Eddie - 20 years as Collingwood president

Remove this Banner Ad

but what exactly has he done in recent years to damage the Collingwood brand?

He's done nothing deliberately. But Eddie/Collingwood, Collingwood/Eddie has become synonymous. Collingwood's brand is now so wrapt up in Eddie that it is a strain to remember the real essence of the club. That may or may not be a bad thing if you like Eddie but he is a polarising figure - to some he is a champion of the underdog, a supporter of charities, to others he promotes blokeism and is a bully. There is no question his presence both alienates and attracts.

I don't have a strong view but I feel like it is around time that Colingwood seperates from Eddie and starts to rebuild its' own identity. Of course even that tactic runs the ManU or Essendon risk when they said goodbye to their alter egos Alex Ferguson and Kevin Sheedy.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

He's done nothing deliberately. But Eddie/Collingwood, Collingwood/Eddie has become synonymous. Collingwood's brand is now so wrapt up in Eddie that it is a strain to remember the real essence of the club. That may or may not be a bad thing if you like Eddie but he is a polarising figure - to some he is a champion of the underdog, a supporter of charities, to others he promotes blokeism and is a bully. There is no question his presence both alienates and attracts.

I don't have a strong view but I feel like it is around time that Colingwood seperates from Eddie and starts to rebuild its' own identity. Of course even that tactic runs the ManU or Essendon risk when they said goodbye to their alter egos Alex Ferguson and Kevin Sheedy.

As per an earlier comment I made, nobody seems to have a better argument than its about time or a vague reference to identity. You were more wordy but basically said the same thing as well. Not sure that's enough.

Ferguson and sheedy were not club presidents. There is no comparison.
 
Really, whilst he's still on TV and Radio, and can drive and spruik the club ( not that I think he would stop if not president), he's still going to a hugely valuable asset to that club. He's made a fair few blues over the journey, but the fact no one wanted to challenge shows the faith (blind or other) that Collingwood board have in him. If he's still prepared to do the hours, if he's still prepared to push his agenda's to the benefits of the club, if he's still got the support of the board and the supporter base, then I can't see any reason to not go on.
 
As per an earlier comment I made, nobody seems to have a better argument than its about time or a vague reference to identity. You were more wordy but basically said the same thing as well. Not sure that's enough.

Ferguson and sheedy were not club presidents. There is no comparison.

There is in that they are the face of the club, and the most powerful person at the club.
 
Ferguson and sheedy were not club presidents. There is no comparison.

Well Ferguson and Sheedy are an argument for keeping Eddie. No they are not presidents but in the same way, their personalities and brands became entwined with the clubs they were involved with because of their longevity and success. So MU and Essendon have not fared very well since these two left - that could be an outcome at Collingwood and an argument to stick with Eddie.

You are never going to get much more than words - if you are relying on empirical data to support Eddie going then he is going to be carried out in a coffin in 20 years. For me, the fact that the first thing that comes to most people's minds when you mention Collingwood is Eddie is reason enough to think about change.
 
There is in that they are the face of the club, and the most powerful person at the club.

If Eddie had been coach for 20 years then there may be valid point. But as the president he should be the most powerful person at the club. If people other than the President are the most powerful person then something is wrong.

Maguire wouldnt have let Sheedy run past his use by date, just as he managed Malthouse out when he was seemingly at the top of his game but in reality nearing the end.

As for Man U, thats a different sport isnt it?
 
Well he brought them a premiership, only a few men have done that since the fall of Berlin in 1945.

The last one was an outdated, mysognistic, racist dinosau.....oh....

Carry on.


Eddie's average of 1 premiership every 20 years is better than the 4 previous Collingwood presidents.

But his average is falling every year ....
 
For me, the fact that the first thing that comes to most people's minds when you mention Collingwood is Eddie is reason enough to think about change.

That has been true for most of his 17 years of presidency though. Using your logic he should have been sacked before he started. Doesnt really mean much that outsiders hate him.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That has been true for most of his 17 years of presidency though. Doesnt really mean much that outsiders hate him.

Nope it doesn't as I said it will resonate differently for people. But is that really where Collingwood wants to position themselves? Think of Hawks you think success, Bulldogs you think loved underdogs, Cats you think community......Collingwood you think Eddie. Not something I would build around especially for a club that has some claim to being a cornerstone of the AFL.
 
If Eddie had been coach for 20 years then there may be valid point. But as the president he should be the most powerful person at the club. If people other than the President are the most powerful person then something is wrong.

Maguire wouldnt have let Sheedy run past his use by date, just as he managed Malthouse out when he was seemingly at the top of his game but in reality nearing the end.

As for Man U, thats a different sport isnt it?

Obviously we'll never know, but I wonder if Malthouse would have been replaced if Buckley had not flagged his intentions to want to coach and North came in to offer him a role. Be interesting to know.
 
Nope it doesn't as I said it will resonate differently for people. But is that really where Collingwood wants to position themselves? Think of Hawks you think success, Bulldogs you think loved underdogs, Cats you think community......Collingwood you think Eddie. Not something I would build around especially for a club that has some claim to being a cornerstone of the AFL.

Maybe you value brand more than I do. Most people value premierships.

That builds a brand. Flags and failing that general success builds that. As you quite rightly mention, Hawthorn are known for that and the Bulldogs werent. Surprise surprise, the Bulldogs image changed overnight. Geelong are known for that (you plucked that community bit out of the air, just made it up because Geelong is a regional city). Brand as you define it is not really important. You can improve it if you win and it will decline if you dont.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top