Hello Paul - thank you for coming on to answer questions. Have a few of my own as follows:
In light of the recent charges from WorkSafe, many here are perplexed that the AFL are not jointly accountable for failing to provide a safe work place given that the players were deemed to be the ultimate employees of the AFL according to the tripartite agreement which is public knowledge, established by Middleton, J.
I realise that you probably cannot answer my question in full due to confidentiality but to me, this AGAIN reeks of back room wheeling and dealing to get the AFL out of hot water. This is what infuriates the membership - the seemingly lack of transparency into the clubs dealings with the AFL. Would love to know your thoughts on this.
The issuance of a public apology to Jobe Watson firstly from the AFL Commission and then the EFC Board. I find the AFL to be astoundingly hypocritical when it rushed in defence of Adam Goodes earlier this year but its silence was deafening when Jobe was getting heckled every week when both the AFL and EFC KNEW that AOD was A-OK. Jobe is the captain of this great club and the lip service paid by the AFL when his integrity was being questioned is appalling and deserving of a public apology.
Would love to hear your thoughts on the above, and again I understand that you cannot divulge all information.
Hello Paul - thank you for coming on to answer questions. Have a few of my own as follows:
In light of the recent charges from WorkSafe, many here are perplexed that the AFL are not jointly accountable for failing to provide a safe work place given that the players were deemed to be the ultimate employees of the AFL according to the tripartite agreement which is public knowledge, established by Middleton, J.
I realise that you probably cannot answer my question in full due to confidentiality but to me, this AGAIN reeks of back room wheeling and dealing to get the AFL out of hot water. This is what infuriates the membership - the seemingly lack of transparency into the clubs dealings with the AFL. Would love to know your thoughts on this.
The issuance of a public apology to Jobe Watson firstly from the AFL Commission and then the EFC Board. I find the AFL to be astoundingly hypocritical when it rushed in defence of Adam Goodes earlier this year but its silence was deafening when Jobe was getting heckled every week when both the AFL and EFC KNEW that AOD was A-OK. Jobe is the captain of this great club and the lip service paid by the AFL when his integrity was being questioned is appalling and deserving of a public apology.
Would love to hear your thoughts on the above, and again I understand that you cannot divulge all information.
Thanks Outside50.
Your point re Worksafe and the AFL is one that we discussed. All I can tell you is that Worksafe, after reviewing the background, decided not to join the AFL in the action. They are not required to give their reasons, so I am afraid I can’t fill in the gaps for you.
Re AOD, the board and Jobe were on the same page on this as we both believed that it was not banned. Apart from continuing to state this I am not sure what else we could have done. I think your contrast between the way the AFL dealt with Jobe’s booing vs Adam Goodes’ is a really interesting point.
On your general point re transparency, I understand your frustration. As you can imagine, there were many, many meetings, some of them particularly heated, over the course of this thing. I don’t think it helps if we publish the details of all these when we are trying to work towards a resolution of this thing.
Thanks for your contribution Paul, you got one of my votes yesterday.
Are the board considering a better deal for membership for interstate members with more value to it.?
Is there a legitimate argument the club can make to the AFL in terms of passing on forecasted 350k of equalisation fund in 2016 of our money to clubs like Bulldogs and Melbourne who both posted profits this year…and we posted a significant loss?
I understand the concept of equalisation but surely it has to be to some fairness when a club announces a loss.
Thanks for your contribution Paul, you got one of my votes yesterday.
Are the board considering a better deal for membership for interstate members with more value to it.?
Thanks Gorgo. One of the areas in which we need to lift is in looking after our interstate members and fans. How this translates into membership offerings in future I am not sure, but it is something management will be reporting back on. We have already agreed on some changes to lift our engagement with our interstate fans. For example, when the team is playing interstate, they will go a day earlier and have their final captain's run open to the fans in the city concerned. There was also a suggestion on Bomberblitz yesterday about trying to give more help to interstate members when they come to Melbourne for a game. Again I am not sure how feasible this is, but management will look at it. Any specific suggestions you have would be gratefully received.
Is there a legitimate argument the club can make to the AFL in terms of passing on forecasted 350k of equalisation fund in 2016 of our money to clubs like Bulldogs and Melbourne who both posted profits this year…and we posted a significant loss?
I understand the concept of equalisation but surely it has to be to some fairness when a club announces a loss.
Just wondering your thoughts
I have to confess that I can’t explain how the levy is worked out - my only excuse is that I don’t think anybody else can either. It is calculated in a “black box” and the best explanation we can get is that it is related to revenues several years ago. We have made representations to the AFL about the need to make this more transparent and, in terms of the obvious contradiction you refer to, more logical and fair. They have agreed to review this.
