Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham

Remove this Banner Ad

 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

It's EFC - you just get in and have a crack. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs LOL.

Wow, Barham feels like a loose unit.

Somehow I still believe he could work out though. He's trying to get out of the harbour and keeps running into debris from stuff he's blown up. Could sink, but at least there's a clear desire to get moving.
I'm on the same page, I see decisiveness, accountability and tough convos. Actual leadership so I'm a barham fan.

Making some errors but when you need to completely shake up the club and change the status quo it isn't going to be pretty.

Scott is better than Rutten, board is more aligned bar 1(Sheedy) we will get a ceo.

It sounds like on this he backed in Dorothy decision, saw a issue gave Andrew a choice and acted swiftly.

We made a mistake with hird, Thompson and let it drag out for years.
 
So we’ve established he’s a crook ex banker who publishes his feelings on LinkedIn AND he’s trying to shove god down our throats?

Next we’ll be finding out he wears sneakers in the pool.
 
It's hard to argue with much of his statement also. We have headed down a treacherous path as a society, Proclaim freedoms, but no-one free to speak. Good luck untangling this knot

The paradox of intolerance…..
 
I see where you’re coming from, but disagree on a couple of points.

Firstly, I did say ‘publicly’. If you hold views (be they homophobic or hardline anti-abortion) that you know pretty clearly go against contemporary community expectation, you’d do well to keep that to yourself.

Secondly, being a follower of a religion doesn’t mean you hold those abhorrent views, even if the religion does officially espouse them. For example, over 60% of Australians voted for marriage equality, yet only 38% of Australians identify as ‘not religious’. Belief within a religion is a wide spectrum.

Like it or not, there are views and values that once were but are no longer acceptable in mainstream society. If you choose to be publicly identifiable holding those views, you’re going to struggle in a lot of situations and your employment is just one of those.

But nobody has the right to assume you hold those views simply by the virtue of being religious. So the ‘what about if he was a Muslim’ comments are misguided.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
But Thorburn didn't get that benefit of the doubt. His public association with the church was enough for people to assume all sorts of things about his supposed beliefs. And I'm not really convinced that his CEO position up there on the Hill was the issue that tipped people over the edge, I think that's a bit convenient. I think the reality is that his beliefs cost him his job.

I'm not wanting to defend him, TBH I don't really know what principles I'm arguing for. I always thought there was a bit of an unspoken bargain in society where your personal beliefs are your beliefs and your professional life is your professional life, and you go off and rationalise your own contradictions accordingly and as long as you're not a campaigner then it's all OK, but I'm a straight white guy so the church's views do not really impact on me apart from the premarital sex stuff, which I'm not getting much of anyway.

But if your beliefs are more relevant, I wonder where it leaves people who we know are openly devout in whatever flavour takes their fancy, and should we be asking them what social views they hold, whether they are in leadership or part of a team of diverse people.

Sorry for my ramblings.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Your right to swing your fists stops at the tip of my nose. Have an opinion by all means but make it about how you live your own life, not demonising others. I’d be saying the same thing if we’d appointed someone who said religion is dumb, you shouldn’t be allowed to go to your place of worship and you should live lawlessly following a hedonistic lifestyle of wanton disregard for everyone.
So you're saying it didn't effect him? Ironically, it would appear that he is now the most effected.
Also, I reckon if someone is pro life they are more concerned about the life of the child than trying to interfere with peoples lives.
It's like seeing domestic abuse happen in real time but doing nothing to help because it doesn't concern you.

Anyway, this is getting way off the football topic that i'm sure this forum wants.
 
1) Is it really external when its being run by Barham then-private captain's pick for CEO? Remember, Barham was very specific that the review would be looking at the board level too, how is it appropriate for Thorburn to be involved in that while also being the under-the-table CEO-elect?

2) Sheedy is very loudly still there. Say what you will abut those who back Rutten resigning but they at least kept their reservations private while Sheedy ran to the media to air his dirty laundry.
Thorburn was allegedly removed from the external review once it became apparent Barham wanted him as CEO.

The end goal should be for a united board and one that doesn't run to the media as you said. If Barham removes Sheedy then that is another tick in his favour.
 
HR boss should get the chop.
‘I employ 20 people per year at the very least.
I google search every prospective candidate
my younger staff check Insta, Snapchat and facebook
it ain’t hard and we have found some red flags in doing our due diligence
why can’t a 60 million dollar per year business get it right
we are a joke
 
There is zero chance neither Thorburn nor Essendon knew about the stance of the church. Within minutes of it being announced online, just random Joes on twitter were talking about it. If neither Thorburn nor Essendon knew then that would be an astounding level of ignorance, even for us. So I assume they absolutely knew but just hoped no one would care - not good.

I'm glad he's gone, and don't really see this as a big a mess as people suggest. The media labelling us in "turmoil" again is over the top. We are in no different a position as we were in a couple of days ago when we were being lauded for getting ourselves back on track.
 
So you're saying it didn't effect him? Ironically, it would appear that he is now the most effected.
Also, I reckon if someone is pro life they are more concerned about the life of the child than trying to interfere with peoples lives.
It's like seeing domestic abuse happen in real time but doing nothing to help because it doesn't concern you.

Anyway, this is getting way off the football topic that i'm sure this forum wants.
Abortion rights are a complicated issue but I know as a man I will never be required to carry a child as a result of rape or incest and I shouldn’t be the one to control someone’s choices in that or any other scenario. I don’t imagine any decision in that situation would be taken lightly but forcing someone into a life sentence where they are constantly reminded of their trauma and have the dichotomy of what they should feel of love for their child against why that child exists. * taking any control away from someone who’s in that awful situation.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top