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.
I like to imagine the effect it might have had on the AFL’s media contract, and the bonuses for certain AFL executives. But I am perhaps a little vindictive.
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.
Thank you for taking the time out to reply and clarifying that Paul.
Great to have someone with your knowledge on the expertise on the board, will definitely be getting my vote
1: for anyone who says the board lacks transparency, I believe Paul was walking the streets today delivering letters. Not many directors - of football clubs or other businesses - put themselves out amongst their members/customers like that. Brilliant stuff Paul.
Paul, surely you can sort the right fertiliser for the etihad sized oval at TVSC to get it in good nick!
1: for anyone who says the board lacks transparency, I believe Paul was walking the streets today delivering letters. Not many directors - of football clubs or other businesses - put themselves out amongst their members/customers like that. Brilliant stuff Paul.
Politicians do that in marginal seats at election time, then you don't see them for 4 years. This will be the same.
Still surprised that we need a clean break from the drug saga except board members.
1: for anyone who says the board lacks transparency, I believe Paul was walking the streets today delivering letters. Not many directors - of football clubs or other businesses - put themselves out amongst their members/customers like that. Brilliant stuff Paul.
Politicians do that in marginal seats at election time, then you don't see them for 4 years. This will be the same.
Still surprised that we need a clean break from the drug saga except board members.
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.
The booing of Jobe was a disgrace and many of us were disappointed that for at least one time in the saga the Board went on the offensive, especially when the AFL knew AOD9604 wasn’t banned.
Thanks for the time you have taken on here in the last week.
I recommend your read-between-the-lines post on what the Afl could have done to us in 2014 re events of August 2013 to all Blitzers. It provides a hint of the threats brought to bear by the AFL and other clubs to get the outcome they “needed”, and hopefully essendon fans can deduce just how tied the Boards hands may have been. Take that as a general comment, theres no point declaring war on the Afl again.
I do have one question though, and it follows on from Dons23’s very relevant query about auditing the invoicing of the supplement program and your response.
Once the CAS hearing is done and completed (understandably you cant comment on many things atm) do you envisage that the members can finally be brought up to speed - or at least get an outline- on exactly what went on re payment procedures, whether an ex employee was being reimbursed, procuring and onselling supplements through his own company etc etc? The medical side must remain absolutely confidential, but i would think members could do with an explanation of the fiscal side in order to understand the possibilities of what happened and/or may have been happening? Imo, Too many fans have had to suffer silently in the gloom, unable to defend the club they love with specifics.
Thanks for the time you have taken on here in the last week.
I recommend your read-between-the-lines post on what the Afl could have done to us in 2014 re events of August 2013 to all Blitzers. It provides a hint of the threats brought to bear by the AFL and other clubs to get the outcome they “needed”, and hopefully essendon fans can deduce just how tied the Boards hands may have been. Take that as a general comment, theres no point declaring war on the Afl again.
I do have one question though, and it follows on from Dons23’s very relevant query about auditing the invoicing of the supplement program and your response.
Once the CAS hearing is done and completed (understandably you cant comment on many things atm) do you envisage that the members can finally be brought up to speed - or at least get an outline- on exactly what went on re payment procedures, whether an ex employee was being reimbursed, procuring and onselling supplements through his own company etc etc? The medical side must remain absolutely confidential, but i would think members could do with an explanation of the fiscal side in order to understand the possibilities of what happened and/or may have been happening? Too many fans have had to suffer silently in the gloom, unable to defend the club they love with specifics.
Thanks Saladin
This is a tough one for a few reasons. On the one hand, when this thing is over I suspect most of us will be keen to move on and never mention the name ASADA again, other than to have learnt important lessons from our experience and to make sure nothing like this could ever happen again. I understand not everybody shares that view. The problem with getting into the sort of areas that you refer to is that many of us have our views and theories on what may or may not have happened, but, like a lot of other things in this affair, there is no hard evidence that would justify making public assertions about this. The last thing we want is to give any more oxygen to another 12 months of press comment, accusations, denials, litigation etc. I agree with you that the board needs to have a position on how best we can allow our members to have closure on this and the amount of detail it is appropriate to put out there.
