Delisted Former CEO Xavier Campbell - Resigned - 24/8

[Jade]

The story could be true but Daniher wanting out is probably unrelated and more to do with him wanting out of the Melbourne fish bowl.

'Melbourne Fishbowl'.

The bloke owns (in partnership) a craft brewery and lived in bloody Fitzroy.

He's a god damn Melbourne hipster.

Daniher wanted to pick and choose what Melbourne was, and true to form when everything didn't go his way he threw a bloody tantrum.

 

[Jade]

There was a strategic plan that detailed the clubs on and off field goals - those were ultimately his KPI.

You only need to see the org structure to understand he is responsible for onfield performance. Footy department reports to him therefore he is responsible for how it performs. Not week to week but certainly in the short to medium term.

Were they?

If they were, he'd have been out on his arse for not achieving a single thing in line with those targets,.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

There was a strategic plan that detailed the clubs on and off field goals - those were ultimately his KPI.

You only need to see the org structure to understand he is responsible for onfield performance. Footy department reports to him therefore he is responsible for how it performs. Not week to week but certainly in the short to medium term.

That's not entirely correct in every situation....

Many companies have a traditional organization structure with the CEO sitting at the top whilst not being fully responsible for every facet of the business. This is why detailed KPI's are critical which essentially outline responsibilities and goals. if Xavier doesn't have them than what the hell is he working too?

 

[Vander18]

Were they?

If they were, he'd have been out on his arse for not achieving a single thing in line with those targets,.

Of course they are/were - how can a CEO not be responsible for delivery of an organisational strategic plan?

Whether he has succeeded or not and whether he should have survived is another matter ( I would argue no to both).

 

[Vander18]

That's not entirely correct in every situation....

Many companies have a traditional organization structure with the CEO sitting at the top whilst not being fully responsible for every facet of the business. This is why detailed KPI's are critical which essentially outline responsibilities and goals. if Xavier doesn't have them than what the hell is he working too?

I have never known an organisation to absolve a CEO of responsibility for its single most critical function.

 

[owen87]

I have never known an organisation to absolve a CEO of responsibility for its single most critical function.

You assume the most critical function of the CEO role is winning premierships. I'd disagree with that.

 

[Vander18]

You assume the most critical function of the CEO role is winning premierships. I'd disagree with that.

No - I said it’s the single most critical function of the club.

 

[owen87]

No - I said it’s the single most critical function of the club.

Not the CEO role though. Which is what the CEO is evaluated on.

 

[Jade]

Not the CEO role though. Which is what the CEO is evaluated on.

A CEO, in broad terms, is responsible for wielding the powers of the owners of an organisation to best achieve the goals of that organisation. In a lot of cases, I don't think it's unfair to say that the goal is 'let's make as much money as possible'.

The HOW of 'let's make money' is obviously highly varied. It can involve driving efficiencies, looking for innovation, investing in new technologies, exploring new markets... I could sit here for a week rattling off the 'things'.

But of course, the CEO can't DO all of that, so he appoints a team underneath him to specialise. Need to control inventory? Sweet. Appoint a Supply Chain Manager. Need to structure a manufacturing process? Awesome. Here's an Operations Manager.

Each with their own expertise, their own team goals, their own part in the whole. But ultimately, reporting to the CEO, under the direction of the CEO, so that the CEO can report back to the Board of Directors, or the owner - 'here we are, achieving our organisational goal and this is how we're doing it'.

I would suggest it is indisputably true that whilst Essendon wants to be profitable (like most businesses), that as a FOOTBALL CLUB one of its major organisational goals is to win.

Thus, in my humble opinion, the CEO of Essendon has a very direct, very specific, very unambiguous KPI - how are we performing as a football club?

Xavier Campbell has been the CEO for seven years and six full seasons of football.

In that time, Essendon has had four senior coaches, three football managers and a slew of player leaders.

Only three teams have failed to win a final in that time - Gold Coast, Carlton... and Essendon.

He has fundamentally FAILED in achieving one of his primary KPIs.

 

[DapperJong]

'Melbourne Fishbowl'.

The bloke owns (in partnership) a craft brewery and lived in bloody Fitzroy.

He's a god damn Melbourne hipster.

Daniher wanted to pick and choose what Melbourne was, and true to form when everything didn't go his way he threw a bloody tantrum.

I think he cited that reason so he didn't have to say "because EFC are completely ****ed". Jake Carlisle is a trailblazer.

 

[owen87]

one of

And there you go.

One of.

 

[Jade]

I think he cited that reason so he didn't have to say "because EFC are completely f’ed". Jake Carlisle is a trailblazer.

He's a forward thinker ol' Jakey...

 

[Jade]

And there you go.

One of.

Ok, great.

Give me one of the major organisational goals achieved under Xavier's leadership?

