Markfs' Board of Directors Watch

[76woodenspooners]

I have been reading BigFooty for a few years and this thread has prompted me to finally join and post. It has been bothering me for some time that the Collingwood Board of Directors is running as a closed shop so out of step with basic principles of good governance.

Fantastic post, thanks for sharing your thoughts

In my professional life, I advise on corporate governance as a lawyer and company secretary. There are clear guidelines published by the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the ASX and various industry regulators on Board composition and tenure. Hawthorn adopted these years ago. I would encourage the AFL to adopt some rules about mandatory corporate governance. These individuals are handling huge sums of supporter money paid in good faith to support their club.

The sums of money are one thing, and an important thing.

But also importantly is a currency that all supporters understand - winning games of footy.

Sure, Ed and co don't lace up on game day ... but the actions and strategic direction of the board do over time permeate down to affect results on the field. As a supporter base we can't agree about whether the senior coach should be responsible for gameday results, or if he does then it doesn't extend beyond the gameplan ... what chance have we got of seeing the President and board as being accountable and making them responsible?

It should not be jobs for the boys.

One of the challenges is that Ed does have fanatical supporters. You see it on here - if someone dare suggests that it might be nice for the social club members to have voting choice at the AGM, Ed's Swiss guards come out of the woodwork to his defence. Having this conversation at a CFC social event would be seen by some as tantamount to insulting the host.

Being critical of Ed and the board is one thing, but for some to even question the job that they're doing is tantamount to treason.

Hard for accountability of the board by the members to exist in that environment?

( Baltimore Jack , we were discussing fascism ...)

Board renewal is a key principle endorsed by the AICD and the ASX governance principles to avoid group think, introduce external thought leadership and ensure good governance. Collingwood have 3 directors who have been there for 19 years including the president - this is asking for trouble. Jeff Kennett set maximum terms at Hawthorn , a standard of most Board charters in the modern era. They are usually set by well run organisations at 2 terms of 3 years (3 terms at the very most). Other clubs are now doing this. Those clubs are finding success.

I think it would be healthy if as a club we looked at the root cause of why change on our board isn't happening organically, and look at how we address those root causes.

The second requirement is to meet fit and proper requirements by having the right mix of skills and experience relevant to the organisation. Too many accountants or investment bankers and not enough specific industry experience is unbalanced. The Hawks seem to have this working with medical expertise as well as footy experience in addition to legal and accounting - someone needs to challenge the sports science as well as understand how it is to play the game.

To be fair, we did have Jack Kennedy on the board up until very recently (another who would fit into your category of long term board members). IIRC he oversaw an investigation into our injury woes as a club circa 2013 - and yet our injury woes continued in different forms up until quite recently.

I personally know very senior professionals with the right mix of skills in corporate Australia including blue chip listed company Board experience who are passionate Collingwood supporters.

Why don't they stand? Ed has been unopposed at elections for a very long time. It has been a very long time since the members were asked for a vote.

The problem is nobody is prepared to stand against Eddy given his power base and personality.

But why not?

True, Ed has a strong power base. True, Ed is a big personality. True, he'd be difficult to dislodge. Anybody who went up against him would probably find themselves battling with a stalking horse to split their vote.

Also there are a lot of people who would love to vote, but would then end up just voting for Ed anyway.

But there is a rich vein of dissatisfaction too. Some folks (like you) think he's been in there too long. Some folks are still peeved over the pubs fiasco and think he should be held to account over that. Some folks are seething over the succession plan. Some folks think his sexist / racist comments of the past are unforgivable. A lot of people would vote against Ed - and that's before they even consider the merits of who they're voting for.

I truly believe that a competent candidate would have had a reasonable chance of getting up at the last AGM.

I went to the AGM before the 2014 season and detected a undercurrent of dissatisfaction. I predicted back then that whilst Ed did continue to enjoy good support, that he would go around 2017, and when he did it wouldn't be pretty.

It's now 2017 and TBH, I'm not feeling particularly confident about my prediction. Nevertheless, we still have 8 months of the year to go and things can change quickly.

I have loved this club all my life. I go to every game and I will continue to do so to support the players and the team I love. They are trying - the coaching and recruitment has impacted their success.

Do you go to CFC AGM's?

