2018 EFC AGM on 17 December - including proposed constitutional changes


It’s only a target. Just like we are targeting winning a premiership this year. If we don’t hit the the target nothing will happen. Without aspirational targets I would be concerned, however they have put something in place to aim for. The target is completely unrelated to the extra board seat.

Also you’re jumping to a massive conclusion that an additional female won’t be voted onto the board prior to 2021 which would allow the target to be reached.

Sometimes the truth is actually transparent and you don’t need to go searching for something to create concerns out of nothing.


As I said I spent a long weekend reading.

The current makeup of the board is this - the 3 appointed seats are Ken Lay whose first term ends at the end of 2019 but who will surely go onto a second term, Mel Green (the facebook chick) who’s first term ends at the end of 2020 (and who is obviously a woman anyway so replacing her with another woman doesn’t help the quota) and as Katie pointed out earlier …David Barham is about to be put into Lindsay’s old appointed seat meaning his first appointed term will end at the end of 2021.

It’s incredibly unlikely Ken will be thrown out after his first term and neither of the other two appointed seats can be used to bolster the number of women on the board by 2021.

Now a simple count back 3 years tells you that at the end of 2019 Simon Madden and Andrew Muir are up for re-election, in all likelihood they will be unopposed…same as last time due to no-one being stupid enough to run against a club legend. If anyone is dumb enough to challenge them they won’t win, thus at the end of 2020 (the last chance to meet the target) Wellman and Katie are up for re-election.

Wellman proved beyond any doubt last year that a former premiership player will win an election regardless of platform or lack of one, every single time, while Katie again is obviously a woman so even in the event someone beat her in an election (which is unlikely) they wouldn’t bolster the number of women - in fact they could halve it.

There simply are no available seats for another woman to be added to the board by 2021 without an additional seat being created or something extremely unusual happening with one of the current members as mentioned above.

This current board is locked in for the next couple of years at least, and by publicly entering a pledge like that on such a hotbed optical topic as gender in the workplace the club will be extremely keen to make sure they hit it.


Can you please save me the trouble of watching footy next year and confirm who wins the 2019 Premiership with your crystal ball?

How do we know of the current board members will even seek another term when faced with re election? There are just so many ifs and maybes within your statement that makes it difficult to believe. Things change and move on all the time.

As to your public declaration point on the gender equality - you said yourself you had to search long and hard to find an issue. I get that the public can see the report given the club is obligated to present the report, but it’s not like they ran it as a front page news story (or whatever makes a story big these days). Also setting a 33% representation target is hardly earth shattering when you consider the balance it is currently at 25%. So it’s hardly jumping into a huge hotbed. If we had 0% female representation than it would be a concern.


Back a long time ago when the ALP was debating setting quotas and positive discrimination, I was of the same view as you, and the internal debate was rabid.

I was wrong. If you look at Labor today with a Victorian Government Cabinent of 50% female and this is based on ability. It can only happen if the quality women put their hands and stand for office ehich they were loathe to do as the Boys Club screwed them over.

One day quotas will not be needed, but look at the Liberals and the shambles the old white male nutjobs have got them into. And back to EFC, if we had more talented women on our Board since 2001, we may have been in a much better place, but only those like Bev Knight got elected and she was doubtful in terms of quality.


Right… except that the footy club couldn’t have been more welcoming and accepting of women over the past several years, and setting quotas within the staff of the organization is completely different to setting quotas on a majority elected board - there are many women in key roles at the football club including Katie that have been welcomed with open arms for many years now, this isn’t the nutjob political arena of 40, 30 or even 20 years ago.

They’ve set a quota that would take all of their appointed seats to fill, yet have filled two of their three appointed seats with men for the foreseeable future. I have no problem with them appointing men or women as I want the best person regardless of gender for the job, but when they set a quota that will require them to manipulate elections and/or change the constitution of the club to increase the number of appointed seats to reach, then I have a problem.


I am worried. You are starting to talk like my first Wife.

I promise I will agree with everything you say from now on.


Just give her half your wealth and be done with it.


bacchus is going at /2^9?


