Board Changes: Licuria and Sizer in (Camplin and McMullin omitted)

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Will have to wait and see before we can size her up.

 

[ottoman]

My wife works in government and has worked with her on some recent projects. I’m not going to give a detailed account though. Suffice to say that to according to my wife, “Sizer will be a huge asset.”
You can choose to believe my wife or not, but I have no choice.

An endorsement from someone who has worked with her and has no vested interest in talking her up.
Carries much more weight than BF speculation.

 

[Vicky Park]

How were they appointed? Was it a board vote? Did they apply? Was it Eddie that approached one or the other or both? Questions you may not know the answers to but I'd like to know the appointment process.

They were obviously known to the club, they applied, and were not challenged. So got the nod. But I don’t know how or if the board vacancies were ‘advertised’ or made known, so I guess that undermines the ‘not challenged’ part of the process.

 

[ottoman]

They were obviously known to the club, they applied, and were not challenged. So got the nod. But I don’t know how or if the board vacancies were ‘advertised’ or made known, so I guess that undermines the ‘not challenged’ part of the process.

You would think that being a board member of the biggest sporting club in the nation would hod a bit of prestige and be sought after. The lack of interest does seem a bit strange.

 

[Scodog10]

On the surface Sizer appears a strong appointment and Licuria a soft one. Replace Licuria with Dunstall and I’d have been entirely on board so overall the changes don’t instill complete confidence, but it does leave only 2 long standing seats at the table. Once Ed, Waislitz and Bucks go the re-generation will be complete!

Edit: to provide context around Licuria. He’s now the “football” member of the board. He has an existing relationship with the senior coach after spending almost a decade together as teammates. A well run board wouldn’t appoint someone with that potential for conflict of interest, IMO.

 

[Scodog10]

You would think that being a board member of the biggest sporting club in the nation would hod a bit of prestige and be sought after. The lack of interest does seem a bit strange.

You don’t actually buy that only two people were interested in joining the board do you? Don’t you find the least bit curious that whenever a board seat is vacated we receive the exact same number of applicants?

 

[Kirby]

You don’t actually buy that only two people were interested in joining the board do you? Don’t you find the least bit curious that whenever a board seat is vacated we receive the exact same number of applicants?

Or that they weren't approached to do it.

 

[Scodog10]

Or that they weren't approached to do it.

Or anyone that put the feelers out there was discouraged from proceeding with a nomination. Personally I’m certain that an advertisement in “CEO weekly” would have been popular (to a degree), but I doubt the recruiters, whoever they were, ever deviated from these two candidates given their existing relationships.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Be nice for members to actually vote on this and give people a chance to nominate v Eddie hand picking people. Lets face it his 'captains' picks have been terrible.

But its true to form, gerrymandering the board to support his agenda of turning the CFC into a brand with a social bent. I find myself losing interest by the year. He has become what he said he was against when he became president, ie one of the 'boys' who has made the board an even bigger inner circle type club run by himself with people annointed by him.

Flame away, but I don't care this club will not see success any time soon.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Both good appointments I think.

Camplin and McMullin had both been on the board for 8 and 20 years respectively so some fresh faces at board level will be welcome I think

Lol, you want a change get rid of Eddie, he has been there longer than anyone.

 

[Vicky Park]

I've just clarified. Lica and Sizer were the only nominations for the board, and were chosen by a 'nominations committee' established following the club review. Make of that what you will; there does appear to be a lack of transparency and a self-fulfilling pattern to these things. Then again, I have no idea how this is done at other clubs, and suspect its similar.

I should also add a thank you to the departing board members. They oversaw a premiership during their tenure which, at Collingwood, is a ridiculously rare occurrence since the middle of the twentieth century!

 

[76woodenspooners]

How were they appointed? Was it a board vote? Did they apply? Was it Eddie that approached one or the other or both? Questions you may not know the answers to but I'd like to know the appointment process.

Going by the club statement on the website ...

Two positions were vacated, so the club followed a process where they sought nominations for those positions. Only two nominations were received by the deadline for close of nominations, therefore there won’t be a vote at the upcoming AGM.

As far as I can tell the vacancies weren’t advertised.

 

[Scodog10]

I've just clarified. Lica and Sizer were the only nominations for the board, and were chosen by a 'nominations committee' established following the club review. Make of that what you will; there does appear to be a lack of transparency and a self-fulfilling pattern to these things. Then again, I have no idea how this is done at other clubs, and suspect its similar.

