Toast Presidency and The Board

[jathanas]

Thank you 76woodenspooners

One of BigFooty’s all-time-favourite posters, Reykjavik , was all across the board level stuff. He once posted a list of the responsibilities of a Not-For-Profit board like that of Collingwood …

abcdef.....ijklmnop

NFP board responsibilities
Specific responsibilities of a not-for-profit (NFP) board include:

• Driving the strategic direction of the organisation
• Working with the CEO to enable the organisation to obtain the resources, funds and personnel necessary to implement the organisation's strategic objectives
• Implementing, maintaining and (as necessary) refining a system of good governance that is appropriate for the organisation
• Reviewing reports and monitoring the performance of the organisation
• Regularly reviewing the board's structure and composition, so that these are appropriate for the organisation
• Appointing – and managing the performance of – a suitable CEO
• Succession planning for the CEO

While the above points are also applicable to for-profit boards, NFP boards also face a unique range of issues, such as:

• Difficulties in defining and measuring organisational effectiveness
• Transgression of role boundaries
• The negative impact of the structural compositions of some NFP boards, including those arising from representative models
• Funding dependencies and constraints

In practice, the role of the board is to supervise an organisation's business in two broad areas:

1. Overall business performance - ensuring the organisation develops and implements strategies and supporting policies to enable it to fulfill the objectives set out in the organisation's constitution. The board delegates the day to day management of the organisation but remains accountable to the shareholders for the organisation's performance. The board monitors and supports management in an on-going way.
2. Overall compliance performance - ensuring the organisation develops and implements systems to enable it to comply with its legal and policy obligations (complying with statutes such as the Corporations Act 2001, adhering to accounting standards) and ensure the organisation's assets are protected through appropriate risk management.

http://www.companydirectors.com.au/...ctor/NFP-governance/The-role-of-the-NFP-board

Link to original post …

Side by Side with Reykjavik - RIP (re-read Rey's message to us all #108, pg 5)

Reyk, I'm ridiculously happy to see you posting! :)

www.bigfooty.com

 

[The Royal Sampler]

How is Korda any less privileged if it's all about power and connections? He hasn't been voted into the presidency by the members.

If the board is rather incompetent then they can be phased out with natural attrition.

If the board is catastrophically incompetent then they can be ousted via an EGM. Apparently that’s also ok.

What you absolutely can’t do, is to say “hey, an EGM is almost inevitable, but we can keep much of the skills of the current board and have continuity and a fairly orderly process if we turn over roughly half the board members.” Because that would be a culture of “power and privilege”.

You see, if you are invited to join a board by the current board and ratified well down the track, that’s ok as you got the position not because of your connections but because you jumped in a DeLorean and went forward in time to the next AGM.

If you plan on forming a ticket at the next EGM, which you didn’t trigger yourself, but seek to negotiate a handover to make the process more orderly, that’s not ok because you used your powerful connections to... make yourself appear to be a valid candidate?!

Honestly, I’d expect more of my five year old than this.

 

[jmac70]

You fat?! That's not how I imagine you to be. There's that illusion blown.

Well, not fat, just comfy. I’m 90 kg and am 182 cm. Could probably play full forward against the Crows

 

[Rusty Beam]

Personally I still find it ridiculous that Korda was voted as Chairman of the board.

This was inevitable.

 

[76woodenspooners]

McGuire said on footy classified during the week that he’d spoken with Korda to assist.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall listening to what advice McGuire gave.

The Footy Classified interview, it was like he said “Oi Caro, can you do me and my club a favour? Let’s call up David Hatley, I’ll interview him ...

... so I can give Korda a masterclass in how to deal with the members. And if Korda has any sense he’ll be watching and taking notes and hopefully learn how to put an end to all this turmoil and nonsense”.

 

[Carringbush2010]

In what way did that disadvantage us?

We're talking about conflict of interest.

 

[barrackers]

I’d love to be a fly on the wall listening to what advice McGuire gave.

