Markfs' Board of Directors Watch

[Markfs]

Fair point

Effective marketer if they're able to pull it off but?

Do you want CFC board members who spruik ...

"Look, some clubs have been spending some serious money on getting some very fancy facilities, so ours aren't the best anymore. The Freo facilities look particularly impressive - have you checked out their water slide???"

Or

"Just wanna point out out that we're not really the biggest club in the land anymore. Richmond got bigger crowds to games last year. Hawthorn had more members. West Coast and Adelaide have got the lion's share of their state behind them"

It just doesn't work, does it?



Whilst there would be an enormous amount of vitamins consumed unnecessarily, healthcare professionals do regularly prescribe vitamins supplements to people who need them.



She's CEO of a public ally listed company that operates in a regulated industry. That takes a particular mindset to be able to do that - you don't get cowboys running that kind of operation.



Can you explain this "massive conflict of interest"?

any coach will tell you that if you concentrate on winning the grand final at the start of the season, then you'll end up losing your way...

if the pies want to be head dog in the afl, they should concentrate on promoting excellence and the bigger crowds will follow. Personally, I've got bored with all this self promotion and I don't see what all this American style pounding of the chest brings to the club..

what ever happened to the low key Australian approach?

as for the conflict of interest, the board makes decisions about sponsorship. please don't inform me that the blackmore ceo will excuse herself from board discussions of sponsorship. The fact that she is planted on the board means that club cant be objective in its administration of the blackmores sponsorship...

as for your claims about vitamins being prescribed, well maybe we should seek the sponsorship of a company that sells marijuana for therapeutic reasons.....

 

[Markfs]

I've got no problem at all with the way the board handled the Gubby affair.

They took a calculated punt

They mitigated the risks

When things didn't work out, they were prepared, and were able to clean up the mess quickly and with minimum fuss.

What I do question is why we've been going around in circles with footy manager selections - but that's a different matter.

There are other issues in that article. The fact that the author at least knows the names of connected people around the club, encouraged me to reproduce it here. I didn't do it to highlight allen's episode. If you want to criticise the club, you would look to the way he was anointed by Eddie without even a reference to the board..... we all know it would have happened that way. It's a Vladimir Putin style ....or should I say Donald trump style of administration that has been a consistent aspect of the club since eddie took over..

its the reason I would like to see more football knowledge on the board to counter eddie's attitude of completely bypassing the board in football matters.

 

[Markfs]

I apologise for the 'child' comment. It was meant to be childish but auto correct bested me. Anyway it wasn't so bad. I like kids. They taste like chicken.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

it takes a big man to apologise and a bigger man to accept one.... which I obviously am. I must admit that I didn't realise that you were calling me childish... which is actually a positive thing to me because I've been trying to fit in at BF for some time. I keep wanting to get involved in that word association thread but by the time I think up a suitable word, the thread has moved on. It has distressed me greatly to have lost my ability to enjoy the simple things of life so any accusations of being childish, indicates progress to me... I hope to instigate popular rant threads in the coming months...

 

[Markfs]

once more in the interests of providing a balanced argument, I would like to say something positive about the board.

I think we are well placed with the current board should we want to wind up the club....dissolve it..

we have waislitz who can pick the bones of the club and promote the positive bits as selling points and we have korda who can manage the club should we want to sell off all its assets and pay out the staff...

so I think we've got that option covered...

 

[76woodenspooners]

once more in the interests of providing a balanced argument, I would like to say something positive about the board.

I think we are well placed with the current board should we want to wind up the club....dissolve it..

we have waislitz who can pick the bones of the club and promote the positive bits as selling points and we have korda who can manage the club should we want to sell off all its assets and pay out the staff...

so I think we've got that option covered...

Except that the directors aren't allowed to play any role in the club if it were to go into administration.

 

[Markfs]

Except that the directors aren't allowed to play any role in the club if it were to go into administration.

maybe they'll be able to recommend a mate who can do a good job

 

[76woodenspooners]

any coach will tell you that if you concentrate on winning the grand final at the start of the season, then you'll end up losing your way...

