Strategy The Board of Directors: Operation Ruthless

[kaboom kid]

A highly credentialed discipline that has little relevance in AFL football fundamentals is little different from a low credentialed candidate of the same discipline.

Let's see what ultimately eventuates.

As for Archer, he's qualified for football oversight, was a driving force behind the mid season shift, and this was obviously an underepresented aspect of the previous board, which is actually absurd when you think about it. He is a far more valuable appointment at this point in time.

Why no criticism of Paul Dwyer then? He's director of an insurance company. That's not directly relevant to football either. I would argue that both Sonja and Paul woukd bring very useful skills, experience and contacts to the board. Isn't the football football side of NMFC handled by the football department? Plus haven't we got enough football types on there already in Archer and Buckley. Balance looks pretty good to me now.

 

[The Warlord]

Why no criticism of Paul Dwyer then? He's director of an insurance company.

I can think of a reason.

 

[Orange Peanut]

* the thread actually got worse on Christmas Day. Unthinkable!

 

[kaboom kid]

I'm looking forward to seeing some results that strengthen the overall club and not just personal political interests, as that is a form of prostituting the club in my view.

The jumbled cocktail of Scanlon, Hood and some of the lefties here, is one of the better political contradictions that I have seen on this board.

Not sure why you view her as 'political' just because she has worked as a research implementation manager and she's on the board of some community focused organisations. Julie Laycock works in marketing and Paul Dwyer is director of an insurance company. They could also have strong political beliefs. Maybe more right leaning, perhaps but political nonetheless.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

What we need is more blokes with experience with online insurance platforms.

Ben Buckley worked for Murdoch. A very political organisation. Poisonous, in fact.

 

[see see]

I wonder who's making the gravy this year?

 

[DesertRoo]

So what I’ve established from this thread, the North Melbourne board is not a coterie club made up of ex-players and bankers...
And a couple of posters seem triggered by this.

 

[kaboom kid]

So what I’ve established from this thread, the North Melbourne board is not a coterie club made up of ex-players and bankers...
And a couple of posters seem triggered by this.

For me, the balance looks perfect. You've got Julie Laycock and Paul Dwyer from the business world, hopefully they have the corporate nouse to woo big business,
secure sponsorships and market our club effectively. Then you've got Sonja with her community engagement and management experience, vital for securing support and funding from government. Glenn Archer is the cherry on top as our figurehead, shinboner of the century, plus he has some small business and event management experience.

 

[blackshadow]

It is made up bullshit because "social work" is seen as a female field.

What we need is more blokes with experience with online insurance platforms.

 

[kaboom kid]

Ben Buckley worked for Murdoch. A very political organisation. Poisonous, in fact.

Indeed, a decisive influence in many elections worldwide.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Posters: If all you have is infantile cliched virtue signaling, then just don't bother responding. It's boring, and has no effect on rational thinkers, so I figure you're just playing to the audience. Thanks.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Why no criticism of Paul Dwyer then? He's director of an insurance company.

He can * off too. Deflection over.

 

[kaboom kid]

He can fu** off too. Deflection over.

Is this an example of the rational thinking and reasoned responses you espouse?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Is this an example of the rational thinking and reasoned responses you espouse?

Nah mate, the childish OTT outrage is just a waste of bandwidth.

It's personal friends of the appointee, with multiple accounts, and engaging in the sort of dung that lowers the standards.

Classic SJW teenage bullying crap. It's boring.

 

[kaboom kid]

Nah mate, the childish OTT outrage is just a waste of bandwidth.

It's personal friends of the appointee, with multiple accounts, and engaging in the sort of dung that lowers the standards.

Classic SJW teenage bullying crap. It's boring.

Fair enough SB.

My own politics are very left leaning however I would happily acknowledge that the extreme left can be petty, vitriolic and infantile. However, I would argue that exactly the same is true of the extreme right. I don't see any evidence that Dr Hood is in that category. I have many colleagues and friends whose political views are the complete opposite of mine, I still respect them as people and value them as colleagues, even though I may not agree with their political views. At the end of the day everyone in Australia votes so everyone in Australia has political views to some extent. What would make you happy? Do you only want people on the board that share your political views? I don't think that is realistic or in the best interests of the club. For me, it would be ideal if our board had a diversity of political views... we certainly need to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum if we are to advance as a club.

