Don Scott gets behind an election for President

[macdaddio]

Don Scott LOL !

It is ironic that Don can't shut up on every Hawthorn issue, whether he has a clue or not, yet his teammates of the 1970's constant complaint was that they could not comminicate with him. Leigh Matthews has stated that Don never had a conversation with him, and they played together for 13 years!

Yet Don is now happy to shout his views from the rooftops.

1. Great footballer & great captain in finals
2. Great motivator and supporter in 1996
3. Otherwise: an idiot

Exactly..

 

[Goldnbrown]

Going to the ANNUAL AGM is hardly the definition of Board Governance best practice.

It is haveing an open transparent and consultative decision making process.

Having a president simply pass the baton onto somebody else when he retires is hardly an open, transparent process.

Do you know anything about newbold or what he stands for - what his view is on various issues?

NO.




Accountability - being more transparent and consultative - especially concerning major decisions.

Like the choice of next president or relocating significant number of games etc

As far as board meetings go they don't necessarily have to be held in public but accurate records short be kept concerning agendas, decisions and actions.


You have a short memory - our then board wanted to merge with another club not that long ago.

Clearly they didn't consult with members wishes and were duly replaced.

Naive to think it or similar couldn't happen again if the board doesn't act with proper governance and accountability.

You make some VERY bold and may I say with respect naive assumptions:

1. Jeff did not pass on the baton, the board voted for the next president
2. Andrew Newbolt has been on the board for a number of years, I can't see a massive amount of changes under his watch
3. The president does not run the club, he is a spokesman - but the board runs a club. Jeff as ex premier was a massive infleunce I am sure, but teh board votes on all decisions.
4. Why would you presume that the board is not keeping all records and undertaking all the due dillegence that on would expect from a professionaly run organisation.
5. Your are 100% right if tht board runs off the track they will be replaced, but the EXACT point is clearly this board is doing a fantastic job and as such until they stop doing that will have my support.

 

[Cynic]

You make some VERY bold and may I say with respect naive assumptions:

1. Jeff did not pass on the baton, the board voted for the next president
2. Andrew Newbolt has been on the board for a number of years, I can't see a massive amount of changes under his watch
3. The president does not run the club, he is a spokesman - but the board runs a club. Jeff as ex premier was a massive infleunce I am sure, but teh board votes on all decisions.
4. Why would you presume that the board is not keeping all records and undertaking all the due dillegence that on would expect from a professionaly run organisation.
5. Your are 100% right if tht board runs off the track they will be replaced, but the EXACT point is clearly this board is doing a fantastic job and as such until they stop doing that will have my support.

1. It doesn't matter, it's not a boys club and the members should have a say on who gets elected president not the board.

2. A lack of change is not inherently a good thing

3. Yes the president doesn't run the club but the position does come with a number of responsibilities and privileges.

4. Why would you presume they were? Many organisations have gone arse up as a result of false belief in their boards or boards becoming lazy over not being held, wait for it, accountable.

5. No-one is saying they don't have anyone support! Or that they haven't done a good job! Do you have any experience with business at a board level at all out of interest as with all due respect you're the one that appears somewhat naive as to the dangers of corporate governance.

 

[J0NNY B]

Firstly how is the board not accountable? Go to the AGM and ask what you wish to ask. We have 50,000+ members, one individual member has no influence over the board. when you have a company that has a major shareholder, the board is accountable because the major shareholder has voting power and can toss the board. Footy clubs have individual members only, with equal voting power etc etc. So Footy clubs are unique. It is healthy to have new people be nominated to act on the board and give the members a choice.

Secondly who says that a board of an AFL club should have lots of ex players on it? look at the boards of the other top clubs, you will find the make up very similar to ours.

you don't hear from members of geelongs board nor collingwood's nor ours = success. Being an ex player should not be a requirement, rather knowledge and skills of how a successful football club should be run. A board actually needs a whole range of people with different skills and ideas. Many HFC staff present to the board throughout the year, there needs to be more than one board member that actually understands what is being presented so it can be challenged. My argument is the board needs another Jason Dunstall type to add another view. I occasionally cross paths with a couple of the Geelong board members who have contrasting backgrounds and experience. This is a good thing.

What do you mean by more accountability easy to throw the word around, I suppoe you want the board meeting to be in public so the other clubs know what we are doing? Board meetings should be highly confidential. Accountability ensures the board are walking the walk and not just talking the talk. The board is accountable to the members. The members need to be able exert influence (nominating/voting) to ensure the board is accountable. To ensure the members are happy, the board needs to communicate to them their plan, results etc. Transparency is very important.