The Footy Classified interview, it was like he said “Oi Caro, can you do me and my club a favour? Let’s call up David Hatley, I’ll interview him ...

... so I can give Korda a masterclass in how to deal with the members. And if Korda has any sense he’ll be watching and taking notes and hopefully learn how to put an end to all this turmoil and nonsense”.

I had similar thoughts watching it. That the petition wouldn’t have got far under McGuire.

 

[Lip Gallagher]

We're talking about conflict of interest.

The only conflict of interest i see is Hine being promoted to list manager, was then in charge of contracts for players he drafted, that's like asking your mum how you played on the weekend.

 

[Markfs]

Gee, there is a lot of pressure on David Hately now with Browne saying he will wait to see if an EGM is called for by members.

David has collected a lot of signatures, but it is still only a small portion of the total voting members. It’s really not fair that David should be the one to make this decision.

We have heard from both candidates now. We know that one side has a full ticket, working on our issues now. The other side has Browne and unknown associates, although might include Moore and Kelly.

The club needs to take the pressure off Hately. Release a poll to voting members only with a simple question:

Do you want an EGM to vote on the board?

If a majority of voting members want an EGM then hold one, and let the dice fall where they may.

It's a triumph for fat ugly men like ourselves to have such an effect. I'm so inspired that that i've stopped all fitness work that I was contemplating...

 

[76woodenspooners]

Not sure whether this is the right place for it, but does anyone wonder whether Wrighty hadn’t been told the full story about cap issues prior to taking the job? Or hadn’t done his due diligence well enough?

No.

I wonder about lovers, friends, family, holidays, good food and good wine.

But what Wrighty may or may not have been told? No.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Magpies challenger outlines coach plan, rejects ‘power and privilege’ gibe

Former Channel Nine boss and AFL lawyer Jeff Browne has hit back at a suggestion from a Collingwood vice-president that he has an agenda of “power and privilege”.

www.theage.com.au

Former Channel Nine boss and AFL lawyer Jeff Browne has hit back at a suggestion from a Collingwood vice-president that he has an agenda of “power and privilege” and revealed the three current board members that he would have retained first had he been able to strike a deal to take over the club.

Browne also revealed his view on the coaching position and Nathan Buckley, saying that he was not privy to enough information to make a call on Buckley yet but that if Buckley was not coach, the Magpies should “go your hardest” at the best available candidate.

Browne, whose bid for a peaceful takeover of the board without a full spill was rejected by the current board on Wednesday, said he was willing to put forward seven prospective board members on a ticket if members triggered an extraordinary general meeting.

Browne said current president Mark Korda carried “baggage” for the club’s mismanagement of the salary cap as chair of Collingwood’s finance committee and that Browne would not have put his hand up for the presidency had the board appointed a suitable outsider as president such as ex-premier John Brumby or ex-MCG Trust chairman John Wylie to replace Eddie McGuire.

Browne did not completely rule out having prominent ex-players, Craig Kelly and Peter Moore - both fathers of current players and Browne supporters - on his ticket. “They obviously have some conflicts (of interest), but they could be carefully managed,” he said. Kelly is Buckley’s manager.

And while he disputed vice-president Jodie Sizer’s characterisation of him having an agenda of “power and privilege,” Browne also indicated Sizer, the Indigenous woman leading the club’s Do Better report implementation, would have been one of his three preferred directors on a composite board, along with VRC boss Neil Wilson and ex-Australia Post chief executive Christine Holgate.

In response to the criticism of his candidacy by Sizer, he said: “Jodie Sizer has apparently said that she wouldn’t serve on a board under me and that I came from a background of power and privilege.

“I grew up in Greensborough. I played my football in the Diamond Valley League. I was zoned to Collingwood and played in the under 19s, before moving on to play for Preston in the VFA. I was a teacher then and I was putting myself through law school working at the Bundoora Hotel to pay my way.

