The Board

[Miguel Sanchez]

The last thing the football department needs is board members who think they know about football.

What about a board member who actually does know about football? Someone like Peter Matera, who now runs a reasonably-sized waste management company as well as a charity?

 

[LittleGreekGod]

It's called knowledge and experience in your field. If you spend 15 years playing at a footy club, and possibly a few years as an assistant coach or whatever, then you get a good picture on how an AFL club runs. It's the experience of having been in the position that the players are in, and that being one of the voices on the board. You want a diverse range of backgrounds on your board, INCLUDING people who have played the actual game. I think it's good to have some corporate members on the board, but I think you need a balance. Apart from JL and Nisbett, it's 100% non-football/sporting corporate types.

As I said before, no slight on Zoe and nothing personal, but I don't see how running an oil company or whatever industry it is makes you more insightful on football matters than someone who has been ensconced in the football system for the most part of their life, especially when we've already seemingly got the corporate side of things covered. It's like being in a room with Glen Jakovich and a director from BHP Billiton, for example, and going up to the BHP guy instead of Jako to ask them their opinion on the shape of the Eagles. It's counter-intuitive to me.

I think Glen Jakovich is a bad example.
Having had dealings with him a number of times over the years I would hate to think the future of the club was in his hands.
Board is in charge of business and needs experienced business people while the football department should be run by ex footballers. Makes a lot of sense.
Big danger of having ex players on the board is that they would probably want to influence the football department, the coaching or how the game is played.
This is not their domain. Their charter is to make the club a success financially and protect its image.
Their is no room for emotion at their level.

 

[Beau_Waters for PM]

The board is there to manage the business that is the West Coast Eagles Football Club, with the main role of any board being to choose the right CEO to lead the organisation, and to then help develop that CEO and keep them accountable to the vision and strategy that is set by the executive team (incl. the CEO).

The more football (playing) knowledge a board has, the more they may be tempted to meddle in the operations of the club. This is not the role of a board. The board's role is to be looking at the big picture, not getting stuck in the weeds. That's the role of the CEO and Coach.

Also, if a board had a member or members with football playing experience, they may be tempted to defer to that person too heavily. This is a danger for boards.

 

[Marlin01]

The board is there to manage the business that is the West Coast Eagles Football Club, with the main role of any board being to choose the right CEO to lead the organisation, and to then help develop that CEO and keep them accountable to the vision and strategy that is set by the executive team (incl. the CEO).

The more football (playing) knowledge a board has, the more they may be tempted to meddle in the operations of the club. This is not the role of a board. The board's role is to be looking at the big picture, not getting stuck in the weeds. That's the role of the CEO and Coach.

Also, if a board had a member or members with football playing experience, they may be tempted to defer to that person too heavily. This is a danger for boards.

This.

 

[Jiggyman]

I'm not saying we should shelve the corporate side. Far from that. I'm just saying that we need to make sure we still have enough people with direct football experience, either playing or administrative, over years and years, not solely corporate types who ring in from their day jobs. As I said before, Nisbett, who's been a strong force on the football side of things, won't be CEO forever, so when he eventually goes, we need to make sure that we're ready for that.

So why not chuck someone like Andrew Embley on the board? I've heard him talk plenty of times, he's a smart guy, he seems to get what really makes football teams tick. He doesn't have to run the show, it's just to have an additional voice on there to give more a footy-background perspective.

Case in point of why that genuine football experience is important. I saw Peggy O'Neill from Richmond being interviewed on Fox Footy after the GF, very good interview. She's been involved with Richmond directly for around 25 years. She also has Brendan Gale as the CEO. So, what was happening at the end of the 2016 season? Everyone was saying Richmond was a rabble, Damien Hardwick was a joke, and they needed to get rid of him. What did they do? Stuck fat, and 12 months later they had a nice shiny cup for their cabinet. If they didn't have that football experience at a board level and had sacked Hardwick, odds are pretty strong they wouldn't have won the flag.

I see your point, but I believe that's probably already accomplished through strong communication ties between the board, football department and investors. Until a qualified candidate comes along who also happens to be an ex-player or industry professional, it will continue.

We had an emphasis across all departments on off-field culture for a period after the fallout from our flag, but are now hyper-aware that a club is defined by it's on-field success. Veering from the old boys club and handing the reigns to a newcomer in Simpson was a huge step in 2014 (though I think 2018 is the first time we're playing with a squad that's truly his), and it seems like responsibility is more spread across our footy department than it was under Woosha; the club runs more smoothly than it did a decade ago and we're starting to see success again.

 

[lewigie]

I have absolutely no idea what a board does for any company

 

[sambutlerfan]

I have absolutely no idea what a board does for any company

A board is what you use in basketball when you throw the ball at it

 

[sambutlerfan]

The board is there to manage the business that is the West Coast Eagles Football Club, with the main role of any board being to choose the right CEO to lead the organisation, and to then help develop that CEO and keep them accountable to the vision and strategy that is set by the executive team (incl. the CEO).

The more football (playing) knowledge a board has, the more they may be tempted to meddle in the operations of the club. This is not the role of a board. The board's role is to be looking at the big picture, not getting stuck in the weeds. That's the role of the CEO and Coach.

Also, if a board had a member or members with football playing experience, they may be tempted to defer to that person too heavily. This is a danger for boards.

Agree that you want to have a split, and when things are going good, you want the board to stay the hell out the way. BUT it's more for the crisis periods when the board has to adjudicate on the football department, whether it's the right time to sack the coach, etc, that they really come into their usefulness. And it's hard to pinpoint hypotheticals obviously, but I would fear that a more football-inexperienced board would be more prone to listen to outside noise around the public and media rather than have a clear picture of what the future direction of the football dept is. I gave an example above of Richmond staying the course with Hardwick against widespread public opinion and it paid off for them.

You almost even draw the possibility that if we'd just missed the finals last year and there was extra noise around Simpson's job, that an inexperienced board might have sacked him instead of staying the course (which some on BF might have been happy with). And now this year, he's talked about as a possible coach of the year.

 

[Scotland]

If we're truly corporates we'll be diversifying our board. 7 white men on an 8 person board? Outrageous.

That said I reckon David Wirrpanda would make a good board member.

 

[javaguice]

The board doesnt need ex-players.

The board needs to run the club.

Its the football department that need to concentrate on football decisions, the board need to run the club.

But in saying all that, I really dont care as long as we are winning.

 

[Scotland]

Good sporting organisations have stability and the right people in key posts. Good footy administrators like Nissy, Brian Cook etc. are incredibly valuable. Could you imagine where we could be if we had Cameron Schwab running the show?

Other than Trevor Nisbett who is the CEO and has a profile and Justin Langer who is a former cricketer I couldn't name anyone else on our board without looking at the club website and I'm fine with that.