You speak as if we finished bottom 4 and had not won a premiership in 40 years and were bankrupt.. maybe you wish you supported the Bulldogs, Kangroos, Melbourne or St Kilda? I don't think there is any member suggesting the club is not performing well off the field. The queries are concerning who should be the next president and are the skill sets of current board members skewed to heavily towards business/finance skills. A balanced board is a good board in my opinion. quote]

 

[Goldnbrown]

1. It doesn't matter, it's not a boys club and the members should have a say on who gets elected president not the board.

2. A lack of change is not inherently a good thing

3. Yes the president doesn't run the club but the position does come with a number of responsibilities and privileges.

4. Why would you presume they were? Many organisations have gone arse up as a result of false belief in their boards or boards becoming lazy over not being held, wait for it, accountable.

5. No-one is saying they don't have anyone support! Or that they haven't done a good job! Do you have any experience with business at a board level at all out of interest as with all due respect you're the one that appears somewhat naive as to the dangers of corporate governance.

1. The members get to vote if more than one stands - maybe no one (besides Geoff Lord) has challenegd due to the board doing such an exlcellent job.

2. Agreed, but change for the sake of chnage is not a good thing either

4. By simply looking at the calibre of teh people on our board, do you think that Geoff Harris to name just one, would be invloved in a board that wasn;t 100% professional???

5. Yes as a matter of interest I do, have had over 25 years of senior management experience at board level and am currently on more than 5. I am well aware of corporate governance issues.

 

[Goldnbrown]

Firstly how is the board not accountable? Go to the AGM and ask what you wish to ask. We have 50,000+ members, one individual member has no influence over the board. when you have a company that has a major shareholder, the board is accountable because the major shareholder has voting power and can toss the board. Footy clubs have individual members only, with equal voting power etc etc. So Footy clubs are unique. It is healthy to have new people be nominated to act on the board and give the members a choice.

Anyone can nominate, if they are good they will get elected, you seem to think that the board is not open. All directors have terms anyone can challenge when their terms are up, the members vote at that stage. Note the current board has limited the tenure of directors so we get more chnage than other teams.

Secondly who says that a board of an AFL club should have lots of ex players on it? look at the boards of the other top clubs, you will find the make up very similar to ours.

you don't hear from members of geelongs board nor collingwood's nor ours = success. Being an ex player should not be a requirement, rather knowledge and skills of how a successful football club should be run. A board actually needs a whole range of people with different skills and ideas. Many HFC staff present to the board throughout the year, there needs to be more than one board member that actually understands what is being presented so it can be challenged. My argument is the board needs another Jason Dunstall type to add another view. I occasionally cross paths with a couple of the Geelong board members who have contrasting backgrounds and experience. This is a good thing.

You are fully entitled to your view, I know a couple of directors of other AFL teams they are very envious of how well HFC is run.

What do you mean by more accountability easy to throw the word around, I suppoe you want the board meeting to be in public so the other clubs know what we are doing? Board meetings should be highly confidential. Accountability ensures the board are walking the walk and not just talking the talk. The board is accountable to the members. The members need to be able exert influence (nominating/voting) to ensure the board is accountable. To ensure the members are happy, the board needs to communicate to them their plan, results etc. Transparency is very important.

They are, as i said above anyone can nominate, the members get to vote, perhaps the fact that no one until Geoff Lord has challenged says a lot about how well we are travelling???

You speak as if we finished bottom 4 and had not won a premiership in 40 years and were bankrupt.. maybe you wish you supported the Bulldogs, Kangroos, Melbourne or St Kilda? I don't think there is any member suggesting the club is not performing well off the field. The queries are concerning who should be the next president and are the skill sets of current board members skewed to heavily towards business/finance skills. A balanced board is a good board in my opinion. quote]

Check out the skills of the directors of other top teams, I think you will find a similar balance.. I would suggest the football department and the director responsible for football (and the coach of course) are way more important to how a team goes on field than the board. I think the board's main job is to make the club string off field to provide a stable environment and the momney to let the football side do its business.

Collingwood has one ex player on its board besides Gary Pert the CEO
Geelong has one ex player on its board
West Coast seems to have no ex players on its board
Interestingly St Kilda has 3

 

[frankc]

Unfortunately Don Scott is a bit of a sook.

 

[Brown Blood]

Unfortunately Don Scott is a bit of a sook.

Short memories.

You obviously don't understand our clubs history.

Nobody would be posting here without Don Scott!

 

[Ram-Man]

Short memories.

You obviously don't understand our clubs history.

Nobody would be posting here without Don Scott!

It is within the realms of probability that you can be both a savior and a sook !

