I heard Ron speak this morning (for the first time) and even though I didn't agree with everything he said, he came across as intelligent, considered and well spoken. He's frustrated like we all are and is afraid we'll end up like Carlton (after their draft sanctions) and could be rubbish for the next 10 years if the right decisions aren't made now.
I was surprised at the good line of questioning by Matt Thomas (I think) and Gaze. Ron was talking about our governance issues still not being resolved and Matt Thomas was pulling him up saying they have gotten rid of person A, B, C & D, what more could the club do.
Other the being the Storm CEO, I don't know much about Ron Gauci.
Ron Gauci is about the most boring person I have ever heard speak. He came to a local rotary club dinner as the speaker, and if it wasnt for the good red wine and the crownies, I would have used the steak knife to slit my wrists. It was all about him, and it was so boring and he droned on forever.
And he is not a fan of James Hird !!
I too have be told he is not a fan of James Hird......that's all I need to know
Heaven forbid we finish up with people on the board who have differing opinions!
Or people who blindly follow city hall directives.
Wait, what?
The biggest issue I have with these guys and others entering the board or EGMs etc is that they don’t know necessarily the current situation or history in full.
The biggest issue I have with these guys and others entering the board or EGMs etc is that they don't know necessarily the current situation or history in full.
Conversely, the reason they (or others) don't know the situation in full is because the current board have chosen not to make that information available.
This is not a criticism - there are certainly legal reasons why the board are compelled to stay silent about some things, but saying 'that the current board should not be challenged because challengers are not privy to information that only the current board has' is a pretty circular argument.
The only information we have to decide which board candidates to support and judge the performance of the current board is the stuff that is publically available.
The biggest issue I have with these guys and others entering the board or EGMs etc is that they don't know necessarily the current situation or history in full.
Conversely, the reason they (or others) don't know the situation in full is because the current board have chosen not to make that information available.
This is not a criticism - there are certainly legal reasons why the board are compelled to stay silent about some things, but saying 'that the current board should not be challenged because challengers are not privy to information that only the current board has' is a pretty circular argument.
The only information we have to decide which board candidates to support and judge the performance of the current board is the stuff that is publically available.
Agreed. Which is why I'm skeptical.
The only info the challengers have is the same as supporters yet they believe they can change things. Fine, what can you change that we know, at this point in time, needs changing? What is it that this board is failing to do now? We know the historical f ups but the current state of play doesn't seem to have a heap of new approaches left.
The biggest issue I have with these guys and others entering the board or EGMs etc is that they don't know necessarily the current situation or history in full.
Conversely, the reason they (or others) don't know the situation in full is because the current board have chosen not to make that information available.
This is not a criticism - there are certainly legal reasons why the board are compelled to stay silent about some things, but saying 'that the current board should not be challenged because challengers are not privy to information that only the current board has' is a pretty circular argument.
The only information we have to decide which board candidates to support and judge the performance of the current board is the stuff that is publically available.
Agreed. Which is why I'm skeptical.
The only info the challengers have is the same as supporters yet they believe they can change things. Fine, what can you change that we know, at this point in time, needs changing? What is it that this board is failing to do now? We know the historical f ups but the current state of play doesn't seem to have a heap of new approaches left.
That's a matter for each member to make a call on when they vote, to be honest.
I've harped at great length on my opinion of the board in managing the Saga, so I won't bore everyone by doing so again. But I figure anyone who's been unhappy with how the board has performed should probably default to a position of voting against them unless the stated positions of the alternatives are worse.
Which is my personal opinion of the Gauci/Cunningham ticket. Whatever I think of the current board, I'll certainly vote for them ahead of anyone whose policy is "we should have surrendered harder and faster and then everything would have been ok!"
Others may of course disagree - that's why we have elections.
Fwiw, some people have asked me whether or not I intend to run for a board spot myself. I suspect I have very little chance of getting voted in, but I'll decide before the weekend whether I'll run or not (and, to appease the mods and stick to the blitz rules, will not be electioneering on here if I do!)
For any candidate I want to know what side of the fence do they sit.
A. Desire to move on quickly at any cost including sack Hird and bargain with Asada (like Cronulla)
B. Continue to fight for clearing players & club even when the going gets tough.
From the small samples from Gauci so far he has made it clear which side of the fence he sits.
We are all entitled to our opinions but my personal vote would go towards candidates who's inclination is for B. Continue to fight for clearing players & club even when the going gets tough.
Don't mind these guys coming on board....errr, I mean... onto the board, but not if it's to cause trouble or to destabilise things.
At least I have heard of both of them (and all positive), which is more than I can say for most of the candidates that put their hands up to join the EFC board.
