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

Remove this Banner Ad

 
Last edited:
P Money said:
Will be very interested to find out which right wing religiously-affiliated ‘ethics institute’ this money is going to to produce an ‘independent paper’ that vindicates Thorburn and his ilk.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
Few buttons in google and the most likely option among the first few results is this:
ethics.org.au

There is more than one kind of safe space - The Ethics Centre

We’ve heard a lot about safe spaces recently. But there are two kinds of safe space, and one of them has been neglected for too long.
ethics.org.au ethics.org.au
 
P Money said:
Will be very interested to find out which right wing religiously-affiliated ‘ethics institute’ this money is going to to produce an ‘independent paper’ that vindicates Thorburn and his ilk.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
People preach equality yet they yell just as load of it doesn’t suit their narrative .
You want to get rid of the hate ? It goes both ways.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ant555 said:
People preach equality yet they yell just as load of it doesn’t suit their narrative .
You want to get rid of the hate ? It goes both ways.
Click to expand...
Look this is probably not the forum for a debate about religion or religious freedoms. My point really was that Thorburn is not going to use his leverage over EFC to force them to fund an org to produce a report unless he knows what that report will say and that it will paint him and those with his views in the light that he wants to be painted in.
 
P Money said:
Look this is probably not the forum for a debate about religion or religious freedoms. My point really was that Thorburn is not going to use his leverage over EFC to force them to fund an org to produce a report unless he knows what that report will say and that it will paint him and those with his views in the light that he wants to be painted in.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Have no issues with the view but I am over Christian’s being labeled really get wing hater’s based on the sermons of a few priests over the years.
 
I’ve always found conflating religious choice with non-chosen attributes such as sexuality and ethnicity to be a bit odd.

I fully agree that people should be comfortable to choose their own belief system, I just think they’re separate matters.
 
I Remember Bluey said:
www.essendonfc.com.au

Joint statement: EFC & Andrew Thorburn

A statement on behalf of Essendon and Andrew Thorburn.
www.essendonfc.com.au www.essendonfc.com.au

Joint statement: EFC & Andrew Thorburn​

A statement on behalf of Essendon and Andrew Thorburn.

This is a statement made on behalf of Essendon Football Club and Andrew Thorburn.

On 3 October 2022, the Club appointed Andrew Thorburn as its CEO. Regrettably, Mr Thorburn had to give up his position the next day. The Club and Mr Thorburn are pleased to announce that the dispute between them has been resolved. A critical element of this resolution is to enable a wider community conversation on the importance of freedom of conscience, religion and belief and how to have respectful dialogue between people with different views and perspectives. All people should be respected and welcomed in workplaces and community organisations. No-one should have to choose between their faith or sexuality, and their employment.

Further, everyone should be able to openly express their personal position, in a respectful way, without fear and still feel that they belong. Genuine diversity and inclusion also includes people of faith. The Club acknowledges that the events of October should have been handled better and apologises for the impact it had on Mr Thorburn, his family and others.

Both parties consider that elements of the public commentary at the time were extreme and wrong and counter-productive to the respectful community dialogue they agree is critical. Mr Thorburn remains welcome at the Club. The Club reiterates that he is a person of integrity who treats others, whether at work or elsewhere, with dignity and respect. He has a strong track record of leadership including with respect to diversity and inclusion of LGBTIQ and other minority groups.

As part of a commitment to genuine diversity and inclusion, and to show leadership in this area, the Club has agreed to make a donation to an Ethics Institute. The Institute will prepare an independent paper on how sporting organisations can build inclusive communities recognising freedoms including those relating to race, religion and sexuality.
Click to expand...
The club's response here has lawyers from both sides written all over it. If this is what the club truly felt, they should have stood firm and kept Thorburn, defending the principles this release describes. Sacking him only to release this obviously negotiated statement makes it clear that the club's principles have now shifted as a result of where the money has pushed. Ironically, it presents as being unprincipled.

They should have gone with the banking issue instead as reason not to hire.
 
Lore said:
Slides from Mahoney's speech.

He specifically said he'd be talking mostly about the AFL Men's team but also that we have five teams and the more integrated we are the better (I'm sure they'll put up a replay so I won't try and remember everything that was said).

