Kennett must go now

Remove this Banner Ad

Without expressing an opinion on the rights or wrongs of H4C's position (I don't know enough about things), I agree about their public messaging.

They need someone else drafting and proofreading their public statements. It doesn't read like the stuff you'd expect from a professional organisation.
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
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:


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.

I’m neutral on nankivell by the way. One of my suggestions is he could have been president after garvey. Instead of Jeff. We were told back then ‘no one is available/suitable’ it’s a recurring theme and (my opinion) I think that’s bullshit
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Without expressing an opinion on the rights or wrongs of H4C's position (I don't know enough about things), I agree about their public messaging.

They need someone else drafting and proofreading their public statements. It doesn't read like the stuff you'd expect from a professional organisation.
All upper case and the 900k no one would even care if there was no soft cap. Double the payout and we still got great value from Clarko overall
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
And right on cue a reminder premier kennet didn’t handle the succession at the liberals well either

Ego seems to be at play here

If the new president has to be persuaded to take it on, maybe indicates an absence of ego, which will be refreshing for us
 
Last edited:
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.



I don’t love the payout either - but results this year and progress on the field and with our list has proven that Clarko leaving 12 months early has only been a win for the club. The board’s been vindicated on that decision now. To still be using that as their only line of attack shows how little they have.
 
I’m neutral on nankivell by the way. One of my suggestions is he could have been president after garvey. Instead of Jeff. We were told back then ‘no one is available/suitable’ it’s a recurring theme and (my opinion) I think that’s bullshit
You can suggest all you like that he could of been President after Garvey but that was 5 yrs ago.

Who knows what spare time he had 5 yrs ago. Maybe none.

Being President isn’t a job you can take on if you don’t have the time to commit, which was my response to topiary when he suggested I become HFC President 😜
 
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.


I can understand their frustration and I agree with their posItion, but Ned is right, that was a poorly written statement. Sounded quite childish and reeked of entitlement.
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
You can suggest all you like that he could of been President after Garvey but that was 5 yrs ago.

Who knows what spare time he had 5 yrs ago. Maybe none.

Being President isn’t a job you can take on if you don’t have the time to commit, which was my response to topiary when he suggested I become HFC President 😜

I’m not sure for certain obviously, but if we as a club find it perennially difficult to get ‘staff’ maybe a rethink is required

Perhaps upgrade the ceo s role and have directors less hands on. Job is even bigger now with our AFLW team.


Or maybe ‘we can’t find anyone’ is actually bulldust. I’m not claiming to know, it just sounds suss.

Just to clarify, in mot giving answers, I’m asking questions
 

CD Xbow

Premiership Player
Oct 1, 2014
4,456
9,335
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I don’t love the payout either - but results this year and progress on the field and with our list has proven that Clarko leaving 12 months early has only been a win for the club. The board’s been vindicated on that decision now. To still be using that as their only line of attack shows how little they have.
I think that's very dodgy opinion sans evidence.
Sam is not a proven AFL coach and there has been no substantial improvement in the performance of the team on the field so far this year. Same ladder position, even exactly the same flogging by the Saints.

I hope he does become super successful, but the fact is we threw out the most successful coach of the modern era, in a very unpleasant way. There is always a cost to these organisational shenanigans eg division, terrible PR, the psychological effects on the troops and I think some of our poor performances can be put down to the complete mismanagement of Clarko departure. All those involved should have fallen on their swords and allowed a true fresh start to give Sam the best chance. Instead we get Jeff hanging around like a bad smell and continued distractions relating to the board. Presidents and boards shouldn't be public issues for a footy club, if they are, something is wrong.

I also do not believe they could not find a suitable candidate, that really has to be BS. I would be happy to do the job as would many others.

I am also concerned that this poor governance of the club seems to have correlated with the Dingley development. I don't know it there is any connection, whether it's providing a distraction, a financial problem or folks are being blinded by dollars, but the management of the club seems to gone downhill since Dingley appeared on the radar.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jan 29, 2010
1,213
4,868
Above the floodline
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Let’s show some perspective here.

The H4C statement was absolutely correct in its sentiment. Put aside the 3 errors in the statement (one misspell, an errant apostrophe and a syntax mistake).