Find one link to support that the stated target is something that actually has to be achieved. Do this and at least you have some merit to argue. Otherwise you’re just Richard Young.

There is absolutely no connection between the two things…


I’m not sure how much you know about boards and what they publicly release. I can promise you this one thing…if they’ve set that target, and it’s in the public domain, they damn well intend to reach it.


I know more than enough about boards to know that this target is only a target. Maybe if there were financial implications for the individual board members then maybe just maybe they might be compelled to “pull the wool over the member’s eyes” to achieve this target. But there isn’t. Therefore I will say it again there is nothing to see.

I’m also very confident that the board of our football club - the one that has experienced the worst case of compliance failure in Australian sporting history just 6 years ago - has not created some crackpot method of changing the board numbers to meet a gender target.

The fact you are insinuating that this is what is happening is actually downright disrespectful to the members of our board and senior management. Both Lindsay Tanner and Xavier Campbell have openly and publicly stated why the extra board position is needed. This point was also supported by Katie on Blitz (refer below to her actual comment). You can doubt all you want but please don’t imply that good people are actually doing something when you don’t have a single piece of evidence linking what are two very different things together.

The constitution review is the last of the governance enhancements the club wanted to undertake after the last few years. The proposed 10th board seat is about giving future boards flexibility to bring in skills that may be necessary short term, while removing a rather unique - according to our constitutional lawyers - lock down on the seat being reserved for the CEO or an executive member.

  1. We’ll agree to disagree on your first point. I’ve never know a board to publicly announce a target they don’t already know they will achieve and how they will achieve it.
    2.There are no financial implications for individual board members because these are honorary positions. You can bet your bottom dollar there’s financial implications for the club.

Lastly, there is no disrespect. Boards are strategic. I get that. Not all reasons for all things can be made public. I get that also. But mate, if you wanna buy the ‘necessary short term skills’ or put another way, consultants, then I have a some magic beans that you may be very interested in. :grinning:

I’m not here to convince you.
Vote how you want.
My only point is …after all we have been through, we should, at the very least, look beyond the spin, especially when it’s coming from us.


Maybe you need to think about what you’re saying here. You are the one spinning things to meet your predetermined prejudice. From the outset you have raised skepticism and when there was nothing to find you have managed to create something out of nothing. So it’s very clear your magic beans work very well!

Also what you are saying is massively disrespectful to the club’s board and management. You are claiming what individuals are saying on the record is false. This is despite the fact you have absolutely no evidence other than hearsay to support your view.


That’s exactly what I’m claiming.

We’ll see soon enough.


I’m with darli, turf the board, when those cowards go collared guernseys i’ll be back.


You go overseas for a few days! Yikes.

For the record, the changes have not one iota to do with a gender quota. There is a strategic plan in place for that outside of constitutional changes, including having experienced and skilled women on committees within the club already.

Sorry Darli - there is no link between the gender target.

Edit: I’m sure this change in particular was questioned and explained at Windy Hill last week. Unfortunately I didn’t end up being able to attend and have been overseas since, so someone might be able to confirm for me… Sorry!


Thank you for proving that there is no conspiracy theory. Keep up the great work.


Is this something you can share? I’m not sure how ‘experienced and skilled women on committees’ meets a board target but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

Just to be clear… you’re saying there’s there’s no possibility this 10th spot will be used to appoint an extra woman into a normal appointed term within two years?


I’m not saying that at all.

I’m saying that the two are not tied together.

We have skilled women outside of the board on committees within the club - development, women’s football etc. They may be future board candidates in elected OR appointed seats.


Have I got this right ?

The proposed changes to the Board will give us 6 elected members and 4 appointed members. That’s a 60-40 split. What are they going to want next year - 40-60 ?

That gives too much control to the manipulative businessmen on the Board — the friends of the Big End of Town who stuffed up the Club in the Saga. TWO appointed members would be acceptable — an 80-20 split.

And four of the eight elected, and one of the two appointed should have to be women. If that was the case, then we’d be getting somewhere.

I’m voting no to their shonky proposal !