Former Collingwood Director David Galbally QC speaks out against current administration

[Chief Ten Beers]

I think players being imbeciles (betting, taking drugs, assault and lying) is different to poor management decisions. And you can go back to Malthouse's era also.

Beams was a punt after Shuey smashed us, failed but we had Quaynor and Kelly next year but yes it cost us salary cap space, overpaid Grundy (hopefully club now says enough with overpaying players) and Wells was a free agent acquisition. Yes as it turns out they're bad decisions.

I'm not suggesting the club is perfect or has been performing at its best and everyone has a right to question its decisions and path but I also think there needs to be some balance. Hopefully if anything, all this gets the club to be more transparent and accountable and the forum yields some answers.

How many betting scandals, naked drunken incidents, drink driving, assaults, recent individual drug scandals are at other clubs? It's there but for Collingwood it's a Cakewalk,

It's not management per se but management is responsible for culture, professionalism and discipline always

 

[Trickster]

How many betting scandals, naked drunken incidents, drink driving, assaults, recent individual drug scandals are at other clubs? It's there but for Collingwood it's a Cakewalk,

It's not management per se but management is responsible for culture, professionalism and discipline always

I too cringe when i hear another Collingwood player in the news doing something they shouldn't.

One could argue Howe outing Stevo for gambling is reflective of strong culture, not sure how many other clubs would do that or even how many Collingwood players or supporters would have been happy by that given he missed half the season. Stevo being traded out may also be a positive cultural change too.

The reality is players who transgress like Swan, Dustin Martin and De Goey will be tolerated, and even loved by fans, due to their ability when in reality they're probably selfish and dilute what management are trying to establish. Flags can cover up a lot of issues.

Another point is that our culture was far worse under Malthouse but he let them get away with things others may not have due to his style and tolerance. You could argue Buckley tried to clean up the culture by trading out Wellingham, Thomas and with Beams leaving to the detriment of club performance.

With regards to drugs, thats a societal issue and no matter how strong a club culture is that will occur on every list.

 

[Lockyer24]

It’s time for a meaningful push to get Eddie out of the club. If he was a regulation President he’d be safe from this latest disaster but as we all know, he has fingers in every pie, he acts like he owns the club.

He ******* doesn’t.

This needs to change.

 

[Lip Gallagher]

Heard from a reliable source Stevo was gone no matter what, had to be micro managed daily and was plain lazy, even in his form slump he refused hit the track hard, senior players wanted him gone and the club felt his trade value would've decreased the longer we kept him.


Source had a heap more juice regarding the club but it's probably best left unsaid for the time being.

 

[jmac70]

Heard from a reliable source Stevo was gone no matter what, had to be micro managed daily and was plain lazy, even in his form slump he refused hit the track hard, senior players wanted him gone and the club felt his trade value would've decreased the longer we kept him.


Source had a heap more juice regarding the club but it's probably best left unsaid for the time being.

Hard to imagine how his trade value could have decreased further than what we got for him. Of course we could have just been old fashioned and actually try to improve him.

 

[YouBeauty]

Hard to imagine how his trade value could have decreased further than what we got for him. Of course we could have just been old fashioned and actually try to improve him.

It's the classic Collingwood excuse. Another convenient excuse for failing at something.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Yeah yeah everyone hates lawyers. Right up until when they need one.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

You think once they need one they don't hate them?

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Heard from a reliable source Stevo was gone no matter what, had to be micro managed daily and was plain lazy, even in his form slump he refused hit the track hard, senior players wanted him gone and the club felt his trade value would've decreased the longer we kept him.


Source had a heap more juice regarding the club but it's probably best left unsaid for the time being.

Thanks for the info, PM me for the best left unsaid pls.

 

[Anzacday]

Murphy's allegedly thorough review did not examine the presidency.

Surprised?

 

[ZEV]

Receivers on the club or on the pubs?

The keys to the Westpac Centre.

 

[ZEV]

Yep, indeed.