The facts are these:
1 The subcommittee was formed to canvas the field and find a new president.
2. Nankivell had publicly declared that he was not prepared or interested to stand as president.
3. Nankivell chairs the subcommittee to find a new president
4. Ian Silk who was a H4C appointee to the board is on the subcommittee also.
5. H4C had expected Silk would become the new president when Kennett eventually departed.
6. The subcommittee decides it cannot find anyone who is a worthy president (this is gobsmackingly extraordinary in itself).
7. So the subcommitee decides to appoint its chair as president (and Silk, with the other subcommitte members, agrees).

Nankivell has a sold background and may well be a good president but that’s not the point.

We‘ve ended up with a president who was a Kennett yes man and who said categorically he didn’t want the job ! Then, as chair of the sub committee convened to find a new president amongst a massive field of capable commercial people in this major city, he gives the job to himself !!

The H4C statement perfectly nails the problem - there is an uncomfortable lack of governance and transparency in the way this matter has been handled. It‘s just a continuance of the embarrassing way this board has been handling critical club affairs over the last year or more.
 
Jan 29, 2010
1,213
4,868
Above the floodline
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It is possible to not have any major issues with a Nankivell presidency, or even to be happy about it, while also having doubts/questions about the way he came to be nominated…

Depends, doesn’t it?

First, did the man who said he would not take the job, and who then gave himself the job (as the chair of the subcommittee appointed to find a new president), engineer this from the outset? That’s not a long stretch - especially given (as H4C has pointed out) the complete lack of governance and transparency.

Secondly, the man who has effectively given himself the top job had publicly declared he didn’t want it. So what does that say about his commitment or enthusiasm about undertaking the commitments involved?

As far as I’m concerned, and many others also I think, there’s a huge question mark there and he’s got some solid work to do to to gain favour with the rank and file.

I have no doubt that, as an experienced senior lawyer, he would have over the past few decades advised clients and boards, that it would be ethically improper to do exactly as he has done in this process.

That’s the whole thing about those pesky principles relating to corporate governance and corporate transparency.
And the point made by H4C, that, given those governance principles, and his position as chair of the subcommittee, he was ethically bound not to award himself the position as president.

But if you want to say “nothing to see here let’s move on“, then so be it.
 
Nov 3, 2009
1,436
3,057
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Depends, doesn’t it?

First, did the man who said he would not take the job, and who then gave himself the job (as the chair of the subcommittee appointed to find a new president), engineer this from the outset? That’s not a long stretch - especially given (as H4C has pointed out) the complete lack of governance and transparency.

Secondly, the man who has effectively given himself the top job had publicly declared he didn’t want it. So what does that say about his commitment or enthusiasm about undertaking the commitments involved?

As far as I’m concerned, and many others also I think, there’s a huge question mark there and he’s got some solid work to do to to gain favour with the rank and file.

I have no doubt that, as an experienced senior lawyer, he would have over the past few decades advised clients and boards, that it would be ethically improper to do exactly as he has done in this process.

That’s the whole thing about those pesky principles relating to corporate governance and corporate transparency.
And the point made by H4C, that, given those governance principles, and his position as chair of the subcommittee, he was ethically bound not to award himself the position as president.

But if you want to say “nothing to see here let’s move on“, then so be it.

Just to be clear, I’m saying there are questions about the process that should be asked (even by those who are happy with the appointment)
 
Caro indicated on the radio today that there’s some funny stuff going on behind scenes at hawks. Didn’t elaborate but I suspect there will be some noise in the days / weeks ahead.
She will be penning an article, no doubt.
 
I think that's very dodgy opinion sans evidence.
Sam is not a proven AFL coach and there has been no substantial improvement in the performance of the team on the field so far this year. Same ladder position, even exactly the same flogging by the Saints.

Oh be serious, please. Oh no a flogging by the Saints - let’s completely ignore how many times this season we’ve kicked 100 points compared to 2019-2021. Let’s completely ignore beating two top 4 sides and pushing the other two into narrow losses. Let’s ignore that compared to 2019-2021 we’ve been ultra competitive for large swathes of games with an incredibly young side compared to the ageing sides of years past.

We are rebuilding and are playing a far better brand of football than we did in Clarko’s final years. If you’re choosing to ignore those improvements to create a narrative then go for it - but our ladder position is inconsequential this season and a top 5 draft pick will be another boost for us anyway.

Sam has absolutely been a breath of fresh air - to deny this is just wilful ignorance.
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Oh be serious, please. Oh no a flogging by the Saints - let’s completely ignore how many times this season we’ve kicked 100 points compared to 2019-2021. Let’s completely ignore beating two top 4 sides and pushing the other two into narrow losses. Let’s ignore that compared to 2019-2021 we’ve been ultra competitive for large swathes of games with an incredibly young side compared to the ageing sides of years past.