Anyway hope you're having a great Xmas and go the Roos in 2020.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Fair enough SB.

My own politics are very left leaning however I would happily acknowledge that the extreme left can be petty, vitriolic and infantile. However, I would argue that exactly the same is true of the extreme right. I don't see any evidence that Dr Hood is in that category. I have many colleagues and friends whose political views are the complete opposite of mine, I still respect them as people and value them as colleagues, even though I may not agree with their political views. At the end of the day everyone in Australia votes so everyone in Australia has political views to some extent. What would make you happy? Do you only want people on the board that share your political views? I don't think that is realistic or in the best interests of the club. For me, it would be ideal if our board had a diversity of political views... we certainly need to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum if we are to advance as a club.

Anyway hope you're having a great Xmas and go the Roos in 2020.

You're alright mate, you make an effort to table reasoned opinion without acting like a child.

Look, we have staked our respective ideological ground and we'll sit back and see what eventuates. I hope I am pleasantly surprised.

 

[Egga]

So what I’ve established from this thread, the North Melbourne board is not a coterie club made up of ex-players and bankers...
And a couple of posters seem triggered by this.

That’s One of the more ironic posts in this thread. Two posters have put forward rational reasons why the club deserves better than the board member in question. The rest of this forum has gone into a full melt, resorting to personal attack and emotive posturing (with a few exceptions) in the absence of any rational basis for the Board member’s appointment.

What’s even more ironic is that some of the histrionics are from some of the very same people who complain about NMFC being a ‘boys club’ and who are now desperately embracing another Board member inserted from the same entrenched power base.

 

[kaboom kid]

You're alright mate, you make an effort to table reasoned opinion without acting like a child.

Look, we have staked our respective ideological ground and we'll sit back and see what eventuates. I hope I am pleasantly surprised.

That's the spirit...I think that the whole left vs right thing had become very toxic of late and very much amplified by social media. Much to the detriment of the country in my opinion as the major parties tend to plump for the middle ground and formulate insipid and populist policy platforms that achieve very little real change...

Like you , I hope that this board achieves great things. Like other posters have noted we seem to be going for a bold and visionary approach and aiming for premierships. The Dilena era was about consolidation, consistent onfield success and safety first which we certainly needed to see off the relocation threat. I like the fact that the club is aiming big with the Arden St expansion and stating that we are chasing a flag. Nailing our colors to the mast as it were.....

 

[Egga]

This is one of the most astonishing threads I have ever read on this board. I am beyond bamboozled as to why Snake and Egga are so vociferous in their lambasting of the appointment of Dr. Sonja Hood to the board. (who by the way I do not know and have never met.)

So far I have seen nothing tangible from either of Snake or Egga, as to what is so wrong with her being a director. To simply say there are thousands of people who are as equally or better qualified to be appointed, is not a valid reason, if only for the fact that for anyone to become a Director, they must firstly be prepared to take on such a role. Being a Director of an AFL Football Club is not something that anyone will take on lightly. Yes there may be some glory if the club is successful, but the opposite, being unsuccessfu,l is a shitful place to be as a Director.

I think its time for both Snake and Egga to put on the record their individual reasons, why Dr. Hood should not be a director. If they cant be forthcoming in a tangible way, then they should both shut up.

I’ve posted my reasons twice. Snake has posted his multiple times too.

Why do you think that the person selected not being the most qualified is not a good reason? I would have thought it’s the best possible reason. If the only reason you’re against this argument is that better qualified people may not be willing to take on the role, the problem we ALL have is that we will never know because, more than likely, they were never properly sought out. Instead another member of the existing network has been installed.

 

[kaboom kid]

I’ve posted my reasons twice. Snake has posted his multiple times too.

Why do you think that the person selected not being the most qualified is not a good reason? I would have thought it’s the best possible reason. If the only reason you’re against this argument is that better qualified people may not be willing to take on the role, the problem we ALL have is that we will never know because, more than likely, they were never properly sought out. Instead another member of the existing network has been installed.

You're quite right..... no doubt Sonja would have had the inside running as the selection committee would have directly observed her work at the Huddle....Nevertheless the same criticism could be levelled at the Rhyce Shaw appointment and we're all over the moon with how that's working out...You're quite right , without being privy to the selection process we'll never really know how wide they cast the net. Here's hoping Sonja does a Rhyce.....