“That’s where I come from. I’ve gone on to have a legal career. I was the AFL’s adviser for over 20 years. I don’t see that as a hindrance - I see that as quite helpful. The salary cap rules that seem to have caused so much problem for Collingwood were significantly written by me. “The fact that I’ve had a career in business at a high level, and the fact that I’ve had a long association with the AFL, I would have thought they were things that were relevant to the position of president of Collingwood.

“My background is far from a privileged one and, I like a lot of Collingwood supporters, have very humble beginnings.”

Browne was responding to Sizer’s comments on SEN and also to the (seven-member) board’s rejection of his offer to have a four-three split, with Browne taking over the presidency in a negotiated outcome.

Browne said he had not enough information to make a decision on Buckley’s future, but expressed confidence in football boss Graham Wright. “I’ve not spoken to Nathan Buckley,” Browne said. “I’ve not spoken to anyone who’s analysed the coaching performance in depth. I do know in high performance organisations there are times when you must make a change and there are times when you must back your own people. I don’t which applies to the coaching position because I haven’t had any access to detailed information.

“But I do acknowledge that I think Graham Wright is the right person in the job and if I were involved in the club I would obviously be speaking to him very closely but as well, to Nathan. On the question of what he would do as president if Buckley exited, Browne said: “You’d have to see who was available and go your hardest for the best one you could identify.”

He suggested a coach-search process would include external experts, mentioning Paul Roos and Jason Dunstall as expert advisers to other clubs. “I don’t know who, but I think that concept is a helpful one.” Browne said he had never suggested he wanted to retain Buckley to board member Paul Licuria when the pair spoke.

Browne said he had never spoken to David Hatley, the member organising the EGM, confirming that he would put his name forward if there was an EGM with the number on his ticket “open to discussion.” “The ultimate decision makers in relation to the Collingwood Football Club are the members, not the board. If the members want to petition for an extraordinary general meeting of the board, I’ll put my name forward.”

Browne revealed that Sizer, Wilson and Holgate would have been his preferred options in a composite board, ahead of ex-player Licuria. “They’re the three I would welcome.

“Neil Wilson hasn’t had anything to do with the mistakes of the past. Jodie, nothwithstanding her comments about me this morning, is a good person to execute the Do Better report and I think that’s important. And Christine Holgate is a very talented executive.

Browne said it had been the “leadership vaccuum” - evident in the board’s initial sharing of the presidency, post-McGuire’s resignation, between Korda and Peter Murphy - that had led him to pursue the presidency. “Now they settled on Mark, and here’s my problem with that - Mark was chairman of the club’s finance committee .... How could the chairman of the finance committee not know about the implications of the financial situation in relation to the salary cap?

“I don’t think he’s a natural leader, but he carries that very specific baggage that actually resulted in us showing very good footballers the door.” Browne, asked about McGuire’s responsibility for the salary cap problems, compared to Korda, said: “The whole club needs to be accountable for that. I’ve called out Mark because ... he was was the one (director) closest to the issues that got us in trouble.”

Browne said of suggestions that McGuire, a close friend, would influence him: “He (McGuire) totally accepts that whoever is president ... should have a mandate to lead the club. He won’t seek to interfere.

“But ... if I was president and I needed some help, some background or some information, I know that I could call on him to assist. But it would be my call.”
Browne said he did not expect the current board to go into caretaker mode on the issue of the coaching position until a board contest was decided.
Browne said that, since the Korda board had rejected his proposal, “I don’t know that we have a lot to talk about.
“I’m in the hands of the members at the moment. If there is a meeting called, then I will say the things that I think need to happen at Collingwood, the things that I think I can add. And will also acknowledge that there are many good things at Collingwood - the club is in a sound financial position.

“But I can’t come out now and publish a manifesto on what I think needs to happen at Collingwood, other than to say that I think it needs a change of leadership and strong leadership.

“I think if think the three critical issues at Collingwood are: a lack of leadership, secondly a lack of confidence that that has caused across the membership base and thirdly...the fact that it’s the members who really own the Collingwood Football Club and they should be heard.”