I certainly dont advocate making allegations or assertions. More just explaining factually how things were structured.
Your last point is probably the pertinent one that i was trying to make. We are asking a lot from our members and fans to simply move on from a three year battering without really being able to keep them informed. We will always be constricted, i know. Its an unpalatable truth that i think we need to minimise as much as possible.
I certainly dont advocate making allegations or assertions. More just explaining factually how things were structured.
Your last point is probably the pertinent one that i was trying to make. We are asking a lot from our members and fans to simply move on from a three year battering without really being able to keep them informed. We will always be constricted, i know. Its an unpalatable truth that i think we need to minimise as much as possible.
Firstly thanks for giving us the opportunity to ask questions of you directly. It’s simply brilliant.
My question is on your role as Financial Director and how it relates to the CFO. Can you provide some clarity on how the two roles differ? Is it say a case of one role being responsible for operations while the other is more planning or strategy/direction related? I am trying to get an understanding on how each role has directly been involved in our strong financial position.
Firstly thanks for giving us the opportunity to ask questions of you directly. It’s simply brilliant.
My question is on your role as Financial Director and how it relates to the CFO. Can you provide some clarity on how the two roles differ? Is it say a case of one role being responsible for operations while the other is more planning or strategy/direction related? I am trying to get an understanding on how each role has directly been involved in our strong financial position.
Regards,
Gillsy
Thanks Gillsy.
The first difference between the roles is that the CFO is a full-time, paid employee of the club while I, like all the other directors, am part time and unpaid. So, the CFO (Kevin Dixon) is responsible for the day-to-day financial management of the club. He manages a team which looks after accounting, budgeting, financial controls, control of expenditure, company secretarial and legal etc. The people who run our venues and the people who are responsible for our various properties all report to the CFO.
My role as finance director is to set the financial strategy, approve budgets and financial accounts, set targets for the finance team and oversee the performance of the CFO and the finance executive team. I also chair the Audit, Risk and Integrity Committee, which is now a very active group responsible for the oversight of governance in the club.
If I can put a plug in for the finance team, I believe that the ability of the club to maintain a healthy financial position over the past 3 years is to a large extent due to the fact that Kevin and his team have done a terrific job in very difficult circumstances.
Hi Paul- are you now of the opinion the governance failings of the EFC in 2011/12 pertaining to the Sports Science and Football Departments would not have occurred under the new protocols, and do you believe they are now vigorous enough to meet new threats to their integrity?
Hi Paul- are you now of the opinion the governance failings of the EFC in 2011/12 pertaining to the Sports Science and Football Departments would not have occurred under the new protocols, and do you believe they are now vigorous enough to meet new threats to their integrity?
And were there governance protocols in place in 2011/12 and if so were they insufficient, or were they ignored?
Thanks for the time you have taken on here in the last week.
I recommend your read-between-the-lines post on what the Afl could have done to us in 2014 re events of August 2013 to all Blitzers. It provides a hint of the threats brought to bear by the AFL and other clubs to get the outcome they “needed”, and hopefully essendon fans can deduce just how tied the Boards hands may have been. Take that as a general comment, theres no point declaring war on the Afl again.
I do have one question though, and it follows on from Dons23’s very relevant query about auditing the invoicing of the supplement program and your response.
Once the CAS hearing is done and completed (understandably you cant comment on many things atm) do you envisage that the members can finally be brought up to speed - or at least get an outline- on exactly what went on re payment procedures, whether an ex employee was being reimbursed, procuring and onselling supplements through his own company etc etc? The medical side must remain absolutely confidential, but i would think members could do with an explanation of the fiscal side in order to understand the possibilities of what happened and/or may have been happening? Too many fans have had to suffer silently in the gloom, unable to defend the club they love with specifics.