Is there a legitimate argument the club can make to the AFL in terms of passing on forecasted 350k of equalisation fund in 2016 of our money to clubs like Bulldogs and Melbourne who both posted profits this year…and we posted a significant loss?
I understand the concept of equalisation but surely it has to be to some fairness when a club announces a loss.
Just wondering your thoughts
My understanding the tax is only on football department spending so regardless of the profit/loss of a club if you spend on the football department excessively you will be slugged.
Going by the figures our FD spending was a fair bit up this year so we were taxed accordingly, I don’t agree with it as once again clubs are being punished for paying their coaches better or having better training programs
Is there a legitimate argument the club can make to the AFL in terms of passing on forecasted 350k of equalisation fund in 2016 of our money to clubs like Bulldogs and Melbourne who both posted profits this year…and we posted a significant loss?
I understand the concept of equalisation but surely it has to be to some fairness when a club announces a loss.
Just wondering your thoughts
My understanding the tax is only on football department spending so regardless of the profit/loss of a club if you spend on the football department excessively you will be slugged.
Going by the figures our FD spending was a fair bit up this year so we were taxed accordingly, I don’t agree with it as once again clubs are being punished for paying their coaches better or having better training programs
Aceman
There are two different taxes. The equalisation levy is the one which cost us $270,000 in 2015 and expected to be $350,000 in 2016. That is the one we were talking about about in the previous notes. On top of that is the “luxury tax” you are referring to, which is the tax on football department spend over a certain amount. There is none of that in our 2015 result and we will be doing everything we can to ensure we don’t pay it in 2016 but still give our players and coaches the best opportunity to succeed.
Paul, you have my vote too, and I told you that in an email yesterday.
Could I make one plea, and it’s to drop this “rebuild the brand” talk? Essendon Football Club is not a brand, it’s a name. Brands are attached to goods for sale, and the Essendon Football Club is not for sale. The reputation of the club has been very badly damaged in recent times, and it’s that reputation that we want to restore. There are no fancy shortcuts to doing that: reputations are earned as a result of a consistent course of conduct, and a person earns a good or bad reputation depending on whether or the club or person consistently does the right thing.
I know it’s only words, and I know that “rebuilding the brand” in this context means much the same as restoring our high reputation, and I also know that “rebuilding the brand” is one of those buzz phrases that has moved from marketing jargon into more general use not only by you but by many others. So it’s probably a little unfair to focus on your use of it. But it would be good if we could drop the market jargon and use words that focus attention on maintaining consistently excellent standards of conduct by everyone associated with the club, on and off the field, in club colours or not.
Like everyone else, I’m hoping for some sort of fresh start in the coming season. I hope you are re-elected and I wish you and the whole Board good luck.
Is there a legitimate argument the club can make to the AFL in terms of passing on forecasted 350k of equalisation fund in 2016 of our money to clubs like Bulldogs and Melbourne who both posted profits this year…and we posted a significant loss?
I understand the concept of equalisation but surely it has to be to some fairness when a club announces a loss.
Just wondering your thoughts
I have to confess that I can’t explain how the levy is worked out - my only excuse is that I don’t think anybody else can either. It is calculated in a “black box” and the best explanation we can get is that it is related to revenues several years ago. We have made representations to the AFL about the need to make this more transparent and, in terms of the obvious contradiction you refer to, more logical and fair. They have agreed to review this.
Your openness and candour on here, especially as a current board member, is appreciated.
I don’t really have a question for you, but I want to explain my position regarding your candidacy, because I think there’s a fairly significant number of members who are still very, very angry with a lot of people and organisations, including the club. If you want to take this as a comment, that’s fine, but a response would be appreciated as well.
Looking purely at each candidate’s credentials here, voting for you should be a no-brainer. However, I have a significant amount of skepticism about anyone and everyone who was on the board in August 2013, the single worst month in our club’s history.
For the board to contrive to take the AFL on with the so-called “nuclear press conference”, to the limp-wristed response to the slanderous initial charge document being released mid-negotiations, to then back down at the first hint of the surely not unexpected blowback from the “nuclear press conference”, to then accepting penalties commensurate with systematic drug cheating for “governance” issues that the AFL suggests were present at 12 of the 18 clubs - this is all suggestive of disastrously poor judgement, a complete lack of conviction (namely the speed at which the club backed down from that press conference), and frankly gives the perception of utter incompetence. I appreciate that the circumstances surrounding August 2013 were exceptionally difficult, but it’s difficult to imagine how they could have been handled any worse.
My point is simply this - it’s very difficult to overlook the actions of the board in August 2013. If you stacked up each candidate’s CVs, you come out miles ahead of the rest. Yet for myself and I believe a significant number of others, although I may be mistaken, that doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote for you.