Yeah, it is a bit of a dog and pony show, and many don't see the point of going if they don't get a vote. Some use it as a forum to complain about why the members list in the Collingwood periodical is in althabetical order rather than chronological order (I kid you not).

If we had more people who took an interest in the governance of the club in 2017 then we'd be in much better shape.

They need to see themselves as putting the members at the centre as they are sitting there purely by virtue of people who in many cases can ill afford it paying membership fees.

I believe this is where the club are failing. I see that they have put up a big translucent wall between them and the members. The club certainly could be doing a lot more to foster an inclusive culture amongst its members.

We have an events planner and media person at the top. Hence we are bombarded with invitations to corporate dining experiences and events and have a decent social media strategy.

Decent social media strategy? I reckon it has a lot of room for improvement.

Otherwise, someone is going to have to get brave enough to challenge the current Board. The power is ultimately in the members' hands.

Our current president had been a sports reporter and host of a TV sports show. The bar for entry isn't that high.

Some folks would read this post of mine and conclude that I'm anti-Ed, and they'd be wrong. I respect him, I admire his strengths. He's ability to connect with the common man is second to none. His passion for Collingwood cannot be questioned. He's done a lot of good at Collingwood ...

... But there's gotta be some proud Collingwood folks out there who could do a much better job going forward.

 

[MarkT2]

Great post Queenie Hearts.
Just a few short comments:

I would encourage the AFL to adopt some rules about mandatory corporate governance.

I am all for the sort of change you are talking about but it isn't and shouldn't be up to the AFL. We are a membership club. It should be up to us to amend our constitution via member vote.

These individuals are handling huge sums of supporter money paid in good faith to support their club. It should not be jobs for the boys.

I'm not sure it's quite jobs for the boys but filling casual vacancies with presidential hand picked people does make it hard to have true diverse opinion and debate. Given the president is appointed by the board from their number it also makes it hard to have a president with any accountability. I suspect the president thinks the board members he selects are competent but it isn't his place to make that call let alone to do it every time a position has been available this century!

The problem is nobody is prepared to stand against Eddy given his power base and personality.

People have wanted to stand. No one has been prepared to follow through after contact has been made by the club. You can draw your own conclusions about that. The board should actually be encouraging candidates not discouraging them.

The Board under the Chairman/President's stewardship made a decision on a coaching handover at the recommendation of the CEO which has not panned out. If the Board had been refreshed, I doubt that we would feel so powerless as there would be a readier acknowledgment by now by a new set of individuals that the decision needs review. Lack of Board renewal leads to cover up at the worst end and lack of objectivity on previous decisions at the other.

When the president selects all the board members, all the CEOs and all the coaches during his tenure it's pretty hard for objective assessment or timely action.

Otherwise, someone is going to have to get brave enough to challenge the current Board. The power is ultimately in the members' hands.

It's not a board challenge as such it's a presidential challenge given the nature of our club now and he membership. It would have to be someone with both the financial resources, the profile and the clout with the AFL as well as someone prepared to cop the criticism that Eddie's media platform affords as well as being able top put a full ticket together. That's a big ask.

 

[Queenie Hearts]

Thank you for this post. You have identified the issues that have been giving me unease, and articulated a way forward. You may not be that confident about an immediate improvement, but I for one feel better for having read this, at the very least.

Thanks Vicky. For what it's worth I religiously also read your hair do review (Pendles this week?) and it is solace in a sea of dispirit at the moment.

I find it interesting that the AFL insists on list changes at one end but fails to see the need to insist on this at the top end. The consequence of corporate governance failures has been costly not only in monetary terms but for the AFL brand - Essendon drugs, Carlton salary caps Melbourne tanking scandals are all evidence of this.

It would make much more sense to have safeguards imposed rather than have to rely upon club Directors to vote themselves out of a job by including maximum tenure in their Board charter.

 

[Queenie Hearts]

Brilliant stuff Queenie Hearts welcome aboard. I suspect your contribution will be fleeting, however we are all the more knowledgeable for it so I sincerely thank you for it!

Thanks Scodog10. I am not so sure about it being fleeting. I found writing that post cathartic as it has been bothering me for some time. The proverbial dam has now burst!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Markfs]

Thanks Vicky. For what it's worth I religiously also read your hair do review (Pendles this week?) and it is solace in a sea of dispirit at the moment.

