More Eddie Bashing..

[alfiiee]

Time for Collingwood to move on from Eddie McGuire
Crikey founder Stephen Mayne writes:

The Collingwood Football Club AGM at the MCG tonight should be an absolute belter.

President Eddie McGuire has just presided over an $8 million write-down courtesy of a poorly managed $18 million push into the pokies business, yet he wants to remain in power for the foreseeable future.


The Sunday Herald Sun’s Glenn McFarlane interviewed Eddie ahead of the AGM and the AFL's longest serving incumbent President came up with these gems:

"My job is to do what I have always done at the Collingwood Football Club, and that is to make money."

"Yes, the club made a mistake with the pubs, but what I am not doing is leaving it all to someone else. We will cop the whack and we will fix it."

"We have known about the situation for 18 months. This is ancient history in our minds. The pubs are gone, so is the money. But we will fix it."

"When I got on to the plane to go to Sydney, I probably should have resigned for two years and then come back again. I was on top of everything before I went to Sydney, and then, for two years, perhaps I wasn't. But now I am all over it again, terrorising everyone."

Hang on a minute. If Eddie’s job is to make money and he’s just presided over the most disastrous non-football investment by an AFL club, why on earth isn’t he doing the honourable thing and resigning?

Eddie is clearly sensitive about tonight. He went onto one of the major Collingwood forums and asked for questions in advance. After a few heavy hits and honest appraisals of Eddie's presidency, he went to ground. And this is a very pro-Eddie forum which he claims to read every night "until Carla drags me to bed".


I last went to a Collingwood AGM in 2001 where Neal Woolrich got up and asked the hard questions about conflicts of interest and was then interviewed by 3AW’s Steve Price. Check out the package here.

Collingwood is playing strange games in terms of accessing tonight’s AGM. The call centre advised that a member who signed up last week would have speaking rights but then the position changed at the Lexus Centre.

There are plenty of issues to explore around Collingwood’s appalling pokies practices and losses. Whilst the Diamond Creek Tavern and The Beach hotel in Albert Park have now been jettisoned, pokies remain a big part of its operation.


The venue in Caroline Springs is still a mile shy of its promised $1.45 million charitable contribution, Woolworths runs the club’s Coach & Horses Hotel in Ringwood which is pitched as a "Family Entertainment Centre" and The International in Lilydale is developing a retirement village right around the pokies venue.

As a Broadmeadows boy made good, Eddie should know how regressive the pokies are in targeting poor addicts and get Collingwood right out of the industry altogether. If not, he should stand aside for someone who will.

*If you’re in possession of a Collingwood membership card, please email smayne@crikey.com.au.

The title says it all..

 

[Optimax]

the bloke is a serial eddie basher and hater, has an immense personal dislike for eddie (something about sisters and dating)

possibly he should grow a set and move on, but its an ego stroking article on his part, if it makes him feel like he has a male member good for him

 

[alfiiee]

the bloke is a serial eddie basher and hater, has an immense personal dislike for eddie (something about sisters and dating)

possibly he should grow a set and move on, but its an ego stroking article on his part, if it makes him feel like he has a male member good for him

Opti, You are Gold

 

[magpies42]

i must admit tho i am not particularly impressed at how he palms off the responsibilty to others....

 

[SteeleAt11]

i must admit tho i am not particularly impressed at how he palms off the responsibilty to others....

Actually he took responsibility for that and admitted he shouldn't have continued in a limited fashion while in Sydney.. and then said bottom line is the buck stops with me

 

[Kirby]

i must admit tho i am not particularly impressed at how he palms off the responsibilty to others....

It doesn't seem that he is palming off responsibility to me.

Anyway, people on these boards fail to understand how corporations function. A board is elected in place to oversee it's operations as a group and to appoint appropriate fulltime personel to attend to the actual day to day running of a club, or more accurately, they appoint senior executives to undertake these tasks.

These executives actually attend to the majority of business, albeit often utilising connections that some board members have. The CEO is paid a very large salary to attend to these matters. The CEO and other senior executives will then gather all the relevant information and present this to the board who will then make a decision based on that information as to whether they will proceed down a certain path.

As a general rule, and this is by practical necessity, it does not delve into each and every facet of what is presented to them (otherwise they might as well do the job themselves). They have a certain level of trust that they have appointed the right executives to perform their tasks adequately.

