done, he seems pretty inclusive really.



You mean like this?

Might sticky this post to the top of the thread tbh
 
So we've pretty much reached this stage of proceedings (depending on exactly where his Church's views actually lie)
1*TnDoAk0BjC7x4OuBISbYCw.jpeg

Most christians are not Nazis however

What's clear is there are certainly some people rushing to talk about inclusiveness and respecting others beliefs and lifestyle while not being inclusive or respecting others beliefs or lifestyle.

Good point.

The main issue for me is the AFLW program, some of whom I would assume are active members of the homosexual community.

It’s reasonable to ask what they would be thinking re the appointment of a boss who currently heads another organisation that openly regards their lifestyle as sinful? I’m sure our many homosexual supporters might have the same question.

If that’s not true (and it may not be), then EFC need to make a very strong statement and very quickly.

The percentage of homosexuality in women's professional sport is curious
 
right or wrong, it's optics.

Then us focusing on optics is a cultural problem that we need to overcome.

It was once "optics" where if a man was gay, he would be optically perceives as less masculine/manly.

It was once "optics" where females playing sport was optically perceived as nothing but eye-candy.

The only way we moved on from seeing such things optically and instead more rationally was when we put the effort in addressing the culture that perpetuated the cycle in doing so.
 
The main issue for me is the AFLW program, some of whom I would assume are active members of the homosexual community.

It’s reasonable to ask what they would be thinking re the appointment of a boss who currently heads another organisation that openly regards their lifestyle as sinful? I’m sure our many homosexual supporters might have the same question.

If that’s not true (and it may not be), then EFC need to make a very strong statement and very quickly.
NAB sponsored the AFLW while he was there.
 
Sure as plebs we take jobs because we have to.

Your point stands on a notion that he's taken a job at the Mardi Gras, or the National LGBT Association.

His primary role at such a "job" is running a sporting club and making sure it runs efficiently. Treating people who are LGBT with respect is literally a side-focus in such a role. As long as he doesn't go out and outright ban gay people from buying memberships or puts measures in place to make the lives of gay people harder then he is well adjusted to his job and run the club.

Like it or not, there are going to be religious people in all companies and industries where the main role isn't based on gay topics.

Like it or not, in every facet of life you are going to have people who hold personal rules for their own self while not actively getting in the way of other people.

Like it or not, people are not always going to agree on everything - but most do not let it get in the way of them getting along.

Like it or not, religion is 2,000 years old and isn't going anywhere. Homosexuality is going no where. One will not overcome the other - which isn't the point of tolerance/inclusion anyway.

And P.S my comment on paranoia was in relation to a paranoia that his views from a church is going to be used to actively coerce the prevention of gay inclusion at Essendon. Which is as stupid as a paranoia that a trans advocate will cause more trans people. Enough.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Then us focusing on optics is a cultural problem that we need to overcome.

It was once "optics" where if a man was gay, he would be optically perceives as less masculine/manly.

It was once "optics" where females playing sport was optically perceived as nothing but eye-candy.

The only way we moved on from seeing such things optically and instead more rationally was when we put the effort in addressing the culture that perpetuated the cycle in doing so.
optics goes to governance
not stepping into the whole content of this, but the context is important.

in the last decade we've dealt with;
Drugs saga and handling of that
Worsfold -> Rutten -> sacking Rutten and the way that played out
Covid exodus of McKenna, Saad, Daniher and Fantasia (incl. Richardson clipping Saad on the way out)
Xavier and the Xmas party/Nova Peris
Chasing Clarkson only to be told no
External review, internal review, external review
CEO from the review panel
Hird & Sheeds white-ant brigade.

Can't remember where I saw it, but someone nailed it on the head today. It seems like every silver lining comes with a bloody big cloud at Essendon.

Club is trying to make itself attractive. To players, coaches, staff.
Its how you build a good organisation (i.e. Geelong) and get good.
 
