Toast Presidency and The Board

[jathanas]

Thank you 76woodenspooners

One of BigFooty’s all-time-favourite posters, Reykjavik , was all across the board level stuff. He once posted a list of the responsibilities of a Not-For-Profit board like that of Collingwood …

abcdef.....ijklmnop

NFP board responsibilities
Specific responsibilities of a not-for-profit (NFP) board include:

• Driving the strategic direction of the organisation
• Working with the CEO to enable the organisation to obtain the resources, funds and personnel necessary to implement the organisation's strategic objectives
• Implementing, maintaining and (as necessary) refining a system of good governance that is appropriate for the organisation
• Reviewing reports and monitoring the performance of the organisation
• Regularly reviewing the board's structure and composition, so that these are appropriate for the organisation
• Appointing – and managing the performance of – a suitable CEO
• Succession planning for the CEO

While the above points are also applicable to for-profit boards, NFP boards also face a unique range of issues, such as:

• Difficulties in defining and measuring organisational effectiveness
• Transgression of role boundaries
• The negative impact of the structural compositions of some NFP boards, including those arising from representative models
• Funding dependencies and constraints

In practice, the role of the board is to supervise an organisation's business in two broad areas:

1. Overall business performance - ensuring the organisation develops and implements strategies and supporting policies to enable it to fulfill the objectives set out in the organisation's constitution. The board delegates the day to day management of the organisation but remains accountable to the shareholders for the organisation's performance. The board monitors and supports management in an on-going way.
2. Overall compliance performance - ensuring the organisation develops and implements systems to enable it to comply with its legal and policy obligations (complying with statutes such as the Corporations Act 2001, adhering to accounting standards) and ensure the organisation's assets are protected through appropriate risk management.

http://www.companydirectors.com.au/...ctor/NFP-governance/The-role-of-the-NFP-board

Link to original post …

Side by Side with Reykjavik - RIP (re-read Rey's message to us all #108, pg 5)

Reyk, I'm ridiculously happy to see you posting! :)

www.bigfooty.com

 

[76woodenspooners]

I think the fact that she’s still making “ go Dogs” noises at the pointy end of the board dispute shows how she lacks awareness about the image such comments project. It was a dumb thing to do, as was assuming the private chat wouldn’t get out. Whilst it’s not the end of the world it did illustrate her inability to read the room. Besides, sounds like she would have walked anyway having landed a new job.

I didn’t have an issue at all with it myself, but I understand that some others aren’t like me …

… and I agree with you, I don’t think her post was a great judgement call.

But looking into the facts around it …

- Bridie’s post would have been made on Saturday evening (clearly, during the Bulldog’s / Port game)

- It was made on her private Insta account. Mind you, with > 6000 followers, so it’s not very private!

- One of her followers obviously leaked it.

- No other media outlet got a hold of it, or touched it. Including Caro on FC on Monday night when she was talking on the topic of Collingwood board stability anyway.

- It suddenly appeared four days later on Wednesday’s FC episode hosted by Ed.

TBH, I dunno what to make of it all, except that there are people around who are trying to stir the pot.

Ed could have killed it if he wanted to. He could have easily turned on his voice-of-the-common-man-schtick and said “Nothing in it, I was watching that game myself and cheering for Adam Treloar”.

Ed always professes to have Collingwood’s best interests at heart, and I reckon he normally does. He’s also said that he’s keeping his own counsel and not commenting about Collingwood matters (Good advice).

I just don’t see how spiking a Collingwood board member - one who he doesn’t know and hasn’t served with - is in anyway in the best interests of Collingwood? Nor how it is consistent with his pledge to keep his mouth shut about Collingwood matters?

 

[Markfs]

I didn’t have an issue at all with it myself, but I understand that some others aren’t like me …

… and I agree with you, I don’t think her post was a great judgement call.

But looking into the facts around it …

- Bridie’s post would have been made on Saturday evening (clearly, during the Bulldog’s / Port game)

- It was made on her private Insta account. Mind you, with > 6000 followers, so it’s not very private!

- One of her followers obviously leaked it.

- No other media outlet got a hold of it, or touched it. Including Caro on FC on Monday night when she was talking on the topic of Collingwood board stability anyway.