Remember Club 5?

The club’s bank at the time said that if Collingwood were any normal business (or normal AFL club) they’d call in the receivers to wind them up. It was due to their dire financial position associated with the pubs fiasco. The bank gave the club 30 days to find the money. The club created Club 5 (which was essentially a 5 year Legends membership paid in advance) which raised the money to keep the bank at bay. Club 5 members were basically keeping the club afloat. Collingwood then got the windfall associated with the 2010 Premiership, eventually divested themselves of the pubs, and the rest is history.

I think the issue with the pubs started earlier than 09-10. I remember being told by Gary Pert that the first phone call he received as CEO was from the bank basically saying they were coming to seize the place. That would have been May 2007 and the pubs had been bought in 2006ish. I remember they were bleeding money and there was a landlord issue and we had to wear huge losses and a 5 mil capital loss alone on the Beach Hotel...

 

[76woodenspooners]

I think the issue with the pubs started earlier than 09-10. I remember being told by Gary Pert that the first phone call he received as CEO was from the bank basically saying they were coming to seize the place. That would have been May 2007 and the pubs had been bought in 2006ish. I remember they were bleeding money and there was a landlord issue and we had to wear huge losses and a 5 mil capital loss alone on the Beach Hotel...

Yeah, that’s reasonably consistent with what I heard. The troubles did begin before Pert came on board (circa 2007?), but it all came to a head a bit after the succession plan was announced ... hence the club using 5 year deal Malthouse (2+3), 5 year deal Buckley (2+3), Maxwell as Captain wearing number 5, to launch Club 5 to save the club. It wasn’t publicised at the time, but some senior folks in the club were quite candid about it a few years later.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Receivers on the club or on the pubs?

Club. The club was on the hook for the pubs fiasco

 

[76woodenspooners]

Yeah yeah everyone hates lawyers. Right up until when they need one.

Lawyers are kinda (but not entirely) like hairdressers.

Lawyers, just like hairdressers, there are good ones and there are s**t ones.

Lawyers, just like hairdressers, the cheap ones are s**t, but just because you spend $$$ doesn’t mean you’re getting a good one. They get away with this because there are clients who don’t know any better.

Lawyers, just like hairdressers, are acting under instructions from their client ...

... But Good Lawyers, just like good hairdressers, a big part of their value proposition is to save their client from themselves. Is the client engaging the lawyer / hairdresser to follow instructions or to represent their clients best interests? ... sometimes there is a difference. Dumb clients don’t get this.

Where they differ is that a s**t hairdresser’s mess is contained to their client. A s**t Lawyer’s mess spreads to counterparties in civil matters.

I’ve got enormous repect for good lawyers ...

... but I’ve had to spend way too much money on good lawyers to clean up the mess made by s**t lawyers on matters I’ve been counterparty to.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I too cringe when i hear another Collingwood player in the news doing something they shouldn't.

One could argue Howe outing Stevo for gambling is reflective of strong culture, not sure how many other clubs would do that or even how many Collingwood players or supporters would have been happy by that given he missed half the season. Stevo being traded out may also be a positive cultural change too.

The reality is players who transgress like Swan, Dustin Martin and De Goey will be tolerated, and even loved by fans, due to their ability when in reality they're probably selfish and dilute what management are trying to establish. Flags can cover up a lot of issues.

Another point is that our culture was far worse under Malthouse but he let them get away with things others may not have due to his style and tolerance. You could argue Buckley tried to clean up the culture by trading out Wellingham, Thomas and with Beams leaving to the detriment of club performance.

With regards to drugs, thats a societal issue and no matter how strong a club culture is that will occur on every list.

You're right trickster, the 'bad boy' can do no wrong so long as the bad boy can snag a flag or 3. You mention our culture was 'far worse' under MM, yeah probably, those bad boys knew how to play for one another and a flag resulted. Probably should've been more than one, probably would've been if the succession plan was postponed.