I should also add a thank you to the departing board members. They oversaw a premiership during their tenure which, at Collingwood, is a ridiculously rare occurrence since the middle of the twentieth century!

Without being able to measure any of the inputs it’s impossible to determine much from it, IMO.

However what I would say is that I don’t believe such a clandestine process is how the best leaders would undertake a decision like this. If they were to undertake a similar selection process (because that’s what it really was), IMO, they’d communicate to us the members who was on the committee, who the committee identified and how long the process took to whittle the candidates down to two.

Who know’s the committee might have consisted of the best and brightest, they may have identified 50 candidates and the process to get to the two they chose may have taken 3 months. Without that context though and the information supplied in the article, as you said, it only propagates that self-fulfilling pattern with those already disillusioned with the club’s high level decision makers.

 

[Vicky Park]

Without being able to measure any of the inputs it’s impossible to determine much from it, IMO.

However what I would say is that I don’t believe such a clandestine process is how the best leaders would undertake a decision like this. If they were to undertake a similar selection process (because that’s what it really was), IMO, they’d communicate to us the members who was on the committee, who the committee identified and how long the process took to whittle the candidates down to two.

Who know’s the committee might have consisted of the best and brightest, they may have identified 50 candidates and the process to get to the two they chose may have taken 3 months. Without that context though and the information supplied in the article, as you said, it only propagates that self-fulfilling pattern with those already disillusioned with the club’s high level decision makers.

This is where the club is still falling down, to some extent.

I dont expect to know all the goings on, the inner sanctum business, the club IP, or any of the stuff which shoud stay in-house and (hopefully) give us an edge on the competition. But given the review, the apparent membership decline (still not sure about that), and the fact that the club has committed to improving across a range of areas, your highlighted would have been welcomed, at least as information.

 

[Scodog10]

This is where the club is still falling down, to some extent.

I dont expect to know all the goings on, the inner sanctum business, the club IP, or any of the stuff which shoud stay in-house and (hopefully) give us an edge on the competition. But given the review, the apparent membership decline (still not sure about that), and the fact that the club has committed to improving across a range of areas, your highlighted would have been welcomed, at least as information.

I should probably amend the “who” part of my comment. I’m not convinced the masses need to know that (that’s my curiosity coming to the surface), but that number would have definitely been more accurate than stating that Licuria and Sizer were the only nominations.

 

[jackcass]

They were obviously known to the club, they applied, and were not challenged. So got the nod. But I don’t know how or if the board vacancies were ‘advertised’ or made known, so I guess that undermines the ‘not challenged’ part of the process.

Candidates for positions like these are normally head hunted so you'd assume they've been invited to apply.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Be nice for members to actually vote on this and give people a chance to nominate v Eddie hand picking people. Lets face it his 'captains' picks have been terrible.

But its true to form, gerrymandering the board to support his agenda of turning the CFC into a brand with a social bent. I find myself losing interest by the year. He has become what he said he was against when he became president, ie one of the 'boys' who has made the board an even bigger inner circle type club run by himself with people annointed by him.

Flame away, but I don't care this club will not see success any time soon.

Notwithstanding that, if the players are good we’ll see success.
If they are not improving, will make no difference who eats lunch at Ed’s table on match day.

On one hand it’s peculiar that there are never elections.

On the other hand not peculiar.
The board (read Ed) has a vested interest in keeping smooth sailing and little deviation and that’s not unfamiliar in most things with holding power etc.

Until Ed is seriously challenged this will be the status quo.

All the huffing and puffing won’t make any difference until there is a serious challenger against Ed.

That people may be keen to join the board and are discouraged? Well that’s life, you’re wanted it you’re not.

And if you’re not wanted you stand and challenge.

 

[Horaceg]

I have no idea of Sizer's background, but on Licuria, not really sure what skill-set he brings to the position.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...d-see-licuria-sizer-join-20180214-p4z0bn.html

Players perspective

 

[jackcass]

Without being able to measure any of the inputs it’s impossible to determine much from it, IMO.

However what I would say is that I don’t believe such a clandestine process is how the best leaders would undertake a decision like this. If they were to undertake a similar selection process (because that’s what it really was), IMO, they’d communicate to us the members who was on the committee, who the committee identified and how long the process took to whittle the candidates down to two.

Who know’s the committee might have consisted of the best and brightest, they may have identified 50 candidates and the process to get to the two they chose may have taken 3 months. Without that context though and the information supplied in the article, as you said, it only propagates that self-fulfilling pattern with those already disillusioned with the club’s high level decision makers.

