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

Remove this Banner Ad

 
Last edited:
ghostdog said:
According to Barrett
Click to expand...

Maya Rudolph Judging You GIF by Saturday Night Live
 
Mr Mojo Risin said:
I'm strongly pro-choice and heavily supportive of sexual or gender identity preference for everyone.

I'm also not religious, but what gets lost here is that for the majority of Christians, something being a sin in their eyes like these topics above doesn't equate to them wanting to burn people in hell. Sure there are the extremists, but mostly it just means they don't agree with it because they believe their god doesn't agree with it and they leave the judgement up to their god. It doesn't mean they hate those people or wish them ill themselves. It gets talked about like sin = hatred for all Christians. There are so many others sins that even those that believe in these things commit them regularly. It's why they believe they need to ask god for forgiveness of their own sins.

I'm pleased that abortion is legal and while I don't agree whatsoever with the comparison, I can logically understand when some equate the millions of abortions to the millions who died in world war 2 concentrate camps without losing my s**t. Abortion gets talked about so flippantly these days that it's almost like people forget (or want to forget) that it's killing a life. Again, I'm pro-choice so I'm ok with the early termination of a life as I believe it's often better than a painful life in an over populated world. But...I can understand the strong opinion on the other side.

I'm bothering to type this post more because I'm concerned about the polarisation of opinion in our society that is becoming less and less able to respectfully listen to those we don't agree with. This kind of behaviour breeds more hatred and stronger extremes.

Regarding Thorburn, when I was under the impression they went through a proper process to hire him I was willing to be supportive of the decision even though I had great pause due to the Royal Commission stuff. But the fact that he resigns and they don't have the second best applicant ready shows there was no process, so I'm happy this got found out, because Essendon clearly hasn't learnt it's lesson.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I think that what people do understand is that when most Christians say that they love all people, including gay people and women who have had abortions, as well as the rest of us who support the rights of these people, they do it through a patronising lens. It's because they attach their love to pity; they pity us all, and in their pity they want to show us love by praying for our salvation, because they don't respect us as equals in our choice. Their view, that is, comes from a place of a sense of superiority. That's why it is bigoted.
 
ghostdog said:
I agree, but I think that what people do understand is that when most Christians say that they love all people, including gay people and women who have had abortions, as well as the rest of us who support the rights of these people, they do it through a patronising lens. It's because they attach their love to pity; they pity us all, and in their pity they want to show us love by praying for our salvation, because they don't respect us as equals in our choice. Their view, that is, comes from a place of a sense of superiority. That's why it is bigoted.
Click to expand...

Christian's need to understand one key thing; we're all sinners. Everyone. We all get to burn in hell together.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ghostdog said:
I agree, but I think that what people do understand is that when most Christians say that they love all people, including gay people and women who have had abortions, as well as the rest of us who support the rights of these people, they do it through a patronising lens. It's because they attach their love to pity; they pity us all, and in their pity they want to show us love by praying for our salvation, because they don't respect us as equals in our choice. Their view, that is, comes from a place of a sense of superiority. That's why it is bigoted.
Click to expand...
That's true for a lot of Christians for sure and I've experienced it. I also know plenty of others who honestly love without patronising.
 
fairbump_playon said:
No way.. options & diversity is essential for employees... just as living the core company values is essential for leaders.

Any club has personality and values whether it wants to or not. In our case we have a womens team with lots of LGBTQ players.

I agree with the club statement. The CEO and the Chair are two positions that must be held by people who embody what we stand for as a club.

I actually feel like Thorburn's record actually indicates that he did embody that. Everything in his actions says yes except for his refusal in his statement to indicate that he doesn't agree with the hardline anti-homosexual stance of the church. He said he disagrees with some aspects of the church's position but was ambiguous about which.

Aside from the commercial pummelling it would leave us open to, I picture a gay player with an issue they want addressed. The CEO's door should be open to everyone. How confident would you feel to seek help from a guy who thinks you're disgusting and will burn in hell?