What we got now is bad boys no where near success and what seems is 'in it for me' culture rather than 'play for each other and ultimate success' like we did back then and that other mob of bad boys over the rail line are doing now.

We could line up a few 'misdemeanours' for them throughout the last 4 years, I think their fans would willingly accept that. So would I, like I did 10 years ago.

Bad boys good boys who give a sh*t? Makes no difference so long as they're playing for the flag and not for contracts like we are now.

Yeah sure you can go down a rabbit about list management, cap space, 'it's not that bad', who's got bad boys blah blah blah, but it's futile.

We match every club for good / bad whatever and nothing to show for it. Mainly on the back of bad bad whatever the problem(s) is are. And change is either comin or we end as relevant as the saints in half a decade.

So what's it gonna be? I think this trade period and the lead is looking more and more likely the straw that has broken the camels back. Change is a comin.

 

[TKiL]

I too cringe when i hear another Collingwood player in the news doing something they shouldn't.
One could argue Howe outing Stevo for gambling is reflective of strong culture, not sure how many other clubs would do that or even how many Collingwood players or supporters would have been happy by that given he missed half the season. Stevo being traded out may also be a positive cultural change too.
The reality is players who transgress like Swan, Dustin Martin and De Goey will be tolerated, and even loved by fans, due to their ability when in reality they're probably selfish and dilute what management are trying to establish. Flags can cover up a lot of issues.
Another point is that our culture was far worse under Malthouse but he let them get away with things others may not have due to his style and tolerance. You could argue Buckley tried to clean up the culture by trading out Wellingham, Thomas and with Beams leaving to the detriment of club performance.
With regards to drugs, thats a societal issue and no matter how strong a club culture is that will occur on every list.

Any sport will find a way of tolerating "naughty boys" who win - eg cricket:

- Lillee
- Marsh
- Warne
- Botham

Cwood needs its naughty boys to deliver flags! By naughty, I don't mean bad naughty - just naughty naughty - what's the line between the two? good question!
Stealing a bus for 200m - just naughty naughty
Doing a runner with a marinara pizza (but paying up later) - naughty naughty
painting the coach's front fence pink - ok
parking in CEO's car spot - ok

etc etc

 

[TKiL]

Thanks for the info, PM me for the best left unsaid pls.

Dear large spider - plse pm me when you have the info - cheers!

 

[TKiL]

Lawyers are kinda (but not entirely) like hairdressers.

Lawyers, just like hairdressers, there are good ones and there are sh*t ones.

Lawyers, just like hairdressers, the cheap ones are sh*t, but just because you spend $$$ doesn’t mean you’re getting a good one. They get away with this because there are clients who don’t know any better.

Lawyers, just like hairdressers, are acting under instructions from their client ...

... But Good Lawyers, just like good hairdressers, a big part of their value proposition is to save their client from themselves. Is the client engaging the lawyer / hairdresser to follow instructions or to represent their clients best interests? ... sometimes there is a difference. Dumb clients don’t get this.

Where they differ is that a sh*t hairdresser’s mess is contained to their client. A sh*t Lawyer’s mess spreads to counterparties in civil matters.

I’ve got enormous repect for good lawyers ...

... but I’ve had to spend way too much money on good lawyers to clean up the mess made by sh*t lawyers on matters I’ve been counterparty to.

what's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?

one's a bottom dwelling parasite, the other is a fish

 

[76woodenspooners]

what's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?

one's a bottom dwelling parasite, the other is a fish

i know lawyers have a bad reputation, but I never understood where that comes from?

Like I said, you get get ones and you get s**t ones, but you get that in any service profession. I’ve had the benefit of having had good ones, who do a good job that I’m happy with. And (in my experience anyway) with the s**t ones, it’s their client who’s the problems, not the lawyer.

 

[Trickster]

Tkil and Carringbush, i fundamentally agree with both of you. I am not that PC that I cant deal with minor indiscretions, excluding the clear no go areas of course, if it means badish boys win us a flag, but culture, the board and list management decisions are separate.

