Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham

Remove this Banner Ad

 
Last edited:
It seems more like Medusa's snakes, you cut off the head of one and two more replace it.
Brilliant analogy.

Up until now the Essendon "mis-steps" have been like water off a ducks back but right now, as a supporter, I'm feeling defeated by it all. Too many ****ing heads popping up, both in reality and metaphorically.
 
I'd like to think that the legal system and employment law would protect someone who was forced into resigning because of the optics surrounding his faith.

I think we both know it's more than just optics. It's a clear conflict of interest.
 
As someone who doesn’t know his arm from his face regarding employment law, how does ‘he offered his resignation’ fall into an unfair dismissal claim?

I also would have thought there would be pretty basic morals and conduct alignment clauses in a basic employment contract that would make the legal route not worth it.

Might also be a moratorium on his contract that means both parties just walk away.

Jair Bolsonaro is looking like he may need a job, but he’s should put the feelers out.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BARRETT: Dons set for more change after latest 'ego-driven' mess

If in the next 48 hours Barham if himself doesn't announce intent to formally follow out of the Essendon doors the many others he has forced out, he will be told of plans – which were being formulated deep into Tuesday night and resumed first thing Wednesday – of people seeking to remove him, possibly in an extraordinary general meeting.

Significant support for Bombers board member and highly successful businessman Andrew Muir was being mounted behind the scenes on Wednesday.

I heard Muir lives overseas so how does that work?
 
I think we both know it's more than just optics. It's a clear conflict of interest.

I don't believe it's that clear and my anger is more at the people on here, in the media and general society than anything this bloke or the club has done, but it's not something that we will come to common ground on so agree to disagree for the sake of the mods.
 
As someone who doesn’t know his arm from his face regarding employment law, how does ‘he offered his resignation’ fall into an unfair dismissal claim?

I also would have thought there would be pretty basic morals and conduct alignment clauses in a basic employment contract that would make the legal route not worth it.

Might also be a moratorium on his contract that means both parties just walk away.

Jair Bolsonaro is looking like he may need a job, but he’s should put the feelers out.
It’s called constructive dismissal in most cases. Effectively the situation created by the employer forces the employee into resigning when they otherwise would not have
 
I don't believe it's that clear and my anger is more at the people on here, in the media and general society than anything this bloke or the club has done, but it's not something that we will come to common ground on so agree to disagree for the sake of the mods.

Happy to, everyone has the right to hold an opinion :)
 
It’s called constructive dismissal in most cases. Effectively the situation created by the employer forces the employee into resigning when they otherwise would not have

Is the fact they said you can chose your church gig (which is as an administrator, not as any kind of faith leader) or this gig a consideration? He elected to jump when he could have stayed.

I’d want Barham to personally fund whatever we have to pay this scuzbag or pay the club back.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Brasher: Elected 2011, re-elected 2015, re-elected 2018, re-elected 2021, resigned effective immediately, August 2022
Madden: Elected 2013, re-elected 2016, resigned effective immediately, August 2022
Allen: Casual vacancy 2019, resigned effective AGM 2022
Wellman: Elected 2020, resigned effective AGM 2022

Barham: Elected 2015, re-appointed 2018
Muir: Casual vacancy 2015, re-elected 2016, up for election Nov 2022
Green: Casual vacancy 2017, re-elected 2019
Sheedy: Casual vacancy 2020, re-elected 2020
O'Sullivan: Casual vacancy 2019
Hisgrove: Casual vacancy 2020
Welsh: Casual vacancy 2022, up for election Nov 2022

I'm not sure what's happened with Green and O'Sullivan who should have been re-appointed/re-elected this year but it's not mentioned anywhere. Madden also must've been either re-appointed or re-elected in 2019, but I can't find an announcement about it. Might be in the minutes of an AGM somewhere I guess.

The term of a director is 3 years, can be appointed twice in a row (so max six years) before having to stand for election. Ineligible for further elections after serving 12 years (so technically it looks like if you're elected at the end of your 11th year you can see out the remainder of your term). Max. 6 elected and 4 appointed at any given time.

Upshot of it is anyway that currently Barham, O'Sullivan, Hisgrove and Welsh are in appointed roles as directors, but Barham had previously been elected, and Welsh is up for election this year along with Muir.

Melissa was reappointed unopposed last year.
 