I find it interesting that the AFL insists on list changes at one end but fails to see the need to insist on this at the top end. The consequence of corporate governance failures has been costly not only in monetary terms but for the AFL brand - Essendon drugs, Carlton salary caps Melbourne tanking scandals are all evidence of this.

It would make much more sense to have safeguards imposed rather than have to rely upon club Directors to vote themselves out of a job by including maximum tenure in their Board charter.

While it's nice to blame the AFL for the current state of our Board, the current Board is of our own making. Other clubs have managed to put together Boards that are operating properly.

The onus is on the membership to make it known at Collingwood functions that they would support alternative candidates. They need to make it known that they want elections in which they vote for candidates. They also need to express their dissatisfaction with Alex Waislitz, Ian McMullin, Mark Korda for their questionable commitment to the club or their incompetence in the public life. Holgate needs to moved along because of the conflict of interest that she has in being the CEO of a major sponsor. We are not a Pratt-like club and involvement at board level of people who have corporate interests in the club is not wanted, neither are donations by Board members to compensate for their flaccid commitment to the club.

Members need to speak openly about the shortcomings of the current Directors, and that includes Eddie. If members don't openly discuss this at Collingwood functions then nothing will get done, no-one will feel confident enough to mount a challenge.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Thanks for the input 76. From my perspective I would hope that history plays no part in any form of competitive advantage.

When talking about the success of the Patriots in the 2016 Super Bowl Bellichick said "as great as today is, in all honesty, we're five weeks behind 30 teams in the league in preparing for the 2017 season". That epitomises a commitment to excellence and being the absolute best you can be. We basked in our own sense of accomplishment in 90 & 10 what did we get for it? One premiership on each occasion.

'History' has much wider scope than the year 1892 and and the years of our premiership victories.

Our own individual history is what binds us as individuals to the club. How many Collingwood experiences have you had in your lifetime? Gone to games won and lost? Gone to VFL, AFL or even AFLW or SNL? Watched games with mates at a house party? Or at the pub? Or that time you met a fellow Pies supporter at the top of the Eifel Tower? Or that time you ran into a fellow Pies supporter in the Prescott brewery? Or? Or? Or?

They're your history, but they are a history that you share with the club. They're ties that bind, and they can be very powerful.

Like all things that are powerful they can be constructive or destructive. They can be a force for good or for bad.

When history is a force for bad it can make us staid and stale and unable to adapt to changing environments.

When history is a force for good it can make us stable and proud.

As to whether we're tapping into our competitive advantage as a force for good rather than bad - that's another discussion - but it is something that Collingwood have that's stronger than most teams and it can be used to advantage.

Sure allow the supporters and associated hangers on to bask in the glory of past victories, but that history doesn't give you an edge over competitors.

History does give us an edge.

Take a few extreme examples - what's the difference between us and GWS or Suns?

The biggest difference is history. They'll claim to be fresh and new and unbound by the shackles of history. Meanwhile we'll be the ones getting the big sponsorship dollars, the big crowds, the big memberships, the media column inches, etc, etc.

Some folks might say "I don't give a damn about all that stuff, just gimme a Premiership". When they say that, they're just venting, they're not being serious. Because if they were being serious they'd simply follow Hawthorn or GWS or some other team who has / will enjoy greater success. Why wouldn't they? What's stopping them?

What is stopping them are the ties that have bound them to the club, and those ties are their history.

Whilst success is good I don't believe it begets success. I think it establishes cultural norms which create a successful environment. Overall I could very well see the club listing those as our "edge" over the rest and it's quite sad given there are 10 Victorian clubs so we don't have anything special there, we share the G with 4 other clubs and our supporters are increasingly growing disengaged, IMO.

A successful organisation doesn't necessarily need a single competitive advantage over all of its competitions. That's probably more the exception than the rule.

It's more common to have a combination of competitive advantages, each one is an advantage over some competitors. Look at car companies as an example of this.

I think we would view another as our people. Whilst I don't think we have good people it's such a key component that we need to have the view that ours are better than everyone else's. Bringing it back to the BOD discussion do we have good people in the right places? They're successful people, you don't get on a club board without being one of if not the best in your chosen field, but Camplin aside do any have experience with the cut and thrust of competitive sport?