I'm not saying that's what Thorburn believes - but by not stating otherwise he really was immediately cooked. You can worry about cancel culture and optics but this is a commercial decision and the right one.

How about that due diligence though hey.
Click to expand...
Just to pick up on this point. We have LGBTQ players in the mens team too. There's obviously still something wrong that male players can't be openly gay. And having a devout homophobe as CEO would be adding to the problem, not lessening it.

What if a targetted draftee/tradee was gay and we appoint a homophobe as CEO? You think that player is going to join us to find out if his "abominable" life choices affects his employment?

As an anecdote, I was with a gay friend at a pub talking about "gaydars" and pointed to a Bombers player and said, "I heard he's gay, do you think he is"
"He definitely is"
"How can you tell"
"By the way he's rubbing that guys' thigh"

I often think about that player and wonder what he thought about the culture and hope that it's changed for the better.
 
ghostdog said:
I'm happy with that assessment. I just wish Christians would realise that.

My partner gets very pissed off when my default position is, "...look, it's okay. Just pray for me."
Click to expand...
How do you know they dont?
You are making a pretty big blanket assessment of 2.38 billion people to say so.
 
fairbump_playon said:
EFC decides if the CEO is a good fit. Thorburn isn't because he wants to burn the gays in hell and EFC doesn't.

Perrottet is the leader of a conservative party and he embodies that party's views just fine. Him leading that party is a great fit - more like Thorburn leading his church, in fact.

You can't oppose moral outrage and then insist that it be applied to someone who even the outraged understand is in the right place.
Click to expand...
How is it then we can have the likes of Bachar Houli and Adam Saad as AFL ambassadors whilst they also represent their religion?
 
ghostdog said:
I'm happy with that assessment. I just wish Christians would realise that.

My partner gets very pissed off when my default position is, "...look, it's okay. Just pray for me."
Click to expand...
Most Christians do realise we're all sinners. They just believe they won't go to hell because of their belief.

I know I know....don't get me started on this one, I've had endless discussion and debates about it with them about how it makes no sense to me.
 
owen87 said:
He didn't.

For someone trying to preach so very hard about your morals and ideals, you're doing a brilliant job of demonstrating your tolerance extends not all that far past your own nose right now.



Nah. I'll stand by giving people the freedom to believe what they like so long as it doesn't impact upon others.

If Thorburn believes these things, his actions in the professional arena do the exact opposite of what you'd expect.
Click to expand...
OK, do you never draw a line? What if he was also the head of a white supremacist organisation? (as long as it doesn't impact upon others, he just promotes it on Friday nights)

If your answer is that you'd draw the line before that, then clearly you don't give them total freedom to believe what they like as you've just stated.

I think you're just upset that other people draw the line at homophobia and you draw it somewhere else.

Make no mistake, his church is a straight-supremacist organisation.

If your answer is that you'd let a white supremacist leader be the CEO of the EFC, then that's a problem too.
 
Saint said:
What if he was also the head of a white supremacist organisation?
Click to expand...

The core belief of an Anglican organisation is a bit different to the core belief of a white supremacist organisation.

Try again.

Saint said:
I think you're just upset that other people draw the line at homophobia and you draw it somewhere else.
Click to expand...

This is just you making things up.

Saint said:
his church is a straight-supremacist organisation.
Click to expand...

It's a church, how you choose to interpret their core belief is up to you but every relevant action he's taken in a professional setting is the opposite of what you'd expect from someone who's so stridently opposed to gay and transgender people.

Saint said:
If your answer is that you'd let a white supremacist leader be the CEO of the EFC, then that's a problem too.
Click to expand...

Again, this just seems like a really weird line of insult you're trying to run with.
 
I don’t know what to make of it. Overreactions all over the place… where do you start?

Appointment without due process though, the new President has managed to make at least two terrible moves in his short tenure. The Clarkson debacle and now this.