- It suddenly appeared four days later on Wednesday’s FC episode hosted by Ed.

TBH, I dunno what to make of it all, except that there are people around who are trying to stir the pot.

Ed could have killed it if he wanted to. He could have easily turned on his voice-of-the-common-man-schtick and said “Nothing in it, I was watching that game myself and cheering for Adam Treloar”.

Ed always professes to have Collingwood’s best interests at heart, and I reckon he normally does. He’s also said that he’s keeping his own counsel and not commenting about Collingwood matters (Good advice).

I just don’t see how spiking a Collingwood board member - one who he doesn’t know and hasn’t served with - is in anyway in the best interests of Collingwood? Nor how it is consistent with his pledge to keep his mouth shut about Collingwood matters?

The problem is that he is in the media and Wilson is continually asking for his opinion. If Eddie has a tiny bit of self-awareness, he might have empathised with a fellow club official who is supposedly caught out for saying something off the cuff....

 

[Markfs]

I think the fact that she’s still making “ go Dogs” noises at the pointy end of the board dispute shows how she lacks awareness about the image such comments project. It was a dumb thing to do, as was assuming the private chat wouldn’t get out. Whilst it’s not the end of the world it did illustrate her inability to read the room. Besides, sounds like she would have walked anyway having landed a new job.

who knows. If I was her and I had an interest in women's sport and I was approach by holgate to become a member so that she could nominate for the board, I would seen it initially to do something major in an area that she's interested in...

but after seeing all the crap she has taken, I would have had second thoughts and might have looked for an opportunity to bail out. As she is raising her profile, she will probably get an opportunity at another club in the future without all the fan angst.

In some respects, I think we should fill the board up with maguire kids and galbally kids and run it like a family business.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The problem is that he is in the media and Wilson is continually asking for his opinion. If Eddie has a tiny bit of self-awareness, he might have empathised with a fellow club official who is supposedly caught out for saying something off the cuff....

Point!

Pop Quiz:

How would us Collingwood supporters organise a scale of (a) Racism (b) misogyny (c) less than total devotion?

How would sponsors answer that?

How would greater society answer that?

 

[76woodenspooners]

In some respects, I think we should fill the board up with maguire kids and galbally kids and run it like a family business.

Hah!

Do you think it’s possible to take irony too far?

 

[Markfs]

No issue with Holgate. She's been a supporter of the club since 2003 and presumably fulfilled all the relevant criterion to sit on the board in the first place.

Waislitz got in via the McGuire ticket, but him not being eligible at the beginning never sat well with me. It set a precedent that we're still seeing today.

I now see what you mean by "belong". The fact is both Holgate and Waislitz were voted in unopposed a number of times, so Waislitz being put on the board without being a 2 year member is a technical point. The thing that distinguished bridie was that she actually wanted to achieve something at the club. Waislitz always seemed to see it as either a social thing or a business-related thing. The same for Holgate, although I might be wrong. I've always thought that bridie should have been dumped as soon as the rule thing came out. It was only a matter of time. She was sailing into the wind while Eddy's appointments were accepted by the sheep without question.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

who knows. If I was her and I had an interest in women's sport and I was approach by holgate to become a member so that she could nominate for the board, I would seen it initially to do something major in an area that she's interested in...

but after seeing all the crap she has taken, I would have had second thoughts and might have looked for an opportunity to bail out. As she is raising her profile, she will probably get an opportunity at another club in the future without all the fan angst.

In some respects, I think we should fill the board up with maguire kids and galbally kids and run it like a family business.

She had the opportunity to tough it out and she opted not to. Her call if she can’t handle some criticism.

The crap that Holgate went through in the corporate world was a million times worse than O’Donnell being criticised on bigfooty for being a dogs supporter and an ineligible Collingwood director.

 

[Markfs]

Hah!

Do you think it’s possible to take irony too far?

You must remember my threads of years ago when I said that we should ditch the whole board. Most of the time I was the only person who posted on that thread because everyone said that board appointments didnt matter.

Now we are running board members out of town because they dont have Pie tatts.