It is entirely appropriate that we have someone with sports experience, and we do. Being a successful sports person doesn't necessarily translate into being a successful sports administrator (as an example, our B&F award isn't named in honour of a successful sportsperson)

I'm not disagreeing with you, and I'm not suggesting that our board has appropriate representation of sports administration either.

It's a shift from convention, but I'd love to bring someone the ilk of Dunstall or Brereton onto our board.

I'd rather bring in some no-name who is an expert in sports administration. It doesn't necessarily need to be in AFL, there are advantages to them not being from AFL. Australia is a successful sporting nation, surely we'd have a rich vein of administrators to draw on? And we don't need to limit ourselves to Australia either.

 

[Queenie Hearts]

Fantastic post, thanks for sharing your thoughts



The sums of money are one thing, and an important thing.

But also importantly is a currency that all supporters understand - winning games of footy.

Sure, Ed and co don't lace up on game day ... but the actions and strategic direction of the board do over time permeate down to affect results on the field. As a supporter base we can't agree about whether the senior coach should be responsible for gameday results, or if he does then it doesn't extend beyond the gameplan ... what chance have we got of seeing the President and board as being accountable and making them responsible?



One of the challenges is that Ed does have fanatical supporters. You see it on here - if someone dare suggests that it might be nice for the social club members to have voting choice at the AGM, Ed's Swiss guards come out of the woodwork to his defence. Having this conversation at a CFC social event would be seen by some as tantamount to insulting the host.

Being critical of Ed and the board is one thing, but for some to even question the job that they're doing is tantamount to treason.

Hard for accountability of the board by the members to exist in that environment?

( Baltimore Jack , we were discussing fascism ...)



I think it would be healthy if as a club we looked at the root cause of why change on our board isn't happening organically, and look at how we address those root causes.



To be fair, we did have Jack Kennedy on the board up until very recently (another who would fit into your category of long term board members). IIRC he oversaw an investigation into our injury woes as a club circa 2013 - and yet our injury woes continued in different forms up until quite recently.



Why don't they stand? Ed has been unopposed at elections for a very long time. It has been a very long time since the members were asked for a vote.



But why not?

True, Ed has a strong power base. True, Ed is a big personality. True, he'd be difficult to dislodge. Anybody who went up against him would probably find themselves battling with a stalking horse to split their vote.

Also there are a lot of people who would love to vote, but would then end up just voting for Ed anyway.

But there is a rich vein of dissatisfaction too. Some folks (like you) think he's been in there too long. Some folks are still peeved over the pubs fiasco and think he should be held to account over that. Some folks are seething over the succession plan. Some folks think his sexist / racist comments of the past are unforgivable. A lot of people would vote against Ed - and that's before they even consider the merits of who they're voting for.

I truly believe that a competent candidate would have had a reasonable chance of getting up at the last AGM.

I went to the AGM before the 2014 season and detected a undercurrent of dissatisfaction. I predicted back then that whilst Ed did continue to enjoy good support, that he would go around 2017, and when he did it wouldn't be pretty.

It's now 2017 and TBH, I'm not feeling particularly confident about my prediction. Nevertheless, we still have 8 months of the year to go and things can change quickly.



Do you go to CFC AGM's?

Yeah, it is a bit of a dog and pony show, and many don't see the point of going if they don't get a vote. Some use it as a forum to complain about why the members list in the Collingwood periodical is in althabetical order rather than chronological order (I kid you not).

If we had more people who took an interest in the governance of the club in 2017 then we'd be in much better shape.



I believe this is where the club are failing. I see that they have put up a big translucent wall between them and the members. The club certainly could be doing a lot more to foster an inclusive culture amongst its members.



Decent social media strategy? I reckon it has a lot of room for improvement.



Our current president had been a sports reporter and host of a TV sports show. The bar for entry isn't that high.

Some folks would read this post of mine and conclude that I'm anti-Ed, and they'd be wrong. I respect him, I admire his strengths. He's ability to connect with the common man is second to none. His passion for Collingwood cannot be questioned. He's done a lot of good at Collingwood ...

... But there's gotta be some proud Collingwood folks out there who could do a much better job going forward.

