Applying for the Board

[Kwality]

Finally, someone addressing the key issues associated with the "systemic racism" identified in the Do Better report rather than projecting the club as inherently racist.

Simply identify what was systemic about the alleged racism. Lumumbas claims alone DO NOT represent 'systemic'.

 

[jackcass]

Simply identify what was systemic about the alleged racism. Lumumbas claims alone DO NOT represent 'systemic'.

Been outlined extensively throughout the various threads.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Governance has been an issue from the outside looking in and I have firm belief that has cost us success as well as contributed to our basket case off season(s).

From what I read from Proust, I can't disagree with much she says there, if anything. Sure there's the decline of joining the board on her part and some may view her opinions as from a position of self interest / criticism because of that.

However, that does not take away that what she's said is very fair speculation.

Properly run corporate governance is the first step to climbing out of a very deep hole that the club has dug itself. IF this leads to proper governance that will eradicate the club perpetually shooting itself in the foot then we are on the way to on field success - that might be a long long way away but the club has to start somewhere.

 

[sideswipe]

I just read this comment. Does this mean that there's a good chance that you and Alex Waislitz might put in a joint application for the presidency. Alex appears to have long term problems attending board meetings and it would be useful for him to have someone to do the hard yakka.

I’m not that guy.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jackcass]

Governance has been an issue from the outside looking in and I have firm belief that has cost us success as well as contributed to our basket case off season(s).

From what I read from Proust, I can't disagree with much she says there, if anything. Sure there's the decline of joining the board on her part and some may view her opinions as from a position of self interest / criticism because of that.

However, that does not take away that what she's said is very fair speculation.

Properly run corporate governance is the first step to climbing out of a very deep hole that the club has dug itself. IF this leads to proper governance that will eradicate the club perpetually shooting itself in the foot then we are on the way to on field success - that might be a long long way away but the club has to start somewhere.

Exactly how do you think issues with governance have cost us success or contributed to the off season?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Exactly how do you think issues with governance have cost us success or contributed to the off season?

Well let's start with Gubby being brought back in and Balme leaving, the Beams trade, the Wells and Mayne trades, our trade period in the last off season as whole. The racism issues which have been largely ignored by governance (that's the narrative)

IF we had good governance a lot of those would not have happened.

Proper governance ensures the FD among all other departments are run at optimum. If you think we've had good enough governance to avoid these disasters which btw have indeed hampered our on field chances, and put it purely down to luck, then let's just agree to disagree.

 

[ppoiter]

Well let's start with Gubby being brought back in and Balme leaving, the Beams trade, the Wells and Mayne trades, our trade period in the last off season as whole. The racism issues which have been largely ignored by governance (that's the narrative)

IF we had good governance a lot of those would not have happened.

Proper governance ensures the FD among all other departments are run at optimum. If you think we've had good enough governance to avoid these disasters which btw have indeed hampered our on field chances, and put it purely down to luck, then let's just agree to disagree.

Your first paragraph feels like it should be true, but do we actually know that Ed had involvement in these decisions? What actual evidence do we have that Ed influenced the offers to Mayne and Wells?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Your first paragraph feels like it should be true, but do we actually know that Ed had involvement in these decisions? What actual evidence do we have that Ed influenced the offers to Mayne and Wells?

Umm, I'm talking about the Governance from board level as a whole, not just Ed.

Prez, ensures the board is competent and has the interest at heart to do their job.

Board, ensures all departments at the club are run at optimum - in relation to the FD well we can see this has not been the case has it.

 

[jackcass]

Well let's start with Gubby being brought back in and Balme leaving, the Beams trade, the Wells and Mayne trades, our trade period in the last off season as whole. The racism issues which have been largely ignored by governance (that's the narrative)

IF we had good governance a lot of those would not have happened.

Proper governance ensures the FD among all other departments are run at optimum. If you think we've had good enough governance to avoid these disasters which btw have indeed hampered our on field chances, and put it purely down to luck, then let's just agree to disagree.

Rubbish. Gubby was a well respected football administrator. That he went rogue is not a governance issue.

Balme opted to leave rather than be reclassified in his position. Hine chose to stay when his role was changed. Again, not a governance issue, just life.

Beams trade was Ed's call (apparently) but the FD still had to approve it and get the trade done as specified in governance documentation. He was 8th in the Brownlow and 5th in the coaches award the year prior to the trade. At R11 in 2019 the deal was looking pretty good. Hindsight doesn't change any of that.

Wells and Mayne trades were perfectly reasonable although a little more expensive than you'd like. You pay a premium to extract someone who doesn't necessarily want to move.

Trade period in 2020 was fine. Got unders for both Treloar and Stevo but targeted these players for departure to enable a refresh of the list, got it done.

I'd have thought the governance around racism has changed significantly over the last 5-7 years but it remains untested. Last prominent racism case was around Goodes in 2013. Only other cases (as per the report) were the cheer squad in 2019 and 2020 which were both dealt with above and beyond. New policies released in 2020.

