Kennett must go now

[BobHawk]

Yep. It was a pretty obvious and arrogant move by Kennett. He has the people at the club stitched up. No question. The appearance of his moving on seemingly being used to appease dissenters as undemocratic as his move is. He seems to be banking on members buying this move and remaining quiet or he may think that he has the numbers in the member base anyway. The problem for HFC is that it is still all about Jeff Kennett.

 

[Billyc]

Inevitable result of last year’s half arsed effort

 

[wahawk]

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

Why do you have to be so condescending

 

[Ned Ryerson]

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

Because my assumptions are different from your assumptions yesterday? Welcome to opinions differing on a message board.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Why do you have to be so condescending

He's addressing me after all

 

[Ned Ryerson]

‘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.

That phrase is far more befitting of your line of thinking - yes.

And I am clearly not going to talk you down from your conspiracy-minded way of thinking - that's fine. That said - saying Garvey's 'crimes' seem trivial now - oh the lulz. Garvey COMPLETELY botched the selection of our club CEO which cost the club a six-figure payout and almost resulted in a mass exodus of senior club management and our head coach. That was not trivial - he absolutely had to fall on his sword. To his credit - he did exactly that like he should have.

 

[Pessimistic]

That phrase is far more befitting of your line of thinking - yes.

And I am clearly not going to talk you down from your conspiracy-minded way of thinking - that's fine. That said - saying Garvey's 'crimes' seem trivial now - oh the lulz. Garvey COMPLETELY botched the selection of our club CEO which cost the club a six-figure payout and almost resulted in a mass exodus of senior club management and our head coach. That was not trivial - he absolutely had to fall on his sword. To his credit - he did exactly that like he should have.

Trivial compared to some Jeff stuff

You know the list.

But individually refusing the AFL compensation for leaving Tasmania without reference to the board at all. No negotiation or exploration. Nothing

Tassie is his blind spot and I don’t think the story is over
He should have walked for that alone

Oh and highlighting clear breaches of protocol is not conspiracy theorising

Sort answer Get stuffed wit wild accusations ‘mate’

 

[wahawk]

Trivial compared to some Jeff stuff

You know the list.

But individually refusing the AFL compensation for leaving Tasmania without reference to the board at all. No negotiation or exploration. Nothing

Tassie is his blind spot and I don’t think the story is over
He should have walked for that alone

Oh and highlighting clear breaches of protocol is not conspiracy theorising

Sort answer Get stuffed wit wild accusations ‘mate’

What a load of s**t
Give it a fcuking rest would you

 

[Pessimistic]

What a load of s**t
Give it a fcuking rest would you

Just answer me one thing. Did you follow the hawks absolut capitulation 1993-96? There’s good reason the be concerned about governance when a shedload of money is being spent on dingley

 

[wahawk]

Just answer me one thing. Did you follow the hawks absolut capitulation 1993-96? There’s good reason the be concerned about governance when a shedload of money is being spent on dingley

Yes I did

I’ve been a member of HFC for the last 47 yrs

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Just answer me one thing. Did you follow the hawks absolut capitulation 1993-96? There’s good reason the be concerned about governance when a shedload of money is being spent on dingley

Comparing now to 1993-96 is really not arguing in good faith. Our balance sheet now vs then is chalk and cheese.

Also there’s a huge contingent of sharp financial minds on the board - why exactly do you think the CEO of REA Group, the former CEO of Australian Super and a former managing director of Goldman Sachs are all unable to oversee this project capably?

 

[Pessimistic]

Comparing now to 1993-96 is really not arguing in good faith. Our balance sheet now vs then is chalk and cheese.

Also there’s a huge contingent of sharp financial minds on the board - why exactly do you think the CEO of REA Group, the former CEO of Australian Super and a former managing director of Goldman Sachs are all unable to oversee this project capably?

We have huge exposure though. Companies don’t stop reporting to shareholders by saying ‘we’re OK, look at the CEOs resume, that should be enough’

Everything needs to be as clean as can be.

 

[Pessimistic]

Yes I did

I’ve been a member of HFC for the last 47 yrs

And did you smell a rat there at any time?

 

[wahawk]

And did you smell a rat there at any time?

You can’t compare those times to now for many reasons.

1 being, Nowadays with social media, news/gossip is there for everyone the minute it happens

 

[Pessimistic]

Bought the merger argument then?

Don’t denigrate those with an opinion that we do need to continue to be vigilant if not paranoid

 

[Linda CRS]

I was another who yesterday thought Nankivell was produced out of the nominations committee not a board endorsement. What a disgrace.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Bought the merger argument then?

Don’t denigrate those with an opinion that we do need to continue to be vigilant if not paranoid

Great straw man attempt there. Are you actually going to make a thought out point to back up your argument that a seamless transfer to a qualified individual who is a Hawthorn person and has been involved in the Dingley project pretty much since day dot?

Don’t believe Nank has the runs on the board? You only have to see his bio on the club website to see what his external and internal credentials are:

Peter Nankivell

The official AFL website of the Hawthorn Football Club

www.hawthornfc.com.au

Please tell me what about his experience, education and involvement at the club is so deveststingly alarming based on this?