Your challenge is entirely fair. I did not attend the AGM this year as unfortunately I was out of the country for work on the day but I did seriously consider going and raising this issue this year in the open forum before I knew I was going to be away. I also considered writing the Directors a letter on this and you are right that I have not done so. You may ask why I hesitated.

I fully expected for those who support Ed to have appeared out of the woodwork and for me to be under fire for merely raising the issue. This was not the reason I did not do so as we need people with a knowledge of good governance to step forward and open the debate and discourse. This is healthy and right.

In the lead up to the meeting it became apparent that there was to be an absence of any challenge of Ed for a further 3 year term and this took the wind out of my sails . My emotional reaction was to feel powerless to make a difference. I would read this and other forums and see so many people reacting violently to the mere thought of critiquing a decision of Ed and Gary Pert and the focus on the coach alone as the source of the problem.
We seem to confuse a challenge to competency with disloyalty.

As a supporter who stays until the final siren every week regardless of the result, I do not believe that my view that sadly the coach is not able to take this group any further is not about loyalty or a lack of support for him as a former captain of our club.

I want success desperately. Watching the game each week is not easy. I really like Bucks - have met and spoken with him many times. He loves this club and is knowledgable about footy but he is not an innovative coach, in my view. He is following others and if ex-players are to be believed his people leadership and man management skills have meant that theory had not translated into on field success. The playing group seem uninspired and in some cases, fearful of making mistakes. There is a lack of connection on field - he has had 5 years to build cohesion and learn how to coach a group of young men. There has been plenty of time for the current Board to assess this performance. To the outside world, it looks as if Eddy is wedded to his appointment decision which brings me back to my tenure point.

Then over the summer there were a series of events to make me feel worse about this issue- the farcical appointment/sacking of a man involved in hiding a GWS star recruit from drug testing, the smelly overpriced Mayne deal, the failure by the president to attend the first AFLW game and take it seriously - and still those supporters who defended all of it because of past successes of this regime.

The CEO is clearly not performing either to preside over all of this. The fixture this year is a debacle (3 games in 12 days is putting our season at risk as is a home game at Etihad for St Kilda).

My point is not that Ed is bad but that it is inappropriate for anyone to remain a chairman/president for 19 years and that is accepted across the world as a major corporate governance risk, regardless of the person and their good intent or past record. He may not set out to quash other views but the fact that no one even on the current Board is rotated into the chair tells its own story. Standing unopposed is not a healthy sign.

You need people who understand good corporate governance to hold the line at the club on having appropriate processes in place to make sure decisions being made are balanced and informed and that they are actively taking into account the interests of the club, the players and the members.

We are the biggest club in the land - there are people running international sports bodies, ex-premiers, top tier lawyers/judges, doctors with relevant clinical experience, audit partners at top tier accounting firms and senior experienced ASX listed non-executive directors who could be invited to join or stand for election. Why do they not come forward (and yes, I am from that sphere myself)?

Jack Kennedy is a fabulous ENT surgeon and a great person but equally should not have been there that long either so this is not about attacking any individual director. I would argue that the neurosurgeon on the Hawks Board would have a better understanding of concussion than an ENT specialist but in any case, who is challenging the medical team from the current Board?

I am not at the meetings so I don't know what level of challenge there is in the room but the lack of governance that appears from the outside suggests that it is limited. Over time human nature is to get complacent and challenge less. In addition, the chair has the most say in who is put forward as a new director so Vicky Park's post on the potential for a lack of dissenting opinions is spot on - and it compounds each year that goes by.

Your question about why does turnover not happen organically is a striking one -even Richmond now have capped the terms of their Directors but then their chair is a well regarded corporate lawyer with understanding of corporate governance in the ASX context.

I am happy to now be able to express these views by posting on this thread.

I thank you for your challenge - it is a good one and I will think on it.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Queenie Hearts]

While it's nice to blame the AFL for the current state of our Board, the current Board is of our own making. Other clubs have managed to put together Boards that are operating properly.

