News New Directors on board the Board

[Football Pope]

How many other clubs have multiple former players on their boards?

My understanding is that there are consistently fewer and fewer former players on club boards.

St Kilda have Nathan Burke and Andrew Thompson on their board. That's the only one I can think of.
EDIT: Oh, and Carlton for the moment, with Kernahan and Gleeson.

Essendon too. So maybe quite a few.

And now I think about, Matthews isn't even a former Brisbane player. I can't think of any clubs that have former coaches on the board.

Sheedy is on the GWS board

Captains
Freemantle -O'Rielly Ex Captains Alan & Mann
Richmond- Ex Captain Tony Free

Collingwood - Pert, McMullin & if we count under 19's then also McGuire

 

[Football Pope]

Their experience and skills look okay at a glance but man these specialist appointments irritate me. Just makes you wonder where their allegiances lie.

No mention of Springfield by Sharpless in that email as the Heads of Agreement Deadline looms large. Great engagement and communciation. Clearly took the feedback regarding transparency from The Lion's Roar survey on board.

Sally Kelly...any relation to Ex-Lions Chairman Tony Kelly?

 

[Caiphus]

Good to have a woman on the board that isn't Linda Nash none the less.

FTFY

 

[Crimso]

It's like wondering why we need a football director when we have 44 perfectly capable players running around.

Choreography?

 

[Skoob]

Does not seem to be any Springfield connections so im happy to give benefit of the doubt. They certainly are areas of need, and certainly seem qualified. Marketing especially will be interesting to monitor. Its something we need to do better with, communication in general really.

Found a couple of people who have been at both Springfield Land Corp and PWC, but not Wellington. Not making anything of it, just sayin'.

 

[brizrider]

Not that happy with the Sarah Kelly appointment. A class C academic with no commercial experience in the most commercial of disciplines. How is this expertise worthy of being appointed to the board without the members getting a say? I've got 15 years experience in IT and a bit of tutoring experience at uni, sign me up as the CIO of the AFL

 

[James North]

Interesting perspective, brizrider ... No real world experience is not ideal if that's the case.

But hopefully she's just there to interpret things for the Board?

 

[BuntonRules]

This is not a vent, this is a rant.
WHY THE F888 IS THIS EMAIL SENT IN THE NAME OF BOB SHARPLESS & NOT THE CLUB? End of yellng, but what is this personality cult that he thinks that if announcements come in his name, he is the messiah & we will all support him?

I paid my money to be a member of the Brisbane Lions, not the Bob Sharpless Appreciation Society.

Not. Happy. Jan.

This is me in the vent tread. Am I the only one with this reaction?

The whole thing stinks, IMO. Sharpless is parachuted into the job over the members wishes for an EGM, & now he is treating it like his own personal fiefdom. Who voted for these people, neither who have any footy acumen at all. How many of the board have actually been voted in by us, the members? No one ever voted for Sharpie. A bean counter & a marketing academic - just the sort that would reckon a paddlepop jumper would be a good idea.

 

[POBT]

People complained about the lack of communication from Sharpless....

 

[Dom PC]

I think most of us here are wanting to give Sharpless the benefit of the doubt with these two appointments. That said, I hope this appointment isn't him shoring up his support on the board or a knee jerk reaction to show the AFL and fans that the board is being proactive.

TBH I can't help but receive any information from Sharpless without at least a bit of skepticism - first impressions are lasting I guess.

 

[whatboutbob]

I think most of us here are wanting to give Sharpless the benefit of the doubt with these two appointments. That said, I hope this appointment isn't him shoring up his support on the board or a knee jerk reaction to show the AFL and fans that the board is being proactive.

TBH I can't help but receive any information from Sharpless without at least a bit of skepticism - first impressions are lasting I guess.

That's exactly where I stand, and I suspect a lot of people feel similarly.

Think I've written it before, but he's got a fair bit of ground to make up before many will trust him, and it is bloody hard to win back... especially after his "screw you members, I'm here to do the AFL's bidding" pep talk at the AGM.

