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

Remove this Banner Ad

 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

You are looking at this through the lens of how the world should be, not how it is.

The problem is that he’s more than just a rank and file church goer, he’s there chairman - as chairman it will be very difficult for him to disown there more controversial stances. So much low hanging fruit for the presss here, they won’t pass it up.
It doesn't seem to be the cause of any of his problems in his professional life.

In fact all the evidence seems to suggest that he leaves the bible on the nightstand during his work week and only takes it out for a spin on Sunday morning and in his private life. From everything that Lore has found, the worst charge against him may be that he takes a pragmatic (for want of a more accurate word) approach to these issues in his professional life. That's all you can ask for.

JC wasn't too hot on bankers anyway.
 
There seems to be a lot of cross-talk that presumes the criticism of Thorburn is that he has a strong faith/is a member of a religion. As others rightly point out, that is (and ought remain) a private matter, so long as it doesn't intrude on his conduct as CEO. Australia is (for the most part) a proudly secular society.

But what shouldn't be so easily dismissed is his existing role as chair of this Church. Put simply, the views being attributed to the Church are antithetical to the kind of progressive, diverse, and inclusive club that EFC aspires to be. The club's staff and players - many of whom are women and/or LGBTQI - might rightly wonder at the conflict of duties that might arise when his role as chair of an allegedly anti-women, anti-LGBTQI faith organization is so diametrically opposed to his role as club CEO.

At a minimum, he can take the air out of a lot of that consternation if he were to step down as chair of City on a Hill. But for so long as he serves both masters, the press will be entitled to focus on this issue because it will have a very real impact on the lived experience of many of our staff/players.
 
There seems to be a lot of cross-talk that presumes the criticism of Thorburn is that he has a strong faith/is a member of a religion. As others rightly point out, that is (and ought remain) a private matter, so long as it doesn't intrude on his conduct as CEO. Australia is (for the most part) a proudly secular society.

But what shouldn't be so easily dismissed is his existing role as chair of this Church. Put simply, the views being attributed to the Church are antithetical to the kind of progressive, diverse, and inclusive club that EFC aspires to be. The club's staff and players - many of whom are women and/or LGBTQI - might rightly wonder at the conflict of duties that might arise when his role as chair of an allegedly anti-women, anti-LGBTQI faith organization is so diametrically opposed to his role as club CEO.

At a minimum, he can take the air out of a lot of that consternation if he were to step down as chair of City on a Hill. But for so long as he serves both masters, the press will be entitled to focus on this issue because it will have a very real impact on the lived experience of many of our staff/players.
Amen Brother
 
There seems to be a lot of cross-talk that presumes the criticism of Thorburn is that he has a strong faith/is a member of a religion. As others rightly point out, that is (and ought remain) a private matter, so long as it doesn't intrude on his conduct as CEO. Australia is (for the most part) a proudly secular society.

But what shouldn't be so easily dismissed is his existing role as chair of this Church. Put simply, the views being attributed to the Church are antithetical to the kind of progressive, diverse, and inclusive club that EFC aspires to be. The club's staff and players - many of whom are women and/or LGBTQI - might rightly wonder at the conflict of duties that might arise when his role as chair of an allegedly anti-women, anti-LGBTQI faith organization is so diametrically opposed to his role as club CEO.

At a minimum, he can take the air out of a lot of that consternation if he were to step down as chair of City on a Hill. But for so long as he serves both masters, the press will be entitled to focus on this issue because it will have a very real impact on the lived experience of many of our staff/players.
Anti women? That’s not a long term strategy.
 
I feel like a person of his skillset and abilities would be tapped on the shoulder to chair/board almost wherever they go.

It didn't seem to be an issue when he was at NAB so why should it be an issue now? It wouldn't be an issue if the Age and Hun weren't compelled to point it out. It's because they did that I (and probably majority of us here) even know he has a faith!

FWIW, being on a church board is very benign/vanilla stuff. It's less representative and more administrative. To be honest you'd be hearing complaints from your congregation more than anything. For instance one person complained that it was distracting that our minister would pause for a drink of water during a sermon. No joke.
 
I feel like a person of his skillset and abilities would be tapped on the shoulder to chair/board almost wherever they go.