View attachment 1573700
View attachment 1573699
View attachment 1573701
View attachment 1573703

Coaching structure slide is interesting fyi eth-dog
Click to expand...
Slide 1: Probs copy and pasted from Rutten's pre-sacking meeting. Maybe he can take them to task for plagiarism or something.

Good enough for Barham, but not good enough for Truck.
 
P Money said:
Will be very interested to find out which right wing religiously-affiliated ‘ethics institute’ this money is going to to produce an ‘independent paper’ that vindicates Thorburn and his ilk.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...

Ethics institute?

I'm much rather donate to the ponds institute, least that way we can get closer to our goal of naturally flawless skin
 
ghostdog said:
The club's response here has lawyers from both sides written all over it. If this is what the club truly felt, they should have stood firm and kept Thorburn, defending the principles this release describes. Sacking him only to release this obviously negotiated statement makes it clear that the club's principles have now shifted as a result of where the money has pushed. Ironically, it presents as being unprincipled.

They should have gone with the banking issue instead as reason not to hire.
Click to expand...
optic trumps all.
we couldn't keep him on (whether we wanted to or not) and we had to quell the fire of the handling of it.
Club will want a line drawn through this and move on never to speak of it again (ah...the well trodden bridge)

ant555 said:
Fair enough. Have no issues with the view but I am over Christian’s being labeled really get wing hater’s based on the sermons of a few priests over the years.
Click to expand...
brushes and tar unfortunately.
but i guess its the same as labelling all pies fans toothless criminals or north fans as figments of people's imagination. it comes with the lack of nuance out there.

I will say though, that Thorburn is eating his cake and having it too. He's welcome to his beliefs. No one is saying don't believe what you believe. And don't associate with who you want to associate with.
but don't think it comes without scrutiny. nothing does.
As for the church itself. if you don't want the criticism....stop criticising perhaps?
 
citizen-erased said:
optic trumps all.
we couldn't keep him on (whether we wanted to or not) and we had to quell the fire of the handling of it.
Club will want a line drawn through this and move on never to speak of it again (ah...the well trodden bridge)


brushes and tar unfortunately.
but i guess its the same as labelling all pies fans toothless criminals or north fans as figments of people's imagination. it comes with the lack of nuance out there.

I will say though, that Thorburn is eating his cake and having it too. He's welcome to his beliefs. No one is saying don't believe what you believe. And don't associate with who you want to associate with.
but don't think it comes without scrutiny. nothing does.
As for the church itself. if you don't want the criticism....stop criticising perhaps?
Click to expand...
I am not backing Thorburn nor his church but there seems to be a lot of 1 + 1 = 3 opinions.

Unless I am missing something Thorburn has never preached anything . Has never been involved in any discrimination in the companies he has lead. In fact has continually said he is about tolerance as part of his views. Slam the bloke for how he operated at the NAB but at no stage during his professional career has he discriminated and the fact is when he was in control at NAB they backed several events that had a LGBTQIA involvement. He has said multiple times he does not agree with everything that is in sermons.
He was on the board of the church yes but he was not preparing sermons. He was working on the financial side of things.

As for the Church on the Hill . The sermon was from 2011. I heard the leader of the church interview by Neil Mitchell on 3AW and he danced around the issue a little but the message was their sermons have changed over time to be more about tolerance and forgiveness . When asked about homosexuality the answer was a bit of an end run as he stated that as such that sex out outside marriage is a sin but same sex partnerships where not. Of course the kicker is the church generally only accepts marriage as a "partnership between a man and women " so in their eyes you can have a same sex partner but can not have sex as such as it does not recognize same sex marriage. Bit of a cop out even in my opinion.
For what it is worth I voted yes for same sex marriage so I could see my sister legally marry her partner.

You say nothing comes without scrutiny . I say it is illegal in this country to discriminate on the basis of race , religion or sexuality. I can say that some comments in here over the last 3 months have pushed the line. If I dug into your life would you be squeaky clean ? I know my has not been.

The Church does not necessarily set out to make a statement or criticize . Generally it is a priest or pastor giving a sermon based on part of the bible which then gets relayed . These are not different to going to a Mosque other than it generally does not get commented on a lot in general society.