He should go.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Inspecta Gadget said:
How is it then we can have the likes of Bachar Houli and Adam Saad as AFL ambassadors whilst they also represent their religion?
Click to expand...
At a guess, it would be at least because:
a. neither of those players are 'leaders' (that we know about) within their church or club and so while can be used as role models, they aren't actually in positions of authority
b. there's no evidence (thus far) of the imam at the mosque they frequent dishing up fiery sermons about abortion and sexual deviancy, and even it they are doing that, it's harder for the MSM to find it. Part of why this whole thing has gone so sideways is that Thorburn belongs to very small offshoot of a larger church, who seemingly pushes a more extreme message. This all doesn't happen IMO if he was an elder at a 'standard' Anglican church.
If someone can effectively link Houli/Saad to prominent roles in Wahhabism we might end up with a similar situation
 
bombadeer said:
I don’t know what to make of it. Overreactions all over the place… where do you start?

Appointment without due process though, the new President has managed to make at least two terrible moves in his short tenure. The Clarkson debacle and now this.

He should go.
Click to expand...
I'm a little torn. He's stumbling and bumbling his way toward learning proper recruitment process and has commissioned the external review. I'd almost rather a president who's made these mistakes and learnt what not to do the hard way remain in the seat than someone replace him and take us right back to square one.

I want us to become a professionally run club and while it would be preferable we get to that point without major * ups, I'll take the *s ups if we get there sooner.
 
Last edited:
Westlo said:
If this world was just he would be locked up for the s**t he tried to pull while in charge of NAB so spare me with the he was good as this job bullshit.

He resigned in disgrace and got parachuted into another CEO position, falling upwards.
Click to expand...
I have no issue on your point about him not being suitable due to things that he did or was overseeing in his role as CEO of NAB.
The practices there must have been a s**t show.
I'd rather have this conversation about his suitability to the job based on what he actually did rather than base it on his 'beliefs' (or not... it might just be the beliefs of the church)
I thought he sounded like a good candidate who could bring people together at the EFC and get the workplace humming along as he did when he was at NAB - NAB was in fact voted a particularly safe employer in relation to these LBGTI issues while he was at the helm. He has been in charge of a fairly progressive workplace.
But rather than look at how he behaved (in relation tot he staff) he has been cancelled on account of his Church...

Now if you argue that he shouldn't have been selected based on the immoral practices of NAB under his watch - then that is fine with me and I might agree with you.

Using the same argument I hope you didn't prefer Hird as coach just recently...
 
ghostdog said:
According to Barrett this morning, Scott's agreement to the coaching appointment was in part linked with an assurance that Thorburn would be CEO.
Click to expand...
I’d be treating that with a great deal of scepticism personally.
 
The religious reaction pisses me off as I feel it's perfectly reasonable not to dig into someone's faith as it's not an aspect of hiring. Just how their gender or sexuality is not a hiring point.
The man has never outwardly conducted himself that shows he is against inclusivity.

Some people dont appear to care about that and love to sink the boots in, but that's probably more their overall feelings about a faith rather than any actually nuance about this situation.
Some of the commentary on here and social media is pathetic, suppose you can't expect too much though.

The due process stuff is interesting, Tim spoke about him a week or so ago and was blown away with how he handled himself and did the review. That was echoed by many.
If he was that good at what he did and showed capability I have no issue with him being asked to go through the candidate process, he was ridiculously overqualified, I think that would have been a good thing for us.

Faith, politics and sport, what a perfect melting pot to get everyone's most emotional take in this situation.
 
Mercurial89 said:
The religious reaction pisses me off as I feel it's perfectly reasonable not to dig into someone's faith as it's not an aspect of hiring. Just how their gender or sexuality is not a hiring point.
The man has never outwardly conducted himself that shows he is against inclusivity.

Some people dont appear to care about that and love to sink the boots in, but that's probably more their overall feelings about a faith rather than any actually nuance about this situation.
Some of the commentary on here and social media is pathetic, suppose you can't expect too much though.