Please let me know why a board that presently consists of Owen Wilson, Kate Hudson and Ian Silk - and has Geoff Harris in the background is somehow comparable to a board that drove us towards a merger in a period of the league where team rationalisation was a pathetic obsession of Ross Oakley.

What is it about the fact that we haven’t even begun to build Dingley as we are still securing funding, and are doing so without having required debt despite the insanity of the past 2.5 years, that you think Nankivell is going to suddenly start pissing money up against a wall?

Other than ‘but he was appointed by Jeff and Jeff bad’ - what exactly is it about our present board composition and new president’s credentials that screams out ‘let’s all cry into our beers and accept we’re doomed’.

Jeff’s biggest issues where his clear conflicts in his political involvement last year and his continued media appearances adorned in Hawks gear then trashing the state government, his insane use of the club’s identity as a pointless game of chicken with the Tasmanian government and most recently the revelations he mishandled the Cyril situation and clearly doesn’t understand boundaries in the modern context. All of these issues have zero to do with Nankivell so I fail to see what guilt by association he has.

 

[Poison]

Poison do you have an update I regards to H4C, and what took place that they’re not happy with?

I assume there’s a bit thats happened behind closed doors that explains the “seething” from the group?

I don't know specifics, and can only speak to the same information that has been made publicly available.

As I see it though, the HFC members were asked to take Kennett at face value when he instituted an overall six-year term limit for the President.

We were asked to take him at face value when he returned to the role in 2017 (if not in express contravention of his own amendments to the HFC Constitution, then at least in a manner that was entirely inconsistent with the spirit of those reforms) at his insistence that it was essential for the short-term wellbeing of the Club.

We were asked to take him at face value when he said that a primary purpose of his return was to identify and groom a suitable candidate to replace him at the end of 2020.

We were asked to take him at face value when he said that the impact of COVID-19, without meaningful further detail, necessitated his appointment for a further three years.

Then, following a litany of missteps culminating in the botched sacking of the most decorated coach in the Club's history at a huge cost to it, a significant portion of the membership (which included, but was most certainly not limited to, H4C) decided to exercise their democratic rights to ensure that the Board was appropriately representative of the members' views and committed to acting in the best interests of the Club.

Eventually, and perhaps for reasons of self-interest, the Board decided to acknowledge these concerns. That is, the HFC members (including H4C) were asked to take Kennett and the Board at face value when they said a Nominations Committee, chaired by Andy Gowers, would be constituted to identify Kennett's successor in early-to-mid 2022 and that the Board would act by endorsing that nomination.

But then the election was run and won, and suddenly it was Nankivell - not Gowers - who was appointed to chair the Nominations Committee.

Then, after months of radio silence, Kennett announced that Nankivell himself had been identified by the Board, and not the Nominations Committee, as its preferred candidate for the presidency.

The same Nankivell who has been on the Board since 2014. The same Nankivell who was there when Kennett returned to replace Garvey in 2017 (a commercial lawyer, no less, in circumstances where the content of the legal advice that cleared the way for Jeff's return, and the identity of the firm that provided it, has never been disclosed to the HFC members). The same Nankivell who was there when Kennett announced that he had not identified a suitable successor in 2020. The same Nankivell who is currently Jeff's 2IC, is one of his closest allies and has been wholly complicit in Jeff's recent legacy of woeful decision-making to the detriment of the Club.

Now I am sure the official narrative regarding Nankivell's endorsement will emerge in a few days. I am sure the effect of that narrative will be that, following an exhaustive search, the Board was not able to identify any more suitably qualified candidate anywhere in the country.

And I am sure the HFC members will be asked to take that at face value.

But let's call it what it is: a further three years of Jeff by proxy, orchestrated by Jeff..

Otherwise, I have read suggestions, both here and elsewhere, that H4C needs to "put up or shut up". That in light of the news, it should be in a position to announce viable alternative candidates at a moment's notice. The reality is, we have had the same amount of time to digest the announcement that everybody has. We also have the better part of six months until the AGM in December.

I certainly understand the impulse, but if our guiding principles involve a commitment to good governance, accountability and transparency, I think there also needs to be a recognition that those decisions are important and that they take time.

Let's be clear though: as a membership-based organisation, the Club and its paid-up members deserve better than a tightly-held cabal of people keeping each other in positions of power.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Oh I still love this line of argument that Nankivell is basically Donald Sutherland at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers who is somehow an empty vessel for Jeff’s essence to linger in and all he can do is scream and point.

The man is a highly credentialed, qualified and experienced lawyer (again I love how being a lawyer is sneered upon by some on here when it’s some of the best education and experience one could have to hold a position such as a club president). His areas of expertise are, drum roll, corporate advisory, mergers and acquisitions and finance as well as sports law. Oh noes - what a terrible, terrible set of skills to have when being appointed president of a football club that is presently overseeing the building of a massive sports facility. To suggest that he is some mindless pawn is quite frankly pathetically insulting.

