2018 EFC AGM on 17 December - including proposed constitutional changes


It’s already (if the CEO takes up their spot) 6-4.



What “manipulative businessmen” are on our current Board ?


The appointed directors are as talented a bunch as you would find on any board in Australia.

The members can get it right but also at times there has been a lot of populist rubbish. Move back to the G, save sheedy, fight the afl etc. so far the full blown clowns haven’t got on the board but I like the dual nature of the nomination as it allows for high caliber people to allways be on it.


Mandatory gender targets on Boards if not met should involve a penalty; non-mandatory targets are aspirational. It is accepted corporate practice that such aspirations may take longer to achieve than the next reporting period. The concern is if the non-mandatory target is just window dressing.

There is no indication of this and we are lucky to have a woman on the Board who can keep watch of decisions made around this issue, who is also willing to play off HB if injuries start to bite.


The facts are, this club and its management allowed things to happen from 2012 onwards and then with assistance, attempted to covered it up. The club needs to be above board on every decision they make at all times.

You and others may chant the move on catch cry, that was then and now is now every thing has changed. The club wears the stench of what happened like a glove, it remains. Reputations of both staff and players were damaged. Yes, some may have received compensation and later, hand shakes all round - but; a pot of gold doesn’t buy reputations nor respect. Mud sticks and the media will continue to ensure the public remember what occurred until they are told or decide to lay down.

The club needs to be monitored to ensure this never, ever, happens again. And some naïve members and supporters, may believe it couldn’t happen again. The truth is, lightning does often does strike in the same place more than once.


What the current board and several in this thread seemingly either don’t understand or don’t care about is that regardless of the motivation for this change and regardless of how the current board states they intend to use it this adds another appointed seat to the board, increasing the number of appointed directors on the board by 25%.

This change doesn’t only last for a year or two, it’s permanent.

The board of the club in 5 or 10 or 20 years is unlikely to care what the current board’s intent with this position was, it’s entirely possible that it’s treated the same as the existing 3 appointed seats.

The club has a majority elected board for a reason, I don’t believe potentially reducing that majority completely unnecessarily is a responsible thing for the members to do, particularly in light of events of the past few years.

These are exactly the kinds of checks and balances that the membership is meant to keep on the club, and I believe vigilance is prudence. Again regardless of any concerns I have around the motivation, I think this is dangerous for our club going forward. Maybe others disagree, which of course is their right.


I thought they were going from 6 and 3 to 6 and 4. The majority is not impacted.

I could be wrong though


Seriously you just want to find an issue. The club still will have a majority of elected directors.

I understand people want to be skeptical and think the past issues still linger. However this decision is actually a result of what happened. This change will now allow the board to bring in the talent required to fix any unexpected issues. To me that is an excellent decision. It needs to be remembered that this board position can currently be filled by the CEO and only the CEO so it’s not like they are creating a new position from no where.


Apart from various problems, now in the past, one of the outstanding issues was governance.

One would not be remiss for believing the club would become hyper-vigilant in this area of past failings, but No. In the past few years the club, were still making errors in their paperwork to the AFL concerning players training with the club etc and were fined for it and; other unimportant matters, like membership issues. Whilst some may think “those people who want to be sceptical and think that past issues still linger,” the Board still needs to be attentive and aware that these little errors are rectified, the past has shown us, from little unattended things big things grow.


I’ve never trusted that wily Simon Madden bloke, he seems too nice


You have every right to question things but what you are arguing is the exact reason why the proposed change has been put forward. It will enable the board to be flexible and deal with compliance and governance issues more effectively.

As for membership issues - on the basis you are referring to ticket delays etc - that is a management problem rather than a board issue. No doubt the board would have asked questions and ensured that management was working to resolve the issues. My take on this is that the way memberships have gone out this year is a tick to the management and the board for ensuring the issue was rectified. The non reporting of players training also appears to be resolved which is a sign the processes and procedures driven by the strategy of the board are working. No one is ever going to get things perfect but an effective board will minimise the impact of any mistakes that do occur.


I’m in the group that thinks there is a lot of hysteria and conspiracy theorising going on. The board is making a good change that improves governance. That doesn’t change the balance of appointed and elected seats. And somehow that is being twisted into a conspiracy theory.