 

[Skoob]

I think it is reasonable that people are suspicious.
Whilst (I think) everyone would welcome an expansion of the board, what is the detailed reasoning of these 2 appointments?
As has been mentioned, finance and marketing are 2 areas that need addressing, are these 2 the right people? Not suggesting that they're not, but questioning why.
A couple of concerns;

1. Why 2 specialist appointments now? I am happy enough to have 1 special appointment to meet a need, but I would prefer new directors to have been nominated and voted in at a general meeting. The members have had no say in 3 of 7 directors and are likely to not re-elect a 4th in Milner.
2. What is the AFL's involvement/non-involvement in this action? What was discussed between Gil and Bob in terms of what the club needs to do? Is the level of assistance we might receive conditional on the structure of our administration? Has the club been told that unless we have a fuller board, the AFL will help fill those positions, an action the club is avoiding by putting its own people in? Does this affect the autonomy with which the club makes the CEO appointment?

The (fair) comment that these people have no football experience led to discussion about former players and coaches. The desired 'football experience' isn't just restricted to game experience (god, who wants an organisation run exclusively by former players), but how about a marketing person who has marketed football? Wellington isn't just an accountant. He is a deals consultant with a specialty in valuation. (If anyone can draw a picture of what exactly that entails, please do so). But what experience in club business?
I realise that experts with specific football or sporting club experience aren't just wandering around in Brisbane looking for a gig, but how far and for how long were the feelers out? Who found these people?
As I said, I would much prefer there was a vote on such important appointments and want to know the implications with regard to AFL involvement with the club.

 

[POBT]

Only 1 (Kelly) is a specialist appointment which carries the automatic 2 year term.

The other appointment (Wellington) will face a vote at the end of the season.

I never really understand the reasoning to get more people with "football experience" on the board. The world has moved on from meat tray raffles and getting someone to mark the lines on a Saturday morning. Sure, have a great football person involved at board level, but I don't think that a football background should be a focus for board positions generally.

FWIW, if a PwC partner comes in and a union operative in Milner (eventually) goes out, then I think we are well advanced as a club.

 

[Flossie32]

Not that happy with the Sarah Kelly appointment. A class C academic with no commercial experience in the most commercial of disciplines. How is this expertise worthy of being appointed to the board without the members getting a say? I've got 15 years experience in IT and a bit of tutoring experience at uni, sign me up as the CIO of the AFL

Yep I agree with these sentiments re Sarah's reported lack of commercial experience however she should have some good contacts in marketing in Qld which will help us.

 

[Flossie32]

I don't know if its been done with the lions before, but a members only web chat with Bob and the board would be great. Members log on, board logs on and Bob can outline for the members what the two new board members can bring to the board, Springfield, and how the hunt for a new CEO is going. This would wouldn't suit every member (nothing will), but its a way for members for all over the country to be informed at the same time, in a reasonably private forum, re what is going on with our club. Members can ask questions, Board answers. I know there are AGM's and other types of public forum's media presentations etc, but this is a way for members to hear where the club is going and is at. Maybe this already happens and I've missed it, but there have been a few comments re lack of transparency, emails/messages from the board with lots of unanswered questions, etc.

 

[brizrider]

I don't know if its been done with the lions before, but a members only web chat with Bob and the board would be great. Members log on, board logs on and Bob can outline for the members what the two new board members can bring to the board, Springfield, and how the hunt for a new CEO is going. This would wouldn't suit every member (nothing will), but its a way for members for all over the country to be informed at the same time, in a reasonably private forum, re what is going on with our club. Members can ask questions, Board answers. I know there are AGM's and other types of public forum's media presentations etc, but this is a way for members to hear where the club is going and is at. Maybe this already happens and I've missed it, but there have been a few comments re lack of transparency, emails/messages from the board with lots of unanswered questions, etc.

Would be a good idea and it doesn't happen.

 

[Skoob]

Only 1 (Kelly) is a specialist appointment which carries the automatic 2 year term.

The other appointment (Wellington) will face a vote at the end of the season.

I never really understand the reasoning to get more people with "football experience" on the board. The world has moved on from meat tray raffles and getting someone to mark the lines on a Saturday morning. Sure, have a great football person involved at board level, but I don't think that a football background should be a focus for board positions generally.

FWIW, if a PwC partner comes in and a union operative in Milner (eventually) goes out, then I think we are well advanced as a club.

The approach to running a sporting club is a bit different to that of running for example, a fashion house or fast food chain. Sure, business principles are business principles and that football club experience isn't necessarily required, as long as the differences are recognised and advice taken. It seems the place has been a poorly run business with no regard for club members, fans or football for that matter. I agree that appointments shouldn't have a "football background" as a focus, but such experience, I would see as advantageous.

That aside, after a chat yesterday, many of my paranoid concerns about these appointments have been put to rest and am much more optimistic today.