So true

if the pies want to be head dog in the afl, they should concentrate on promoting excellence and the bigger crowds will follow.

Indeed

Personally, I've got bored with all this self promotion and I don't see what all this American style pounding of the chest brings to the club..

what ever happened to the low key Australian approach?

Collingwood has never been low key. Never.

I chortle at folks that bemoan "we should be going under the radar". Be careful what you wish for. Look at St Kilda for what "going under the radar" looks like - heck, they set fire to dwarfs to try to get attention. They'd swap profiles with us in a heartbeat. They'd probably even toss in Nathan Freeman to sweeten the deal.

We whinge about being the centre of attention, but we only do that because it helps us remain the centre of attention.

as for the conflict of interest, the board makes decisions about sponsorship. please don't inform me that the blackmore ceo will excuse herself from board discussions of sponsorship. The fact that she is planted on the board means that club cant be objective in its administration of the blackmores sponsorship...

If Blackmore's sponsorship of Collingwood is good enough for the shareholders of Blackmores (who would exercise far greater rigor and Blackmores being a publicly listed company, the shareholders would have a stronger legal framework to back them) then it should be good enough for us members of a footy club who are taking their money.

as for your claims about vitamins being prescribed, well maybe we should seek the sponsorship of a company that sells marijuana for therapeutic reasons.....

What would they see in us?

 

[Markfs]

If Blackmore's sponsorship of Collingwood is good enough for the shareholders of Blackmores (who would exercise far greater rigor and Blackmores being a publicly listed company, the shareholders would have a stronger legal framework to back them) then it should be good enough for us members of a footy club who are taking their money.

there is no conflict of interest for blackmores to sponsor collingwood and to have their CEO on the board in order to maximise their sponsorship and also be able to see what other companies are offering as sponsorships. i am not saying that clubs and sponsors are adversaries...but they have different goals....

i am certain that you are a good religious man.... a church going christian....so as Jesus once said, a man cannot serve two masters...

 

[JB1975]

So true



Indeed



Collingwood has never been low key. Never.

I chortle at folks that bemoan "we should be going under the radar". Be careful what you wish for. Look at St Kilda for what "going under the radar" looks like - heck, they set fire to dwarfs to try to get attention. They'd swap profiles with us in a heartbeat. They'd probably even toss in Nathan Freeman to sweeten the deal.

We whinge about being the centre of attention, but we only do that because it helps us remain the centre of attention.



If Blackmore's sponsorship of Collingwood is good enough for the shareholders of Blackmores (who would exercise far greater rigor and Blackmores being a publicly listed company, the shareholders would have a stronger legal framework to back them) then it should be good enough for us members of a footy club who are taking their money.



What would they see in us?

Good post all round. In particular, the use of the word 'chortle' made me chortle.

 

[sideswipe]

there is no conflict of interest for blackmores to sponsor collingwood and to have their CEO on the board in order to maximise their sponsorship and also be able to see what other companies are offering as sponsorships. i am not saying that clubs and sponsors are adversaries...but they have different goals....

i am certain that you are a good religious man.... a church going christian....so as Jesus once said, a man cannot serve two masters...

They also have aligned goals. Team success and all that. Taken to the ridiculous (you aren't there yet but every day is a new one) clubs and players have a conflict in that clubs want to pay the players as little as they can get away with. So maybe we should all give up.

And plenty of directors revise themselves from decisions where there is a conflict.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[76woodenspooners]

there is no conflict of interest for blackmores to sponsor collingwood and to have their CEO on the board in order to maximise their sponsorship

OK, so if you were a shareholder of a publicly listed company in which the CEO funneled sponsorship largess to their beloved footy club, you wouldn't think that there'd be any questions to answer about that?

