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

 

[sr36]

The ability to grab 5 flags in 20 years is a skillset that would be a great addition.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I say we add Ben King and Christian Petracca to the board. They'd help that.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Not overly comfortable with some candidates now aligning themselves with the EGM push for change last year

- Why didn’t they come out of the woodwork last year? Why didn’t they stand late last year when it was an open field? Why now?

- One of the primary drivers behind the EGM push last year was perceived salary cap mismanagement. We traded out Grundy this year, even paying some of Grundy’s salary - what’s the difference?

- Another of their pushes was for democracy to be brought back to Collingwood - and yet the board this year under Jeff Browne persistent with the practice of parachuting their own candidate in. It’s only because they had to withdraw themselves that we have another open vote.

So what was it about then?

Ego would be my guess.

 

[barrackers]

Not overly comfortable with some candidates now aligning themselves with the EGM push for change last year

- Why didn’t they come out of the woodwork last year? Why didn’t they stand late last year when it was an open field? Why now?

- One of the primary drivers behind the EGM push last year was perceived salary cap mismanagement. We traded out Grundy this year, even paying some of Grundy’s salary - what’s the difference?

- Another of their pushes was for democracy to be brought back to Collingwood - and yet the board this year under Jeff Browne persistent with the practice of parachuting their own candidate in. It’s only because they had to withdraw themselves that we have another open vote.

So what was it about then?

I wonder why they weren’t part of a larger Browne ticket last year or why they weren’t the endorsed by the Browne camp this year. Is it an attempt by Browne to distance himself from the board being undermined or ousted (depending on one’s view)?

That would be consistent with Browne’s relative silence throughout ‘21 and even once the vote had been called last year.

 

[FIGJAM]

Not overly comfortable with some candidates now aligning themselves with the EGM push for change last year

- Why didn’t they come out of the woodwork last year? Why didn’t they stand late last year when it was an open field? Why now?

- One of the primary drivers behind the EGM push last year was perceived salary cap mismanagement. We traded out Grundy this year, even paying some of Grundy’s salary - what’s the difference?

- Another of their pushes was for democracy to be brought back to Collingwood - and yet the board this year under Jeff Browne persistent with the practice of parachuting their own candidate in. It’s only because they had to withdraw themselves that we have another open vote.

So what was it about then?

Con interviewed for a position for the Board last year and was in the final few candidates. Then we put two ineligible people on the board, which sparked the whole EGM push in the first place!

As I've said always, I've got no issue with the Board identifying talent and recommending them. Like Con, Rosen was interviewed last year and would be a great condidate and worth the recommendation. He had literally zero connection with Browne's push either before, during our after. This was not "parachuting" and the Corp Vote would have still gone ahead.

I've said before about Grundy, there is much more to his trading out than money. Attitude was the primary reason and it was a decision by the coaches, not Wright. Of course not having almost $2 mill tied up in the ruck position will help long term. I wouldn't have traded him though.

Whilst you seem keen to claim that the new set up is the same as the pre-EGM set up, but it clearly isn't the game as the Kim Jong Ed autocracy that permeated the joint, which was particularly toxic in the last 7 years.

 

[FIGJAM]

I wonder why they weren’t part of a larger Browne ticket last year or why they weren’t the endorsed by the Browne camp this year. Is it an attempt by Browne to distance himself from the board being undermined or ousted (depending on one’s view)?

I don't know why Tuddenham wasn't a part of Browne's ticket given how vocal he was, but he was completing a major development in Hawthorn East at the time, which would be stressful. It's done now and Nick Maxwell will be running the serviced office component.

Con helped Browne's ticket after the 4 seats were opened up, but he wasn't a consideration beforehand.

As previoisly mentioned, Rosen had nothing to do with Browne whatsoever, so his recommendation had nothing to do with alliances and when he had to withdraw, finding a second or back up recommendation seemed supuflous, so we've now got a vote without a recommendation. It's not a bad thing, but I would prefer the Board to identify the top shelf candidates and recommend them.

 

[barrackers]

but I would prefer the Board to identify the top shelf candidates and recommend them.

Yeah, in some ways open elections are a good thing, but at the same time the board is best placed to know the gaps in their skill sets. A recommendation at least gives an indication of what they’re seeking and may allow a member to relate to that candidate or another with similar skills.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Con interviewed for a position for the Board last year and was in the final few candidates. Then we put two ineligible people on the board, which sparked the whole EGM push in the first place!