 

[Davemonkey]

The approach to running a sporting club is a bit different to that of running for example, a fashion house or fast food chain. Sure, business principles are business principles and that football club experience isn't necessarily required, as long as the differences are recognised and advice taken. It seems the place has been a poorly run business with no regard for club members, fans or football for that matter. I agree that appointments shouldn't have a "football background" as a focus, but such experience, I would see as advantageous.

That aside, after a chat yesterday, many of my paranoid concerns about these appointments have been put to rest and am much more optimistic today.

Anything you can share Skoob?

 

[Skoob]

Anything you can share Skoob?

I'd rather not, other than to say any suspicions (of mine) about connections to the chairman have been allayed somewhat.

 

[BuntonRules]

The approach to running a sporting club is a bit different to that of running for example, a fashion house or fast food chain. Sure, business principles are business principles and that football club experience isn't necessarily required, as long as the differences are recognised and advice taken. It seems the place has been a poorly run business with no regard for club members, fans or football for that matter. I agree that appointments shouldn't have a "football background" as a focus, but such experience, I would see as advantageous.

That aside, after a chat yesterday, many of my paranoid concerns about these appointments have been put to rest and am much more optimistic today.

Agreed, so if you want more board members, why not Ross Thornton?

 

[Football Pope]

Agreed, so if you want more board members, why not Ross Thornton?

Can you see the non-voted incumbent Chairman giving Barney's group an extra vote?

 

[Skoob]

Agreed, so if you want more board members, why not Ross Thornton?

Can you see the non-voted incumbent Chairman giving Barney's group an extra vote?

I can understand that a member of a ticket that threatened to clean out the whole board hasn't been invited. I would like to see a number (including those who were on the 'Fresh Start' ticket) of applicants nominate individually at the AGM.

 

[POBT]

If the concern is about people being parachuted onto the Board without facing a vote, then putting Thornton in doesn't make things better.

Clearly, people don't trust Sharpless. That's ok. Neither do I. What I will say is that, for at least one appointment, they did the right thing and only made it a casual vacancy, meaning the people get a say at the AGM.

I also believe him when he says that the vote was unanimous (mainly because I don't think that Leigh would allow anyone to bullshit about him). So, blame the entire board, not just Sharpless.

I will also say that there is a good chance that the shit we need these directors to help fix is on our doorstep right now and waiting until December to get them involved at Board level might worsen our situation.

 

[fabulousphil]

So let me get this right, the lions will always play at the Gabba, but possibly will have a fantastic almost free million $ facility at Springfield, and has ATM a multi million dollar club at Springwood that turns over millions that will eventually be pumped back into the football club.

What seems to be the problem, no-one really does nothing for free, if Sharpless becomes richer because of the new facility, i would call it a win/win.

Seems to me he is doing it for the Lions and his company, its a not a new thing, it is as old as the world itself.

 

[Skoob]

So let me get this right, the lions will always play at the Gabba, but possibly will have a fantastic almost free million $ facility at Springfield, and has ATM a multi million dollar club at Springwood that turns over millions that will eventually be pumped back into the football club.

What seems to be the problem, no-one really does nothing for free, if Sharpless becomes richer because of the new facility, i would call it a win/win.

Seems to me he is doing it for the Lions and his company, its a not a new thing, it is as old as the world itself.

If it's as simple as that, there'd be whole lot of happier people around the place.
The issue is more one of a lack of communication and transparency. The previous chairman who also had strong links to Springfield didn't communicate any of the process in finding a location and the board just came out and said "we're going here". (Pretty much).
From there the process has appeared to be a chairman with commercial interests in the area, hell bent on getting us there. What put a further bad taste in our mouths was when a board spill was imminent, the AFL stepped in and forced upon us a new chairman who we didn't vote for. And wouldn't you know, he's a director at Springfield Land Corp. The push and dream to get the Lions to Springfield was stronger than ever, considering the original deal was incomplete and now horribly short of funds.
On the face of it, we had 2 chairmen in succession with an almost obsessive compulsion to base the Lions in there own piece of real estate and showed little regard for what members had to say. The greatest fear is really that this is their sole focus and the business of football has been on the backburner.
The bottom line is if moving to Springfield is the best outcome for the club, then let's go. It matters little now, whether someone else profits. But we must have a chairman whose primary concern is what's best for the club all round, not just this project.
He may be that person, but from what has been communicated so far it is hard to be confident.