We are rebuilding and are playing a far better brand of football than we did in Clarko’s final years. If you’re choosing to ignore those improvements to create a narrative then go for it - but our ladder position is inconsequential this season and a top 5 draft pick will be another boost for us anyway.

Sam has absolutely been a breath of fresh air - to deny this is just wilful ignorance.

Pretty happy but there were similar results in clarkos last few games including a 4 quarter effort over the doggies albeit in tassie
Hawks strangled them but wasted a lot of inside 50s which were largely sprayed and wasted
And that game was the only 4 quarter effort for the year. Maybe an out liner
10 changes from that game Ceglar O’Brien bigboy Burgoyne Hartigan frost Phillips Morris Wingard Downie

In reeves blankk Sicily MacDonald CJ butler Worpel omeara Impey Bruest. Moore


Missing both times Day Wingard Gunston and draftees Ward lynch DGB
 
Pretty happy but there were similar results in clarkos last few games including a 4 quarter effort over the doggies albeit in tassie
Hawks strangled them but wasted a lot of inside 50s which were largely sprayed and wasted
And that game was the only 4 quarter effort for the year. Maybe an out liner
10 changes from that game Ceglar O’Brien bigboy Burgoyne Hartigan frost Phillips Morris Wingard Downie

In reeves blankk Sicily MacDonald CJ butler Worpel omeara Impey Bruest. Moore


Missing both times Day Wingard Gunston and draftees Ward lynch DGB

I was never that fussed with the Clarko feel good farewell tour. Some fun results for sure - but we still lost to Adelaide in that run who finished below us and got pantsed by Fremantle at UTAS. For me it didn’t change the moribund style of play we had from 2019-2021. This year our inability to close out games has been annoying - but when you consider our youth and that we are on the rebuild it doesn’t bother me as much. I’d rather us have an entertaining crack for 3 quarters and blood youth than get excited about Ricky Henderson having 30 touches in yet another drab loss.

The Bulldogs and Saints losses weren’t great because we didn’t put up as much of a fight - but there was enough promise in the losses to Carlton, Collingwood, Melbourne, Sydney and Essendon to at least have me positive about what we are building with our youth. We are still 1-2 years off finals but that’s easier to take when there’s kids coming through and more to come - not pissing away multiple first round picks on players who never pay equivalent dividends.
 
Let’s show some perspective here.

The H4C statement was absolutely correct in its sentiment. Put aside the 3 errors in the statement (one misspell, an errant apostrophe and a syntax mistake).

The facts are these:
1 The subcommittee was formed to canvas the field and find a new president.
2. Nankivell had publicly declared that he was not prepared or interested to stand as president.
3. Nankivell chairs the subcommittee to find a new president
4. Ian Silk who was a H4C appointee to the board is on the subcommittee also.
5. H4C had expected Silk would become the new president when Kennett eventually departed.
6. The subcommittee decides it cannot find anyone who is a worthy president (this is gobsmackingly extraordinary in itself).
7. So the subcommitee decides to appoint its chair as president (and Silk, with the other subcommitte members, agrees).

Nankivell has a sold background and may well be a good president but that’s not the point.

We‘ve ended up with a president who was a Kennett yes man and who said categorically he didn’t want the job ! Then, as chair of the sub committee convened to find a new president amongst a massive field of capable commercial people in this major city, he gives the job to himself !!

The H4C statement perfectly nails the problem - there is an uncomfortable lack of governance and transparency in the way this matter has been handled. It‘s just a continuance of the embarrassing way this board has been handling critical club affairs over the last year or more.
While you & I normally agree on most things I’d like to point out a couple of things.
Perspective, as you like to say.

You say Silk was on the sub committee to appoint the next president
You say H4C expected Silk to become the next President
Yet you say that the sub committee could not find a worthy replacement & decided on someone from that sub committee. But you endorse someone else from that sub committee ? So it’s ok if they anoint someone you agree with but not someone who you don’t agree with ?

So let’s get this straight.

The subcommittee, that included Don Scott, who dislikes Kennett, included Andy Gowers, who dislikes Kennett, included Ian Silk, who dislikes Kennett, anointed a Kennett ‘yes man’

I struggle to understand your thinking here.

Why would at least 3 people, including at least 1 who WOULD NOT bend over to Jeff, bend over to Jeff ?

