POLL: Where do you sit with the current EGM/board spill push?

[MyManLynch]

The members have always had the right to vote for board members when they come up for -re-election every three years. Anyone can stand against these board member at that time if they have been a member for two years.

After the election the board then elects their President. The member have never at any time had the right to vote directly for who is President.

I understand how it works.
I voted for Ranald McDonalds ticket in 1982. I wasn’t really voting for Len Thompson or Terry Waters.
Same same Eddie McGuire...voted for Eddie, not his team.
The recent controversial board addition (80+ candidates?). Yet no members vote?

 

[76woodenspooners]

The recent controversial board addition (80+ candidates?). Yet no members vote?

One of the arguments is that folks of the caliber of what we have on the board (CEO of Blackmores at the time, Co-CEO of PWC consulting - indigenous, head of a boutique consultancy, co-founder of insolvency firm, etc, etc) are just not interested in submitting themselves to a beauty contest for a gig that doesn’t even pay.

If we were to give members a choice, it’s argued that the caliber of candidates would be far far lower, and the candidates would effectively then be political, who would be jockeying / backstabbing / creating factions / leaking stuff to the media against their competitors, and all those other shenanigans that go on in politics.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

I agree.

But how many folks expect that of their footy club?

I’d imagine that for the large majority of supporters and maybe even members, they just want to have a club that isn’t broke, and that they can on the telly and watch their team put on a good show, and that their footy team doesn’t identify them as redneck / racist / cheaters / etc

I think you are underestimating just how disenchanted many fans are feeling with the club and trivialising the concerns held by fans.

Fans of most clubs probably don't have such lofty expectations, but most clubs haven't been through what we have over the past 12 months. The fans of most clubs still trust that their club leaders have the ability to properly run their clubs. The leaders of our club have lost that trust from the fanbase. In fact, the opposite is the case and many consider them to be completely incompetent. Given the circumstances, our club needs to do far more than it's doing to win back the trust of the fans.

I think many (most?) Collingwood fans have lost faith that the club has the capacity to make quality list and salary cap decisions and that those in charge of the club are out of ideas and are mostly interested in preserving the status quo.

That may not be the case, but we're not getting anything convincing from the club that it isn't.

After extreme list mismanagement, the club tried to bluff the fans and convince them that its trade week decisions had nothing to do with the salary cap, were not forced and were entirely for the benefit of the football team. The coach has since said that the opposite was the case.

A great clubman was treated like dirt and the club's response was to tell us that his negative reaction to the way he was treated was because he is less professional than Tom Phillips.

We are now in full rebuild mode with our new footy boss publicly expressing the view that we won't contend for all least 2 years, when we were told only a few weeks ago that we were still shooting for finals.

The messaging is all over the place and inconsistent on so many issues.

From the outside it looks like the club is a mess and that the people within it don't know what they're doing. That may not be the case - it likely isn't the case - but again it comes down to the club's inability to communicate and connect with its members.

Many fans feel that the board needs new faces that haven't been there for over a decade and are able to call out past mistakes and missteps where they see them. Unapologetically. Basically, that means someone not parachuted in by the board and selected by fans.

Of course there needs to be a viable alternative with a well communicated vision. However, if there is, I have little doubt that the rival ticket will be successful in a spill, whether or not that's the best thing for the club going forward. There is a groundswell of discontent that will be hard for the incumbents to overcome.

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

I think you are underestimating just how disenchanted many fans are feeling with the club and trivialising the concerns held by fans.

Fans of must clubs probably don't have such lofty expectations, but most clubs haven't been through what we have over the past 12 months. The fans of most clubs still trust that their club leaders have the ability to properly run their clubs. The leaders of our club have lost that trust from the fanbase. In fact, the opposite is the case and many consider them to be completely incompetent. Given the circumstances, our club needs to do far more than it's doing to win back the trust of the fans.

I think many (most?) Collingwood fans have lost faith that the club has the capacity to make quality list and salary cap decisions and that those in charge of the club are out of ideas and are mostly interested in preserving the status quo.

That may not be the case, but we're not getting anything convincing from the club that it isn't.

After extreme list mismanagement, the club tried to bluff the fans and convince them that its trade week decisions had nothing to do with the salary cap, were not forced and were entirely for the benefit of the football team. The coach has since said that the opposite was the case.

A great clubman was treated like dirt and the club's response was to tell us that his negative reaction to the way he was treated was because he is less professional than Tom Phillips.

We are now in full rebuild mode with our new footy boss publicly expressing the view that we won't content for all least 2 years, when we were told only a few weeks ago that we were still shooting for finals.

The messaging is all over the place and inconsistent on so many issues.

From the outside it looks like the club is a mess and that the people within it don't know what they're going. That may not be the case - it likely isn't the case - but again it comes down to the club's inability to communicate and connect with its members.

Many fans feel that the board needs new faces that haven't been there for over a decade and are able to call out past mistakes and missteps where they see them. Unapologetically. Basically, that means someone not parachuted in by the board and selected by fans.

Of course there needs to be a viable alternative with a well communicated vision. However, if there is, I have little doubt that the rival ticket will be successful in a spill, whether or not that's the best thing for the club going forward. There is a groundswell of discontent that will be hard for the incumbents to overcome.

Isn't Korda the only board member that has been there longer since 2017?

 

[Doc1763]

Isn't Korda the only board member that has been there longer since 2017?

That is correct

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Isn't Korda the only board member that has been there longer since 2017?

That is correct

The point is that Ed assembled the board and the club is now in the hands of his 14 year deputy. Optics are important, especially at the moment, and many (rightly or wrongly) see a Korda-led board as more of the same. I.e. a continuation of the administration that has presided over the degradation of the club.

