Remove this Banner Ad

Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham - Statement from Barham addressing Merrett etc - 12/9

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
 
Last edited:
As far as the board and the saga goes you have to remember most of what went on with Dank was hidden from the board with a lot of question going unanswered at board level until the money being given to the program was questioned and Dank was moved on as it was suspected he was moving some of it into his own business. There really was a level of unknown at board level which was reported at the time. The full details did not really come out until well after the actual event. Brasher lead the way in getting Dank out by questioning the amounts the footy department where giving him.
I've always wondered why Robson wasn't held to account a bit more. He sailed off into the sunset seemingly scot free yet it would have been him signing off on the invoices.
 
So the advice was leaving the board as soon as you see something you don’t like rather than trying to fix it?

No wonder you don’t have much faith in anything improving if you think that’s good advice.

I mean from a self preservation perspective I guess it sort of is, but really not at all an attitude board members should have if you ask me.
The advice was to leave boards that oversee poorly run operations and don't change things. Advice given by someone who was paid enormous amounts of money to sit for 5 years on one board in particular. A significantly more senior position than running a football club like Essendon.

Being part of a bad board can be very damaging to your career and also just the wrong thing to do if they are destroying lives or being reckless with the environment (or not taking care of athletes by putting a known drug user in charge of them or something). I wonder who was around for that gem?? Would you remain on a board that chose to do that?

You can't necessarily just 'fix' a poorly run board. Leaving is sometimes the best option.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

The advice was to leave boards that oversee poorly run operations and don't change things. Advice given by someone who was paid enormous amounts of money to sit for 5 years on one board in particular. A significantly more senior position than running a football club like Essendon.

Being part of a bad board can be very damaging to your career and also just the wrong thing to do if they are destroying lives or being reckless with the environment (or not taking care of athletes by putting a known drug user in charge of them or something). I wonder who was around for that gem??

You can't necessarily just 'fix' a poorly run board. Leaving is sometimes the best option.
Surely it’s never best to cut and run without at least attempting to make improvements, especially if they are destroying lives.

I get that not everyone can be as altruistic as that but advice to quit the second you don’t like something is not advice I can accept as good advice.
 
Surely it’s never best to cut and run without at least attempting to make improvements, especially if they are destroying lives.

I get that not everyone can be as altruistic as that but advice to quit the second you don’t like something is not advice I can accept as good advice.
Would you continue on a board that put that caretaker coach in charge of our group who were already damaged by the saga- knowing there were issues?

Personally I'd be leaving any group that chose that. That was some of the more disgraceful governance you will find in footy - yet nobody here seems to care about it?

Some of them wanted him in the role full time!
 
Surely it’s never best to cut and run without at least attempting to make improvements, especially if they are destroying lives.

I get that not everyone can be as altruistic as that but advice to quit the second you don’t like something is not advice I can accept as good advice.

It’s good advice at an individual level, avoids any potential for the individual to be caught up in anything.

Pretty unhelpful for the organisation if anyone with any ability to change anything just walks though.
 
Would you continue on a board that put that caretaker coach in charge of our group who were already damaged by the saga- knowing there were issues?

Personally I'd be leaving any group that chose that. That was some of the more disgraceful governance you will find in footy - yet nobody here seems to care about it?

Some of them wanted him in the role full time!
But you expect our players to stick around and drive culture change when they see things they don’t like?

I would stick around and persist if I was on the board. If I felt like I was being listened to (even if not all the time) and that I could chip away at the issues to provide a positive influence. It doesn’t mean it’ll always work out but anyone can sit a board when things are easy.

If it’s consistently never being listened to when you’ve been providing guidance then after awhile you’d need to question the point of staying around. But that is only after a significant period of time of attempting to enact positive change.
 
It’s good advice at an individual level, avoids any potential for the individual to be caught up in anything.

Pretty unhelpful for the organisation if anyone with any ability to change anything just walks though.
Yep and I did say that in my first response. Ironically those organisations are often poorly run to begin with because everyone has a selfish attitude.
 
I've always wondered why Robson wasn't held to account a bit more. He sailed off into the sunset seemingly scot free yet it would have been him signing off on the invoices.
I've wondered this a bit too. I get why the media went hell for leather after Hird - he was the big scalp - but I'm not sure why there wasn't more of a look into Weap's role. He ended up studying accounting and getting a plum job at one of the big 4.
 
I've wondered this a bit too. I get why the media went hell for leather after Hird - he was the big scalp - but I'm not sure why there wasn't more of a look into Weap's role. He ended up studying accounting and getting a plum job at one of the big 4.
Straight out into an Executive MBA at Melbourne Uni... he wasn’t as silly as he looked the Weap.
 