(1) So given that he’s either supporting positions of the current board (ie: Do Better report) or got NFI himself (ie: Senior Coach position) or has no position on anything (ie: “I can’t come out and publish a manefesto”) ... then what’s the point of him?

(2) What exactly does he mean by “strong leadership” and “lack of leadership”?

(3) Blaming Korda for the salary cap position is disingenuous and opportunistic. If Browne truly thinks the head of the finance committee should have any responsibility for salary cap management beyond the shared board responsibility that we’re in compliance with AFL rules (which we are), then Browne really has no place on the board of a footy club.

 

[Civilest]

The fact that the power and privilege card was played shows the board is desperate and scared, it’s where we want all current and future boards to be...uncomfortable. I like Sizer and want her to remain. My guess is this card wasn’t played by herself. It would have been a joint decision. So Sizer doesn’t have to look very far to see power and privilege, she seems to have had her indigenous voice exploited to launch a cheap shot. Hypocrites.

 

[Black_White]

Fremantle is basically owned by the WA football commission. There was no membership elected directors until a few years ago. The board makes sure that the membership-elected candidates have the necessary skills to be on the board... and then the membership has a say.

West Coast does something similar. Closer to home, Essendon has two or three positions on the board that are determined by the rest of the board. There is no membership election of those positions. Other clubs are similar. The interstate clubs generally have far less membership involved in determining board positions. I'm not an expert in this area but I did 30 minutes research on it about a month ago. From what I saw, the Pies are probably one of the most democratic of the club that I looked at.

In principle, CFC may very well be the most democratic club you looked at.
But reality says differently. When was the last time the members voted for a board member/President?
Would be a very long time. As Ed’s way of controlling CFC, and he did control it, was to actively discourage any challengers to his. chosen few.
A very successful modus operandi.
The facts will bear out that in the past two decades the stability of the CFC board has been because the election of board members has been entirely in house. Kept at arms length from the members,

 

[Black_White]

(1) So given that he’s either supporting positions of the current board (ie: Do Better report) or got NFI himself (ie: Senior Coach position) or has no position on anything (ie: “I can’t come out and publish a manefesto”) ... then what’s the point of him?

(2) What exactly does he mean by “strong leadership” and “lack of leadership”?

(3) Blaming Korda for the salary cap position is disingenuous and opportunistic. If Browne truly thinks the head of the finance committee should have any responsibility for salary cap management beyond the shared board responsibility that we’re in compliance with AFL rules (which we are), then Browne really has no place on the board of a footy club.

As long as your happy with a leadership that decides it can appoint board members outside the actual rules of the club, then good luck to you.
Do all you like to the challenger, but never forget the majority of this board, and the now President, oversaw the debacle that resulted in our fire sale of decent players. As well as still paying players wages to ply their trade against us.
And well, the appointment, unchallenged, of a person who doesn’t qualify for board membership. A real kick in the face to ordinary members.
Is the alternative ticket any better? I don’t know. But I believe that the way the board is run at the moment, their arrogance in appointing a non qualified person, is simply unforgivable.
And they have to pay for that arrogance.

 

[lyfsux]

The only conflict of interest i see is Hine being promoted to list manager, was then in charge of contracts for players he drafted, that's like asking your mum how you played on the weekend.

My mum used to tell me I played like crap
She also told me that truth hurts

 

[Lip Gallagher]

My mum used to tell me I played like crap
She also told me that truth hurts

You would've been s**t though.

I was BOG every week in my mums eyes

 

[jackcass]

The fact that the power and privilege card was played shows the board is desperate and scared, it’s where we want all current and future boards to be...uncomfortable. I like Sizer and want her to remain. My guess is this card wasn’t played by herself. It would have been a joint decision. So Sizer doesn’t have to look very far to see power and privilege, she seems to have had her indigenous voice exploited to launch a cheap shot. Hypocrites.

How is describing an attempted coup as an agenda of power and privilege in any way desperate? It's exactly what it is.

 

[HFF]

I love Swanny but his comments are delusional.
Mateships and relationships are more important than any games you win?