Just on Sidey, poor decision but he visited a mate who did his knee and then went further and got himself into trouble. I'd count the first part as loyalty to teammates, then irresponsible. But 2020 is difficult as a lot suffered mentally from Covid so I was prepared to give players a bit more grace, including Stevo.

So I think we're ok generally culturally and list management has been poor not helped by missing Lynch etc culminating in this years decisions, which may also impact morale.

So with regards to change, I think Bucks has 1 more chance to at least get us close, I'm prepared to ignore this year given everything that happened but if we're not at least back to a Prelim and have us contending then I think he may stand aside.

As for the board, if they explain what went wrong with list management and provide a plan going forward and are transparent, then I am not of the view that there needs to be change unless further issues come up. To me a board won't win you a flag, its just a ticket to the game.

I am not necessarily right its just my opinion and understand others have a different view and thats fair enough too and if enough feel strongly to instigate change and cancel memberships then that may be the catalyst for change which is ok too.

 

[Scodog10]

Sad to be relying on a 30yo+ player to strengthen the midfield who's been playing since 2008....

Same with Pendlebury. Really shows how much this current Collingwood has failed grooming any new players or drafting any decent mids besides De Goey

To spin a Buckley phrase he thickens the soup.

I’m relying on JDG there much more in 21, a return to form from Grundy and more of Sier. The issue is in the context of this discussion I can’t guarantee those outcomes.

I am much more certain on a return from Steele and an improvement in defensive cover from the loss of Treloar who’s “efforts“ were WHE like in 20. Both of which improves our midfield, IMO.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Tkil and Carringbush, i fundamentally agree with both of you. I am not that PC that I cant deal with minor indiscretions, excluding the clear no go areas of course, if it means badish boys win us a flag, but culture, the board and list management decisions are separate.

No one is disputing that, my point is the bad boy good boy argument is futile. The relevance is the club governance and has been since we've rested on our laurels for 6 decades. In saying that the 'rat pack' types like Swan, Didak, Dusty, Broad etc. are excused because they bring what's most important to the club. The off field stuff pales into significance.

When Steele and Jordy do it, and we've got nothing to show for it unlike Dusty, Broad, Chol touchers etc. then the whole success starvation gets exacerbated.

So with regards to change, I think Bucks has 1 more chance to at least get us close, I'm prepared to ignore this year given everything that happened but if we're not at least back to a Prelim and have us contending then I think he may stand aside.

As for the board, if they explain what went wrong with list management and provide a plan going forward and are transparent, then I am not of the view that there needs to be change unless further issues come up. To me a board won't win you a flag, its just a ticket to the game.

No, Bucks does not have one more chance to get us 'close'. He has to flag - that is the only redemption, he has had 9 full seasons to get us there and 8 seasons of regression. That is in no way saying that the lead up to this trade period and other things like development and in day coaching are entirely on him, but that's the gig. If others fail around you and under your leadership like your line coaches and players, that's it you're out.

That's how it usually goes but not at Collingwood, the mantra if you could read the room of the governance it's like an expectant school kid 'it's coming, it'll come' but it never does (flag). Yeah sure you could argue for Dimma and Bomber Thompson because they 'held on' and it did eventuate but it won't for Bucks if things don't change.

And change is exactly what all the noise among the media about the unhappy fans, it doesn't have to be change of who, it has to be change of how the governance is executed.

Not one Pie fan would give a sh*t who is and who is not on the board so long as they administer accountability and responsibility for football department failings and corrections that would ultimately lead to flags. That has been sorely lacking for the last decade and for other lengthy periods for the last 6 decades.

The club cannot continue on an emotionless path in mediocrity while beating it's chest 'We're Collingwood and you're not'. Sure we'll always be the highest profile sporting club in the country but if we wanna beat our chest let's earn it. That means change.