You say Nank ‘categorically stated he didn’t want the job’
As others have pointed out, Silk has never said that he did want the job, it was just assumed by posters on here that he did.

As for H4C statement nailing the problem, I, as a H4C supporter was very disappointed in their amateur statement.

I hope & pray that H4C , if they really do disagree with this anointment, put together a rival ticket to take on the current board
That way we, as members, get to decide
If they don’t, then I’ll take it that they are happy with Nank.
 

Linda CRS

Team Captain
Jan 18, 2020
330
1,354
AFL Club
Hawthorn
While you & I normally agree on most things I’d like to point out a couple of things.
Perspective, as you like to say.

You say Silk was on the sub committee to appoint the next president
You say H4C expected Silk to become the next President
Yet you say that the sub committee could not find a worthy replacement & decided on someone from that sub committee. But you endorse someone else from that sub committee ? So it’s ok if they anoint someone you agree with but not someone who you don’t agree with ?

So let’s get this straight.

The subcommittee, that included Don Scott, who dislikes Kennett, included Andy Gowers, who dislikes Kennett, included Ian Silk, who dislikes Kennett, anointed a Kennett ‘yes man’

I struggle to understand your thinking here.

Why would at least 3 people, including at least 1 who WOULD NOT bend over to Jeff, bend over to Jeff ?

You say Nank ‘categorically stated he didn’t want the job’
As others have pointed out, Silk has never said that he did want the job, it was just assumed by posters on here that he did.

As for H4C statement nailing the problem, I, as a H4C supporter was very disappointed in their amateur statement.

I hope & pray that H4C , if they really do disagree with this anointment, put together a rival ticket to take on the current board
That way we, as members, get to decide
If they don’t, then I’ll take it that they are happy with Nank.
You’ve missed the most salient point as I did initially, 18 interviewed and none worthy by unanimous recommendation. Decision went back to the board and they nominated Nank. In the end nothing to do with nominations committee.
 
Jan 29, 2010
1,213
4,868
Above the floodline
AFL Club
Hawthorn
While you & I normally agree on most things I’d like to point out a couple of things.
Perspective, as you like to say.

You say Silk was on the sub committee to appoint the next president
You say H4C expected Silk to become the next President
Yet you say that the sub committee could not find a worthy replacement & decided on someone from that sub committee. But you endorse someone else from that sub committee ? So it’s ok if they anoint someone you agree with but not someone who you don’t agree with ?

So let’s get this straight.

The subcommittee, that included Don Scott, who dislikes Kennett, included Andy Gowers, who dislikes Kennett, included Ian Silk, who dislikes Kennett, anointed a Kennett ‘yes man’

I struggle to understand your thinking here.

Why would at least 3 people, including at least 1 who WOULD NOT bend over to Jeff, bend over to Jeff ?

You say Nank ‘categorically stated he didn’t want the job’
As others have pointed out, Silk has never said that he did want the job, it was just assumed by posters on here that he did.

As for H4C statement nailing the problem, I, as a H4C supporter was very disappointed in their amateur statement.

I hope & pray that H4C , if they really do disagree with this anointment, put together a rival ticket to take on the current board
That way we, as members, get to decide
If they don’t, then I’ll take it that they are happy with Nank.

First Warhawk, I was not endorsing Silk. Merely saying he was the man who H4C initially hoped would take over. And as I recall, Silk initially led H4C and others that he would do so. That was part of the unwritten deal, as I recall, when it was agreed that Gowers would back off from standing for a board position.
Then after he was elected, Silk announced that he wouldn’t stand. Of course he was absolutely entitled to do that but it was all still slightly perplexing.
The refreshing focus of the subcommittee was to get a new president involved to run the place - a new broom. But we‘re told that the subcommittee can’t find anyone good enough to take over the club presidency. Or perhaps the best candidates, who were suitable didn’t want the job.
So we end up with a board member, who didn’t want the job, taking the job. If the subcommittee can’t find anyone to take over, Kennett yes men or anti-Kennett or whatever, and if only one person has (reluctantly) put his hand up, then they have zero choice regarding their task in making the appointment, don’t they? How stupid would that look if they announced -“sorry, cant find anyone, so we’ll just disband”.

Personally, I was hoping that Bills Bloggs or Jill Bloggs with a celebrated corporate background in business and sport would have been sourced to take over the presidency and bring a fresh approach to the club.

The whole process smacks of disfunction to me. That was my point.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back