The onus is on the membership to make it known at Collingwood functions that they would support alternative candidates. They need to make it known that they want elections in which they vote for candidates. They also need to express their dissatisfaction with Alex Waislitz, Ian McMullin, Mark Korda for their questionable commitment to the club or their incompetence in the public life. Holgate needs to moved along because of the conflict of interest that she has in being the CEO of a major sponsor. We are not a Pratt-like club and involvement at board level of people who have corporate interests in the club is not wanted, neither are donations by Board members to compensate for their flaccid commitment to the club.

Members need to speak openly about the shortcomings of the current Directors, and that includes Eddie. If members don't openly discuss this at Collingwood functions then nothing will get done, no-one will feel confident enough to mount a challenge.

I completely agree. This is a fantastic post. I am not blaming the AFL at all - I think it is in our hands to change this and I sincerely hope we will do so.

Having said that, the AFL has become big business and would do well to consider regulating for good governance as this applies to big business in the outside world. It would save their money and resource in having to intervene as well as the AFL brand.

If we can influence the change ourselves, I am all for it. My question is how to start this conversation and create the burning platform and a united coalition for change.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Vicky Park]

We seem to confuse a challenge to competency with disloyalty.

So very true.

If we can influence the change ourselves, I am all for it. My question is how to start this conversation and create the burning platform and a united coalition

I am not an activist by nature, and I am a mere CFC member, but I'd be happy to join with whatever is an appropriate and effective forum or way to at least start this conversation with the club.

 

[Queenie Hearts]

Great post Queenie Hearts.
Just a few short comments:
I am all for the sort of change you are talking about but it isn't and shouldn't be up to the AFL. We are a membership club. It should be up to us to amend our constitution via member vote.
I'm not sure it's quite jobs for the boys but filling casual vacancies with presidential hand picked people does make it hard to have true diverse opinion and debate. Given the president is appointed by the board from their number it also makes it hard to have a president with any accountability. I suspect the president thinks the board members he selects are competent but it isn't his place to make that call let alone to do it every time a position has been available this century!
People have wanted to stand. No one has been prepared to follow through after contact has been made by the club. You can draw your own conclusions about that. The board should actually be encouraging candidates not discouraging them.
When the president selects all the board members, all the CEOs and all the coaches during his tenure it's pretty hard for objective assessment or timely action.
It's not a board challenge as such it's a presidential challenge given the nature of our club now and he membership. It would have to be someone with both the financial resources, the profile and the clout with the AFL as well as someone prepared to cop the criticism that Eddie's media platform affords as well as being able top put a full ticket together. That's a big ask.

Thanks for this post. It is interesting to hear that the club has discouraged other candidates. This itself is poor governance, if true, and substantiates my point. As does the presidential involvement in the football department.

My strong preference is for the members to seek to change the constitution to make these changes but I fear your point about a presidential challenge is in the way.

You are right it would need to be a very strong ticket pulling together eminent Australians well respected in the community. It is not impossible - the question is how far we have to fall before someone will be prepared to take this on. The media Juggernaut of Eddie is certainly daunting. Perhaps an ex/politician could take it in their stride being used to mud slinging (like our former premier, John Brumby for example).

Hence, I look to the AFL even though I would prefer our members to take it on ....a short term fix to save us from ourselves!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Markfs]

I completely agree. This is a fantastic post. I am not blaming the AFL at all - I think it is in our hands to change this and I sincerely hope we will do so.

Having said that, the AFL has become big business and would do well to consider regulating for good governance as this applies to big business in the outside world. It would save their money and resource in having to intervene as well as the AFL brand.

If we can influence the change ourselves, I am all for it. My question is how to start this conversation and create the burning platform and a united coalition for change.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

We have started the conversation and we need to continue it...

1. at Collingwood functions
2. when we meet board members
3. when we ask questions of eddie at q&a sessions
4. when we meet administration people on the boundary lines at training sessions
5. in emails to the club

i'm sure others have more suggestions

 

[Markfs]

Thanks for this post. It is interesting to hear that the club has discouraged other candidates. This itself is poor governance, if true, and substantiates my point. As does the presidential involvement in the football department.

My strong preference is for the members to seek to change the constitution to make these changes but I fear your point about a presidential challenge is in the way.

You are right it would need to be a very strong ticket pulling together eminent Australians well respected in the community. It is not impossible - the question is how far we have to fall before someone will be prepared to take this on. The media Juggernaut of Eddie is certainly daunting. Perhaps an ex/politician could take it in their stride being used to mud slinging (like our former premier, John Brumby for example).