As I've said always, I've got no issue with the Board identifying talent and recommending them. Like Con, Rosen was interviewed last year and would be a great condidate and worth the recommendation. He had literally zero connection with Browne's push either before, during our after. This was not "parachuting" and the Corp Vote would have still gone ahead.

I've said before about Grundy, there is much more to his trading out than money. Attitude was the primary reason and it was a decision by the coaches, not Wright. Of course not having almost $2 mill tied up in the ruck position will help long term. I wouldn't have traded him though.

Whilst you seem keen to claim that the new set up is the same as the pre-EGM set up, but it clearly isn't the game as the Kim Jong Ed autocracy that permeated the joint, which was particularly toxic in the last 7 years.

I agree with the basic premise that the club needed to transition to a post-Ed regime. I do think the club screwed up a few things in that process. I believe that the EGM provisions in the corporations act are important.

However I think that the 2021 EGM push + Jeff Browne ticket didn’t necessarily go about things in the right way.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I think these things are important. Compare the four clubs Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon. All are Vic based, all have huge supporter bases, all have a proud history of success. And yet all four of them have had vastly different fortunes over the last 2 decades. Apart from 2 of the clubs are Docklands based and 2 are MCG based, the only other material difference between the four clubs is that they have had different boards (or had different people recruited by those boards, or had different players who were recruited by the people who were recruited by those boards). Everything leads back to the board, and we see those effects over the long term.

(btw None of that is intended to spruik Ed. IMO his time had long been over.)

 

[FIGJAM]

I agree with the basic premise that the club needed to transition to a post-Ed regime. I do think the club screwed up a few things in that process. I believe that the EGM provisions in the corporations act are important.

However I think that the 2021 EGM push + Jeff Browne ticket didn’t necessarily go about things in the right way.

Important to always clarify that the EGM push and the Jeff Browne ticket are two completely separate things, so there's no "+" there.

I will ask you though 76; given that the post-2020 salary cap dump for stuff all return that had to do with years of McGuire Captains Calls resulting in getting Gubby Allen who overpaid players and saw the re-recruiting of Beams at $800K per annum to fingerpaint, the Grundy contract that according to Buckley was taken out of the hands of the football department, the leaking of the Do Better report and subsequent final foot in mouth incident with McGuire, it'd be fair to say that the incumbents were on something of a short leash.

So when there was ultimately an appointment of an ineligible Board member who slagged Collingwood fans off on social media and was clearly a Bulldogs supporter, just what would you have liked to have seen happen (if anything)?

 

[sr36]

I think these things are important. Compare the four clubs Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon. All are Vic based, all have huge supporter bases, all have a proud history of success. And yet all four of them have had vastly different fortunes over the last 2 decades. Apart from 2 of the clubs are Docklands based and 2 are MCG based, the only other material difference between the four clubs is that they have had different boards (or had different people recruited by those boards, or had different players who were recruited by the people who were recruited by those boards). Everything leads back to the board, and we see those effects over the long term.

(btw None of that is intended to spruik Ed. IMO his time had long been over.)

Recruitment decisions are a heap of guesswork. A whole lot of it comes down to luck.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Important to always clarify that the EGM push and the Jeff Browne ticket are two completely separate things, so there's no "+" there.

The Francis Galbally link calls that into question. And I know the EGM folks claim that he only provided the EGM push with pro Bono legal counsel - but that’s a very big ‘only’.

I will ask you though 76; given that the post-2020 salary cap dump for stuff all return that had to do with years of McGuire Captains Calls resulting in getting Gubby Allen who overpaid players and saw the re-recruiting of Beams at $800K per annum to fingerpaint, the Grundy contract that according to Buckley was taken out of the hands of the football department, the leaking of the Do Better report and subsequent final foot in mouth incident with McGuire, it'd be fair to say that the incumbents were on something of a short leash.

All that is moot given McGuire had months earlier left the building?

So when there was ultimately an appointment of an ineligible Board member who slagged Collingwood fans off on social media and was clearly a Bulldogs supporter, just what would you have liked to have seen happen (if anything)?

I had no issue whatsoever with the board appointing people who hadn’t met the 2 year membership criterion. It’s been done before (Waitslitz).

… but …

.. there is a process that needs to be followed. It wasn’t followed. And basic common sense says that at a minimum it should have been declared. That’s not the candidate’s responsibility, that’s the responsibility of the person overseeing the recruitment process.