In this case, it is clear that the Swann/Arocca combination presented an investment opportunity to the board backed by appropriate evidence. The board after consideration of that information then gave the approval. After making sure proper due diligence was undertaken they chose to follow the advice of their executive. This is not unusual.

It just so happens that the advice they accepted was ill founded (certainly not deliberately so). In reality, providing due diligence was followed the only error that they really can be said to have made is to have appointed the wrong people to the job as executives. Now, I don't think this is the case, and in view of the glowing performance of Swann up to this point you cannot be surprised that the board had a lot of faith in him.

This is why when there are major screw ups in large corporations it is usually the CEO who is replaced first. If there are subsequent screw ups the board then usually comes under pressure from its shareholders (especially the chairman).

So yes, the board is ultimately responsible, but can you blame them for accepting the proposal from its then well respected CEO?

 

[Snag Breac]

It doesn't seem that he is palming off responsibility to me.

Anyway, people on these boards fail to understand how corporations function. A board is elected in place to oversee it's operations as a group and to appoint appropriate fulltime personel to attend to the actual day to day running of a club, or more accurately, they appoint senior executives to undertake these tasks.

These executives actually attend to the majority of business, albeit often utilising connections that some board members have. The CEO is paid a very large salary to attend to these matters. The CEO and other senior executives will then gather all the relevant information and present this to the board who will then make a decision based on that information as to whether they will proceed down a certain path.

As a general rule, and this is by practical necessity, it does not delve into each and every facet of what is presented to them (otherwise they might as well do the job themselves). They have a certain level of trust that they have appointed the right executives to perform their tasks adequately.

In this case, it is clear that the Swann/Arocca combination presented an investment opportunity to the board backed by appropriate evidence. The board after consideration of that information then gave the approval. After making sure proper due diligence was undertaken they chose to follow the advice of their executive. This is not unusual.

It just so happens that the advice they accepted was ill founded (certainly not deliberately so). In reality, providing due diligence was followed the only error that they really can be said to have made is to have appointed the wrong people to the job as executives. Now, I don't think this is the case, and in view of the glowing performance of Swann up to this point you cannot be surprised that the board had a lot of faith in him.

This is why when there are major screw ups in large corporations it is usually the CEO who is replaced first. If there are subsequent screw ups the board then usually comes under pressure from its shareholders (especially the chairman).

So yes, the board is ultimately responsible, but can you blame them for accepting the proposal from its then well respected CEO?

This is a very accurate summary of how boards work. As someone who has (in the past) sat on both sides of the board table - as member and as CEO - I can confirm that the CEO is a key figure in determining what the board considers, and even how they consider it. CEO's heavily influence board decisions. To think otherwise is simply naive.

There's no point ranting on about how each member should fully investigate every matter that comes before them, the reality is, it won't happen. Boards routinely deal with many complex matters at the same time, and members tend to be very busy people. That's why they're so dependant on the CEO.

 

[Col Davies]

i must admit tho i am not particularly impressed at how he palms off the responsibilty to others....

Then why didn't you go to the AGM and put that to him?

 

[MarkT]

This is a very accurate summary of how boards work. As someone who has (in the past) sat on both sides of the board table - as member and as CEO - I can confirm that the CEO is a key figure in determining what the board considers, and even how they consider it. CEO's heavily influence board decisions. To think otherwise is simply naive.

Generally that is correct but in a football club it is generally not. The difference between a football club and other corporate environments is the club president. Greg Swan is a good source for articulating this and particularly in the Collingwood context. In recent times the trend has been to move further toward the corporate (non football club) model but most old clubs still aren’t there - and I’m not sure they should be either.

As for Mayne, he hates Eddie, he hates Collingwood and he’s a professional alarmist and left wing knee jerk responder.

 

[Runyon]

Generally that is correct but in a football club it is generally not. The difference between a football club and other corporate environments is the club president. Greg Swan is a good source for articulating this and particularly in the Collingwood context. In recent times the trend has been to move further toward the corporate (non football club) model but most old clubs still aren’t there - and I’m not sure they should be either.

As for Mayne, he hates Eddie, he hates Collingwood and he’s a professional alarmist and left wing knee jerk responder.