 

[owen87]

Ok, great.

Give me one of the major organisational goals achieved under Xavier's leadership?

Membership figures.
Financial position.

 

[Jade]

Membership figures.

At the end of his first full year in charge, Essendon had 61,000 members.

At the end of his most recent year in charge, Essendon had 66,000 members.

I think you and I have a different opinion on what constitutes success.

Not that it particularly matters, because membership, as it relates to the CEO, is merely a component of the actual KPI which is:

Financial position.

Which I've never particularly disputed, Essendon is in a reasonably sound financial position. Based on a number of conversations I've had, I'd say we could have been in a much BETTER position under different stewardship - but I am wandering in to speculation there (although valid speculation).

I must admit, I did get a giggle though - I opened the annual report and came across this:

"The Essendon Football Club is dedicated to our primary objective of preparing teams to win premierships."

There it is - in black and white.

It's primary objective is to win flags.

Xavier has failed in delivering that objective - the one the club itself says is its primary goal.

*EDIT* - Which I might add means that the Board of Directors is very much NOT holding the CEO accountable to its organisational goals.

 

[kleanr]

Membership figures.
Financial position.

ooh gee, here we go again. Groundhog Week.

Bring on March 20 so this sort of chat can disappear

 

[owen87]

At the end of his first full year in charge, Essendon had 61,000 members.

At the end of his most recent year in charge, Essendon had 66,000 members.

I think you and I have a different opinion on what constitutes success.

Not that it particularly matters, because membership, as it relates to the CEO, is merely a component of the actual KPI which is:



Which I've never particularly disputed, Essendon is in a reasonably sound financial position. Based on a number of conversations I've had, I'd say we could have been in a much BETTER position under different stewardship - but I am wandering in to speculation there (although valid speculation).

I must admit, I did get a giggle though - I opened the annual report and came across this:

"The Essendon Football Club is dedicated to our primary objective of preparing teams to win premierships."

There it is - in black and white.

It's primary objective is to win flags.

Xavier has failed in delivering that objective - the one the club itself says is its primary goal.

Using 2020 figures is a misnomer and you know it.

The CEO is not the club. The CEO role, therefore, has KPI's that may not match the stated goal of winning premierships.

If EFC wins the 2022 Premiership. Then goes bust because of poor financial management. Is the CEO successful? He's achieved the stated goal of winning a premiership after all.

It's bleedingly obvious that the fans want the team to win premierships, but that is only one aspect of the CEO role, and only one aspect of the existence of the football club.

Geelong hasn't won a Premiership for almost a decade, but Brian Cook would be universally regarded as a successful CEO.

 

[owen87]

Bring on March 20

Agreed. Will be great to have football back and (hopefully) get to some games.

 

[Mr Bultitude]

ooh gee, here we go again. Groundhog Week.

Bring on March 20 so this sort of chat can disappear

I mean I tried bringing up grog a few posts ago..

 

[dave10]

At the end of his first full year in charge, Essendon had 61,000 members.

At the end of his most recent year in charge, Essendon had 66,000 members.

I think you and I have a different opinion on what constitutes success.

Not that it particularly matters, because membership, as it relates to the CEO, is merely a component of the actual KPI which is:



Which I've never particularly disputed, Essendon is in a reasonably sound financial position. Based on a number of conversations I've had, I'd say we could have been in a much BETTER position under different stewardship - but I am wandering in to speculation there (although valid speculation).

I must admit, I did get a giggle though - I opened the annual report and came across this:

"The Essendon Football Club is dedicated to our primary objective of preparing teams to win premierships."

There it is - in black and white.

It's primary objective is to win flags.

Xavier has failed in delivering that objective - the one the club itself says is its primary goal.

*EDIT* - Which I might add means that the Board of Directors is very much NOT holding the CEO accountable to its organisational goals.

For transparency, whilst in absolute terms membership was 66,000 in 2020 the COVID year, it was actually 84,000 in 2019 and tracking well to ~87,000 in 2020 in March 2020 when COVID shut the game down. Unfortunately COVID has put an extraordinary spanned into membership which means it’s not reasonable to judge. Before the unthinkable, membership was over 84,000, tracking nicely towards 90,000 without any on field success (unlike its piers) assisting. Membership is a ‘tick’.

Financial Performance. This has been another tick. The club has eliminated majority of its debt incurred during the supplements saga on the back of strong commercial revenue growth and cash surpluses. It has a hue Ed all this whilst investing millions into a state of the art facility (The Hangar).

Sponsorship - The club is in the top 3 in terms of total revenues derived from sponsors. With Amart and Fujitsu, it has with Collingwood the most valuable jumper in the AFL. This has been a strong result given the clubs brand was trashed during the supplements saga and the turnaround in the brand as represented by its leading sponsorship portfolio is in large part down to Xaviers efforts (and Rodski).