Hence, I look to the AFL even though I would prefer our members to take it on ....a short term fix to save us from ourselves!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

if you look to the afl to change the board, you may as well go and sit in the corner and twiddle your thumbs...

 

[Queenie Hearts]

if you look to the afl to change the board, you may as well go and sit in the corner and twiddle your thumbs...

I know.

So here we are starting a conversation


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Markfs]

So very true.



I am not an activist by nature, and I am a mere CFC member, but I'd be happy to join with whatever is an appropriate and effective forum or way to at least start this conversation with the club.

someone with internet skills needs to set up a simple web site that asks simple questions and shows the results..

the people answering it need to give their names and membership numbers so that people from outside the club cant clog it up with bullshit...

there are people on this site that have made podcasts discussing the games.... why not make some podcasts about it?

 

[Anzacday]

So many excellent points.
Ed's intimidation is not limited to board challengers; it also influences us when it comes to speaking up.
I have a feeling it won't be long before one of the journos who frequent BF pick it up and run with it and I'm sure Ed will dismiss it as the internet carpers again.

 

[Markfs]

So many excellent points.
Ed's intimidation is not limited to board challengers; it also influences us when it comes to speaking up.
I have a feeling it won't be long before one of the journos who frequent BF pick it up and run with it and I'm sure Ed will dismiss it as the internet carpers again.
View attachment 359486

well its time for Collingwood members to show a little backbone. To the average member on the street, steel yourself and walk up to one of the board members, or even eddie, and tell them that you think that they should move on... or ask them what they have done recently for the club....if you need a bit of support, gather together in twos and threes and nominate a spokesman and then go up...

Here is a cut and paste from last year when Eddie cracked a wobbly and said he would resign. It highlights what might happen post Eddie.
As far as I'm concerned it is chilling...and to think that Alex Waislitz might be president of my club makes me sick in the gut.... may I add that I think alex only wants to have Collingwood on his CV and couldn't be stuffed putting any time into it...as he record on attending board meetings indicates

Should McGuire decide soon his time is up, the Magpies would have options from their board. Alex Waislitz, a billionaire Melbourne investor who made his fortune from investing in small and mid-sized companies, is vice-president but Fairfax Media understands at this stage the Pratt family investor would not be keen on replacing McGuire.

Blackmores vitamins boss Christine Holgate has been a Collingwood tragic since shifting from Britain in 2003, while Mark Korda, of restructuring firm KordaMentha, would also have the qualifications.

Former player Ian McMullin, who has been on the board since 1998, could also be a candidate.​

 

[Markfs]

I haven't written much about Ian McMullin because....... well there isn't much to write about him. He doesn't appear much on the internet except for references to his work for the family company and his past exploits as a very average footballer for the Pies and for the Bombers. Of course, there are references to his 18 years on the board but I couldn't find anything else ....

It seems that he's a stooge ...and chair warmer.... one of those people who sit in the seats at the academy awards when the stars don't turn up or leave early.....

His dad, Ian, is the main man. He's the long time Pie supporter. He's the man that started Spotless dry cleaning in a small shop in Collingwood and grew it up to be a major company. McMullin's brother, Peter, is also a major player. A former lord mayor at geelong and in Melbourne, he has a strong link to the Labor Party.... he knows a lot of the right people. Ian jnr, on the other hand, appears to have done nothing much, other than be a board member of the Collingwood football club...

If Ian McMullin made it to the Presidency, you have to guess that someone else is pulling the strings... either Eddie wants to stay in control but wants to move onto other things, or the McMullin family is wanting to exert a little influence.....for some strange reason, I cant stop thinking about the movie Forrest Gump....

So that's the story of Ian Gump.. I doubt that I will be adding anything else to this resume in the near future...

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Eddie has used abused a clause in the clubs constitution, casual vacancy, to basically control and gerrymander the appointment of board members to suit his agenda. Yes they have to be ratified at the next AGM but that is a mere formality.

I work in equity markets and if Collingwood was a listed company I would short them, they have so many issues and Viccy park is right, its coming from the top and a lack of governance. Time and again we see listed companies have a long standing CEO who is given god like status and stays on way too long with the end result being a messy end and a lot of problems that take a long time to rectify. Wal King, Paul Little, John Fletcher just to name a few.