Can you elaborate dambuster? We need all the info we can get on anyone who may be putting their hand up for election. Googling them and what they themselves put out there is no more than a CV. We've all written those, and it's amazing just how amazing we are when we leave out all our flaws then believe everything we write.
So, a lot of very informed and helpful commentary happening here, along the lines of "fark 'em" and "he's a clown" or "he's boring". (Actually, if Gauci was a clown, then by definition he wouldn't be boring - unless of course you find clowns boring - but I digress.)
All I'm saying is there are one or two board changes most years, and maybe it's just me, but most of the time the first time I become aware of their existence is when you get the elction candidate sheet with the candidates own spiel about themselves. Might as well pick some random off the street, but sometimes they are the ones that get elected! Maybe they "had the numbers".
At least with these two we have some background information that has not just come from them.
Ron Gauci was CEO at Melbourne Storm and apparently did a good job. Tick.
He went for the EFC CEO job and didn't get it. Possible cross. (Will he be dirty on Xavier Campbell?)
He and his family are lifelong Essendon supporters. Tick.
He may have differing opinions to current board members. Not a bad thing in iteslf. Tick.
Jason Cunningham comes across clever and believable on SEN and Ch.10. Tick
Don't mind these guys coming on board....errr, I mean... onto the board, but not if it's to cause trouble or to destabilise things.
At least I have heard of both of them (and all positive), which is more than I can say for most of the candidates that put their hands up to join the EFC board.
Can you elaborate dambuster? We need all the info we can get on anyone who may be putting their hand up for election. Googling them and what they themselves put out there is no more than a CV. We've all written those, and it's amazing just how amazing we are when we leave out all our flaws then believe everything we write.
So, a lot of very informed and helpful commentary happening here, along the lines of "fark 'em" and "he's a clown" or "he's boring". (Actually, if Gauci was a clown, then by definition he wouldn't be boring - unless of course you find clowns boring - but I digress.)
All I'm saying is there are one or two board changes most years, and maybe it's just me, but most of the time the first time I become aware of their existence is when you get the elction candidate sheet with the candidates own spiel about themselves. Might as well pick some random off the street, but sometimes they are the ones that get elected! Maybe they "had the numbers".
At least with these two we have some background information that has not just come from them.
Ron Gauci was CEO at Melbourne Storm and apparently did a good job. Tick.
He went for the EFC CEO job and didn't get it. Possible cross. (Will he be dirty on Xavier Campbell?)
He and his family are lifelong Essendon supporters. Tick.
He may have differing opinions to current board members. Not a bad thing in iteslf. Tick.
Jason Cunningham comes across clever and believable on SEN and Ch.10. Tick
Don't mind these guys coming on board....errr, I mean... onto the board, but not if it's to cause trouble or to destabilise things.
At least I have heard of both of them (and all positive), which is more than I can say for most of the candidates that put their hands up to join the EFC board.
Can you elaborate dambuster? We need all the info we can get on anyone who may be putting their hand up for election. Googling them and what they themselves put out there is no more than a CV. We've all written those, and it's amazing just how amazing we are when we leave out all our flaws then believe everything we write.
So, a lot of very informed and helpful commentary happening here, along the lines of "fark 'em" and "he's a clown" or "he's boring". (Actually, if Gauci was a clown, then by definition he wouldn't be boring - unless of course you find clowns boring - but I digress.)
All I'm saying is there are one or two board changes most years, and maybe it's just me, but most of the time the first time I become aware of their existence is when you get the elction candidate sheet with the candidates own spiel about themselves. Might as well pick some random off the street, but sometimes they are the ones that get elected! Maybe they "had the numbers".
At least with these two we have some background information that has not just come from them.
Ron Gauci was CEO at Melbourne Storm and apparently did a good job. Tick.
He went for the EFC CEO job and didn't get it. Possible cross. (Will he be dirty on Xavier Campbell?)
He and his family are lifelong Essendon supporters. Tick.
He may have differing opinions to current board members. Not a bad thing in iteslf. Tick.
Jason Cunningham comes across clever and believable on SEN and Ch.10. Tick
Appreciate the reply but thought you may have had a little more info on them from your initial post. To be fair, 'apparently' did a good job is no more informative than someone saying 'he's a clown'.
There a big difference between being a CEO and a Board Member.
When Board Members start meddling in Operational Roles, talking to players about Operational Issues and undermining key staff (such as the coach), then this would, a dare I say it....cause governance issues.
We have to make sure we dont create a whole different set of issues with a Board change at this point of time.
Whatever the current Boards flaws, stability for the next 12 months or so is important. I would like to see them see the SAGA through to completion.
Informally...to the current Board "You governed over this mess, so you fix it".