You're mistaking decisions you don't like for bad governance purely because it suits a narrative.

 

[Kwality]

You're mistaking decisions you don't like for bad governance purely because it suits a narrative.

Is 'systemic' the narrative?

 

[jackcass]

Is 'systemic' the narrative?

No, not for him, it's flags.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Gubby was a well respected football administrator. That he went rogue is not a governance issue.

It was speculated he went rogue before we took him back, also speculation Balme would've stayed if not for that. Proper governance on the FD may have avoided this disaster.

Beams trade was Ed's call (apparently) but the FD still had to approve it and get the trade done as specified in governance documentation.

Shouldn't have been Ed's call, also speculated that Beams had issues before we took him back. Ed should not stick his nose in footy business, his job was to ensure the board is governing properly

Wells and Mayne trades were perfectly reasonable although a little more expensive than you'd like

Perfectly reasonable? how old was Wells when we looked at him, and you're right we forked out too much on both. Proper governance on the FD may have avoided this disaster.

Trade period in 2020 was fine. Got unders for both Treloar and Stevo

A fine trade period! Wow I doubt you'd have many in your corner on that one. Yes we got WAY unders. Proper governance on the FD may have avoided this disaster.

You're clutching at straws here Jack, sticking your fingers in your ears going 'la la la, it's ok' when it hasn't been.

You stick to your blind belief and let's just agree to disagree

 

[jackcass]

It was speculated he went rogue before we took him back, also speculation Balme would've stayed if not for that. Proper governance on the FD may have avoided this disaster.

More rubbish. He had an incident trying to cover up a players drug use. That's hardly rogue.

Shouldn't have been Ed's call, also speculated that Beams had issues before we took him back. Ed should not stick his nose in footy business, his job was to ensure the board is governing properly

Ultimately, it wasn't Ed's call. Doesn't happen unless the FD endorse it and deliver the trade.

Perfectly reasonable? how old was Wells when we looked at him, and you're right we forked out too much on both. Proper governance on the FD may have avoided this disaster.

We'd prematurely lost Swanny who'd just turned 32, about to turn 33 the following year. How many players of Wells calibre were available as a replacement? We were looking for forward pressure, Mayne was perceived as that. Both cheap in terms of trade value. I didn't want either but they were good decisions based on availability and trade costs.

A fine trade period! Wow I doubt you'd have many in your corner on that one. Yes we got WAY unders. Proper governance on the FD may have avoided this disaster.

You're clutching at straws here Jack, sticking your fingers in your ears going 'la la la, it's ok' when it hasn't been.

You stick to your blind belief and let's just agree to disagree

Definitely a fine trade period. Offloaded a few players who were obviously seen as not required, freed up salary cap, added 5 of the top 31 kids taken in the draft as well as McCreery and Ginnivan, looks like we'll also take Briskey and have 1 mid season draft pick, and cleared a lot of fringe players. Not sure what else you'd want.

Your opinions clearly aren't those of a person willing to pragmatically assess information and draw conclusions. Rather, you seem to already have your conclusions set in concrete before you read the information.

I'll leave it there.

 

[Albert Parker]

Rubbish. Gubby was a well respected football administrator. That he went rogue is not a governance issue.

Balme opted to leave rather than be reclassified in his position. Hine chose to stay when his role was changed. Again, not a governance issue, just life.

Beams trade was Ed's call (apparently) but the FD still had to approve it and get the trade done as specified in governance documentation. He was 8th in the Brownlow and 5th in the coaches award the year prior to the trade. At R11 in 2019 the deal was looking pretty good. Hindsight doesn't change any of that.

Wells and Mayne trades were perfectly reasonable although a little more expensive than you'd like. You pay a premium to extract someone who doesn't necessarily want to move.

Trade period in 2020 was fine. Got unders for both Treloar and Stevo but targeted these players for departure to enable a refresh of the list, got it done.

I'd have thought the governance around racism has changed significantly over the last 5-7 years but it remains untested. Last prominent racism case was around Goodes in 2013. Only other cases (as per the report) were the cheer squad in 2019 and 2020 which were both dealt with above and beyond. New policies released in 2020.

You're mistaking decisions you don't like for bad governance purely because it suits a narrative.

What absolute nonsense. Gubby had hidden Lachie Whitfield at his previous club and later served an AFL sanctioned stint on the sidelines for it.
The Club review took Ed to task for appointing him without their or the CEO's consultation.
Like Ed, Gubby then went and did what he wanted, and paid more for Mayne and Wells than Hine had thought fair (and what is almost universally agreed now (and even then) was overs).

It also caused angst for Bucks, who had personally reached out to Balme to join Collingwood and then had to watch him sidelined.

The review also recommended board terms, but Ed ignored introducing that.