Not suggesting any impropriety of Holgate / Blackmores - pretty sure it'd all be above board. Just pointing out it'd be far far more of an issue to a shareholder of Blackmores than to a supporter of Collingwood.

 

[Markfs]

OK, so if you were a shareholder of a publicly listed company in which the CEO funneled sponsorship largess to their beloved footy club, you wouldn't think that there'd be any questions to answer about that?

Not suggesting any impropriety of Holgate / Blackmores - pretty sure it'd all be above board. Just pointing out it'd be far far more of an issue to a shareholder of Blackmores than to a supporter of Collingwood.

i've always thought that footy sponsorship is cheap. beloved footy club...LOL... good comedy

 

[Markfs]

They also have aligned goals. Team success and all that. Taken to the ridiculous (you aren't there yet but every day is a new one) clubs and players have a conflict in that clubs want to pay the players as little as they can get away with. So maybe we should all give up.

And plenty of directors revise themselves from decisions where there is a conflict.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

hello! earth to captain mainwairing..... didnt we hear something a couple of weeks ago from pendles and dangerfield about the possibility of striking?

at any rate, a conflict between employer and employee is not a conflict of interest. there are things ....goals ....premierships....which are mutually beneficial to both.....there are other things such as salary where they are in conflict. It is reasonable for the employer to pay as little as possible and it is reasonable for the employee to ask for the highest contract.....NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

conflict of interest is when a board director uses information to tell her negotiators that they should lower their bidding price for a sponsorship because there arent any competitors because she is on the board and she knows this information that should not be made available to competing bidders in a sponsorship deal.... this is an example...i'm not saying this happened... I AM USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE

if you want, you can pay me for a training course

 

[Markfs]

Good post all round. In particular, the use of the word 'chortle' made me chortle.

actually i chortle when i hear people go on about how the pies are the biggest... as if somehow this makes their own penises larger...

the premiership last year was won by a team that almost went belly up 20 years ago.

 

[JB1975]

actually i chortle when i hear people go on about how the pies are the biggest... as if somehow this makes their own penises larger...

the premiership last year was won by a team that almost went belly up 20 years ago.

I reckon you'd be a lovely chortler.

 

[sideswipe]

hello! earth to captain mainwairing..... didnt we hear something a couple of weeks ago from pendles and dangerfield about the possibility of striking?

at any rate, a conflict between employer and employee is not a conflict of interest. there are things ....goals ....premierships....which are mutually beneficial to both.....there are other things such as salary where they are in conflict. It is reasonable for the employer to pay as little as possible and it is reasonable for the employee to ask for the highest contract.....NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

conflict of interest is when a board director uses information to tell her negotiators that they should lower their bidding price for a sponsorship because there arent any competitors because she is on the board and she knows this information that should not be made available to competing bidders in a sponsorship deal.... this is an example...i'm not saying this happened... I AM USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE

if you want, you can pay me for a training course

U make me laugh and then cry. Your scenario seeking to portray a conflict of interest is something else entirely. What you have described would be a breach of a director's fiduciary duty - to be specific s 183 of the Corporations Act. Illegal. And would also be monumentally stupid. To even vaguely suggest this as something a Pies director might contemplate - even on BF - is pretty ordinary mate.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Markfs]

I reckon you'd be a lovely chortler.

i've won prizes at the royal perth show....never 1st place because my chortles are not your usual textbook style

 

[Markfs]

U make me laugh and then cry. Your scenario seeking to portray a conflict of interest is something else entirely. What you have described would be a breach of a director's fiduciary duty - to be specific s 183 of the Corporations Act. Illegal. And would also be monumentally stupid. To even vaguely suggest this as something a Pies director might contemplate - even on BF - is pretty ordinary mate.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

an example of where nothing illegal is alleged but there is a conflict of interest..
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/13/1037080786015.html

 

[sideswipe]

an example of where nothing illegal is alleged but there is a conflict of interest..
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/13/1037080786015.html

Well done clap clap. You bring up collo and docklands as an example of conflicts. Next will see you use Ron Evans and Spotless. What you used as a potential example with collingwood was an illegal act. And it was poor form to even raise it as a possibility. Give it a rest. The opposite position to most of your arguments is disproving a negative as in "prove there isn't UFOs". It is an artless position occupied by those with nothing substantial to contribute.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[doodles98]

It's pretty simple. Good governance requires you to avoid or minimise conflicts of interest as much as possible. At any level.. but particularly at board and executive level. To suggest that they are not of much interest or concern is an "interesting" point of view at odds with common thought and the lessons of history.