It didn't seem to be an issue when he was at NAB so why should it be an issue now? It wouldn't be an issue if the Age and Hun weren't compelled to point it out. It's because they did that I (and probably majority of us here) even know he has a faith!

FWIW, being on a church board is very benign/vanilla stuff. It's less representative and more administrative. To be honest you'd be hearing complaints from your congregation more than anything. For instance one person complained that it was distracting that our minister would pause for a drink of water during a sermon. No joke.
it wasn’t water. your minister was drunk.
 
Kind of surprised that there's more talk about his invisible friends belief than the fact that he was one of only a few singled out by the royal commission for actions or lack thereof.

I'm just not convinced a guy who oversaw a bank having to put aside $1.1bn in fines to be paid to customers, but maintained the whole time that it wasn't anything really untoward, and basically had to be pushed out of his role, is the best person to be leading a club who has also shown in its recent past that it isn't the best judge of what is and isn't the correct actions, and then dug in while refusing to admit that it had done much wrong...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Not a great look to have a CEO whose church board position requires him to promote their views, if what has been reported is true (!!!).

Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand he has the right to his faith and to practice it.

On the other, our employees have the right to feel safe and valued at work, which I think outweighs the above.
 
I feel like a person of his skillset and abilities would be tapped on the shoulder to chair/board almost wherever they go.

It didn't seem to be an issue when he was at NAB so why should it be an issue now? It wouldn't be an issue if the Age and Hun weren't compelled to point it out. It's because they did that I (and probably majority of us here) even know he has a faith!

FWIW, being on a church board is very benign/vanilla stuff. It's less representative and more administrative. To be honest you'd be hearing complaints from your congregation more than anything. For instance one person complained that it was distracting that our minister would pause for a drink of water during a sermon. No joke.
You are misunderstanding.

It’s an issue only because the press have pointed it out. They will make it an issue whether one exists or not.
 
Plenty of people are in top positions that may not completely be in line with the company views.

Doesn't the NSW premier share the same views?

Leftie Media just getting all woke about nothing.
Yep.

He also spoke very well on the matter on SEN this morning. I'd recommend people listen to the podcast when available (as I'm no Lore when it comes to cliffs).

Non-religious people have no trouble managing religious people with different beliefs, I'm sure he'll do fine on that matter (as he did at NAB).
 
Not a great look to have a CEO whose church board position requires him to promote their views, if what has been reported is true (!!!).

Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand he has the right to his faith and to practice it.

On the other, our employees have the right to feel safe and valued at work, which I think outweighs the above.

What do you mean by promote?
 
What do you mean by promote?
He means, that Thorburn is head of one organisation which wants to remove stigma around LGBTQI issues.

He's also head of another organisation which wants to increase stigma around LGBTQI issues.

I think, like most religious people, he's a whopping hypocrite (and the Royal Commission and NAB board think so too), but he's going to have to park the hypocrisy and adopt just one of these competing beliefs.

It will sound very hollow (particularly to those affected) if he's promoting Pride on Saturday and condemning gays on Sundays.

If he was just a member of the church, that's one thing. But he's head of it, so the better the church does, the worse it is for LGBTQI people.

I expect he won't be in charge of the church for much longer.
 
It’s a free country

Yep, which is why we should not be promoting anyone who professes to interfere with other people's personal business. I'm all for govt policy to keep us safe on the roads, and improve public health (anti-smoking and pandemic laws), I like govt to intervene to reduce the concentration of wealth and power and to stop capitalists from destroying the natural world. However, someone who thinks they are going to peek into the bedroom of consenting adults or force a woman to have a lifeform grow in her that she can safely remove then they GTFO.

If we're running a company that has little to no public profile, as long as he keeps his medieval views to himself then fine. In fact, in most normal jobs it wouldn't come up cause the press wouldn't be looking into things like that. Heck, even have your little prayer room! However, an AFL club is not a normal place. Sorry Andrew, I'm clearly on the side of Satan and am not impressed with your appointment.
 
The other big thing I can’t quite get my head around is how this happened… was he part of our “external review”? Was he part of the CEO search?

And then the next second he’s appointed CEO?

Was he privy to things in the external review? Confidential discussions with individuals at the club etc? And now he’s CEO?

It doesn’t seem right.

Seems like real jobs for the boys stuff. Barham came in preaching process… this is the complete opposite.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top