The board also had to bring Ed into line to prevent him subsequently appointing Simon Lethlean, as directed/suggested by Gil, without having the due process. Eventually Murphy and others got their way and hired an administrator who came from outside of the AFL system.

Beams trade was facilitated by Ed. Ned Guy was brought in just before trade period and told to make it happen.

And the trade period in 2020 was not fine. It was a catalyst to Ed's sooner than he'd like departure and announcement to relinquish the role at year end. This is clear enough.

Ed's style was completely counter to good governance and the required move away from a suburban football club culture and into a professional organisation which enjoys sustained success.

 

[Kwality]

What absolute nonsense. Gubby had hidden Lachie Whitfield at his previous club and later served an AFL sanctioned stint on the sidelines for it.
The Club review took Ed to task for appointing him without their or the CEO's consultation.
Like Ed, Gubby then went and did what he wanted, and paid more for Mayne and Wells than Hine had thought fair (and what is almost universally agreed now (and even then) was overs).

It also caused angst for Bucks, who had personally reached out to Balme to join Collingwood and then had to watch him sidelined.

The review also recommended board terms, but Ed ignored introducing that.

The board also had to bring Ed into line to prevent him subsequently appointing Simon Lethlean, as directed/suggested by Gil, without having the due process. Eventually Murphy and others got their way and hired an administrator who came from outside of the AFL system.

Beams trade was facilitated by Ed. Ned Guy was brought in just before trade period and told to make it happen.

And the trade period in 2020 was not fine. It was a catalyst to Ed's sooner than he'd like departure and announcement to relinquish the role at year end. This is clear enough.

Ed's style was completely counter to good governance and the required move away from a suburban football club culture and into a professional organisation which enjoys sustained success.

Are all those claims a matter of public record?

 

[jackcass]

What absolute nonsense. Gubby had hidden Lachie Whitfield at his previous club and later served an AFL sanctioned stint on the sidelines for it.
The Club review took Ed to task for appointing him without their or the CEO's consultation.
Like Ed, Gubby then went and did what he wanted, and paid more for Mayne and Wells than Hine had thought fair (and what is almost universally agreed now (and even then) was overs).

It also caused angst for Bucks, who had personally reached out to Balme to join Collingwood and then had to watch him sidelined.

The review also recommended board terms, but Ed ignored introducing that.

As I said in my subsequent post. The board actually has the power to implement terms with or without the support of Ed is my understanding but I'm not sure how that relates to Gubby.

The board also had to bring Ed into line to prevent him subsequently appointing Simon Lethlean, as directed/suggested by Gil, without having the due process. Eventually Murphy and others got their way and hired an administrator who came from outside of the AFL system.

They didn't have to wait to get their way, they just had to decide to use that power.

Beams trade was facilitated by Ed. Ned Guy was brought in just before trade period and told to make it happen.

Beams trade ultimately is decided by Walsh and the FD. I doubt Walshy gives a flying hoot what Ed thinks or directs him to do, if he doesn't agree, it won't get done under his tenure.

And the trade period in 2020 was not fine. It was a catalyst to Ed's sooner than he'd like departure and announcement to relinquish the role at year end. This is clear enough.

Ed's style was completely counter to good governance and the required move away from a suburban football club culture and into a professional organisation which enjoys sustained success.

I think you're conflating a lost of issues that clearly give you angst.

 

[Carringbush2010]

As I said in my subsequent post. The board actually has the power to implement terms with or without the support of Ed is my understanding but I'm not sure how that relates to Gubby.

And they didn't! Proper governance would've avoided that.

Beams trade ultimately is decided by Walsh and the FD. I doubt Walshy gives a flying hoot what Ed thinks or directs him to do, if he doesn't agree, it won't get done under his tenure.

Yes and he shouldn't have, knowing beforehand the issues speculation. Proper governance would've avoided that.

I think you're conflating a lost of issues that clearly give you angst.

There's good reason for the angst. Proper governance would've avoided that.

Jack, how about you just stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la, or stick your head in the sand, clutch at straws, whatever and leave the rest of us to discuss applying for the board and how the board can improve it's governance so it gives the club much better chances at ultimate success.

Pretty sure most posters on here would not agree we've had good enough governance to give ourselves those chances.

I'll leave it there.

 

[jackcass]

And they didn't! Proper governance would've avoided that.



Yes and he shouldn't have, knowing beforehand the issues speculation. Proper governance would've avoided that.



There's good reason for the angst. Proper governance would've avoided that.

Jack, how about you just stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la, or stick your head in the sand, clutch at straws, whatever and leave the rest of us to discuss applying for the board and how the board can improve it's governance so it gives the club much better chances at ultimate success.

Pretty sure most posters on here would not agree we've had good enough governance to give ourselves those chances.

I'll leave it there.

 

[Carringbush2010]

View attachment 1058726

 

[left at home]

I wanted to apply, but it interfered with my sleep patterns, maybe next time