If we really want to jump up and down then everyone is happy to pile on yet still celebrate Christmas or have Church funerals when they die . As a side point here most churches will give LGBTQIA people a funeral.
We are happy to watch the world cup in Qatar despite homosexuality being illegal and punishable by death ?
Are we happy for the AFL having multi cultural officers who's religion has strict views on homosexuality ?

I understand the optics and his position as CEO made that a different situation but there was a lot of comment in a short period of time with very little chance of any mediation. I do wonder if both sides had a chance to sit down if there could have been a different outcome. It just took off like wildfire with no coming back. There was no chance of ever finding common ground.

Religion is difficult in a lot of ways. Now que the bigot , Hypocrite , fan boy and any other insults that I have been called for saying something about it.
 
Last edited:
ghostdog said:
The club's response here has lawyers from both sides written all over it. If this is what the club truly felt, they should have stood firm and kept Thorburn, defending the principles this release describes. Sacking him only to release this obviously negotiated statement makes it clear that the club's principles have now shifted as a result of where the money has pushed. Ironically, it presents as being unprincipled.

They should have gone with the banking issue instead as reason not to hire.
Click to expand...
If they did they would have no issues but obviously they did not care as Barham was fully aware of it as he was with Thorburn's religious views even if he was not aware of a sermon on their website from 2011. At the end of the day they where lucky Thorburn backed down. It is still illegal to discriminate against race , religion and sexuality.
 
ant555 said:
I am not backing Thorburn nor his church but there seems to be a lot of 1 + 1 = 3 opinions.

Unless I am missing something Thorburn has never preached anything . Has never been involved in any discrimination in the companies he has lead. In fact has continually said he is about tolerance as part of his views. Slam the bloke for how he operated at the NAB but at no stage during his professional career has he discriminated and the fact is when he was in control at NAB they backed several events that had a LGBTQIA involvement. He has said multiple times he does not agree with everything that is in sermons.
He was on the board of the church yes but he was not preparing sermons. He was working on the financial side of things.

As for the Church on the Hill . The sermon was from 2011. I heard the leader of the church interview by Neil Mitchell on 3AW and he danced around the issue a little but the message was their sermons have changed over time to be more about tolerance and forgiveness . When asked about homosexuality the answer was a bit of an end run as he stated that as such that sex out outside marriage is a sin but same sex partnerships where not. Of course the kicker is the church generally only accepts marriage as a "partnership between a man and women " so in their eyes you can have a same sex partner but can not have sex as such as it does not recognize same sex marriage. Bit of a cop out even in my opinion.
For what it is worth I voted yes for same sex marriage so I could see my sister legally marry her partner.

You say nothing comes without scrutiny . I say it is illegal in this country to discriminate on the basis of race , religion or sexuality. I can say that some comments in here over the last 3 months have pushed the line. If I dug into your life would you be squeaky clean ? I know my has not been.

The Church does not necessarily set out to make a statement or criticize . Generally it is a priest or pastor giving a sermon based on part of the bible which then gets relayed . These are not different to going to a Mosque other than it generally does not get commented on a lot i general society.

If we really want to jump up and down then everyone is happy to pile on yet still celebrate Christmas or have Church funerals when they die . As a side point here most churches will give LGBTQIA people.
We are happy to watch the world cup in Qatar despite homosexuality being illegal and punishable by death ?
Are we happy for the AFL having multi cultural officers who's religion has strict views on homosexuality ?

I understand the optics and his position as CEO made that a different situation but there was a lot of comment in a short period of time with very little chance of any mediation. I do wonder if both sides had a chance to sit down if there could have been a different outcome. It just took off like wildfire with no coming back. There was no chance of ever finding common ground.

Religion is difficult in a lot of ways. Now que the bigot , Hypocrite , fan boy and any other insults that I have been called for saying something about it.
Click to expand...
You're allowed to have your opinion ant as is everyone else. If people post anything like the bolded then report it and it'll be dealt with because everyone knows that kind of stuff isn't allowed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ant555 said:
If they did they would have no issues but obviously they did not care as Barham was fully aware of it as he was with Thorburn's religious views even if he was not aware of a sermon on their website from 2011. At the end of the day they where lucky Thorburn backed down. It is still illegal to discriminate against race , religion and sexuality.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Interested now to know how much this will cost the club.
 
citizen-erased said:
optic trumps all.
we couldn't keep him on (whether we wanted to or not) and we had to quell the fire of the handling of it.
Club will want a line drawn through this and move on never to speak of it again (ah...the well trodden bridge)


brushes and tar unfortunately.
but i guess its the same as labelling all pies fans toothless criminals or north fans as figments of people's imagination. it comes with the lack of nuance out there.