 

[76woodenspooners]

i've always thought that footy sponsorship is cheap. beloved footy club...LOL... good comedy

The evil and conniving Christine Holgate, CEO of Blackmores, a publicly listed company with a market capitalisation of $1.8B uses her wit and guile to weasel her way onto the board of the mighty and powerful Collingwood Football Club. She has no love for Collingwood, she has no interest in football. She's happy to play lackey to our lord and master Eddie McGuire. Her nefarious goal is to gather insider information about sponsorship deals so as to maximise profits for Blackmores.

And to think she almost got away with it!

In the next exciting episode, the President of Karrinyup Primary School Parents and Friends' Association gets busted for sponsoring the lemonade stand at last weekend's Fete ...

 

[Markfs]

In another example of conflict of interest, 6 years ago Blackmores announced a deal with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia in which almost 5000 pharmacies would start recommending a range of Blackmores products to patients when they picked up prescriptions for antibiotics, blood pressure drugs, cholesterol medicine and proton pump inhibitors.

In other words, customers at these pharmacies would be relying on the advice of people paid off by Blackmores. I doubt that the Pharmacists would be telling their customers that they had been paid off by the company.

This is what we call a conflict of interest.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/trick-or-treat-20111001-1l2sz.html

 

[Markfs]

The evil and conniving Christine Holgate, CEO of Blackmores, a publicly listed company with a market capitalisation of $1.8B uses her wit and guile to weasel her way onto the board of the mighty and powerful Collingwood Football Club. She has no love for Collingwood, she has no interest in football. She's happy to play lackey to our lord and master Eddie McGuire. Her nefarious goal is to gather insider information about sponsorship deals so as to maximise profits for Blackmores.

And to think she almost got away with it!

In the next exciting episode, the President of Karrinyup Primary School Parents and Friends' Association gets busted for sponsoring the lemonade stand at last weekend's Fete ...

I saw that next episode where Christine is taken by Eddie to the footy one day and he asks her if she wants to be on the board....

"But how is that possible?" says Christine. "I know very little about AFL"

"Just say that you're a mad collingwood supporter and I'll do the rest"

 

[Markfs]

Well done clap clap. You bring up collo and docklands as an example of conflicts. Next will see you use Ron Evans and Spotless. What you used as a potential example with collingwood was an illegal act. And it was poor form to even raise it as a possibility. Give it a rest. The opposite position to most of your arguments is disproving a negative as in "prove there isn't UFOs". It is an artless position occupied by those with nothing substantial to contribute.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

well dont argue with me, i'm just passing on the thoughts of christine holgate who said this last year....

The company is among Collingwood's sponsors; a fact upon which Holgate commented: "Because I'm openly conflicted, I never get involved in the sponsorship decisions [of Blackmores] … that's now led by Dave Fenlon, who is the managing director of my Australian business."


http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-australias-leading-ceos-20160201-gmj0dy.html

I must admit that i'm perplexed how her "solution" manages the conflict of interest successfully. Evidently, Dave Fenton never talks to Christine or maybe he is a Carlton supporter....

The fact is the "solution" might work fine for Blackmores but there appears to be nothing in place when the Collingwood board is considering questions regarding Blackmores sponsorship. Ms Holgate doesnt say that she leaves the collingwood board room when that happens. Evidently, the conflict of interest doesnt matter from collingwood's point of view.

 

[Markfs]

I hear crickets..