The due process stuff is interesting, Tim spoke about him a week or so ago and was blown away with how he handled himself and did the review. That was echoed by many.
If he was that good at what he did and showed capability I have no issue with him being asked to go through the candidate process, he was ridiculously overqualified, I think that would have been a good thing for us.

Faith, politics and sport, what a perfect melting pot to get everyone's most emotional take in this situation.
Click to expand...
Did you read the AFR article about his time at NAB?
 
Religions vs non-religion is going to be an endless argument.

I hope that there can be some kind of balance there at some point, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it because it won't be in my lifetime.
 
OK, from this post on:

1. If you want to talk Thorburn, take it to the Thorburn thread in the history sub board.

2. If you want to discuss religion and its tenets, take it to the SRP board.

3. The mods don't want to make this thread a No Oppo one, but we will if oppo poster continue to have to make us clean it up. Behave.

This is the board/external review thread, treat it as such.
 
I’m on a similar page. I’m not religious however I had no issue with his position of chair of a church group. I did dislike his royal commission performance and felt it was a strange move to hire him given he basically exited banking in disgrace.

No more blunders please EFC.

Edit: just saw Grizz’s note. Feel free to move this. mod note: moved
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fairbump_playon said:
EFC decides if the CEO is a good fit. Thorburn isn't because he wants to burn the gays in hell and EFC doesn't.

Perrottet is the leader of a conservative party and he embodies that party's views just fine. Him leading that party is a great fit - more like Thorburn leading his church, in fact.

You can't oppose moral outrage and then insist that it be applied to someone who even the outraged understand is in the right place.
Click to expand...
Many are ignoring the specifics of this situation.

He is the chairman of the City on the Hill Church so it’s less than plausible that he was unaware of these views. Even allowing for that, he could have said (1) those are not the views of our church or (2) they are the views of my church but I unequivocally oppose them. He did neither. I think we have to assume that (1) those are the views of the church and (2) Thorburn is at the very least, tolerant of them.

Now if those are his views, then that’s his own business and he is entitled to them. As we all are. It’s not about his views and whether they are right or wrong.

The issue is how can someone who holds or tolerates those views also lead an organisation which holds values that are completely antithetical to those views? The answer is that he cannot, the two things are incompatible. That’s really what has played out in the last 24 hours. You don’t need to demonise Thorburn to arrive at that conclusion.

The real issue is that we failed to pick this up before offering him the job, which we certainly should have. Barhams denial of this is absurd. I suspect we are now at risk of a discrimination suit if Thorburn was so inclined.
 
owen87 said:
Speaking of external review, can someone update the stickied post with when they said the review is expected to be tabled? I'm sure i saw someone post about that in the last two days.
Click to expand...
Thorburn mentioned at the Crichton that it would be a week away.

Given he was involved with it and now he’s not CEO anymore we don’t know if he also walked away from the external review or how that’s going to work specifically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

VelvetSledge
  • Locked
  • Sticky
MVP 2024 BigFooty Essendon Board POTY Award
Replies
6
Views
1K
VelvetSledge
VelvetSledge
Jade
Remove the Board of Directors
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
3K
CBombers17
CBombers17
Lore
Mod. Notice Welcome Nuggs Bunny, new Essendon board mod!
Replies
13
Views
1K
Vindicater
Vindicater
Beerfish
  • Poll
Competitions 2023 Essendon Board Poster Of The Year - The Scales - Congratulations eDPS!
Replies
14
Views
1K
VelvetSledge
VelvetSledge
Nuggs Bunny
Competitions 2024 Essendon Board My Boy Draft - Round 2 now started
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
182
Views
5K
citizen-erased
citizen-erased
RedmanWasHere
Competitions 2023 Essendon Board Mock Draft
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
211
Views
9K
citizen-erased
citizen-erased
Beerfish
  • Locked
Competitions 2023 Essendon Board Poster Of The Year - The Scales - Nomination Thread - Win 1 year free platinum BF experience!
Replies
22
Views
1K
Lore
Lore

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top