I will say though, that Thorburn is eating his cake and having it too. He's welcome to his beliefs. No one is saying don't believe what you believe. And don't associate with who you want to associate with.
but don't think it comes without scrutiny. nothing does.
As for the church itself. if you don't want the criticism....stop criticising perhaps?
Click to expand...
I don't think they've done a good job of the optics with this from the start, trying to quell a fire they gave life to through an ineffective process. That's called incompetence, isn't it?
Our comeback story is really going to be great reading.
 
ant555 said:
I am not backing Thorburn nor his church but there seems to be a lot of 1 + 1 = 3 opinions.

Unless I am missing something Thorburn has never preached anything . Has never been involved in any discrimination in the companies he has lead. In fact has continually said he is about tolerance as part of his views. Slam the bloke for how he operated at the NAB but at no stage during his professional career has he discriminated and the fact is when he was in control at NAB they backed several events that had a LGBTQIA involvement. He has said multiple times he does not agree with everything that is in sermons.
He was on the board of the church yes but he was not preparing sermons. He was working on the financial side of things.

As for the Church on the Hill . The sermon was from 2011. I heard the leader of the church interview by Neil Mitchell on 3AW and he danced around the issue a little but the message was their sermons have changed over time to be more about tolerance and forgiveness . When asked about homosexuality the answer was a bit of an end run as he stated that as such that sex out outside marriage is a sin but same sex partnerships where not. Of course the kicker is the church generally only accepts marriage as a "partnership between a man and women " so in their eyes you can have a same sex partner but can not have sex as such as it does not recognize same sex marriage. Bit of a cop out even in my opinion.
For what it is worth I voted yes for same sex marriage so I could see my sister legally marry her partner.

You say nothing comes without scrutiny . I say it is illegal in this country to discriminate on the basis of race , religion or sexuality. I can say that some comments in here over the last 3 months have pushed the line. If I dug into your life would you be squeaky clean ? I know my has not been.

The Church does not necessarily set out to make a statement or criticize . Generally it is a priest or pastor giving a sermon based on part of the bible which then gets relayed . These are not different to going to a Mosque other than it generally does not get commented on a lot in general society.

If we really want to jump up and down then everyone is happy to pile on yet still celebrate Christmas or have Church funerals when they die . As a side point here most churches will give LGBTQIA people a funeral.
We are happy to watch the world cup in Qatar despite homosexuality being illegal and punishable by death ?
Are we happy for the AFL having multi cultural officers who's religion has strict views on homosexuality ?

I understand the optics and his position as CEO made that a different situation but there was a lot of comment in a short period of time with very little chance of any mediation. I do wonder if both sides had a chance to sit down if there could have been a different outcome. It just took off like wildfire with no coming back. There was no chance of ever finding common ground.

Religion is difficult in a lot of ways. Now que the bigot , Hypocrite , fan boy and any other insults that I have been called for saying something about it.
Click to expand...
Good statement at the end.
There's a line with most of them where it stops being about the person you want to be and how you treat others, and begins being more about the scripture/teachings and "leaders" interpretation of such.

Much like politics and sadly even "news" - its become like team sports. Quite rabid in sections that are usually minority and vocal.

As for thorburn, there's having his faith (one that is common and wide) then there is the church you associate with (city on a hill v your local parish), then signing on as a board member of said church. Particularly as ex-ceo of a big 4 bank and then as ceo of a big 4 afl club.
As collingwood were always tarred with the eddie brush whenever he said something stupid (caro, goodes), as would we with thorburn as our ceo. And he may not hold the same views as that which was said, and the comments are in the recent past, and be more tolerant on such topics. But as i mentioned in an earlier post, optics is all. We're already a shitshow. It poured fuel on a junkyard fire.
 
ghostdog said:
I don't think they've done a good job of the optics with this from the start, trying to quell a fire they gave life to through an ineffective process. That's called incompetence, isn't it?
Our comeback story is really going to be great reading.
Click to expand...
Can't remember the last thing we optically did well.