That the first board appointment of the Korda era was handled so poorly did nothing to convince anyone otherwise.

For what it's worth I have a lot of respect for Korda and have no reason to doubt his competence. This won't help him in the face of a well organised board challenge though.

 

[MyManLynch]

One of the arguments is that folks of the caliber of what we have on the board (CEO of Blackmores at the time, Co-CEO of PWC consulting - indigenous, head of a boutique consultancy, co-founder of insolvency firm, etc, etc) are just not interested in submitting themselves to a beauty contest for a gig that doesn’t even pay.

If we were to give members a choice, it’s argued that the caliber of candidates would be far far lower, and the candidates would effectively then be political, who would be jockeying / backstabbing / creating factions / leaking stuff to the media against their competitors and all those shenanigans that go on in politics.

Couldn’t agree more.
Would rather the existing Board select candidates that are suitable & in line with the Boards direction.
Then Members to vote at AGM’s (upon expiry of terms) to extend or rubber stamp.

 

[Billys Back]

One of the arguments is that folks of the caliber of what we have on the board (CEO of Blackmores at the time, Co-CEO of PWC consulting - indigenous, head of a boutique consultancy, co-founder of insolvency firm, etc, etc) are just not interested in submitting themselves to a beauty contest for a gig that doesn’t even pay.

If we were to give members a choice, it’s argued that the caliber of candidates would be far far lower, and the candidates would effectively then be political, who would be jockeying / backstabbing / creating factions / leaking stuff to the media against their competitors and all those shenanigans that go on in politics.

And most boards don’t have members vote on new board members. I for one would have no idea whether the recent additions can work well with the existing board or whether they have the skills to complement the rest of the board. To think members would have in-depth knowledge on the candidates and their capacity is fanciful.

 

[jmac70]

Assuming Hately has enough signatures, what is the next step?

 

[Lockyer24]

As Korda said infighting is not good for the club.

So step down and take Bridie with you.

 

[McOrist]

Jeff Browne has finally shown his hand. He wants a 'peaceful' transition, where his group take over 4 of the 7 board positions. 3 of current board can stay -they can decide which 3 stay. If the current board don't agree with this plan, Browne is happy for the member-initiated EGM to take it's course.
If Korda agrees to step aside for Browne, then the members will not have a say in the election of the new board. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[HFF]

Jeff Browne has finally shown his hand. He wants a 'peaceful' transition, where his group take over 4 of the 7 board positions. 3 of current board can stay -they can decide which 3 stay. If the current board don't agree with this plan, Browne is happy for the member-initiated EGM to take it's course.
If Korda agrees to step aside for Browne, then the members will not have a say in the election of the new board. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Right now we need the change, whether it’s peaceful or not.
The other 3 positions will also change soon enough.

 

[jmac70]

Right now we need the change, whether it’s peaceful or not.
The other 3 positions will also change soon enough.

Who is on Browne’s ticket?

 

[HFF]

Who is on Browne’s ticket?

Couldnt care
I don’t trust the current board any more to fulfil its obligations

 

[MyManLynch]

I am a voting Member.
Korda still has my vote unless Brown can convince me otherwise.

 

[jmac70]

Couldnt care
I don’t trust the current board any more to fulfil its obligations

But you trust an unknown ticket more.

 

[HFF]

But you trust an unknown ticket more.

That’s not the point
This isn’t a case of the grass isn’t greener on the other side
I have seen what this board has done ...and am judging it on exposed form
I’ve lost trust in them and as such am prepared to go with something new
It may not work out...but what we have is currently not working anyway

 

[jmac70]

That’s not the point
This isn’t a case of the grass isn’t greener on the other side
I have seen what this board has done ...and am judging it on exposed form
I’ve lost trust in them and as such am prepared to go with something new
It may not work out...but what we have is currently not working anyway

How is it not working? We’ve already seen plenty of change since Korda took over. People seem fixated on the Bridey apppointment.

 

[Scodog10]

Well it’s happening. From my perspective the only query on the future makeup of the board will be the football director. Wilson is unlikely to depart given he joined earlier this year and I suspect Sizer stays over O’Donnell who’ll never get near it, Korda, Murphy and Holgate. That leaves only Licuria v any former player on Browne’s ticket.

 

[HFF]

How is it not working? We’ve already seen plenty of change since Korda took over. People seem fixated on the Bridey apppointment.

What change?
the same guys are there through all the s**t that has transpired the last decade
Ed going doesn’t give them a free pass.
The Bridie appointment was the the exclamation point on how out of hand things have become

 

[jmac70]

What change?
the same guys are there through all the sh*t that has transpired the last decade
Ed going doesn’t give them a free pass.
The Bridie appointment was the the exclamation point on how out of hand things have become

Korda has been, who else?

 

[Scodog10]

How is it not working? We’ve already seen plenty of change since Korda took over. People seem fixated on the Bridey apppointment.

It’s moot Browne’s only pushed it because he knows he has the whip hand.

 

[jmac70]

It’s moot Browne has only pushed it because he knows he has the whip hand.

He does, so we get Ed v2.0?

 

[Scodog10]

He does, so we get Ed v2.0?

I don’t know and I don’t care, but I’d suggest he’s no Ed in terms of public gaffes. I just want whoever is more likely to sack Buckley.

 

[jmac70]

I don’t know and I don’t care, but I’d suggest he’s no Ed in terms of public gaffes. I just want whoever is more likely to sack Buckley.

Problem is, you won’t know who that is. Maybe Korda wants rid of Bucks and Browne wants to keep him.
Wouldn’t that be amusing?