 

[Buddy and Roughy]

Only one Hawthorn identity should be exalted more than Leigh Matthews and John Kennedy and that is Don Scott for saving the Brown and Gold. So whatever he says, I'm all for it!

 

[Badesumofu]

Accountability is a good thing. An election versus an unelectable irritant does not actually make anyone accountable - it just costs a lot of money and creates division. If someone viable wanted to run, this would be good. No one does though, because they all know that the club is doing really well.

 

[Cyrilyouchampion]

Cheez, all this debate about whether the board should be held more accountable or should Jeff's choice (and supported by the board) be simply handed the job, can only create disharmony and division in the club.

Unless there are 2 quality candidates (and there is clearly only one ie. Newbold), then why go through this whole process? What is so undemocratic and unaccountable about handing over the reigns to someone who has the backing of the people in the know, the same people who have superbly run this club since 2004.
We should be looking forward to the challenges ahead in the knowledge that our club is probably 2nd only to Colllingwood as the wealthiest club in the league, to go with the title as the most successful club in the league over the past 50 years. We can only meet these new challenges if we have a strong and successful administration and if the new president has come at a recommendation from Jeff, I am very comfortable that this is the right thing for the club. Let's give the guy a go and if he's no good by the time the role comes up for election, off with his head!

Nevertheless, the simple facts are that Geoff Lord oversaw the administration that nearly sent us bust. Why the hell would anything be different this time around? So he presided over Melbourne Victory's successful couple of years - big bloody deal! Aside from the AFL, where was the competition? It was a start-up club with a strong financial backing and was bound to be successful in the short-term.

 

[mess]

If someone else stands for president, there will be an election. It is my understanding the board can't veto candidates? Closed shop my arse. At what stage in the current boards tenior should the broom of reform have been applied?
If Geoff Lord runs, he will lose the election. If he is the only one who ran, it will have been a waste of money.
If the only thing we stand to gain out of this scenario is more knowledge about what the Newbold Era might entail, per haps there's a cheaper way to get it?
Might asking be worth a cursoryevaluation, for example?

Geoff should not stand, as his platform is insulting. Thinks we're ****ing idiots.
The ideal situation would be two genuine candidates with sorted out backing, plans and attached personnel competing for the members mandate in an election.
Looks like we're not gonna get that though; let's not be bloody minded.

 

[Frankston Rover]

Having been involved in footy on the Peninsula, Don Scott's reputation is not a good one.

He was also involved in trying to stop the Frankston Bypass through Moorooduc - where he lived at that stage - and some of his quotes were embarrassing to say the least.

Yes he was a great mouthpiece back in 1996 but the real work was done by Ian Dicker and his team.

You want a 'Hawthorn Legend'? Ian Dicker deserves a statue at Waverley Park.

Don Scott and Geoff Lord are throwbacks to an age where footy clubs were run by footy people. Times change gents and 'brown and gold pubs' and 'football people on the board' are two prime examples of these people living in the past.

Football is now a business.

Without money and sustainability, there are no premierships.

Without solid fiscal management, without 'bean counters', without boring 'business' types our club would be operating on a low budget - a la Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne.

Today we have a club that is financially capable of sustaining itself for the next decade and keeping pace with the likes of Collingwood, Essendon and West Coast off-field which gives us the opportunity to compete on field.

For anyone to say our current board hasn't been transparent, successful or courageous over the last 5 years is either very hard to please or has no idea.

I have no problem with people running but when:
- the club is in great shape,
- the list, coaches and facilities are second to none,
- membership and revenue is at an all time high
- the opposition is someone the calibre of people like Geoff Lord

then I find this whole situation a complete waste of time, money and reputation.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I am becoming more and more angry with this forum. I am fed up with reading the comment that without Don Scott we wouldn't have a Hawthorn. That is total BS to the nth degree. The Save Hawthorn project was the brain child of Ian Dicker who used the likes of Scott and Brereton as mouthpieces. He was clever enough to know the message would carry far more weight from Brereton and Scott than from a (then) relative unknown as himself.

He will never say so in public, but I know for a fact that he has also been annoyed over the years when people have continued to apportion credit to the wrong people. That famous cheque to get Hawthorn out of financial difficulty was made possible through the generous donations of none other than Ian Dicker, a passionate Hawks fan desperate to keep the club alive.

A wise man once coined the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Today we have a club that is financially capable of sustaining itself for the next decade and keeping pace with the likes of Collingwood, Essendon and West Coast off-field which gives us the opportunity to compete on field.

For anyone to say our current board hasn't been transparent, successful or courageous over the last 5 years is either very hard to please or has no idea.