In the end, I see what Eddie calls a dysfunctional board overseeing coaching placements. If we could get the Maguires and Galballys to agree to stay away from the footy department, I'd be happy to let them run the playground. I dont really think the people on the board really matter. The important thing is that they stay away from the footy dept.

I have a sneaky suspicion that Eddie is going to make it back on the board because of the "implosion" of the current board. It may seem impossible now but I dont think Eddie has given up hope. I think that he still thinks that he is the only one that can do the job.

 

[Markfs]

She had the opportunity to tough it out and she opted not to. Her call if she can’t handle some criticism.

The crap that Holgate went through in the corporate world was a million times worse than O’Donnell being criticised on bigfooty for being a dogs supporter and an ineligible Collingwood director.

That was Holgate's job... her reputation.... if I volunteer for the local tuck shop and they say that they hate my sandwiches, then I'm not going back.... but I've put up with s**t jobs for years with an eye on the payslip...

 

[BringouttheGimp]

If we don't organise our s**t soon.. imma tell Serge to give me a Gil do man.. so when I meet with my mates at the clubs and bars and that re.. they'll be like.. wtf man.. and I'll be like.. whatever man.. let's see who picks up first and that re.. have some fun with it and that re sort of a thing and that re.. haha.. forget about it mate..

 

[tranquilli lace]

the second coming will be here soon. If we ask nicely maybe he will come back...... if we say we're sorry for hurting him

View attachment 1237306

Collingwood rocked by more off-field drama as Bridie O’Donnell quits

Bridie O’Donnell has quit the Collingwood board just months after being appointed as off-field turmoil continues to plague the AFL giant.

www.news.com.au

‘Because of Eddie McGuire’ it should read - fair typo in that headline.

 

[jmac70]

You must remember my threads of years ago when I said that we should ditch the whole board. Most of the time I was the only person who posted on that thread because everyone said that board appointments didnt matter.

Now we are running board members out of town because they dont have Pie tatts.

In the end, I see what Eddie calls a dysfunctional board overseeing coaching placements. If we could get the Maguires and Galballys to agree to stay away from the footy department, I'd be happy to let them run the playground. I dont really think the people on the board really matter. The important thing is that they stay away from the footy dept.

I have a sneaky suspicion that Eddie is going to make it back on the board because of the "implosion" of the current board. It may seem impossible now but I dont think Eddie has given up hope. I think that he still thinks that he is the only one that can do the job.

If Ed comes back I turn in my membership.

 

[Markfs]

If Ed comes back I turn in my membership.

dont encourage him

 

[PREETY_FLY]

he won't come back

 

[jmac70]

he won't come back

Don’t be so sure.

 

[Collingwood 4 eternity]

‘Because of Eddie McGuire’ it should read - fair typo in that headline.

If Eddie McGuire was to nominate for a place to be elected on to the board , just like anybody on this forum is also able to , assuming that you are all paid up Collingwood FC members.

He would get the most votes out of everyone

 

[half_back_flank]

When ‘elected’ and addressing the members, she ignored 90% of the business she had been appointed to represent, instead focusing exclusively on the AFLW and Netball sides. This was after our disastrous offseason was still in the forefront. She would have (and hopefully had time to) been fantastic for our women’s teams, but an inability to read the room had her marked from the start.

 

[jc37]

Most on our board are very successful talented people.
They are unpaid to be on the board so should be doing so out of passion, hence why you want true club people.
Unfortunately I am guessing the majority are their out of status and dont really care. Most are in high powered jobs but how much thought effort would they really put into the club judging by recent decsions very little. Love him or despise him Eddie was passionate and worked his but off for the club. He made some errors but the board should have steered him away from making these errors none of them did. Some errors like the Goodes comment are obviously not their fault. We need a reset with majority Collingwood people on the board give me less talent and more passion guided by strong leadership. We have zero l;eadership, talented people who dont really care (in my opinion) they care more about themselves and career ststus.

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

Most on our board are very successful talented people.
They are unpaid to be on the board so should be doing so out of passion, hence why you want true club people.
Unfortunately I am guessing the majority are their out of status and dont really care. Most are in high powered jobs but how much thought effort would they really put into the club judging by recent decsions very little. Love him or despise him Eddie was passionate and worked his but off for the club. He made some errors but the board should have steered him away from making these errors none of them did. Some errors like the Goodes comment are obviously not their fault. We need a reset with majority Collingwood people on the board give me less talent and more passion guided by strong leadership. We have zero l;eadership, talented people who dont really care (in my opinion) they care more about themselves and career ststus.