A quick Google of this bloke and my reactions span from ‘good riddance’ to ‘good riddance and he needs to be charged and sentenced’
 


I know people will say 'good riddance' - but people of any belief or faith (obviously within reason, not the KKK) should be welcome at EFC.

Seems like the wheel is turning where it's all good, unless you're Christian, then it's not. Probably due to people like ScoMo or the US anti-abortionists forcing their views unto others, but it still feels all a little gross to me.

Plenty of EFC supports would be Catholic and feel pretty down after the commentary the last 24 hours.
 
A quick Google of this bloke and my reactions span from ‘good riddance’ to ‘good riddance and he needs to be charged and sentenced’
dont confuse him was his convicted pedophile cousin of the same name. This one is good mates with George Pell and refuses to break the seal of confession for sexual assault
 
dont confuse him was his convicted pedophile cousin of the same name. This one is good mates with George Pell and refuses to break the seal of confession for sexual assault

So he’ll be number 1 ticket holder by this time tomorrow then?
 
I know people will say 'good riddance' - but people of any belief or faith (obviously within reason, not the KKK) should be welcome at EFC.

Seems like the wheel is turning where it's all good, unless you're Christian, then it's not. Probably due to people like ScoMo or the US anti-abortionists forcing their views unto others, but it still feels all a little gross to me.

Plenty of EFC supports would be Catholic and feel pretty down after the commentary the last 24 hours.
But your first sentence again shows the issue of acceptance. "Not the KKK" is where you draw the line, but for many people refusing to pass on confessions of child abuse is a line just as bad if not worse. So why should the club accept one but not the other?
Let alone remaining friend and staunch support of someone who, while having their conviction overturned, is still neck deep in the historic atrocities carried out by the institution they were in charge of and had full knowledge of.

Peter Comensoli can **** right off
 
I know people will say 'good riddance' - but people of any belief or faith (obviously within reason, not the KKK) should be welcome at EFC.

Seems like the wheel is turning where it's all good, unless you're Christian, then it's not. Probably due to people like ScoMo or the US anti-abortionists forcing their views unto others, but it still feels all a little gross to me.

Plenty of EFC supports would be Catholic and feel pretty down after the commentary the last 24 hours.

And this is my big issue with all this, it's the good riddance we don't need your type aspect of this whole situation.
It's not inclusivity, it's what we want at the expense of others.
Both sides are guilty of it, and the media commentary smacking the club for not doing due diligence on an aspect of someone's character that you are legally not allowed to use as a basis for employment is really shitty.

None of us would like it being done to us, why are we so happy it's happening to someone else even if we don't agree with his opinions (again we don't even know his individual opinions it's just by association).
 
But your first sentence again shows the issue of acceptance. "Not the KKK" is where you draw the line, but for many people refusing to pass on confessions of child abuse is a line just as bad if not worse. So why should the club accept one but not the other?
Let alone remaining friend and staunch support of someone who, while having their conviction overturned, is still neck deep in the historic atrocities carried out by the institution they were in charge of and had full knowledge of.

Peter Comensoli can * right off

I wasn't really specifically trying to argue about Peter Comensoli FWIW. Just the general theme of commentary the last 24 hours has been pretty strong anti-Christian, and pretty gross at times in how it's come across.

I can fully understand those EFC supporters choosing to walk away for a while given they'd be feeling pretty unwelcome if they're Christian of any denomination, irrespective of whether City On A Hill represents their views or not.
 
I wasn't really specifically trying to argue about Peter Comensoli FWIW. Just the general theme of commentary the last 24 hours has been pretty strong anti-Christian, and pretty gross at times in how it's come across.

I can fully understand those EFC supporters choosing to walk away for a while given they'd be feeling pretty unwelcome if they're Christian of any denomination, irrespective of whether City On A Hill represents their views or not.

Fair enough. There's a mountain of reasons to be walking away from EFC at the moment, if Christians are deciding that the club's values and direction are not for them it would certainly make sense, and be the perfect time to look elsewhere.

I would argue that from the Club's perspective I don't think they are being 'anti-Christian'. No-one is asking supports for their beliefs, no is saying people of all walks of live aren't welcome, all they've said is that the proposed CEO can't explain and reconcile the position of the group he holds a leadership position in, then he can't bold a leadership position at the club. If that's taken as 'EFC hates religion' I'm not sure there's much that can be done
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top