The simple answer is governance. That’s the boards role.
In my workplace we have 4 GMs a CEO and CFO, they’re responsible for overseeing the various departments, the board is responsible for overseeing them.
My word, any senior appointments need to go to the Board for endorsement. That has been the practice of Boards I have served on.
Hey do you have a go block on the site as I’m trying to vote from Philippines but keeps saying not available try later?
‘This service is not currently available. Please try again later’
I believe Telstra might - or are you getting that from the investor website? They may have it locked down!
Is it possible to email it to a mate here and ask them to send it on to EFC?
The Board’s role is not to make operating decisions; that’s the role of senior management. The role of the Board is to set strategic direction, review performance, ensure the organization has effective internal control systems, formulate policy and provide general oversight.
The Board would only be involved in an operating decision if it is so controversial or abnormal that it could materially impact organizational performance. Trading in Stringer might have been an example of that. They would have no role at all in routine list management decisions.
The Board needs to approve any senior appointment as that would be considered material to organisational performance. If we’re employing a nutritionist the Board would only be concerned that the correct HR policies were being followed and would have no role in that employment decision ie their role is oversight of the system not involvement in the operating decision.
The role of Director of football would be to provide a conduit between the Board and the football department and players, reporting to the Board as to the general direction, performance and activities of the football department. It’s not the role of the Board to become engaged in football department decisions or to try and exert their authority over these decisions via the Director of Football. Rather the Director’s role is to communicate back to the Board, reporting and reviewing football department decisions, and to seek Board input on significant issues relevant to their strategy, performance, policy and oversight responsibilities.
Please don’t just say wrong. Can you elaborate a little more?
Doubt some are carefully reading the posts by Catherine and Darli - The board is indirectly involved in some list management positions - The Board needs to approve contracts worth more than X dollars, which by my guess could affect up to 20% of the list - The Board may be involved in deciding whether to recruit a ‘contentious’ player - Guarantee there have been cases and will continue to be cases of a Board over-ruling list management in this scenario.
That would be a Football Department decision though.
They would come to a decision about the state of the list a decided whether a full scale rebuild was require. They would obviously feed that information to the Board. But ultimately the decision to implement a full scale rebuild would be largely based on input from the coaching staff and the list management and recruiting staff not the Board
I’ll try again because maybe I haven’t been as clear as I should be.
When you say something is ‘ultimately a football department decision’ you’re right but the wording is wrong. It’s actaully ‘ultimately a board decision’.
The job of the footy department is to mount a compelling case for that decision. They prepare and present their information to the board to support their reasoning and provide a recommendation. They may even be present at the board meeting to present their case.
Then it’s the job of the board to make sure they have all the relevant information to make that decision, ask the right questions etc. Because, at the end of the day, the board are ultimately responsible, for everything.
They aren’t responsible for every list management decision though as you seemed to suggest earlier.
As Katie indicated, it’s only decisions over a certain dollar amount.
So delisting a rookie or fringe player wouldn’t go to the board.
No doubt a decision like the Stringer one would have been ticked off by the board regardless of the financial amount
We need to keep in mind that in the context of all the ‘managerial’ decisions made within a footy club, only a very small proportion are big decisions, so the Board has little involvement in the daily management of the club. When they are involved, it’s a big issue with significant implications. They are regularly involved in the tasks which they are directly responsible for (already discussed above), but this is not managerial decision making.
The idea that the Board is ultimately responsible for everything is misleading. If it was true, then every Commonwealth Bank director would be in prison, every James Hardie director would have been taken out the back and shot, and the media and AFL would never have been allowed to unfairly and cynically target Hird or Dean Bailey, as the Board members would have all resigned with clear statements taking responsibility for everything bad that happened.
The Board are required to act in good faith, be reasonable etc, but given their limited involvement in the detail they are not expected to be ‘across everything’ as idiot PSmith described when he was enlightening us re governance.
Personally I find it quite frightening how far removed many directors are from the realities of what the organisation and it’s employees confront each day. I don’t think it’s incompetence but rather when you are not engaged at that level you can become obsolete quite quickly, so directors need to be very good at their specific duties.
Decisions are made by list management.
Board aren’t directly involved (unless it is a large sum of money), but they should have awareness of what is going on. Even if it is just a few bullet points in a monthly report.
Any information known by the board on individual players would be required to be held in confidence for the ‘greater good of the club’. Board members shouldn’t convey this information to any player or any outside individual as this would constitute a breach of confidentiality which could lead to termination of your spot on the board.
There is some conflict of interest, but I’m sure Wellman would be well aware of his obligations. As an assistant coach he would have had some tough discussions with the coach regarding specific players and I’m sure he would have tread carefully with how that player is to be treated.
There was a question answer session with Wellman last night on facebook.
He has to get on the board given his playing experience plus business corporate links.
hes served on the waterside board for 13 years. (the board owns and manages hotels in Melbourne)
His business sponsors the club
- he has no intention to return to coaching
Values - Honesty, loyalty, hard work
his business sponsors the club
will ensure we have the best football program for our players to be successful on and off field
good mates with Heffernan.
I love Welly and in normal circumstances I would’ve voted for him, but I think Paul and Katie have done a great job since they got onto the board and… well… if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Might be different next year depending on who is up for election.
Responsible. For everything. Yes, that’s exactly how I remember ASAGA.
Hundreds of newspaper articles all blaming the board. For everything.
The board coming forward and taking full responsibility. For everything.
The board NOT asking the head coach to go on television and take full responsibility. For everything.
The chairman of the board NOT calling the coach selfish for avoiding his responsibility to the playing group by refusing to accept a very-well-thought-out deal with the AFL that required him to be banned.
The Board. Responsible. For everything*.
*Unless James Hird is coach.
is the board responsible if the work experience kid at the cafe puts normal salt as opposed to the requested chicken salt on my chips? is that grounds for impeachment?