I don’t care if he’s worked closely and or favourably with Kennett - as it stands he is eminently more qualified to be president than Kennett so the more and more I read about him the more and more I’m stoked this is where the club ended up. If the committee couldn’t isolate another candidate who put their hand up who was qualified enough - we could do a lot worse than this guy.

Oh and the Clarko departure wasn’t great but surely we can now all agree the right decision was made getting Mitchell in the coaching position. We are leaps and bounds ahead on-field compared to last year. Last year I was miffed at the handling but it’s honestly been a boon for the club for Mitchell to be moving the club forward and Clarko to be not calling any shots on list management or game style.

Kennett will move on and we have a Hawthorn person who is impeccably qualified to do the job - let’s take the win people.

 

[Poison]

Some people will judge Nankivell in a vacuum having regard to his qualifications.

Others will judge him on his track record.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Some people will judge Nankivell in a vacuum having regard to his qualifications.

Others will judge him on his track record.

Yes how silly of me to judge someone’s fairly impressive educational background, legal career and the fact that he’s presently working on the Dingley project at the club as well as previously acting in the CEO position. To claim that he hasn’t got runs on the board or is incapable of doing the job because he’s been aligned to Kennett is pure ignorance. So is claiming he has no independent thoughts and plans for the club.

 

[flinchfree]

Yes how silly of me to judge someone’s fairly impressive educational background, legal career and the fact that he’s presently working on the Dingley project at the club as well as previously acting in the CEO position. To claim that he hasn’t got runs on the board or is incapable of doing the job because he’s been aligned to Kennett is pure ignorance. So is claiming he has no independent thoughts and plans for the club.

You're going waaaaaaay hard to support Nankers, based purely on a couple paragraphs put up by JK and the board and a supposition that his professional background is a qualification for leading the HFC.

Tell me, as VC and a lawyer and everything else he has achieved in his life, how do you rate his recommendations and support of JK policy as leader of the HFC the last however long?
As a board, they have sucked mightily in having the kind of influence to temper and moderate and correct JK's words and style of leadership when clearly he has been an irritant to so many for how he has represented the Club's interests and image in the wider public arena.

Now H4C have very clearly stated that they were end arounded and the process not followed as promised.
What about this entire process has you feeling so confident in the new nominee?
For me, it's just more example of hucksterism at it's finest.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

You're going waaaaaaay hard to support Nankers, based purely on a couple paragraphs put up by JK and the board and a supposition that his professional background is a qualification for leading the HFC.

Tell me, as VC and a lawyer and everything else he has achieved in his life, how do you rate his recommendations and support of JK policy as leader of the HFC the last however long?
As a board, they have sucked mightily in having the kind of influence to temper and moderate and correct JK's words and style of leadership when clearly he has been an irritant to so many for how he has represented the Club's interests and image in the wider public arena.

Now H4C have very clearly stated that they were end arounded and the process not followed as promised.
What about this entire process has you feeling so confident in the new nominee?
For me, it's just more example of hucksterism at it's finest.

I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why Nankivell is unqualified or unfit to do the job other than ‘Kennnett friend bad’. Yes I’m judging him on his qualifications and experience - what a silly way to judge someone in a professional capacity. I guess future job interviews I have I should expect an hour of questioning who I’m mates with, ignoring all other relevant details.

As it stands - the club isn’t in a state of disrepair. The board has done a decent job particularly in a difficult environment. Kennett’s main failings were his mouth and his antics - when he goes so do those things. Kennett is Kennett - I am not going to hold the board responsible for curbing his behaviour. The only major misstep for the board of late was the Clarko saga but despite it being a messy handover, the decision to move Clarko on and get Mitchell as coach has been incredibly astute.

I’m not saying Nankivell is going to be our greatest ever president - what I ask saying is that he is absolutely qualified to do the job and those doubting his credentials are clearly blinded by Jeff animosity. I wanted Kennett gone - I think my recent posting makes that fairly clear. We got that - let’s judge Nankivell on his merits and see how he performs in the job.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Just read the H4C statement - it’s juvenile and embarrassing, complete with spelling and grammatical mistakes. Still bleating about Clarko when the board could not be more vindicated on that decision. Losing Mitchell would have been a disaster for the club. They also conveniently forget that it was Clarko who set that in motion knowing exactly what the outcome could be.

It sounds like H4C are a bunch of Clarko acolytes who are having a tantrum because they didn’t get their way. H4C - thanks for getting Silk on the board, but you’re embarrassing yourselves now.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Just read the H4C statement - it’s juvenile and embarrassing, complete with spelling and grammatical mistakes. Still bleating about Clarko when the board could not be more vindicated on that decision. Losing Mitchell would have been a disaster for the club. They also conveniently forget that it was Clarko who set that in motion knowing exactly what the outcome could be.

It sounds like H4C are a bunch of Clarko acolytes who are having a tantrum because they didn’t get their way. H4C - thanks for getting Silk on the board, but you’re embarrassing yourselves now.

I don’t think they are Clarko acolytes, but they weren’t at all impressed by how it was all handled, or the $900k payout.

Their frustration seems to be that they were promised a process that was then railroaded by the current board.