For the record I agree with this. Coteries are not evil and not full of bad, rich or exclusive people. There are pockets that some may not like, but there are pockets of that in every level of membership IMO.
I also believe they should be as independent of the club as possible. My understanding is that most coteries are mostly ‘apolitical’ when it comes to the board.
I will not comment on my fellow nominees, but the coteries themselves are filled with great people, some of whom I am proud to call my friends.
Coteries do a great deal for the club, and what’s more, they’re an organised group of supporters enthusiastic to put time and money into the club over and above the basic membership/showing up to games. What that DOES mean is that they are a rich source of people who are likely to vote at the AGM. Up until recently, I think they were the primary source of such voters. If you wanted to get on the board (unless you were a famed EFC name), you were a fool not to be involved in the coteries because there were so many potential voters there who you could meet and schmooze up to.
This changed somewhat with the election of Paul & Katie. It became very clear that the coteries were no longer the largest concentration of supporters talking about the club. Instead, this place was.
Because the coteries previous importance as a lobbying ground for wannabe board members, they naturally attracted ambitious types. I suspect we’ll start getting that sort of thing happening on Blitz more and more as time passes too.
Have to admit that I feel pretty blah about the whole election, to be honest. The sheer nature of board confidentiality means that there’s no way to hold individual board members accountable for their actions. If the club does Thing X which you disagree with, all you can do is vote against the incumbents at the next AGM, but you have no way of knowing whether the board members you’re voting against actually supported Thing X or were in fact its most vocal opponents but got voted down and have to fake a grin and support Thing X in public because board confidentiality. If you cast a protest vote your only option is nuclear, and if the members look like voting in too many inconvenient opinions, a few appointed directors can restore the status quo. It’s a pretty sad parody of democracy, really.
I understand what you are saying but democracy is not the issue.
EFC has a fair and workable Constitution with a majority of Board Members having to be elected by Members which is democratic and works for me,. The ability to appoint Boards Members to ensure a good spread of abilities and experience is also fair and good governance.
I have served on Boards compiled as per the EFC model rules, ones that are all elected and some that are all appointed. The worst was the fully democratic option of all elected, as 2 out of seven were not competent in most areas, except being electable and a majority had no idea of finance or management. The fully appointed Board had a good cross section of talent, but was crippled by Politics and hence an inability to make decisions, which is exactly what those who set it up wanted.
Oh yeah, I’ve got no issue with the existence of appointed directors per se.
It’s just that when voters are unable to know the position of individual elected directors on contentious issues when voting, it’s impossible to cast a meaningful, informed vote. And any appointed director is obviously not going to get appointed if they look like rocking the boat, so appointed directors will tend to side with the existing majority.
It’s kind of a recipe for status quo. The only ‘democratic’ remedy for a board you think is going badly is a protest vote opposing all incumbents, but even then you have no way of knowing whether the people you’re voting against were the ones that made the decisions you oppose. And even if you vote in a bunch of new board members, you have no way of knowing whether they’re living up to their election commitments or not.
No doubt some Boards would stack on “like-minded” people, but that was not my experience and we were really sincere about getting the best outcome. I would like to think that EFC operate that way as well.
I gave up trying to guess how people would vote on any given issue, and sometimes you would walk into the room, guaranteed the numbers to win, and minds changed when it came to the Vote. I always liked Council/Board meetings being open to public or share-holders, so if they were interested they could see what happens and the newspapers report the facts. I am a great believer in solidarity of the group, so I one rule that I always applied was no matter how I felt on an issue, once the Council/Board decision was made then I supported it. To publicly attack a decision after the event, causes so much distrust and is only really about your own ego,
There are coteries, and there are supporter groups, but then there is Bomberblitz. Just like the Chinese government (and with similar methods) we control the only form of power which really matters, the information flow. When new kids on the block want to get elected where do they come? To us of course. When the football department is looking for inspiration where else do you think they get it from? We made Jackets the legend he is today (by running a satirical negative campaign bagging him for 10 years). How many times do you read posts today which are tomorrow’s news?
To prove our influence I’m starting a campaign over on the best 22 thread to play JoeD at CHB. We should do it just because we can.
I understand where you’re coming from and to a point agree. It’s a unique situation when board members are elected.
I guess we have a choice as to how involved we do or don’t want to be. What I respect about Paul and Katie is that they are approachable either on social media or via email. I think it’s important that the members have a connection with the board even if its just to vent.
For the most part, I consider our membership astute when it comes to the footy club. We are normally sound judges of the playing and coaching group. We are patient with development. We criticise when we feel it is deserved and we are often constructive with that criticism.
It stands to reason that we hold the board to the same standards. I reckon, their achievements over the last three years are the equivalent of making a grand final and I don’t believe they get enough credit for that.
Imagine trading out Joey and Hurls from the grand final team just because some one who looks good on paper wants to have a go. If you take out everything but what is best for the footy club this election is a no brainer.
Sorry but your personal opinion of these people because of a private run in you have had with them does not influence my vote - especially when I have no knowledge of the disagreement. As I have said before, the board seems to be operating in a unified and cooperative way… so can see no reason to change. Still, I would be interested to know why anyone standing against the existing board members think they would do a better job.
Hopefully they will post their views on BBlitz.
I only know Red. Sash from occasionally reading his tweets. Sometimes I agree with him sometimes I don’t… but him being close to James and Sheeds makes me think he must be ok.
I think it’s careful not to read too much into an opinion when it comes to these matters. I remember there being much controversy around Hird remaining as coach at one of the recent elections and my OPINION is that some who were standing for board positions at the time weren’t as resolute as others in retaining him as coach and I feel that counted against them when it came to the elections. As it turns out, the Hird issue was a moot point as he “resigned”. At the end of the day we will have strong candidates for all board positions who all bring a different skill set & experience. Personally, I give little weight to whether or not the candidates have been a member of a coterie but their business credentials & previous experience means far more to my decision.
I might sound very simplistic but I think the candidates mostly are very good people and genuinely have affection for the club. For me I am not having a debate on who is better or worse but really if 2017 for me personally was one of the most successful years I can remember as an Essendon member then who am I to kick key Directors out. Stability of a club often flows down to on and off field success…and that’s all I want moving forward.
She was former committee member of Women’s Network at Essendon. Has been on other external board committee’s I believe. Passionate member and can hold her own when she has a vision or idea. She is a member within Essendonians. We get along well and I like her passion.
Where this model falls down is when resignations are manipulated to occur just after an election so that the Board can fill a temporary vacancy for the remainder of the term with people they chose rather than somebody getting elected. Think it might have happened at EFC a number of years back.
There was a lady that ran around early 00’s who’d been a member for anout 2 minutes. Remember her being accused of trying to spruik it with her business. Lol.