rusty,
time to take a deep breath, re-apply your oil and come out less squeeky
Rusty,
Never try to teach a pig to sing.
It will only annoy the pig, and frustrate you.
The problem is we (as in the member who would vote on something like this) are still trying to make decisions based on limited information.
The club still hasn't made public their side of the story (understandably, it's only been a week after all).
Someone/some people at the club, during the last few months (and obviously in 2012), obviously DID stuff up massively. The whole defiant we'll-fight-them-on-the-beaches-and-take-them-to-the-Supreme-Court thing followed by accepting massive penalties was a stuffup of epic proportions. If you're going to cop something like that, don't act so defiant cos you look like a pack of tools. We seem to have held the club togther through the season fairly well, but it fell apart at the end (this may not have been a coincidence, since it was surely in the AFLs interest that we keep attending EFC games all season, so they may have held off applying real pressure til nearly finals).
And yes, we did cop unprecedented fines, we are the only club to have ever been kicked out of the finals, and we've got bugger-all draft picks for the next two years. The only consolation we get is the AFL acknowledging that we 'didn't set out to used ban substances'. Whoop de ******* do. AFL acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to convict Melbourne of tanking too. Figleaf.
Heads need to roll for this (for both allowing the situation to arise in the first place and for the shambles of a resolution we ended up with) - but remember heads already HAVE rolled. Robson's gone, Evans is gone. Hird's taking a much needed holiday. How do you know that the responsible parties aren't already gone? Are you going to sack the board just for being there?
Until we have a better impression of what happened when and who was responsible for what, then calling for the board to be sacked is massively premature. But conversely, I think that the club has a responsibility to put the full story (both of the supplement program and the club's response to the investigation) out in the open, well before the AGM, so that the membership base can make their own call. Enough has been done behind closed doors, in back rooms, and through negotiations by lawyers. Ultimately, the club is answerable to the members. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the biggest disaster in the history of Essendon, and I think keeping confidential all the details of who did what and who decided what and when, would be just plain indefensible.
Give the club the time to lay out their side of the story before making any judgements. And no, one week after the penalties were imposed is not enough time. But on the other hand, if the club refuses to explain to the members what the hell happened, then I'll vote to boot them right alongside you.
Edit: Oh, and I love Sheeds, but he shouldn't be anywhere near the ■■■■■■ board, or the chairman's role, or the CEO role, or anything like that. Completely the wrong sort of person and wrong sort of skillset. Seriously, just no.
The problem is we (as in the member who would vote on something like this) are still trying to make decisions based on limited information.
The club still hasn't made public their side of the story (understandably, it's only been a week after all).
Someone/some people at the club, during the last few months (and obviously in 2012), obviously DID stuff up massively. The whole defiant we'll-fight-them-on-the-beaches-and-take-them-to-the-Supreme-Court thing followed by accepting massive penalties was a stuffup of epic proportions. If you're going to cop something like that, don't act so defiant cos you look like a pack of tools. We seem to have held the club togther through the season fairly well, but it fell apart at the end (this may not have been a coincidence, since it was surely in the AFLs interest that we keep attending EFC games all season, so they may have held off applying real pressure til nearly finals).
And yes, we did cop unprecedented fines, we are the only club to have ever been kicked out of the finals, and we've got bugger-all draft picks for the next two years. The only consolation we get is the AFL acknowledging that we 'didn't set out to used ban substances'. Whoop de ******* do. AFL acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to convict Melbourne of tanking too. Figleaf.
Heads need to roll for this (for both allowing the situation to arise in the first place and for the shambles of a resolution we ended up with) - but remember heads already HAVE rolled. Robson's gone, Evans is gone. Hird's taking a much needed holiday. How do you know that the responsible parties aren't already gone? Are you going to sack the board just for being there?
Until we have a better impression of what happened when and who was responsible for what, then calling for the board to be sacked is massively premature. But conversely, I think that the club has a responsibility to put the full story (both of the supplement program and the club's response to the investigation) out in the open, well before the AGM, so that the membership base can make their own call. Enough has been done behind closed doors, in back rooms, and through negotiations by lawyers. Ultimately, the club is answerable to the members. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the biggest disaster in the history of Essendon, and I think keeping confidential all the details of who did what and who decided what and when, would be just plain indefensible.
Give the club the time to lay out their side of the story before making any judgements. And no, one week after the penalties were imposed is not enough time. But on the other hand, if the club refuses to explain to the members what the hell happened, then I'll vote to boot them right alongside you.
Well said.
I think there's a lot of people that need to look into what a board actually does.
It's not the boards fault we employed rogue employees, nor was it the boards fault our CEO was negligent and overlooked too many alarm bells.
The Roles and Responsibilities of Company Boards and Directors
"The company board of directors is charged with the responsibility of maintaining good corporate governance. There are important policy and performance elements to these responsibilities. The board of directors is the guardian of fairness, transparency and accountability in all of the major financial and business dealings of the company, defending the interests of investors and wider stakeholders. To fulfil this responsibility directorial boards are required to remain active, informed and competent in the supervision of the company."
http://www.ccg.uts.edu.au/researchareas/roles.html
I personally don't agree with anyone suggesting that the board should be sacked and I agree with you that the club has for the most part handled the events of this year well but it is every member's right to question the performance of the board, particularly given the club has admitted to significant governance failings in the recent past.
The Roles and Responsibilities of Company Boards and DirectorsI think there's a lot of people that need to look into what a board actually does.
It's not the boards fault we employed rogue employees, nor was it the boards fault our CEO was negligent and overlooked too many alarm bells.