Apart from football, my criticisms of Xavier relate to his and the boards paralysis on landing on a commercial strategic plan to grow non football related revenues and in doing so eliminate the need to rely to a degree on poker revenue. It has land at The Hangar and freeholds at Windy Hill for which it’s taking too long to build commercial plans around these assets.

Summary, go after Xavier on his failings in football. Most would agree with this. However, be balanced and objective. With no on field success and COVID aside, Essendon was performing very well commercially with strong YOY growth in membership, sponsorship and debt reduction until 2020. The delivery of the Hangar facility during a period of debt reduction underlies the success in delivering strong cash flow to ensure the club remained strong financially. That has rightly been down to the good work of Xavier.

 

[Vander18]

Not the CEO role though. Which is what the CEO is evaluated on.

Which brings me back to my point - I simply cannot imagine that he is not evaluated on that.

 

[owen87]

Which brings me back to my point - I simply cannot imagine that he is not evaluated on that.

I'm sure it's a portion of what he's evaluated on, but I wouldn't think it's the single most important. Dave's post above outlines it quite well, most of those factors would be of equal importance to the organisation and CEO role as on-field success.

The coaching staff (and conditioning staff, players, etc..) are the ones responsible for driving on-field success, the CEO has some accountability for being the one who appoints them, undoubtedly, but I wouldn't have said it's the defining feature of the role.

You could be a poor CEO and have a club win a Premiership, but still be a poor CEO. You could be a good CEO and not have a Premiership under your watch. We've seen time and time again that on-field success hides all manner of things, and the CEO role encompasses both on and off-field matters.

http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1433/1/Foreman.pdf

This is an older article now, but still relevant, to give an indication of the KPIs defined by directors of the clubs, which should provide a fairly accurate idea of what the CEO would be measured on, of which on-field performance was one of a number of other areas, and the measure most used for on-field performance was regular finals appearances.

Supporters want a successful team, CEO's want a successful organisation. They aren't defined the same way.

 

[Vander18]

I'm sure it's a portion of what he's evaluated on, but I wouldn't think it's the single most important. Dave's post above outlines it quite well, most of those factors would be of equal importance to the organisation and CEO role as on-field success.

The coaching staff (and conditioning staff, players, etc..) are the ones responsible for driving on-field success, the CEO has some accountability for being the one who appoints them, undoubtedly, but I wouldn't have said it's the defining feature of the role.

You could be a poor CEO and have a club win a Premiership, but still be a poor CEO. You could be a good CEO and not have a Premiership under your watch. We've seen time and time again that on-field success hides all manner of things, and the CEO role encompasses both on and off-field matters.

http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1433/1/Foreman.pdf

This is an older article now, but still relevant, to give an indication of the KPIs defined by directors of the clubs, which should provide a fairly accurate idea of what the CEO would be measured on, of which on-field performance was one of a number of other areas, and the measure most used for on-field performance was regular finals appearances.

Supporters want a successful team, CEO's want a successful organisation. They aren't defined the same way.

The CEO role as relates to footy isnt about winning flags...it’s about sustained competence IMO and creating an environment and culture that gives the footy people the best shot to win flags across multiple years. Think Geelong are a good example.

Its not the entirety of their role but it’s the key metric for the organisation....so consistent failure in that area must have a consequence.

 

[Old Campaigner]

'Melbourne Fishbowl'.

The bloke owns (in partnership) a craft brewery and lived in bloody Fitzroy.

He's a god damn Melbourne hipster.

Daniher wanted to pick and choose what Melbourne was, and true to form when everything didn't go his way he threw a bloody tantrum.

I just assumed he wanted to move somewhere he wouldn't be recognised stepping out of the mens toilets of some trendy bar with an extremely runny nose

 

[JayJ20]

For transparency, whilst in absolute terms membership was 66,000 in 2020 the COVID year, it was actually 84,000 in 2019 and tracking well to ~87,000 in 2020 in March 2020 when COVID shut the game down. Unfortunately COVID has put an extraordinary spanned into membership which means it’s not reasonable to judge. Before the unthinkable, membership was over 84,000, tracking nicely towards 90,000 without any on field success (unlike its piers) assisting. Membership is a ‘tick’.

There's a big problem with doing that. If we're going to laud Campbell for achieving 84K, we also must hold him responsible for the biggest membership drop in the competition.

We can say 2020 was an outlier year, but other clubs (with a few exceptions) maintained a relatively stable membership base, including Hawthorn who dropped just a hard as we did performance-wise.
COVID was a reason we dropped members, but it wasn't the reason we dropped nearly a quarter of our members.

I put it down to the ludicrous coaching succession plan we had in place, which was Campbell's doing. Most Essendon fans lost faith in Worsfold and the direction the club was headed.