Seriously, it’s getting ridiculous that nobody is taking this seriously, from the current board to ex players.

We don’t care about mateships and relationships of employees, staff and board members that work or have worked at Collingwood.

The members care for one thing—-the on field success of the football club to win matches and ultimately premierships.
Of course with this we want to be well run and governed.

Talking about fractions and relationships being broken is a joke.

How can they be so out of touch with the anger and expectations of the fans?

Jeff at least is starting to make sense as to why he is doing it and why change is needed if it wasn’t evident enough with our diabolical governance of the last few years.

All the other parties including former players are doing are talking trash.

 

[Black_White]

I love Swanny but his comments are delusional.
Mateships and relationships are more important than any games you win?

Seriously, it’s getting ridiculous that nobody is taking this seriously, from the current board to ex players.

We don’t care about mateships and relationships of employees, staff and board members that work or have worked at Collingwood.

The members care for one thing—-the on field success of the football club to win matches and ultimately premierships.
Of course with this we want to be well run and governed.

Talking about fractions and relationships being broken is a joke.

How can they be so out of touch with the anger and expectations of the fans?

Jeff at least is starting to make sense as to why he is doing it and why change is needed if it wasn’t evident enough with our diabolical governance of the last few years.

All the other parties including former players are doing are talking trash.

Swanny lives in a bubble.
Swanny doesn’t understand that members money, that the sheer numbers of members get big dollar sponsorships, achieve the dollars that paid for Swanny to live his lifestyle after chasing a piece of pigskin for a living.
Does Swanny understand that without his talent he would be lucky to be on 20 bucks an hour as a labourer? Without his pigskin chasing ability he wouldn’t even be known?
Enjoy your mateships, your reunions Swanny. But please, don’t pretend that you have Mensa membership and just stay well out of grown up conversations.

 

[Markfs]

In principle, CFC may very well be the most democratic club you looked at.
But reality says differently. When was the last time the members voted for a board member/President?
Would be a very long time. As Ed’s way of controlling CFC, and he did control it, was to actively discourage any challengers to his. chosen few.
A very successful modus operandi.
The facts will bear out that in the past two decades the stability of the CFC board has been because the election of board members has been entirely in house. Kept at arms length from the members,

This has been stated dozens of times but there's no rule that stops people from putting their names forward as alternative candidates to the incumbents...

If collingwood people are too gutless or if they can persuaded not to do it by Eddie, then that's got nothing to do with what the rules of the club allow. You can lead a collingwood member to nominating for a spot on the board, but you cant make him nominate....(famous old saying)

 

[HFF]

Wow, how to completely misinterpret what she said.

It’s not misinterpreted.
She clearly played the man and not the ball....that’s my problem with this board.

The board shouldn’t be asking questions of the challenger, they should be asking questions of themselves and answer as to why they should stay...because the evidence of the last few years has made us a laughing stock under their governance

 

[76woodenspooners]

As long as your happy with a leadership that decides it can appoint board members outside the actual rules of the club, then good luck to you.

And well, the appointment, unchallenged, of a person who doesn’t qualify for board membership. A real kick in the face to ordinary members.
Is the alternative ticket any better? I don’t know. But I believe that the way the board is run at the moment, their arrogance in appointing a non qualified person, is simply unforgivable.
And they have to pay for that arrogance.

That wasn’t one of the points raised by Browne ...

... but seeing as you raise it now ...

... then No, I‘m not happy that a board member has been appointed outside the spirit of rules of the Articles of Association. But that ship already sailed 23 years ago when Alex Waitslitz was also non-eligible and was brought onto the board in the same way. And let’s face it, apart from Paul Licuria who is a life member, and Jack Kennedy who was part of the old guard, none of us have any idea of the eligibility status of any of the two dozen or so board members who served with Eddie.

I don’t like it, however given the lengthy precedents, I also think it’d be a bit churlish to crucify the board in 2021 for doing it.

Do all you like to the challenger, but never forget the majority of this board, and the now President, oversaw the debacle that resulted in our fire sale of decent players. As well as still paying players wages to ply their trade against us.