Straight out into an Executive MBA at Melbourne Uni... he wasn’t as silly as he looked the Weap.
I've wondered this a bit too. I get why the media went hell for leather after Hird - he was the big scalp - but I'm not sure why there wasn't more of a look into Weap's role. He ended up studying accounting and getting a plum job at one of the big 4.
I think you both know the reason certain people (Robinson, Hamilton and Robson) didn’t cop the scrutiny or penalties they should have.

Robson agreed to be a fall guy and step down (never understand why this absolves people for the part they played).

Robinson and Hamilton almost certainly took deals from the AFL early. Both ended up with decent jobs with AFL back room ties.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Article quoting Tanner from July:


  • Tanner perceived himself as being here to do a job during the post-saga phase, which is now over.
  • COVID related financial position likely to be similar to the saga
  • Brasher was key in paying off most of the ~$13m saga debts
  • Brasher drove the rebuild of the governance infrastructure, and was finance director, and chair of the audit, risk and integrity committee.
  • Brasher chose to put himself up for election to avoid any issues related to being on the board in 2012.
  • Brasher was a partner at accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), chairman of PwC's global board, chairman of Incitec Pivot Limited, chairman of the Reach Foundation, director of Amcor Limited, director of Perpetual Limited, board member of the Victorian Arts Centre Trust and Teach for Australia.

Tried to dot point it, but this bit... well. It's a direct quote from July. Whatever that's worth.
Tanner said Worsfold, whose term will coincide with Tanner's entire presidency, had helped rebuilding, "not just a team, we were rebuilding a club''.

Of Essendon's on-field prospects, Tanner said: "We obviously believe we're building towards an opportunity, you know, looked around the 2020 to 2022 kind of area, to be up in the upper echelon. That's been the approach, to get ourselves over the impact of the drugs crisis, consolidate and gradually put together a group of players that ... get us up to the zone we haven't been in for quite a long time.''
 
i dont lie - i do what i do for money.
If money didn't matter, i wouldn't be there

Yep. I enjoy what I do, but I'm only there for the paycheck. If they don't like the answer I ask them why they are there and if they'd be if they weren't getting paid.
 
I think you both know the reason certain people (Robinson, Hamilton and Robson) didn’t cop the scrutiny or penalties they should have.

Robson agreed to be a fall guy and step down (never understand why this absolves people for the part they played).

Robinson and Hamilton almost certainly took deals from the AFL early. Both ended up with decent jobs with AFL back room ties.
Something I have wondered on and off since day one. Robson and Hamilton both certainly landed on their feet.
 
I think you both know the reason certain people (Robinson, Hamilton and Robson) didn’t cop the scrutiny or penalties they should have.

Robson agreed to be a fall guy and step down (never understand why this absolves people for the part they played).

Robinson and Hamilton almost certainly took deals from the AFL early. Both ended up with decent jobs with AFL back room ties.

Doesn’t absolve them, but they walked away and let the AFL pursue their favoured PR narrative without interference. In return they were looked after future-wise.

The other option is the Hird path.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Robson did the right thing, he f’ed off immeadiately. Hirds problem is that he hung around, the longer he stayed the worse it became for EFC.
I remember people scoffing at the time but imagine we had swallowed our pride and taken the Cronulla Sharks path and the players admitted guilt despite not knowing that they had been injected with CJC-1295 and GHRP-6 and taken a back-dated ban instead of the prolonged fight? The coach was back within a year and they had gone from a spoon to flag within two years under Flanagan.

Anyway, probably not much point reopening old wounds I guess.
 
I remember people scoffing at the time but imagine we had swallowed our pride and taken the Cronulla Sharks path and the players admitted guilt despite not knowing that they had been injected with CJC-1295 and GHRP-6 and taken a back-dated ban instead of the prolonged fight? The coach was back within a year and they had gone from a spoon to flag within two years under Flanagan.

Anyway, probably not much point reopening old wounds I guess.
Spot.On.
 
I remember people scoffing at the time but imagine we had swallowed our pride and taken the Cronulla Sharks path and the players admitted guilt despite not knowing that they had been injected with CJC-1295 and GHRP-6 and taken a back-dated ban instead of the prolonged fight? The coach was back within a year and they had gone from a spoon to flag within two years under Flanagan.

Anyway, probably not much point reopening old wounds I guess.
Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't they have positive tests?

With the benefit of hindsight we may as well have admitted guilt for all the good fighting did us in the end but dat hindsight, she's always 20/20
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top