Thanks Saladin
This is a tough one for a few reasons. On the one hand, when this thing is over I suspect most of us will be keen to move on and never mention the name ASADA again, other than to have learnt important lessons from our experience and to make sure nothing like this could ever happen again. I understand not everybody shares that view. The problem with getting into the sort of areas that you refer to is that many of us have our views and theories on what may or may not have happened, but, like a lot of other things in this affair, there is no hard evidence that would justify making public assertions about this. The last thing we want is to give any more oxygen to another 12 months of press comment, accusations, denials, litigation etc. I agree with you that the board needs to have a position on how best we can allow our members to have closure on this and the amount of detail it is appropriate to put out there.
Hi Paul.
Just a comment on this, my personal opinion is that it is an absolute necessity that once the CAS process is complete, the club explains as fully as is legally possible what happened and why it happened in regards to the whole business between the time the program started up all the way through to the acceptance of penalties in 2013 and the various related coaching maneuverings of 2014 and 2015.
All through 2013 in particular, the membership was told over and over again that EFC was unable to comment specifically on some specific tidbit that had been published in the Age that week, because the process was ongoing and confidentiality was required. Turning around once the process is over and saying that the club will not comment because the club wants to ‘move on’ is just not acceptable in my opinion. It would fly in the face of the explanations that were given earlier, and frankly would look like the club is trying to find an excuse for secrecy. This has been undoubtedly the worst disaster in the history of the club. It has cost the club millions of dollars of members money, has destroyed an era when the playing list should be competing in the upper tier of the eight, has alienated several players and two premiership captains from the club, and the club’s choice to accept draft pick penalties has hamstrung the recruiters sufficiently so that any success in the next 5-8 years will be achieved against heavy odds. In those extraordinary circumstances, surely the club owes the members a meaningful explanation of what happened? After all, the club has already provided ASADA and the AFL with full accounts of what happened, via the Switkowski report etc, and a great deal of the damaging material from that process has already mysteriously been leaked into the public domain anyway.
Furthermore, I think any hope that the end of the CAS process is the end of the story will prove misguided - at the very least, at the press conference where James Hird’s removal was announced, he stated he would be telling his side of the story once the dust settled. Others will inevitably do the same. Three years since the ‘blackest day’ press conference, the understanding we as members have of what happened is entirely based on disjointed media stories from dubious sources, and Chip le Grand’s book, which sidestepped or ignored some significant issues. We are currently in the third board election campaign since then, and members are unable to meaningfully cast their vote because information required to make judgements on past board actions is just not out there. I think it’s the responsible and ethical thing to do for the club to disclose fully, and when legally restrained from doing so, acknowledge and describe the limits of that restraint. It may cause a brief flurry of media attention back on the whole business, but frankly you know this is all going to get trawled up in every scrap of media coverage of Essendon for the next decade plus anyway, so it probably won’t make a huge difference in the long run. But it would finally be showing respect enough to the membership base to explain why they have been put through this abysmal years-long mess, rather than chanting the ‘looking forward, moving on’ mantra and leaving everyone in the dark.
I will be very interested to see your response to Humble Minion’s post. Hiding behind this “confidentiality” tenet has been a convenient way out and a mistake because certainly the AFL/ASADA/media have not cared about it. As HM says, saying nothing and adopting this moving on strategy suggests that maybe what happened at the club is worse than the members know.
You talk about the theories, views people have on the saga and say there is no evidence with which to make assertions. Have you not read the Middleton Trial transcript. You may have been fighting for justice inside the Boardroom but unfortunately we don’t know if this was the case so unfortunately the members of the Board who presided over the club during the saga will be forever tainted
I’m happy for you to move on and there are many supporters who may eventually move but there are also many who will never forgive and never forget.
Thanks for the time you have taken on here in the last week.
I recommend your read-between-the-lines post on what the Afl could have done to us in 2014 re events of August 2013 to all Blitzers. It provides a hint of the threats brought to bear by the AFL and other clubs to get the outcome they “needed”, and hopefully essendon fans can deduce just how tied the Boards hands may have been. Take that as a general comment, theres no point declaring war on the Afl again.