One more thing, IF we somehow do a unicorn and win it next year that will NOT EXCUSE the recent failings from the top down all the way to the playing group. We had one the most dominant teams of all time 10 years ago and only got one flag out of it, yet this current mob over the rail line have won 3 with a far far inferior list. It's the wasting of potential that grates so many.

Yes I'll be euphoric, but the past while it may be forgiven will not be forgotten.

 

[sr36]

What we got now is bad boys no where near success and what seems is 'in it for me' culture rather than 'play for each other and ultimate success' like we did back then and that other mob of bad boys over the rail line are doing now.

That's an interesting one CB. A lot of Bucks's public rhetoric (and current corporate rhetoric) revolves around personal responsibility and individual growth. It's very centred on the individual and working for the individual, rather than being centred on the team and working for its betterment.

 

[Carringbush2010]

That's an interesting one CB. A lot of Bucks's public rhetoric (and current corporate rhetoric) revolves around personal responsibility and individual growth. It's very centred on the individual and working for the individual, rather than being centred on the team and working for its betterment.

Good observation SR!

Yeah it's like 'All I can be' - his book, the title immediately suggests it's all about individual development. That's all good and well but it (he) needs to drive a 'join in' culture that football teams require.

I've no doubt he believes he IS team first and driving that, but maybe, just maybe his subconscious (drive individual development) is in opposition to coaching a 'team'.

Why do I get 'mistake in appointment' feeling?

 

[Trickster]

No, Bucks does not have one more chance to get us 'close'. He has to flag - that is the only redemption, he has had 9 full seasons to get us there and 8 seasons of regression.

Well that's where we can respectfully disagree. To me, your argument is valid if we're at the end of 2017 and after 9 seasons he hasn't made finals. But at the end of 2017, if they re-signed him, would we have expected a GF appearance, a prelim and a semi (albeit yes you say it's regressing) in the next 3 years? I'd say since 2017 he's done a very good job. Would you consider Geelong's board inept by keeping on Brad Scott? He inherited a flag in 2011 and then for 9 seasons has made finals most years but not gotten there?

And when you call for change, across how many positions do you want it and where do you stop? There's a point where change becomes counter-productive and we can change but there's no guarantee we're going to win a flag or the board we do a better job than the current one. That's not to say there's not merit in change but unless there are better candidates in the fields you want change (who would you appoint as coach?), then its futile to change unless you consider all those that you're calling for are doing a poor job unless there are standout candidates.

I actually believe the team is not worse off for losing Phillips, Treloar and Stevo. Now that's on ability, if morale has taken a hit then different story. But I think we've realised that we may not be able to win a flag with this crew (similar to 2002 and 2003) and they're regenerating. Don't forget Malthouse only won a flag in his 11th year.

We had one the most dominant teams of all time 10 years ago and only got one flag out of it, yet this current mob over the rail line have won 3 with a far far inferior list. It's the wasting of potential that grates so many.

Jjust on this, Malthouse effectively for all of 2011 made this an issue and instead of ensuring as smooth a handover as possible and maximise our chances of winning in 2011, he ensured that those players were not going to accept Buckley when he left and effectively cost us a flag that year along with Shaw and Maxwell as well as some other injuries at the wrong time. That agreement was made in 2009 when we were 3 and 5. There was a contract in place at the end of 2011 and the club was rightful in honouring that. As for 2012 when Bucks took over, we lost Brown who was important, Davis who was in career best form and then we had 4 players do knees (Ball, Macaffer, Krakouer and Keefe) so that decimated our depth while Jolly was fast becoming a liability. So while we look back and think a dynasty went begging, that's debatable. And I also think you under-rate Richmond. They lose their best defender and replace him with Balta and on they go. And on this, our game style was honed to stop Richmond's run and gun play and you can see when we play them and its keeping off, its on our terms. Everything has to line up perfectly to win a flag and to me most pieces are there. Hopefully the remaining pieces are just a matter of fine-tuning. Time will tell.