While Mayne does dislike Eddie he is not left wing in anyway. He used to work for Jeff Kennett as a media officer while Kennett was premier and before that he was a business journo at the Herald Sun. He does know a little bit about how big business is run and does spend a lot of time attending AGMs asking questions of company boards that those boards do not like to answer. What Mayne is doing here is the same thing. Whether or not Ed is the pres of the Pies is not the important factor the important question is how can the board or president ask for a new term when it just lost $8 million?
BTW David Smorgon is the longest standing Pres in the AFL at the moment. He took on the role in 1996.

 

[The Dawes]

[/b]

While Mayne does dislike Eddie he is not left wing in anyway. He used to work for Jeff Kennett as a media officer while Kennett was premier and before that he was a business journo at the Herald Sun. He does know a little bit about how big business is run and does spend a lot of time attending AGMs asking questions of company boards that those boards do not like to answer. What Mayne is doing here is the same thing. Whether or not Ed is the pres of the Pies is not the important factor the important question is how can the board or president ask for a new term when it just lost $8 million?
BTW David Smorgon is the longest standing Pres in the AFL at the moment. He took on the role in 1996.

Well put.

Stephen Mayne is all about achieving transperancy at board level for any corporation and making them accountable to shareholders - or in this case members.

No reason why Eddie shouldn't have to face the music over the pub deals, so Stephen Mayne has every right to question him, as we all do.

FWIW I reckon Eddie has responded really well and has ultimately done the right thing for the long-term benefit of the club in selling the 2 pubs.

 

[blackcat]

It doesn't seem that he is palming off responsibility to me.

Anyway, people on these boards fail to understand how corporations function. A board is elected in place to oversee it's operations as a group and to appoint appropriate fulltime personel to attend to the actual day to day running of a club, or more accurately, they appoint senior executives to undertake these tasks.

These executives actually attend to the majority of business, albeit often utilising connections that some board members have. The CEO is paid a very large salary to attend to these matters. The CEO and other senior executives will then gather all the relevant information and present this to the board who will then make a decision based on that information as to whether they will proceed down a certain path.

As a general rule, and this is by practical necessity, it does not delve into each and every facet of what is presented to them (otherwise they might as well do the job themselves). They have a certain level of trust that they have appointed the right executives to perform their tasks adequately.

In this case, it is clear that the Swann/Arocca combination presented an investment opportunity to the board backed by appropriate evidence. The board after consideration of that information then gave the approval. After making sure proper due diligence was undertaken they chose to follow the advice of their executive. This is not unusual.

It just so happens that the advice they accepted was ill founded (certainly not deliberately so). In reality, providing due diligence was followed the only error that they really can be said to have made is to have appointed the wrong people to the job as executives. Now, I don't think this is the case, and in view of the glowing performance of Swann up to this point you cannot be surprised that the board had a lot of faith in him.

This is why when there are major screw ups in large corporations it is usually the CEO who is replaced first. If there are subsequent screw ups the board then usually comes under pressure from its shareholders (especially the chairman).

So yes, the board is ultimately responsible, but can you blame them for accepting the proposal from its then well respected CEO?

actually it was a stuff up of monumental proportions.

McGuire is not a good businessman. He is a good networker.

1. Sportsview. Got out of it, but business model flawed. Ripped off the Mark Cuban model, without understanding the fundmentals never existed in an economy the size of Australia. Thank god Vizard et al have the network and connections.

2. Tipstar. 'Nother cronyism play, on "who you know" not "what you know". Trying to monetize a product that exists in a certain culture. The memes of such a product are esoteric and intangible.

3. Operations. GTV9. No skill in operations.

I do not know why Swann and Arocca never saw the example Tooheys provided, when they bought up local nightspots. This was a little different, but the "agency" factor is huge in these hospitality operations. That is, agency = the operator, and in this respect, the defacto model is owner operator. Owners have a skill set, and fingers on the till daily. They know their business and what is happening. Woolies is a pokies and Liquorland play. Different to the Collingwood strategy, which was around developing their constituency and having hospitality venues to use.

When they bought in at market value, the only benefit possibility was growing those businesses. And with the agency factor, this was always unlikely. They could only lose on those leaseholds. Arocca, Swann, McGuire, all should be held accountable. There is only one guy left, if this was indeed a private sector, for profit operation, he would be obliged to move on.