As I said in the other thread endorsing you, I’m not saying I can’t or won’t vote for you (I’m still very undecided), but you being on the board in that disastrous month makes it a lot more difficult to vote for you than it otherwise would be.
Paul, you have my vote too, and I told you that in an email yesterday.
Could I make one plea, and it’s to drop this “rebuild the brand” talk? Essendon Football Club is not a brand, it’s a name. Brands are attached to goods for sale, and the Essendon Football Club is not for sale. The reputation of the club has been very badly damaged in recent times, and it’s that reputation that we want to restore. There are no fancy shortcuts to doing that: reputations are earned as a result of a consistent course of conduct, and a person earns a good or bad reputation depending on whether or the club or person consistently does the right thing.
I know it’s only words, and I know that “rebuilding the brand” in this context means much the same as restoring our high reputation, and I also know that “rebuilding the brand” is one of those buzz phrases that has moved from marketing jargon into more general use not only by you but by many others. So it’s probably a little unfair to focus on your use of it. But it would be good if we could drop the market jargon and use words that focus attention on maintaining consistently excellent standards of conduct by everyone associated with the club, on and off the field, in club colours or not.
Like everyone else, I’m hoping for some sort of fresh start in the coming season. I hope you are re-elected and I wish you and the whole Board good luck.
Thanks Shelton10.
I don’t get too worried about whether we talk of brand or reputation, but I do agree with you that what we need to do is maintain consistently excellent standards of conduct by everyone associated with the club. The way I see it is that we want all our people, be they fans, players, sponsors or staff to be proud to be associated with the club. As I said in one of the other posts, I want the rest of the footy world to hate us but respect us. The only area I will stress the use of the word brand is in relation to our sponsors. who in some ways see us as a product which needs to be favourably differentiated from the other choices they could make. Either way, I think we all pretty much agree on what we need to achieve.
Your openness and candour on here, especially as a current board member, is appreciated.
I don’t really have a question for you, but I want to explain my position regarding your candidacy, because I think there’s a fairly significant number of members who are still very, very angry with a lot of people and organisations, including the club. If you want to take this as a comment, that’s fine, but a response would be appreciated as well.
Looking purely at each candidate’s credentials here, voting for you should be a no-brainer. However, I have a significant amount of skepticism about anyone and everyone who was on the board in August 2013, the single worst month in our club’s history.
For the board to contrive to take the AFL on with the so-called “nuclear press conference”, to the limp-wristed response to the slanderous initial charge document being released mid-negotiations, to then back down at the first hint of the surely not unexpected blowback from the “nuclear press conference”, to then accepting penalties commensurate with systematic drug cheating for “governance” issues that the AFL suggests were present at 12 of the 18 clubs - this is all suggestive of disastrously poor judgement, a complete lack of conviction (namely the speed at which the club backed down from that press conference), and frankly gives the perception of utter incompetence. I appreciate that the circumstances surrounding August 2013 were exceptionally difficult, but it’s difficult to imagine how they could have been handled any worse.
My point is simply this - it’s very difficult to overlook the actions of the board in August 2013. If you stacked up each candidate’s CVs, you come out miles ahead of the rest. Yet for myself and I believe a significant number of others, although I may be mistaken, that doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote for you.
As I said in the other thread endorsing you, I’m not saying I can’t or won’t vote for you (I’m still very undecided), but you being on the board in that disastrous month makes it a lot more difficult to vote for you than it otherwise would be.
Thanks Mr Smithers for being so candid.
I am sure there are a lot of other people who are angry about the way the AFL sanctions worked out back in August 2013 and I can tell you it was a terribly hard pill for the club to swallow at the time. Without going into too much detail, it was absolutely critical that a resolution on the AFL side of things was reached before the end of the 2013 season. The AFL's powers are enormous in this area. For example, if this had not been resolved, the club could conceivably have missed part or all of the following season. Can you imagine the effect of that on players, members and sponsors?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I am not going to pretend to you that I didn't support the board's decisions at that time or that I had some better idea and nobody took any notice.
I would hope you would also see some very positive things done by the board and management that have allowed the club to come through the last few years and have a platform for future success. However, that is your decision.
How good is it to have someone of this caliber answering questions in such a knowledgable, honest and inclusive manner.
You can take that as a comment
Perhaps we should extend the invitation for board members or a board member to come on here once per month and take questions.
Just another way of interacting with the fans rather than the blather we get in the emails.
This is an interesting idea Scorpio and I have to admit it is one that I hadn’t thought much about until this election caused me to come on Bomberblitz. I have got some good ideas out of it, just as we did from the Fan Forum and I think we should factor all these types of media into our thinking as we work on more ways to listen to the voice of the members.