 

[Tectonic]

Another member of the existing network has been installed.

This is something that's worth investigating, and that includes the appointment of Archer.
Both new board members have a long history at the club, which is both good and bad, but I would imagine those in this thread would be more contented to see us appoint people from outside with more of a track record.

I freakin love the guy, but what's Archer actually done as a board member to benefit the club?

 

[Horace]

Nah mate, the childish OTT outrage is just a waste of bandwidth.

It's personal friends of the appointee, with multiple accounts, and engaging in the sort of dung that lowers the standards.

Classic SJW teenage bullying crap. It's boring.

As I said in my post wondering why you and Egga have been so triggered by her appointment, I have never met Sonja Hood. I am not a personal friend of hers nor have I used multiple accounts to post here.

I remain astonished as to why you are so upset about someone who (a) it appears has been labelled as a "Sociologist" and (b) being a woman, knows less about football than do men. I suppose that really means you think she knows less about football than you do.

You are entitled to believe that you know more about football than she does, but equally she is just as entitled to think she knows more about football than you do. In my opinion, having a better knowledge of football is not related to gender in any way shape or form.

But if she is a "Sociologist" and she does know less about football than "men" do, why is that relevant to her appointment, when there are others on the board who are not "Sociologists" and allegedly know more about football than she does? Surely she is there for her strengths rather than her - perceived in your eyes and those of Egga - weaknesses.

You have also had a go here at people who are "lefties" and ridiculed those who are concerned about "climate change".

I'm happy to put my hand up and say I am a "leftie". Always have been and always will be.

And I am even more concerned about climate change and its long term affect on this planet. I have two children, young adults, aged 29 and 24, who have grown up in a different world to the one that I grew up in and I am very concerned for what they are inheriting from those of us who have been around much longer than we have. They have real fears and they actually feel betrayed by the generations who have come before them.

Surely the most ferocious fires we have ever seen here in Australia this year, bearing in mind we are only in December and most of the really devastating bush fires occur in February and March each year, lay testament to that.

Surely what many see as the worst ever drought being experienced in Queensland and New South Wales lays testament to that.

Surely the melting of the Polar ice caps and disappearance forever of glacial formations lay testament to the warming of the planet.

Surely the increasingly savage cyclones/hurricanes and the devastation they cause lay testament to that.

Surely already the evidence of rising ocean levels lays testament to that.

From a personal perspective I grew up on a dairy farm in Cunners territory. We used to experience much less harsh climatic conditions in our area, with 4 genuine seasons every year. Then in the 1950/60s the Bolte Government cleared vast areas of virgin bush land, west of the Otways back to the Heytesbury and almost overnight our seasons changed to what seemed like just two longer harsher seasons, winter and summer and not much in between. Some magnificent dairy farming land was the result, but longer term who know what might come of that?

I'll be well and truly dead by the time the increasing affects of climate change alter markedly how the lives of future generations are lived, so it really doesn't matter to me, but it may well matter to them and their contemporaries. And for that I am very concerned that not enough is being done to try to mitigate against climate change and the warming of our planet.

Yes I'm way off tangent in talking about this here but if Snake, you wish to have little jibes at "lefties" and people concerned about climate change, then I'm happy to go off tangent.

 

[Snake_Baker]

As I said in my post wondering why you and Egga have been so triggered by her appointment............

I'd expect a bloke of your vintage to conduct themselves better than that. The only thing that "triggers" me around here is the infantile drivel in response to very reasonable questions.

 

[Gasometer]

fu** the thread actually got worse on Christmas Day. Unthinkable!

Merry Christmas by the way

 

[Horace]

I’ve posted my reasons twice. Snake has posted his multiple times too.

Why do you think that the person selected not being the most qualified is not a good reason? I would have thought it’s the best possible reason. If the only reason you’re against this argument is that better qualified people may not be willing to take on the role, the problem we ALL have is that we will never know because, more than likely, they were never properly sought out. Instead another member of the existing network has been installed.

So who are they these people who are "the most qualified"? Why are they "the most qualified"?

I honestly don't know whether she or someone else is "the most qualified", but if there are people who are "the most qualified" then name them.

I honestly just don't get the angst. There must be something more than her being a "Sociologist" and a woman that has got "your gander up".