But since when was Collingwood's values, or any football team's values defined by money. Was the team and club really any worse when you were up in Hoddle Street or wherever the club was situated (apologise for the ignorance). Ofcourse, there is shiny new facilities. But what is the real utility in enjoyment. A day at the footy is still a day at the footy. There is something to be said for the less pretentious football experience like the 80's. What you have at Colonial/Telstra Stadium is a pure US corporatised experience. It is about the football, not the bells and whistles, and the LExus Centre. If McGuire wants to run the Collingwood FC as a profitable enterprise, that is up to the paying members, but their strategy was a manifest failure, and it is obvious in the previous examples, he is not a good businessman.

Networker, unparalleled. Salesman, unrivalled. Great producer and TV media man (tho not my cup of tea).

But a little frank honesty. Credit to his skills, but transparency about the multitude of failures.

 

[Rohan Coventry]

FWIW I reckon Eddie has responded really well and has ultimately done the right thing for the long-term benefit of the club in selling the 2 pubs.

The Pubs have yet to be sold.

 

[Optimax]

actually it was a stuff up of monumental proportions.

McGuire is not a good businessman. He is a good networker.

1. Sportsview. Got out of it, but business model flawed. Ripped off the Mark Cuban model, without understanding the fundmentals never existed in an economy the size of Australia. Thank god Vizard et al have the network and connections.

2. Tipstar. 'Nother cronyism play, on "who you know" not "what you know". Trying to monetize a product that exists in a certain culture. The memes of such a product are esoteric and intangible.

3. Operations. GTV9. No skill in operations.

I do not know why Swann and Arocca never saw the example Tooheys provided, when they bought up local nightspots. This was a little different, but the "agency" factor is huge in these hospitality operations. That is, agency = the operator, and in this respect, the defacto model is owner operator. Owners have a skill set, and fingers on the till daily. They know their business and what is happening. Woolies is a pokies and Liquorland play. Different to the Collingwood strategy, which was around developing their constituency and having hospitality venues to use.

When they bought in at market value, the only benefit possibility was growing those businesses. And with the agency factor, this was always unlikely. They could only lose on those leaseholds. Arocca, Swann, McGuire, all should be held accountable. There is only one guy left, if this was indeed a private sector, for profit operation, he would be obliged to move on.

But since when was Collingwood's values, or any football team's values defined by money. Was the team and club really any worse when you were up in Hoddle Street or wherever the club was situated (apologise for the ignorance). Ofcourse, there is shiny new facilities. But what is the real utility in enjoyment. A day at the footy is still a day at the footy. There is something to be said for the less pretentious football experience like the 80's. What you have at Colonial/Telstra Stadium is a pure US corporatised experience. It is about the football, not the bells and whistles, and the LExus Centre. If McGuire wants to run the Collingwood FC as a profitable enterprise, that is up to the paying members, but their strategy was a manifest failure, and it is obvious in the previous examples, he is not a good businessman.

Networker, unparalleled. Salesman, unrivalled. Great producer and TV media man (tho not my cup of tea).

But a little frank honesty. Credit to his skills, but transparency about the multitude of failures.

Hello steven didnt get a membership last night eh?

Im disappointed you didnt reply to the email i sent.

Now get off our board

 

[Bloben]

Mayne spoke at my corporate governance class earlier in the year. He is a very intelligent man who in a way plays an important role asking boards difficult questions.

This isn't BHP though it's a fricken footy club. We don't pay our memberships each year to watch our finances grow, we do it to watch our team play footy. The board is in place to ensure the club as an organisation has all the processes, infrastructure and people in place to put us in the best position to play footy.

The board oversaw a pretty disastrous financial move however this to my knowledge has had zero impact on the football department spending. It was a calculated business risk that failed however that is business. Collingwood is an entrepreneurial football club. I hate it when there is too much scrutiny over failed investments, to me this failure is a setback however is also a sign that we have tried to think outside the box. The fear of getting a few scars on my knees never turned me off watching BMX bandits then riding my bike down flights of stairs.

Mayne likes to think of himself as a professional pain in the arse and he is very good at it. I actually agree with what he does at large however I don't see how this poor decision is going to hurt us on the footy field and therefore I don't feel the need to throw out Eddie for this.

 

[SteeleAt11]

The Pubs have yet to be sold.

You know it's a done deal, more negative crap from the serial whiner

 

[Col Davies]

And as Eddie said last night, the deal will go through.
Did you miss that Rohan?

 

[Rohan Coventry]

And as Eddie said last night, the deal will go through.

Just like Eddie said that Didak wasn't involved with Geebung Gate?

