Remove this Banner Ad

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

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tom Morris, 9 News via Fox Sports:

“A major board challenge is imminent at Essendon. In the wake of an off-season of turmoil, key powerbrokers - including at least one former player - are preparing a movement which would oust David Barham as president, and other directors too,” he said on Nine News.

“I’ve spoken to one of the key powerbrokers tonight, who says this is not coterie-driven, and it’s just a manner of when and not if the challenge takes place.

“There’s a view the club has been left rudderless and the Barham era has left a legacy of division, instability, player drainage and lost opportunity from this group of people.”

 
What's in a name? If it's the same role with a different name does it matter?
It isn't though. We have a VFL GM who still does that stuff but all it essentially does is add another layer of unnecessary oversight.
 
It isn't though. We have a VFL GM who still does that stuff but all it essentially does is add another layer of unnecessary oversight.
If you think your VFL GM needs a president to manage them you’ve probably given the job to the wrong person imo
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Does anyone know why the board has the view that the proposed constitutional amendment to acknowledge the damage of pokie machines would reduce revenue and put the club at a ‘competitive disadvantage’ relative to the rest of the comp? Seems like a huge leap, and a deliberate misinterpretation of the proposal.


It’s not like they are asking them to drop pokies altogether. It’s simply asking them to make a bigger statement against their destructive influence on a vulnerable part of the community. Seems like a very mild constitutional change to me. Or am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know why the board has the view that the proposed constitutional amendment to acknowledge the damage of pokie machines would reduce revenue and put the club at a ‘competitive disadvantage’ relative to the rest of the comp? Seems like a huge leap, and a deliberate misinterpretation of the proposal.


It’s not like they are asking them to drop pokies altogether. It’s simply asking them to make a bigger statement against their destructive influence on a vulnerable part of the community. Seems like a very mild constitutional change to me. Or am I missing something?
it’s a slippery slope- first you acknowledge the damage they cause, next thing you’ll want to avoid the damage they cause, next thing you know you’ll remove them completely
 
it’s a slippery slope- first you acknowledge the damage they cause, next thing you’ll want to avoid the damage they cause, next thing you know you’ll remove them completely
That sounds about fair .

I would be curious too if it could be legally used against you said person loses a lot of money at Windy Hill, you've got an official statement saying pokies cause issue but you continue to offer said pokies.


I am for getting rid of them but maybe don't know the overall effect removing them has yes we aren't making money from them but they are just moved onto someone else.


For sure I would like us to get the the point we can sell/remove then and have other revenue sources and think maybe we need to be more active there than we have been
 

Remove this Banner Ad

That sounds about fair .

I would be curious too if it could be legally used against you said person loses a lot of money at Windy Hill, you've got an official statement saying pokies cause issue but you continue to offer said pokies.


I am for getting rid of them but maybe don't know the overall effect removing them has yes we aren't making money from them but they are just moved onto someone else.


For sure I would like us to get the the point we can sell/remove then and have other revenue sources and think maybe we need to be more active there than we have been
it would be pretty daft to have in the constitution that statement whilst also profiting from them.

i’m still gutted and stunned that the eSports team didn’t bring in enough profits to remove the pokies
 
I think Barham has intimated that there could be potential legal ramifications from including that in the constitution. I am for the removal of any reliance/use of pokies, but have to say the idea of inserting something into the constitution that is largely symbolic and may open the club up to legal issues might not be a particularly useful tactic.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I think Essendon should stop stealing money from its supporters by dangling the impossibly tiny chance of winning big in front of them. I also think we should get rid of the pokies.
Agreed! And maybe we can even find other revenue generators like winning premierships and finals and having superstar players & stuff 😊
 
Any y'all milenials ever think the last 17 years would have been any worse if you had have just let Sheeds finish coaching us on his terms?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top