Is there a club or business anywhere that has that level of disclosure to members or shareholders? I could understand it if there was board unrest, an attempted coup, or a groundswell of member discontent but that's hardly the circumstance in this instance as far as I'm aware.

 

[Scodog10]

Players perspective

I think that’s a given. The question is more likely to be around why Licuria to provide the football expertise? Why not Craig Ellis? Jimmy Clement? Joel MacDonald? All three are directors of circa $50 million+ organisations and can bring the players perspective as well so what does Licuria have that they don’t?

 

[CFC2010]

I think that’s a given. The question is more likely to be around why Licuria to provide the football expertise? Why not Craig Ellis? Jimmy Clement? Joel MacDonald? All three are directors of circa $50 million+ organisations and can bring the players perspective as well so what does Licuria have that they don’t?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

View attachment 460020

The boy could play a bit

 

[Mukesh]

Going by the club statement on the website ...

Two positions were vacated, so the club followed a process where they sought nominations for those positions. Only two nominations were received by the deadline for close of nominations, therefore there won’t be a vote at the upcoming AGM.

As far as I can tell the vacancies weren’t advertised.

If you only ask two people then fair chance you'll only get two nominations I reckon.... Does anyone know what this process of seeking nominations was ??

 

[CFC2010]

The boy could play a bit

Demons put to sleep - how Licuria found his mojo against Power
Ben Collins
Sep 7, 2013 10:00AM

Paul Licuria and Anthony Rocca celebrate a goal during the Magpies' 2002 finals win over the Power
It was one of the most stirring individual and team performances in a final. Collingwood great Paul Licuria tells Ben Collins how he overcame mental demons to produce a 40-possession effort in a critical tagging role to inspire the Pies' upset win over Port Adelaide in the 2002 qualifying final in Adelaide.

By his own admission, Paul Licuria wasn't the most gifted footballer. The former Magpie agrees with the common view that he lacked pace and skill, and was predominantly a one-sided player who used his right foot merely for balance.

That Licuria forged a substantial AFL career, and an ongoing legacy at his beloved Collingwood, was testament to his mental strength.

It's a quality that largely defines his life.

Such fortitude helped him overcome reconstructions on both knees by the age of 17, and cope so well with ongoing knee issues thereafter that he became the Pies' most durable player in his nine seasons at the club.

It drove Licuria to rebound from a failed stint with the Sydney Swans that netted just 10 games in three years.

It pushed him become one of the AFL's hardest trainers, fittest players and best stoppers.

It enabled Licuria to belie his limitations to win back-to-back club best and fairests, and upstage superstar skipper Nathan Buckley.

It also lifted him to a career-best performance and pilot the Pies to one of the greatest finals boil-overs of the modern era.

So Licuria sounds like he's being typically humble when he tells the AFL Record he wasn't as naturally strong-minded as people think.

That's until he reveals publicly for the first time that for the past 12 years – encompassing the last seven seasons of his AFL career – he has received professional psychological help.

And this help proved critical to Licuria overcoming his mental demons before the 2002 qualifying final against Port Adelaide.

The counselling started before the 2001 season. An Aaron Hamill knee had smashed Licuria's cheekbone in a pre-season game, leaving him just four weeks to be ready for round one.

Around that time, the then 23-year-old met psychologist Dean Murphy and became fascinated with his work.

Murphy, who didn’t have any connection to the Pies, suggested he might be able to help Licuria's recovery.

Licuria did a session with Murphy, and liked the effect it had on his state of mind. So he returned for more.

Though he can't be sure of it, Licuria believes the positive energy accelerated his recovery. In any case, he made it back onto the field in time, on his way to his first best and fairest.

The routine became set in stone. An hour-long appointment every Thursday.

Licuria would often enter the session with negative thoughts about his upcoming game but, after some positive visualisation exercises, would leave with a more confident outlook.

"It's like hypnosis – you get in a bit of a trance," he says. "I'd walk out feeling great.

"It doesn’t work for everybody. I shared it with a lot of teammates, and some took it up but it wasn't for them. But it became a major part of my footy career.

"This is the first time I've spoken about it. I would never have admitted it back then because people would think, 'If you’re seeing a psych, you must have issues.' People seem more open to it now.

"I just saw it as part of my personal high-performance program. "

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Serious question?

Would a roughhouse election for some positions be good for the team?

Would it become a media driven circus ie a mega distraction?