“There’s a diversity of people. Different races, sexual orientations, faiths and cultures, that’s society. My role as a CEO is to ensure that the organisations that I lead, which I think my record stands for this, is inclusive and welcoming and caring and diverse."






OK, good... well he's the leader of his church. Does that mean his church is inclusive and welcoming to all people?
 
optics goes to governance
not stepping into the whole content of this, but the context is important.

in the last decade we've dealt with;
Drugs saga and handling of that
Worsfold -> Rutten -> sacking Rutten and the way that played out
Covid exodus of McKenna, Saad, Daniher and Fantasia (incl. Richardson clipping Saad on the way out)
Xavier and the Xmas party/Nova Peris
Chasing Clarkson only to be told no
External review, internal review, external review
CEO from the review panel
Hird & Sheeds white-ant brigade.

Can't remember where I saw it, but someone nailed it on the head today. It seems like every silver lining comes with a bloody big cloud at Essendon.

Club is trying to make itself attractive. To players, coaches, staff.
Its how you build a good organisation (i.e. Geelong) and get good.
Which is possibly why we need someone of Thorburn's experience to improve it....catch 22.

I would like to know who the other applicants were though.
 
The main issue for me is the AFLW program, some of whom I would assume are active members of the homosexual community.

It’s reasonable to ask what they would be thinking re the appointment of a boss who currently heads another organisation that openly regards their lifestyle as sinful? I’m sure our many homosexual supporters might have the same question.

If that’s not true (and it may not be), then EFC need to make a very strong statement and very quickly.

"Sinful" only pertains to the people who believe in it. It is of no effect to people who don't follow the religion.

And in the context of the religion and Christians it is referred to, it is a sin. A sin that is only held accountable for their personal record when they die. That's it.

And Andrew didn't create it.

I also believe said AFLW players, who happen to be gay, don't deserve to be belittled with the idea that they somehow found out it was a sin only now after Andrew became CEO.
 
"I've never heard these things expressed in my time, I've been on the board two years," he said.

"I'm not a pastor, my job in a governance role is to make sure it's run well, I don't always agree with what's said.

"If we want a diverse society, it also means there's going to be people with different views."


This is the kind of stuff that's not ok. He's dancing around the subject and practically excusing the poor behaviour of the organisation he leads.

Oh, I haven't heard that myself........I don't always agree with what's said......there's going to be people with different views.
Oh I don't know what they injected......I don't always agree with what the medical staff do....there's going to be different medical views.

If it's excusable for homophobia, is it excusable for racism? He's the head of the organisation. He should know if it's homophobic or not.
 
I don't like Mexican , so I don't go to taco bill, why would I go in there and say how dare you serve chilli con carne when I want lasagne?

Sounds silly to me.

Huh?

"My role as a CEO is to ensure that the organisations that I lead, which I think my record stands for this, is inclusive and welcoming and caring and diverse."

That's what he said.

He's a leader of the church. Does that mean he ensures that it's inclusive and welcoming of all?

Is it welcoming of homosexuals?
 
Which is possibly why we need someone of Thorburn's experience to improve it....catch 22.

I would like to know who the other applicants were though.
I guess my question is two-fold and more the board;

1) Did they know about it and opt not to put it front and centre.
2) Didn't do the check and this has caught them off-guard

As for the CEO credentials, that's for the board
But the fact he joined the review panel post the coterie dinner, and is now CEO less than a month later....have to wonder if this isn't another Essendon person appointment from within the coteries...perhaps an appeasement to those who wanted Hird?
 
Huh?

"My role as a CEO is to ensure that the organisations that I lead, which I think my record stands for this, is inclusive and welcoming and caring and diverse."

That's what he said.

He's a leader of the church. Does that mean he ensures that it's inclusive and welcoming of all?

Is it welcoming of homosexuals?
Not sure about his church, but I know a number of different churches that are welcoming of homosexuals.

They view it as a sin, but they leave judgement to god. They also view sex outside marriage as a sin but welcome many in their parish who are de facto.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top