My issue isn’t so much the appointed roles. I think that’s important to make sure you have the right skill sets on the board.
My issue is that vacancies can be filled by the board, and they then sit out the rest of the term. Which is ridiculous. Any seat which was vacated during the year should be put up for election, with the winner serving the remaining term. Simply say that the seats are ranked by remaining term (3 years for the normal seats), and whoever gets the least votes gets the worse seat.
i.e. I’ve got no idea how to manage a successful company, just how to invest well.
Geelong’s board is mostly made up of people involved in sports management at successful organisations. I look at that CV, and go if he’s the best the others must be ■■■■.
My take is he was there (efc board) during the succesful 1999-2001 period, knows what it takes to be successful, also there during 2002-2006 top up period etc knows what doesnt work.
He has enhanced his “business interests” / personal CV since then, also mentioned touring premier league facilities etc.
Interesting to see how many votes the regional candidate attracts, there’s a point of difference and a potential benefit to regional and interstate supporters.
That’d be Gary Vistarini, the Currumbin Wildlife Hospital man. Seems a decent enough bloke, from the not-for-profit sector… I’ll probably vote for him.
Why aren’t you standing for the Board, @Darli ? You’d get a lot of votes from here !
At the moment I’m leaning towards Welsh and either Dunn or Aeschlimann. I think Welsh has a good mix of football and business backgrounds. My choice of Dunn or Aeschlimann is for their supposed emphasis on AFLW and diversity, and for governance and regional/country perspective.
At the end of the day, I’m just an ignorant member who can’t really judge what these guys are going to bring but I know that I don’t really want somebody with mainly a business or marketing focus. I think we have enough of those types on the board already.
Well he certainly wasn’t as smooth talking as the other candidates, but he makes some very good points and offers a complete point of difference. He’s up front about the fact he doesn’t have the business skills, but someone who’s skills consist of risk management and governance on business boards….those skills are vital
Personally I’d have him close to the top of my list.
Paul White is actually the only one I’ve ruled out so far based on his complaints about ‘virtue signalling’ in his candidate statement and his apparent cancellation of his membership, following Thorburn leaving, and his views that it was just the club appeasing the media.
I didn’t know you’d cancelled your membership ! Sign up for membership next year, then - A hot-headed woman is the best sort, and just what this complacent self-satisfied board needs.
I never said that, though they are going better since Barham took over.
In any case, the Board has been appointed within the rules which are similar to every club and most organisations.
I have served on lots of Boards, some good and some horrible. Most were elected and appointed like the EFC model, doesn’t mean you get a quality board though. If I had access to all Member details, I reckon I could get even you elected.
Thats what I thought too… the others I have listened to all seem to be involved in corporate finance. How many of those types does 1 footy club need?
Back in Sheedys time they had Bill Kelty on the Board who I believe set up an after footy career path plan for all players who wanted it.
It solved a number of issues… mainly: players could be prepared for life after footy, learn a trade or return to studying for whatever employment opportunities they were after… also their down time was being used positively.
This has obviously been adopted by the entire league now .
So what are the skills needed on the board that we are lacking atm?
It cant be corporate finances… or corporate anything… efc seems to have an over abundant supply of them.
Experience in the not-for-profit sector is in short supply on this current board.
Also, the existing 8 members of the Board are all approved by the Presidential clique. The two that Barman recommends we vote for are the last two I’d consider — not because they’re bad bastards, but because they’re Barman cronies. We need a couple of independent voices on the Board, not more Barman yes-men.
Have a look at the two candidates from the not-for-profit sector - one of them should get a vote.