The Pub loss was intially disclosed at $8 Million. It has now reached $8.3 Million & is growing day by day. That is a cool $300 K down the drain.

The response given was that the "purchasers" had been granted gaming licenses before & it shouldn't be an issue (that is obtaining the license at the Beach). Given there has been (and this is still counting) a 4 month hold up as we type now, there obviously is a problem.

 

[SteeleAt11]

Just like Eddie said that Didak wasn't involved with Geebung Gate?

The Pub loss was intially disclosed at $8 Million. It has now reached $8.3 Million & is growing day by day.

No, just your negative bagging of the club is growing day by day.. fair dinkum go support Richmond ffs.. you are not a Coventry's arseh*le!

 

[Pie eyed]

The Pubs have yet to be sold.

Just like Eddie said that Didak wasn't involved with Geebung Gate?

The Pub loss was intially disclosed at $8 Million. It has now reached $8.3 Million & is growing day by day. That is a cool $300 K down the drain.

The response given was that the "purchasers" had been granted gaming licenses before & it shouldn't be an issue (that is obtaining the license at the Beach). Given there has been (and this is still counting) a 4 month hold up as we type now, there obviously is a problem.

Ro your insecurities are showing again.
Did Eddie bash you as a kid?
What is it you have against Collingwood?

 

[MarkT]

[/B]While Mayne does dislike Eddie he is not left wing in anyway.

Yeh, fair enough I was a bit hasty in my urge to slot in some adjectives and didn't quite get right. Delete left wing.

[/B]What Mayne is doing here is the same thing.

He has no vested interest in Collingwood and he wants to have a crack at Eddie. What has he ever said about any other club that has lost money. Has he spoken about Melbourne for instance who have surely made more mistakes and have surely jeopardised their position far more than what has happened at Collingwood? What did he have to say about the previous North Melbourne board and their decisions?

[/B]Whether or not Ed is the pres of the Pies is not the important factor

I disagree.

[/B]the important question is how can the board or president ask for a new term when it just lost $8 million?

Don't get me wrong, I have my own concerns about the on and off field results at Collingwood. No flags is not good enough. $8m down the gurgler is beyond poor and frankly inexcusable. It does rightly raise concerns about the president, the CEO of the time and others as well.

IMO Eddie has made some bad mistakes. How he can ask for another term is pretty simple though. He says to the members do you want me to stay and they say yes. You can debate the whys and wherefores but them’s the facts. No one has stood against him. Again you can debate the whys and wherefores and I have some views in that as well but the overall package is what the members decide on.

 

[Jim Jess's Jockstrap]

always liked eddie have a lot of respect for him but his comments about cuz reeked of sour grapes and a man that thinks he has got bigger than the game.

 

[Pie eyed]

Yeh, fair enough I was a bit hasty in my urge to slot in some adjectives and didn't quite get right. Delete left wing. He has no vested interest in Collingwood and he wants to have a crack at Eddie. What has he ever said about any other club that has lost money. Has he spoken about Melbourne for instance who have surely made more mistakes and have surely jeopardised their position far more than what has happened at Collingwood? What did he have to say about the previous North Melbourne board and their decisions?
I disagree.Don't get me wrong, I have my own concerns about the on and off field results at Collingwood. No flags is not good enough. $8m down the gurgler is beyond poor and frankly inexcusable. It does rightly raise concerns about the president, the CEO of the time and others as well.

IMO Eddie has made some bad mistakes. How he can ask for another term is pretty simple though. He says to the members do you want me to stay and they say yes. You can debate the whys and wherefores but them’s the facts. No one has stood against him. Again you can debate the whys and wherefores and I have some views in that as well but the overall package is what the members decide on.

Very nicely put MarkT

 

[kevind]

No, just your negative bagging of the club is growing day by day.. fair dinkum go support Richmond ffs.. you are not a Coventry's arseh*le!

And who do you support..the Eddie McGuire Football Club or the Collingwood Football Club? It's impossible to tell.

 

[SteeleAt11]

And who do you support..the Eddie McGuire Football Club or the Collingwood Football Club? It's impossible to tell.

Yeah wow what was I thinking.. Eddie works day and night for the club, he sweats black and bleeds white.. but I really should be agreeing with a serial whining loser that does nothing but tear the club down and attacks those who actually roll up their sleeves and take a shot at making our club great