This is the correct response.
I’m not saying the players have the right to control the board and thus have power over all decisions.
Rather they as a key stakeholder they have the right to be represented on the board.
I think there was a conversation with Darli and another person on the ideal composition of the board. During that it was floated that two board members should be past players. The point I’d make is that those two past players don’t need to be random selections, shouldn’t the players get some input into who they feel would best represent them.
I’d never want the players to approve/disapprove of all posts, but have no problem if they advocate for an individual from time to time.
Your point is sound. The problem lies a little deeper. Let’s say Joe Blogs was pretty tight with the playing group and after a year or so decided to run for the board. How does Joe deal with the conflict of interest that’s bound to come when talks turn to trading player x, or how much, or little should player y be offered on his next contract or whether player z should be delisted.
No members - no players.
Why would any board member need to worry about Footy Dept/List Management decisions??
On your specific scenario I don’t want the board doing that. Plenty of clubs have been ruined from directors making those decisions. I want list decisions made by jackets and Woosha. Happy to have the board set the strategy, but not who gets delisted.
In general conflicts are unavoidable(working at the AFL and channel 7 would be the only exclusions). Most decent directors know not to let their personal feelings cloud their decisions. And if there is a real conflict they recuse themselves.
What if the club does something with Telstra? I’m sure if a conflict came up, Katie would recuse herself from the situation.
Yes agree, and she would add value in knowing how Telstra works, as would a former player understanding different welfare issues
The don’t pick the team. But if the board don’t have a pretty big say on contracts and extensions I’d be very suprised. Otherwise what’s the point of a director of football?
To oversee the football department, set objectives, make recommendation to the rest of the board on coach appointment and budget needs. They don’t need to make day to day decisions that’s what the GM of football does, they set the strategy and hold the department accountable.
President looks after the administration
Finance director the finances
Football director the football department.
They might have input on say. bringing Stringer IN for example, as to whether it was good for the club due to the controversy and such, … but outside of those rare occasions. none of them would have anything to do with delistings or list management etc.
Why the hell would they?? They know fk all about it.
If that were the case, we might as well let the Cafe staff get a say too.
I think you’re wrong. Every board I’ve been associated with sets or ratified contracts, salaries, bonuses and pay rises.
It would normally be prepared by management to be ratified by the board though?
Have the voting papers been sent out or is it all on line? I haven’t received anything.
Voting is all done online. Right here if it helps : https://www.investorvote.com.au/Login?cn=8388&demo=N&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
There is a distinction between operational and policy, but sometimes operational decisions affect policy. The Board needs to be aware ( as I understand from Paul, it is) and to convey its views on the broad parameters of operational decisions. I see any consideration of a Lethlean appointment as coming within the Board’s policy role.
Actually that interesting question for the directors, what’s the time commitment like as a director?
I assume formal requirements are monthly meetings, quarterly subcommittee meetings then the games.
How much more time do you normally put in for the role?
What does that have to do with delisting players??
Remember this was about supposed conflicts of interest for ex players on the board.
This isn’t really true though. There’s hundreds of football clubs in Australia with tens of thousands of players, all trying to win premierships. Most clubs have nowhere near the financial support of AFL level memberships but they still go about their business.
Now if the players want the dollars, then yep they need members
More straw dogs to come their number is infinite. I’m waiting for some positives to outweigh any negatives, like why past players are on the Board skill matrix and why we have had two for so long.
If I were a player I would be inclined to think that Wellman would be well equipped to represent player interests ( not that I don’t think Paul and Catherine ignore them)