I reckon I’ve mounted a counter argument against statements like this about a dozen times already in the various threads, and I’m yet to see anybody even attempt to put forward a cogent debating point. Here’s one of my postings on it ...

Many folks over recent years have been banging on about how we’re the biggest club in the land, and how we should be maxing out our soft cap, and doing everything we can to take advantage of our Premiership window. It seems that our club did exactly that.

They started 2017 in salary cap distress (which is another matter), but managed to get and hold us in Premiership contention for three years through management of the salary cap. That would have meant not banking capspace when others were, backending contracts to the max, and anticipating growth of the salary cap when in fact it contracted for the first time ever.

The club were doing exactly what fans and members expected of them, and if we’d kicked an extra goal in 2018, and if we’d won two more games in 2019 nobody would care less that we’d maxed out our cap to achieve that. It’s what the fans of the biggest club in the land would have expected.

 

[HFF]

That wasn’t one of the points raised by Browne ...

... but seeing as you raise it now ...

... then No, I‘m not happy that a board member has been appointed outside the spirit of rules of the Articles of Association. But that ship already sailed 23 years ago when Alex Waitslitz was also non-eligible and was brought onto the board in the same way. And let’s face it, apart from Paul Licuria who is a life member, and Jack Kennedy who was part of the old guard, none of us have any idea of the eligibility status of any of the two dozen or so board members who served with Eddie.

I don’t like it, however given the lengthy precedents, I also think it’d be a bit churlish to crucify the board in 2021 for doing it.



I reckon I’ve mounted a counter argument against statements like this about a dozen times already in the various threads, and I’m yet to see anybody even attempt to put forward a cogent debating point. Here’s one of my postings on it ...

Responding to the last bits about what the members would have expected—-no other club that has challenged, ever went through what we did.
Whilst we expect things—-these people are on the board to ensure that it doesn’t go out of control...that’s what governance is.
Kicking the problem down the road for another day waiting for it to blow up ...isn’t governance.
Its failure.

As such accountability needs to be held and those responsible should be made to answer for it.

 

[Black_White]

That wasn’t one of the points raised by Browne ...

... but seeing as you raise it now ...

... then No, I‘m not happy that a board member has been appointed outside the spirit of rules of the Articles of Association. But that ship already sailed 23 years ago when Alex Waitslitz was also non-eligible and was brought onto the board in the same way. And let’s face it, apart from Paul Licuria who is a life member, and Jack Kennedy who was part of the old guard, none of us have any idea of the eligibility status of any of the two dozen or so board members who served with Eddie.

I don’t like it, however given the lengthy precedents, I also think it’d be a bit churlish to crucify the board in 2021 for doing it.



I reckon I’ve mounted a counter argument against statements like this about a dozen times already in the various threads, and I’m yet to see anybody even attempt to put forward a cogent debating point. Here’s one of my postings on it ...

Precedents?
I would like to think that people see precedents for what they are. Correct or incorrect.
These precedents that you mention are incorrect. Please do not hide behind these incorrect precedents to try and legitimise actions taken in 2021.
Its a cowards defence.

 

[HeadInTheSand]

Where were your howls of protest in how these picks were used at the time.
Everyone can be an expert in hindsight.

You appear to have hold of the wrong end of the stick old man. The club burned three picks by giving Treloar and Stephenson away.

 

[Apples]

Swan might claim a bit more authority to talk about the CFC than lockdown. Unfair to claim that his ignorance on one issue is evidence for his ignorance on another.

But I'm in no way suggesting that you're churlish. You're evidently in favour of Jeff Browne and it makes sense that this position will inform your perspective. Nothing wrong with that.

I didn't claim Swanny's opinions on the board were ignorant at all. His opinions on lock-down were self-serving and IMO, ignorant. His opinions on Korda and the board are reasonable, but I disagree with them. Browne does need to name his ticket and his vision, but I'm sure he's waiting for the right time to do this. Now is not the time.