I do have one question though, and it follows on from Dons23’s very relevant query about auditing the invoicing of the supplement program and your response.
Once the CAS hearing is done and completed (understandably you cant comment on many things atm) do you envisage that the members can finally be brought up to speed - or at least get an outline- on exactly what went on re payment procedures, whether an ex employee was being reimbursed, procuring and onselling supplements through his own company etc etc? The medical side must remain absolutely confidential, but i would think members could do with an explanation of the fiscal side in order to understand the possibilities of what happened and/or may have been happening? Too many fans have had to suffer silently in the gloom, unable to defend the club they love with specifics.
Thanks Saladin
This is a tough one for a few reasons. On the one hand, when this thing is over I suspect most of us will be keen to move on and never mention the name ASADA again, other than to have learnt important lessons from our experience and to make sure nothing like this could ever happen again. I understand not everybody shares that view. The problem with getting into the sort of areas that you refer to is that many of us have our views and theories on what may or may not have happened, but, like a lot of other things in this affair, there is no hard evidence that would justify making public assertions about this. The last thing we want is to give any more oxygen to another 12 months of press comment, accusations, denials, litigation etc. I agree with you that the board needs to have a position on how best we can allow our members to have closure on this and the amount of detail it is appropriate to put out there.
Hi Paul.
Just a comment on this, my personal opinion is that it is an absolute necessity that once the CAS process is complete, the club explains as fully as is legally possible what happened and why it happened in regards to the whole business between the time the program started up all the way through to the acceptance of penalties in 2013 and the various related coaching maneuverings of 2014 and 2015.
All through 2013 in particular, the membership was told over and over again that EFC was unable to comment specifically on some specific tidbit that had been published in the Age that week, because the process was ongoing and confidentiality was required. Turning around once the process is over and saying that the club will not comment because the club wants to ‘move on’ is just not acceptable in my opinion. It would fly in the face of the explanations that were given earlier, and frankly would look like the club is trying to find an excuse for secrecy. This has been undoubtedly the worst disaster in the history of the club. It has cost the club millions of dollars of members money, has destroyed an era when the playing list should be competing in the upper tier of the eight, has alienated several players and two premiership captains from the club, and the club’s choice to accept draft pick penalties has hamstrung the recruiters sufficiently so that any success in the next 5-8 years will be achieved against heavy odds. In those extraordinary circumstances, surely the club owes the members a meaningful explanation of what happened? After all, the club has already provided ASADA and the AFL with full accounts of what happened, via the Switkowski report etc, and a great deal of the damaging material from that process has already mysteriously been leaked into the public domain anyway.
Furthermore, I think any hope that the end of the CAS process is the end of the story will prove misguided - at the very least, at the press conference where James Hird’s removal was announced, he stated he would be telling his side of the story once the dust settled. Others will inevitably do the same. Three years since the ‘blackest day’ press conference, the understanding we as members have of what happened is entirely based on disjointed media stories from dubious sources, and Chip le Grand’s book, which sidestepped or ignored some significant issues. We are currently in the third board election campaign since then, and members are unable to meaningfully cast their vote because information required to make judgements on past board actions is just not out there. I think it’s the responsible and ethical thing to do for the club to disclose fully, and when legally restrained from doing so, acknowledge and describe the limits of that restraint. It may cause a brief flurry of media attention back on the whole business, but frankly you know this is all going to get trawled up in every scrap of media coverage of Essendon for the next decade plus anyway, so it probably won’t make a huge difference in the long run. But it would finally be showing respect enough to the membership base to explain why they have been put through this abysmal years-long mess, rather than chanting the ‘looking forward, moving on’ mantra and leaving everyone in the dark.
If I could give this post 100 1000 likes I would.
HM has hit the nail on the head. I for one am looking forward to this being over so we will hear what went on.
Not platitudes about “moving on”