I have no problem with people running but when:
- the club is in great shape,
- the list, coaches and facilities are second to none,
- membership and revenue is at an all time high
- the opposition is someone the calibre of people like Geoff Lord

then I find this whole situation a complete waste of time, money and reputation.

Very, very well said. It restores my faith that some people actually know what they're talking about.

 

[Dragz]

I've got no issues with there being an election for president.

Lord isn't a candidate rational people would vote for, hence it's a waste of the Clubs money this time around.

 

[Brown Blood]

I am becoming more and more angry with this forum. I am fed up with reading the comment that without Don Scott we wouldn't have a Hawthorn. That is total BS to the nth degree. The Save Hawthorn project was the brain child of Ian Dicker who used the likes of Scott and Brereton as mouthpieces. He was clever enough to know the message would carry far more weight from Brereton and Scott than from a (then) relative unknown as himself.

Oh didums.

You should have the guts to quote me adelaide hawk seeing it is obvious who your post is pointed at.

And as far as your post goes you are wrong - as you point out dicker was crucially important and as many would know I am one of his biggest supporters (some posters have even accused me of being him) but there were a number of people that stood up to the board at the time & their recommendation.

But Don scott was the club legend who really understood the ramifications of the club merging and became involved at the earliest juncture and then went public despite not wanting public exposure or to be seen to going against many at the club he respected because he didn't want the club to fold.

And if you don't realise over the last 45 years don scott has never been a tool of anybody - it is obvious he marches to his own beat!

It was don scott that captured the mood of the meeting and the supporters, showed the passion and turned them around, and helped bring everybody together and so without him we wouldn't now be HFC and I post this despite anything dicker or anybody else wanted or did (and I know that was equally significant and important as well).

And so athough dicker at the end of the day put in much more work and money it was scott that got everybody on board.

Don't get me wrong don scott makes me cringe sometimes but I still respect him and think any hawthorn supporter who puts him down when he comes out publicly to make comment should understand a little bit about respect and why some people have earn't it and then try to understand why he has seen it is important to make comment.

So get of your high horse. All don scott is suggesting is perhaps with lord coming out is at least we will have an open election, which isn't a bad thing as then the members will know a bit more about newbold (because he will probably easily get up).

FFS our club is what it is because we have people like dons scott - you could almost say he is our conscience, who comes out at times to make the odd public statement about the club - it can only make us a better, stronger club.

And it has.

 

[Frankston Rover]

Oh didums.

You should have the guts to quote me adelaide hawk seeing it is obvious who your post is pointed at.

And as far as your post goes you are wrong - as you point out dicker was crucially important and as many would know I am one of his biggest supporters (some posters have even accused me of being him) but there were a number of people that stood up to the board at the time & their recommendation.

But Don scott was the club legend who really understood the ramifications of the club merging and became involved at the earliest juncture and then went public despite not wanting public exposure or to be seen to going against many at the club he respected because he didn't want the club to fold.

And if you don't realise over the last 45 years don scott has never been a tool of anybody - it is obvious he marches to his own beat!

It was don scott that captured the mood of the meeting and the supporters, showed the passion and turned them around, and helped bring everybody together and so without him we wouldn't now be HFC and I post this despite anything dicker or anybody else wanted or did (and I know that was equally significant and important as well).

Athough dicker at the end of the day put in much more work and money it was scott that got everybody on board.

Don't get me wrong don scott makes me cringe sometimes but I still respect him and think any hawthorn supporter who puts him down when he comes out publicly to make comment should understand a little bit about respect and why some people have earn't it and then try to understand why he has seen it is important to make comment.

So get of your high horse. All don scott is suggesting is perhaps with lord coming out is at least we will have an open election, which isn't a bad thing as then the members will know a bit more about newbold (because he will probably easily get up).

FFS our club is what it is because we have people like dons scott - you could almost say he is our conscience, who comes out at times to make the odd public statement about the club - it can only make us a better, stronger club.

And it has.

You sure you're not Don Scott.

Don Scott loves one thing and one thing only - Don Scott.

Yes he's passionate but who put up the cash? Who was the one that burnt the candle at both ends to get a financial plan together to get our club out of debt? Who continued (continues?) to support the club financially from 1996?

Don Scott? No bloody way. Although I'm sure Don would appreciate the arse kissing....

It was Ian Dicker. He was the real hero and if Don hadn't of cared, Ian would've found someone else.

To say Don is our conscience - please..

He hates the board and sees this as the perfect opportunity to stoke the fire.

Don looking out for Don. Again.