"The company board of directors is charged with the responsibility of maintaining good corporate governance. There are important policy and performance elements to these responsibilities. The board of directors is the guardian of fairness, transparency and accountability in all of the major financial and business dealings of the company, defending the interests of investors and wider stakeholders. To fulfil this responsibility directorial boards are required to remain active, informed and competent in the supervision of the company."
http://www.ccg.uts.edu.au/researchareas/roles.html
I personally don't agree with anyone suggesting that the board should be sacked and I agree with you that the club has for the most part handled the events of this year well but it is every member's right to question the performance of the board, particularly given the club has admitted to significant governance failings in the recent past.
I agree. Somewhere the Board failed in its responsibility and this should not be glossed over. It amazes me that the Board got away with shifting blame onto employees whether this was intended or not and that Directors were not called to account. Maybe tackling the Board did not suit the AFL agenda. At the same time, I would expect the Board to take a very different approach from this point on.
UThe Roles and Responsibilities of Company Boards and DirectorsI think there's a lot of people that need to look into what a board actually does.
It's not the boards fault we employed rogue employees, nor was it the boards fault our CEO was negligent and overlooked too many alarm bells.
"The company board of directors is charged with the responsibility of maintaining good corporate governance. There are important policy and performance elements to these responsibilities. The board of directors is the guardian of fairness, transparency and accountability in all of the major financial and business dealings of the company, defending the interests of investors and wider stakeholders. To fulfil this responsibility directorial boards are required to remain active, informed and competent in the supervision of the company."
http://www.ccg.uts.edu.au/researchareas/roles.html
I personally don't agree with anyone suggesting that the board should be sacked and I agree with you that the club has for the most part handled the events of this year well but it is every member's right to question the performance of the board, particularly given the club has admitted to significant governance failings in the recent past.
I agree. Somewhere the Board failed in its responsibility and this should not be glossed over. It amazes me that the Board got away with shifting blame onto employees whether this was intended or not and that Directors were not called to account. Maybe tackling the Board did not suit the AFL agenda. At the same time, I would expect the Board to take a very different approach from this point on.
I agree. I cannot agree that this was well handled by the board. It may have been, and if we were provided more information I might change my mind, but observing from a distance part of it appear to have been very poorly managed.
The club and more importantly the coach got absolutely hammered in the media. I have no doubt that could have been managed much better.
I only hope the club is at the moment arranging a lessons learnt review of how the crisis was managed. Not the supplements themselves, how the crisis was managed from the time of the meeting at Evans house.
If they haven't commissioned a review of that nature from a professional international risk management company, then as a board they should stand aside.
Isn't it more important to look at how the club got itself into this situation ? - The aftermath possibly could have been handled better ( post self reporting ) although it can be hard to derail the AFL train.
Isn't it more important to look at how the club got itself into this situation ? - The aftermath possibly could have been handled better ( post self reporting ) although it can be hard to derail the AFL train.
It's important to do both. But a lot of the first part has been done. As for the second part most people would think they did the best they could and leave it at that. But there needs to be a lessons learnt of the handling of it post self reporting. Our brand has been completely trashed. And still is being. And the club is doing nothing visible about it. You might all say " what more coul they do?". I am certain there is a lot more they could do. But unless it is looked at critically no one will ever know, and there will be no improvement.
Just as well we have a loyal supporter base,because if we were relying on market forces to drive revenue we would be in a very sorry state by now.
I am behind the current board & chairman 100%
I am behind the current board & chairman 100%
The board, sure. Paul Little I'm not sold on.
I was under the impression it was commom knowledge that doc reids letter was never passed on to the board and is the reason why 2 people are no longer at bomberland.
I am behind the current board & chairman 100%
The board, sure. Paul Little I'm not sold on.
People like paul little dont grow on trees ,who should replace him ?
When you consider bruce heymanson a major financial contributor is no longer with us.
I am behind the current board & chairman 100%
The board, sure. Paul Little I'm not sold on.
People like paul little dont grow on trees ,who should replace him ?
When you consider bruce heymanson a major financial contributor is no longer with us.
Unless Paul is opening up his own wallet for the club, the breadth of his bank account shouldn't come into consideration.
I am behind the current board & chairman 100%
The board, sure. Paul Little I'm not sold on.
People like paul little dont grow on trees ,who should replace him ?
When you consider bruce heymanson a major financial contributor is no longer with us.
Unless Paul is opening up his own wallet for the club, the breadth of his bank account shouldn't come into consideration.
Who are the people around the club that could afford to pay 2 million and claim it as a tax deduction.?
Remembering that he has volunteered his time to devote his whole energy into the club by stepping down from the toll board .
Just like david evans did .
Somewhere out there we have been lucky enough to attract 2 very successful professionals with enormous business acumen.
Any one out there think carlton were not lucky to have the pratt foundation behind them ?
I like the current board. It gives you warning points, it is much easier to follow specific topics and also just the layout and design of it.
Well done Rio and Geek.
I respect everyone’s opinions, but don’t be surprised if we have a new Board by the end of the year.
I respect everyone's opinions, but don't be surprised if we have a new Board by the end of the year.
Well Evans did bring forth the board election....
I respect everyone's opinions, but don't be surprised if we have a new Board by the end of the year.
Why? Because you think we need a new board?
Who would have thought a supplements program would eventually call for the whole club to be turned upside down and pretty much replaced person by person.
This is a time we need stability, not total upheaval.
Mistakes were made, sure, lots of people have already paid the price, people have learned valuable lessons. Procedures are now in place to ensure things like this don't happen again.
It's now time for consolidation and moving forward as one club.