Collingwood is bigger than Eddie, it will survive and thrive without him just like it did after McAllister went.

 

[Queenie Hearts]

well its time for Collingwood members to show a little backbone. To the average member on the street, steel yourself and walk up to one of the board members, or even eddie, and tell them that you think that they should move on... or ask them what they have done recently for the club....if you need a bit of support, gather together in twos and threes and nominate a spokesman and then go up...

Here is a cut and paste from last year when Eddie cracked a wobbly and said he would resign. It highlights what might happen post Eddie.
As far as I'm concerned it is chilling...and to think that Alex Waislitz might be president of my club makes me sick in the gut.... may I add that I think alex only wants to have Collingwood on his CV and couldn't be stuffed putting any time into it...as he record on attending board meetings indicates

Should McGuire decide soon his time is up, the Magpies would have options from their board. Alex Waislitz, a billionaire Melbourne investor who made his fortune from investing in small and mid-sized companies, is vice-president but Fairfax Media understands at this stage the Pratt family investor would not be keen on replacing McGuire.

Blackmores vitamins boss Christine Holgate has been a Collingwood tragic since shifting from Britain in 2003, while Mark Korda, of restructuring firm KordaMentha, would also have the qualifications.

Former player Ian McMullin, who has been on the board since 1998, could also be a candidate.​

We should not be picking a new president from the current Board members. I am not sure why the media would be stuck on that point (except to note that there are no viable candidates currently on the Board). The members need to vote down the next re-appointment rather than ratify it.

 

[Pacman Carney]

I am bitter. bitter and twisted... so I suppose you could argue that the board is excellent...

He operates a company that doesn't pay tax. He previously worked for Pratt and they don't pay tax. That means something to me and investment returns don't. You might have a different attitude so its a free world. I call these investment types leeches because there are people out there in this world that actually work for a living. They work in shops...they cut hair... they work on the land... and there are people who skim the profits and live off the workers... I call em leeches. I do it in part because society worship these people because they're rich, so it's a bit of over-compensation on my behalf..

but I would still argue that having 3 or 4 people on a football club board who spend their life looking for easy money, is a recipe for disaster.

"He operates a company that doesn't pay tax. He previously worked for Pratt and they don't pay tax."

can you provide proof of this?

 

[Markfs]

"He operates a company that doesn't pay tax. He previously worked for Pratt and they don't pay tax."

can you provide proof of this?

http://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2016/03/22/third-private-enterprise-pays-tax-ato/

it takes 2 minutes to do a search. if you're a mate of alex..... tell him to resign from the board

 

[ZEV]

Just to confirm you are aware of the difference between personal income and company tax?

 

[Pacman Carney]

http://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2016/03/22/third-private-enterprise-pays-tax-ato/

it takes 2 minutes to do a search. if you're a mate of alex..... tell him to resign from the board

no need to be snarky. I'm on your side of the argument. I just asked a valid question. its easy to make statements as fact on chat sites. and of course I can use google and look, I just wanted you to provide a link to back up you statement. I'm no mate of Alex, but I went to his house once. back in about 2008 the club had a function there. very nice Toorak residence.

 

[CFC2010]

I am just looking forward to Markfs' Bootstudder Watch!

 

[Markfs]

no need to be snarky. I'm on your side of the argument. I just asked a valid question. its easy to make statements as fact on chat sites. and of course I can use google and look, I just wanted you to provide a link to back up you statement. I'm no mate of Alex, but I went to his house once. back in about 2008 the club had a function there. very nice Toorak residence.

I wasn't being snarky but I expect that there are friends of alex around the place who would want to confront me....which is ironical because the Collingwood membership has been so poor in holding him accountable for his part-time contribution.

To tell you the truth, I'm not happy with what I've found out in the last couple of days. I knew the board was useless but I didn't realise that they were as bad as I've found out from delving a bit deeper. People keep talking about buckley getting the boot...and that's a separate question.... but at least I'm confident that buckley is committed to the cause. He just mightn't be right for the job. The people on the board are a different kettle of fish... they are using the club as a step ladder... they should get the flick