 

[Brown Blood]

BTW adelaide hawk & frankston rover perhaps before you start trying to re-write history you should read "One For All" The Story of the Hawthorn Football Club and you will then better understand don scott was involved right from the outset (after having nothing to do with the club for 15 yrs) organising ex-players etc to start fighting the prospect of the merger - and this was months before dicker.

I can't be bothered quoting everything - read it for yourself - but the following is a taste of his involvement pp273 onwards which includes quotes & comments such as:

All those in attendance (this was the initial strategy meeting) had been carefully hand-picked or screened by scott in advance.........Right from the start scott was concerned that his small group would be infiltrated by pro-merger people.....

The immediate task , as scott definned it, was to raise a foreshadowed loss of$800,000 for the 1995-96 financial year. To this end, the former captain allocated tasks to those he deemed qualified....

Scotty was the chairperson for the night and as scotty does he made the appointments...

As I posted scott was involved playing a key role from the outset and in fact way before dicker even knew the club had problems as he was overseas.

And given scott wouldn't be worth 1/100 what dicker is worth I wouldn't put down the time & effort he put into resurrecting our club through operation payback etc & the time he served on our board afterwards.

It has nothing to do with ego - it is because he cares.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Oh didums.

You should have the guts to quote me adelaide hawk seeing it is obvious who your post is pointed at.

And as far as your post goes you are wrong.

I stopped reading here. It's obvious you haven't a clue, so why post dribble? My information is first hand, right from the horse's mouth, so if you want to keep going along crapping on about something of which you obviously have no clue about, go right ahead.

And don't flatter yourself. If you go back and read other posts in this thread, a number of people have made the same incorrect comment .. yourself included.

Hawthorn survived in 1996 because of one person. If you had any idea how much money that man poured into our club to keep it solvent, you'd be embarrassed for even thinking a halfwit like Scott could have pulled it off by himself.

Do us a favour, before posting dribble, get a clue.

 

[Brown Blood]

I stopped reading here. It's obvious you haven't a clue, so why post dribble? My information is first hand, right from the horse's mouth, so if you want to keep going along crapping on about something of which you obviously have no clue about, go right ahead.

And don't flatter yourself. If you go back and read other posts in this thread, a number of people have made the same incorrect comment .. yourself included.

Hawthorn survived in 1996 because of one person. If you had any idea how much money that man poured into our club to keep it solvent, you'd be embarrassed for even thinking a halfwit like Scott could have pulled it off by himself.

Do us a favour, before posting dribble, get a clue.

Well you should have kept reading because you may have learn't something.

As far as me taking notice of other posts why would I - I know full well what happened.

Anyway I don't care if you put it on me but before you start calling true club legends halfwits you should do a bit of research if you weren't there or don't remember - and you don't have to believe me - I am happy to quote my source and so I suggest you read "One for All" - or are you going to write your own version of the official history of the club

You may learn something (BTW your horse is so far wrong about dicker initiating operation payback it isn't funny).

 

[Milestone]

Just for lols.. remember Doug Scott?

 

[Tall Tales and True]

Hell, we all know Scotty's a bit of a nut case, but, along with everything else he's done, cast your mind back ... 3 time premiership player (captain '76 & '78), under Kennedy & then Parkin. He was one mean bastard, who did it 'The Hard Way'.

No doubt there were probably some issues then (it's the nature of the man), but those teams - led by Scott - were great Hawthorn teams ... & bloody great football teams.

The way he played - the strength, courage & menace - represented what it meant to be Hawthorn better than just about anyone. Maybe the way he still is explains the mania that made us seem invincible at times back then.

 

[J0NNY B]

Without solid fiscal management, without 'bean counters', without boring 'business' types our club would be operating on a low budget - a la Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne.

Today we have a club that is financially capable of sustaining itself for the next decade and keeping pace with the likes of Collingwood, Essendon and West Coast off-field which gives us the opportunity to compete on field.

For anyone to say our current board hasn't been transparent, successful or courageous over the last 5 years is either very hard to please or has no idea.
I don't think anyone has said anything contradictory to this.
I have no problem with people running but when:
- the club is in great shape,
- the list, coaches and facilities are second to none,
- membership and revenue is at an all time high
- the opposition is someone the calibre of people like Geoff Lord

then I find this whole situation a complete waste of time, money and reputation.

The fact Jk has asked for 50 grand from each candidate is an attempt at blocking an election. It is unfortunate that a worthy candidate has not been nominated. The undertones I am getting for the reason some members have felt an alternative is needed is due to on field performance. Look at Collingwood bringing in Rodney Eade to help replace the exodus of IP. The hawks game day strategies have been a joke for a number of years, what is being done about this? Why is Rodney Eade not at our club?