Note the number of assumptions behind Darli’s theory. It relies on:

  • The board deciding it must make the gender target
  • That the board was thinking of this target when they made this change
  • That all of the assumptions about re-elections and winning elections by Darli is correct
  • That Katie is lying about this being part of the governance improvements planned for a while

Do people really think all of those assumptions hold true? Or are near reasonable in totality?

I would also note that Darli’s “issue” with this has moved several times. First it was secrecy or something, then the gender equality thing, and now its the elective majority. Funny that.


One of the fixed seats at the moment must by the constitution go to the CEO. Which is a strange thing since the CEO actually reports to the board, which he sits on. This fixed seat will now be an appointed seat, and the CEO won’t sit on the board. So the split of elected and appointed seats will be unchanged.


Hear hear. Well said.

Only thing is the 10th seat won’t always be filled. Just as it isn’t now.


Correct. But fundamentally, given the board hires the CEO, the split of the board between appointed and elected seats hasn’t changed at all. As per now, some appointed seats may remain vacant.


So what’s happening in here…

(Looks around)

(Slowly backs away)


Always been suss about him picking on Timmy, and those glasses !


Currently we have 6 elected, 3 appointed and the tenth is the CEO. They want to get rid of the CEO from the Board and give his spot to another of their business pals. Why not make the seat that was the CEO’s an elected one ?

The argument that we need another appointed place so that the board can add much-needed expertise is a load of hogwash. They’ve already got three seats for that — and that is too many. Two should be enough for that. How many unelected specialists do we really need ? This just more jobs for the boys.

A 60-40 split guarantees that the majority will be from the conservative business end of the spectrum, because a couple of the elected members will also be from them.

This is just a way of coppor-bottoming control of the Board in the hands of the business freemasonry for the forseeable future — the same types who were too incompetent, selfserving or lilylivered (depending on which one you’re talking about) to stand up to the AFL & ASADA during the Saga. Yes, I know most of those have moved on, but they’ve been replaced with similar types.

It would be easier to name those who aren’t – Ms Lio and Mr Madden.


You have overlooked the point that the 10th spot will only be filled as required. It is not something that is intended be used on a regular basis. Only when a specialist requirement is needed would someone fill this seat. Really it’s the same as now except it means it can be filled by people other than the CEO.

Feel like this issue is a storm in a teacup. I get people are still angry and want to hold the board to account, but trying to make something out of this is not the correct area of focus. This is to help further improve our governance to ensure we don’t have issues like the saga again.

As for your crack at businessman you need to remember that AFL clubs are big beasts now. They are also competing heavily against the other clubs. Having rank and file members on the board might sound great in theory but I think it’s a quick way of falling behind other clubs given that so much else in the AFL is equalised, meaning having a powerful board is the one spot you can actually seek to obtain a competitive advantage.

Also our board consists of a few other non “manipulative businessman”, including an ex cop, an ex politician and Sean Wellman.


They publicly announced the target, sure they whispered it from the basement rather than sung it from the rooftops but you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll ‘make’ it. Thus I reckon they should publicly tell us how they intend to reach said target. I don’t think it’s asking too much.

That is an assumption. It’s considered, but yes it is indeed an assumption.

I’d put money on the fact that they are correct. Time will tell.

I’m sure Katie would not lie. I’m equally as sure that there are strategic things that Katie cannot and should not share.

If you looked a little closer you’d ‘note’ that I don’t have one issue. I have numerous. There are changes I agree with and would happily vote for given the chance to vote on individual issues. We don’t get that chance.

This is true but not true. One of the seats is ‘reserved’ for the CEO. He has never taken up that seat. Why not simply abolish the seat? Katie herself said she absolutely could not guarantee that they wouldn’t permanently fill this seat - see below.

For the record… I think the Board and the Exec have done an extraordinary job post saga. I also think that last year they dropped ball a little. I’m not asking anyone to believe anything, simply presenting things as I see them. This is our footy club. We have a responsibiity to hold to account those pulling the strings.


So perce you obviously consider anyone in business manipulative.

Of the current Directors, I know Lindsay Tanner, and even as an ex-politician is not a manipulator, and a real decent man.

I have met Ken Lay, who is fine selfless sort of bloke, Paul Brasher is one of the most honest and decent blokes around and Andrew Muirs generosity is exceptional.

I have met Simon Madden and Sean Wellman, but only at footy events and both have a wicked sense of humour and seem determined to do all for the Club.

Have only covered with Katie on Blitz, and she seems warm, open and honest

No dealings with the rest but all have fine reputations.

I think you are wrong on this.