Truck - nope
Scott - nope (thanks sheeds)
Ceo - nope
Dreamtime - nope
Covid - nope (bit of rabid support for mckenna would have been nice, not clipping saad for leaving too)
Woosha - nope
Internal/external review - nope

Thats in just over 2 years too.
 
ant555 said:
If they did they would have no issues but obviously they did not care as Barham was fully aware of it as he was with Thorburn's religious views even if he was not aware of a sermon on their website from 2011. At the end of the day they where lucky Thorburn backed down. It is still illegal to discriminate against race , religion and sexuality.
Click to expand...
Goes to the lack of due diligence
I imagine we knew he was on the board elsewhere.
Given the $$$ we were paying EY, you'd think they'd spend the weekend reading up on church on a hill, the ethical investment company and anyone else he is associated with.

All of which has proven to be an unwelcome but convenient distraction from what is the core question here.
The appointment in general.
Spectacular end to his tenure at NAB, singled out in the royal commission for his performance, hasnt had anyone knocking his door down since, his exec. assistant at the time is in courts for a multi million dollar fraud against NAB during his tenure, was on the review committee then dropped out conveniently prior to the appointment, and has zero track record in AFL circles.

Compare that to Vozzo, who is a no-nonsense, seasoned operator at one of the best run clubs in the comp.
One appointment came from nowhere, the other after weeks of interviewing.

Clarkson/thorburn
Scott/vozzo

Similar paths to get to where we did. We're still struggling with doing the basics right.....at least our incompetence seems to be saving us from ourselves at the moment
 
citizen-erased said:
Can't remember the last thing we optically did well.

Truck - nope
Scott - nope (thanks sheeds)
Ceo - nope
Dreamtime - nope
Covid - nope (bit of rabid support for mckenna would have been nice, not clipping saad for leaving too)
Woosha - nope
Internal/external review - nope

Thats in just over 2 years too.
Click to expand...
Davey, Davey, Munkara, McDonald-Tipungwuti, Rioli - yep.

In an ocean of nopes, but I'll take it.
 
andleanback said:
Can mark Robinson just shut his fat mouth for once. Deadset he doesn’t deserve to call himself a supporter of essendon.
Click to expand...
He is a Hird supporter. He has dead set kicked us at every opportunity since Hird got sacked. It is like Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott.
 
ant555 said:
He is a Hird supporter. He has dead set kicked us at every opportunity since Hird got sacked. It is like Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott.
Click to expand...
He’s a grub, essendon should blacklist the HS for the next 12 months for the stuff they’ve pulled in the last week.

If hird actually thought he deserved to coach the club again after 6 months work at Gws he can clear off as well. Not taking a role at another club tells you everything you need to know about how serious he was about coaching.
 
At this point, does anyone actually take Robbo seriously? He’s been a puppet for Hird & Sheedy for ages. If we’d have appointed Hird without a process being run, he’d probably have complained about that too.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

Lore
  • Poll
Win Prizes The Scales 2024 Essendon Board Poster of the Year - Congratulations Bonce!
Replies
19
Views
1K
Beerfish
Beerfish
Lore
  • Locked
Win Prizes The Scales 2024 Essendon Board Poster Of The Year - Nomination Thread
Replies
18
Views
918
Lore
Lore
Nuggs Bunny
Competitions 2025 Essendon Board My Boy Draft
2
Replies
44
Views
1K
ant555
ant555
BrunoV
Win Prizes The Essendon Board Talks 9/11
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
2K
Kong
Kong
VelvetSledge
  • Locked
MVP 2024 BigFooty Essendon Board POTY Award - ZACH MERRETT wins again!
Replies
24
Views
3K
VelvetSledge
VelvetSledge
Lore
Mod. Notice Welcome Nuggs Bunny, new Essendon board mod!
Replies
13
Views
1K
Vindicater
Vindicater
Sporno 4 Pyros
Sport The Essendon Board’s Paris 2024 Olympics Thread
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
Sporno 4 Pyros
Sporno 4 Pyros

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top