Now if somebody wanted to launch an EGM against the person responsible, then I could see the sense in that. Not just over this issue specifically, but because it represents a lapse in governance. The board doesn’t have to do much, but good governance is something they are expected to do.

But that’s not what happened. The candidate who had applied for the role in good faith and had done nothing wrong got effectively howled out of the joint, and the person who was actually responsible for the screwup got endorsed by the incoming President.

Where was the sense in that?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Recruitment decisions are a heap of guesswork. A whole lot of it comes down to luck.

Much the same as the recruitment through the draft of footy players.

Good leaders are able to create and develop their own luck

 

[sr36]

Much the same as the recruitment through the draft of footy players.

Good leaders are able to create and develop their own luck

Unlike recruiters, the board don't recruit 7 CEOs or coaches a year, and thus they don't balance out their luck.

 

[FIGJAM]

The Francis Galbally link calls that into question. And I know the EGM folks claim that he only provided the EGM push with pro Bono legal counsel - but that’s a very big ‘only’.

Was a symbiotic relationship.

All that is moot given McGuire had months earlier left the building?

No way dude! They were part of the culture that enabled McGuire in the first place and all they needed to do was show a 'breath of fresh air' approach and neither the EGM push would have happened and Jeff Browne would have said nothing.

Instead, in addition to a number of lacklustre decisions that pointed to maintaining a status quo scenario, they ultimately shoehorned a person clearly earmarked for the role a long way out (who openly slagged us Collingwood supporters off,no less!), which was the last * up in a long line of * ups. The previous Board did not hit the F5 button when Ed left. They needed to 'Do Different' and they were rightly pulled up by everyone who spoke up, whether it be members of this and other boards, the EGM push with the couple of thousand signatures, or the likes of Browne / Frank / Tuddy.

I had no issue whatsoever with the board appointing people who hadn’t met the 2 year membership criterion. It’s been done before (Waitslitz).

… but …

.. there is a process that needs to be followed. It wasn’t followed. And basic common sense says that at a minimum it should have been declared. That’s not the candidate’s responsibility, that’s the responsibility of the person overseeing the recruitment process.

Now if somebody wanted to launch an EGM against the person responsible, then I could see the sense in that. Not just over this issue specifically, but because it represents a lapse in governance. The board doesn’t have to do much, but good governance is something they are expected to do.

But that’s not what happened. The candidate who had applied for the role in good faith and had done nothing wrong got effectively howled out of the joint, and the person who was actually responsible for the screwup got endorsed by the incoming President.

Where was the sense in that?

A fair point on the last bit and I still personally find Holgate's decision making to be at best a mixed bag, but the incoming President used her to facilitate the 4 positions required to get a stable leadership, as she still had popularity from her battle with serial dickhead Scommo, plus Browne needed two well-qualified females that were required not to burn the grant.

 

[conno]

 

[JOELY]

Like I didn't enjoy the Herald Sun spruiking one candidate in the lead up to the President vote, I didn't enjoy that. Hate it really.

 

[conno]

Like I didn't enjoy the Herald Sun spruiking one candidate in the lead up to the President vote, I didn't enjoy that. Hate it really.

It's covered three candidates over the past fortnight.

 

[cityslick1]

View attachment 1569751

Con, is that you?

 

[JoinDate]

Con, is that you?

What gave it away? The Clark Kent glasses?

 

[FIGJAM]

It's covered three candidates over the past fortnight.

One of those "don't let facts get in the way of a good message board melt" scenarios, Conno!

I think our humble vacant Board position has had more candidate coverage from the HUN than Labor got for their entire state election campaign...

 

[sr36]

View attachment 1569751

One thing that I think the AFL has done really well in terms of keeping interest for the future is they've kept a presence on FTA TV. With all these other sports in Aust continually jumping platform to the highest bidder, they're just not going to grow amongst kids as each platform jump loses them some viewers.

 

[Mongo Ming]

View attachment 1569751

“Collingwood specific commentary”… is Con bringing back “press red for Ed”?

 

[FIGJAM]

“Collingwood specific commentary”… is Con bringing back “press red for Ed”?

I'd like an option to be able to press the Gold button to delete all footage Jeffrey Corfe from all Collingwood replays.

 

[JB1975]

Is there any evidence that the AFL is losing supporters to other sports because of an unimaginative approach to digital media?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Is there any evidence that the AFL is losing supporters to other sports because of an unimaginative approach to digital media?

No.