I've been a critic of Ed, but I don't for one second doubt the man's passion for the club. It was infectious.

 

[Collingwood 4 eternity]

Oh the melts if Eddie were to nominate

 

[magpies42]

‘Woke agendas’ - whatever that means - are something you need to get used to. Cashed up sponsors want to align with clubs who look good, and act good, in the ‘enlightened’ space. Sponsors have brands to protect, consumers to entice, and shareholders to satisfy.

Many Pies fans might prefer the club to concentrate on footy, maybe even men’s footy only, but those days are gone. We will continue to engage with social issues and programs, even if some fans don’t like it or care to see it.

Cashed up sponsors are equally interested in success. Not sure how you get success unless you have the best giving everything to achieve objectives. From my perspective the most important objective we have is AFL premierships, every other product line is secondary and a spare time activity. Bringing on board members to focus on women’s sports is counter to the objective. The women’s teams, the wheelchair team and everything else only exists because of the success of the men’s team. You can still attract sponsors by supporting these activities and by being respectful. Didn’t the review talk about a lack of focus or something to that effect…the most successful organisations have a focus, the organisations that try to achieve everything fail.

I’m all for women’s sport, and advocate for merit based equality I will lose my bundle however if we continue to support woke agendas that are counter to our mission.

 

[Markfs]

If Eddie McGuire was to nominate for a place to be elected on to the board , just like anybody on this forum is also able to , assuming that you are all paid up Collingwood FC members.

He would get the most votes out of everyone

I think you're right.

There are 4 positions up for grabs. Peter Murphy, Christine Holgate, Neil Wilson and O’Donnell. Of course, the last one is now vacant. Jeff Browne might nominate for that position and if there werent other contenders, there wouldnt be a vote and he would be placed in the position.

If Eddie nominated for any of the other 3 positions, possibly Murphy might give him a contest but the other two would lose easily.

 

[magpies42]

What objectives are those?

Board members at footy clubs don’t do it for money, they do it to improve their CV or because they have passion that will drive the club forward. You can’t have the passion to work above and beyond if you’re not even a supporter. She was to focus on the women’s game which is counter to what I think the objectives of the club should be, AFL premierships should be objective 1, 2 and 3. Everything else gets done if there is capacity.

 

[Markfs]

I think all of us unwokes just want Eddie to come back to fix the club....we've got to get him back. It was a mistake to run him out of town. We were tricked by the wokes into abandoning him.

 

[magpies42]

She was eligible. If she wasn’t she wouldn’t have been on our board and F.Galbally (for one) would have organised to have her turfed out. Sure, she served in line with article 50(c) instead of article 25(a), but she wasn’t be any means the first.

And sure, the club shouldn’t be invoking that article for just anyone.

But when you get somebody who is a trained medical doctor familiar with sports science, in an organisation that has been crushed by injuries over the last decade.

+ ex elite athlete who’d competed at the highest levels of her sport and had represented her country. Seems relevant?

+ senior bureaucrat in government, a desirable skill to have on a board that regularly engages with government.

+ advocate for women’s sport, which whether you think that is woke or not, it is an objective of our organisation.

It would seem she was eminently qualified. Can you name anybody on our board who would seem more qualified? (Apart from maybe Licuria?)

Bringing somebody in that is not an actual supporter or member when the charter clearly requires that speaks of desperation. Do you think a man would have been brought in under that pretence ? It was a panicked move by an inept board trying to appeal to the masses. Her qualifications ad experience maybe great, if she was that good an operator however the bulldogs would have snapped her up.

Our point of contention is that my view is the club exists to win AFL premierships first and foremost, any deviation from that is diabolical. I’m not saying that we don’t support these secondary activities and grow them, they get done when all aspects of the AFL men’s program are serviced to 110% of requirement. That was an outcome of the review if my memory serves me correctly. Any other strategy and watch us slip into irrelevance.